![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wasn't John Dean a white house staff member who was indicted for acts while in office? He was convicted of obstruction of justice regarding Watergate.
"He resigned immediately. The entire incident was caused by the Democrats in their vain effort to meddle with the George W Bush presidency." I question the neutrality of this statement. And I claim that the article does not present both sides of the story equally. Another spin attempt?
Libby is Jewish. Shouldn't that fact appear in the article?
Bolton is a comic character: thank God he is gone. Evil man.
24.201.227.244
08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any source for the statement: Had he not resigned, he may well have been summarily dismissed? I think this is unwarrented speculation. Guettarda 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2 years earlier - after the leak story broke - Bush stated publicly that if anyone in his admin. had even LEAKED the information then they would be "dealt with" - which is unlikely to have been anything less than dismissal. Political commentators of both stripes say that no one with 5 pending felony charges could ever stay on the WH payroll. There is now no doubt that Libby was one person who leaked the information. He doesn't deny that. He denies that he lied from whom he got the info.
Davidpatrick
22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think there ought to be much debate around what Bush said -- as it was quite clear. Bush said anyone connected to this scandal would be dimissed from the administration. If that actually happens or not is a question only time can answer - but Bush said what he said, and that can be quoted factually and fairly.
4 White House officials have told the prosecutor that Libby discussed the info with them BEFORE Libby claimed he got the info from any reporters. Then the 3 reporters that Libby testified to having spoken with all testified that they had got the info from HIM and that none of them had given Libby the info. That is 7 people who have sworn under oath that what Libby said in that regard was a lie. And Libby's own handwritten notes from one month earlier show that Libby got the info from Cheney. And in JUNE. 7 people - and Libby's own notes. That's sufficient for this piece.
Davidpatrick
04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Bush's "promise" has been a moving target for a long time. There's no reason to take it serously. Guettarda 02:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
For Wiki purposes surely we should take Bush at his word - otherwise we are pre-judging him as a liar. Davidpatrick 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course - but you still need to cite it, write, and source it properly. R
Who in Grant's administration was in Libby's position? This is not mentioned in all the "first in 135 years" hoopla.
What did he do between 1975 and 2000? CalJW 22:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I am also interested to know if he is married and if he has children. I think that might play a role in his willingness or unwillingness to go to jail for 30 years (as opposed to a plea baragin that might implicate people to whom he is presumed to be loyal. Anyone know? Evelyn
Well, I'm guessing he'll get a presidential pardon, so he probably won't have to worry. Alex 21:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
All the references were poorly labeled and not balanced at all. Some of them didn't exist any more. So I chopped them out. It might could use some more good, properly labeled sources.
It is generally accepted that Lewis Libby played a significant role in the outing of Valerie Plame. This has some speculating about the role of Vice President Cheney in the leak.
Aren't these weasel terms? We need to determine:
glocks out 22:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Who was Libby's "Principal Deputy" (this is the term used by Fitzgerald) who suggested that, "information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson"?
"Libby was the first White House staff member in 130 years to be indicted for acts in office" <-- It seems like there are not enough qualifiers in this statement. It seems like you need to make it
What if the Vice President of the USA did reveal Plame's identity to Lewis Libby? Could Cheney be impeached for doing so? Mightberight/wrong 22:33, 29 October 2005 (AST).
Just wondering what this bit in the trivia section relates to libby:
And also, were the payments illegal? I just thought they were improper since there was never any investigation or calls for one. Viper Daimao 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Scooter Libby as author anyone? He wrote a book about bears raping 10yo girls in cages and deerfucking. Thank you NYT!~~
I agreed with the edit, but the summary was too good not to post. Eliot 01:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Where is he now?
I'd like to read something about what mischief Libby is currently up to, perhaps in the Trivia Section. And does anyone know if he concurs with the recent admission of Richard Perle about the failure of Rumsfeld’s management of the Iraq war?
The opening paragraph gives the name Irving and the trivia gives him Irve glocks out 21:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I feel like this article ought to be at either I. Lewis Libby or Scooter Libby. I have rarely seen him referred to as just "Lewis Libby" (without the initial). john k 23:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a problem with his unsourced, truncated quotes and analysis?
Valerie Plame was a CIA agent in 20 years. Blowing her cover could be harmfull for all her contacts in the past as covert agent on WMD's questions. The blowing could make it more difficult for other CIA agents in the future to find trustfull cooperation with persons all over the world.
The Presidents father, not only former president but also former Director of CIA, said once, at a speech, when the CIA headquarter in Langley, Virgina was rededicated, as the George Bush Center for Intelligence, about those, would expose clandestine CIA officers(as Valerie Plame): "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those, who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors....".
Doesnt really seem like this belongs here or anywhere. Viper Daimao 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Noticed user has made same additions to related articles. [1] Viper Daimao 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we please make a concerted effort to sort out the Rove-work on whether or not there was any reason for there to have been an investigation, a special prosecutor, and a series of actions by the Bush White House culminating in obstruction charges over something that wasn't actually a crime?
It's becoming obvious that she was covert. [2] Regarding the (now removed) Fitzgerald quote, the reticence of federal officials to discuss the matter shouldn't surprise, or confuse, anyone at this point.
Can we have a productive discussion here and settle the matter and the language?
How about "non-official cover"? This seems to be a non-controversial way to describe it. john k 01:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone else read the stories about this novel, which Libby apparently wrote ten years ago? Somebody should add a section about this truly weird book under trivia. Bestiality with bears? Painting pubic hair? This guy has a strange imagination... 208.27.111.121 16:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it's just written weird, but there is a pointed effort to make it clear that Libby isn't indicted on revealing a covert's name, only about lying. This is true, but it's weird to me that this article has to specifically say what Lewis Libby was not indicted for. Might as well add he wasn't indicted for smuggling plumbs across the border. I'm pretty sure it's just how the sentence is phrased though. Maybe the article should be written in such a way as to protend truth without having to tell what isn't truth. I don't know. Thoughts? glocks out 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The Fitzgerald umpire statement here originally implied that he thought that Libby's lying prevented him from determining whether a crime was committed in the first place. However, Fitzgerald refused to say whether he could make that determination or not, and it is not clear whether Libby made that determination easier or harder. It is possible that Fitzgerald has determined that there was no original crime, but that he is still justified in prosecuting anyone who lied or interfered with his factfinding.
I also inserted the word "allegedly" before the list of things that Libby supposedly did. The indictment says so, but some of those items are in serious doubt and Libby will surely contest some of them.
I deleted, "He made clear that in this instance he felt he was the equivalent of the umpire - and that Libby had (figuratively) kicked sand in his eyes - making it impossible (so far) for him to determine if there was evidence of such a crime having been committed in the first place." It is not clear to me whether Fitzgerald has made any such determination or not. What he said at the press conference was, "And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view." It would be better to put in the Fitzgerald quote than to use the extremely misleading restatement of the quote.
I changed, "He has not publicly commented on the testimony of the four White House officials and three national reporters whose testimony directly contradicts his testimony." We don't know for sure how the others testified to the grand jury, and we don't know whether there are any contradictions. Perhaps someone could detail the alleged contradictions with a NPOV. Schlafly 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this has really gotten out of hand here. Most of it either belongs in the Plame article or the Plame affair article. I am referring to all the stuff from Some legal observers, especially conservtive ones, have argued that Libby never should have been indicted for leaking former CIA officer Valerie Plame's name, on the grounds that her ostensible cover company.... until the (now) end of this section Without a leak of covered, secret status there would be no leak crime and possibly no justification for the investigation from which the Libby charges arose. It reads like apologetics. It's way overkill. Perhaps it belongs even in a new article called "Brewster-Jennings" (which would already be longer than many articles of other better known companies). But all this speculation about what undercover firm Plame might have worked for (almost none of which has any sources) is rank speculation, and two degrees removed from Libby. Further, the first sentence I just quoted is misleading, because he wasn't "indicted for leaking....". Further, the last sentence I just quoted "possibly no justification for the investigation" is also misleading, because it leaves out that the CIA itself requested the investigation. And most everything in between is just as flawed -- either by being misleading, unsourced speculation, or tangential. (Who cares that a particular zip codes has a lot of millionaires?) I suggest the entire section be removed (or at least moved to some other article) -- with apologies to whoever put all that work into it. Thoughts? -- Sholom 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps his recent usage of crutches could go in the trivia section? Along with an explination if anyone has it. 24.31.29.171 08:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
From an NPR transcript: MIKE PESCA: So here we have I. Lewis Libby, the most powerful adviser to the second-most powerful man in the world and no one knows his actual name, until now. Libby was born in New Haven, Connecticut, and attended Yale there. I called the New Haven library and talked to a librarian named Brad Bullis. Bullis is a member of the National Guard who spent time fighting in Afghanistan, is not one to shrink from a challenge. Bullis called the librarian at Libby's alma mater.
Mr. BRAD BULLIS (Librarian): And she invited me to come over and take a look at some yearbooks, so I looked at the Yale Banner for 1972 and we found that his name is Irve--I-R-V-E--Lewis Libby Jr.
From the Washington Post: Several aspects of Libby are subject to varied interpretations, or at the very least, casual mystery. Libby is loath to disclose -- even to close friends -- what the "I" stands for in his name. Matalin credits USA Today with "breaking" the story that Libby's first name is "Irv" (though other publications had reported "Irving" and public databases list him as "Irve"). · Katefan0 (scribble) 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This name comes from Conspiracy Planet. The article doesn't even give a reason for it. It simply states, "Scooter Libby aka Irving Lewis Liebowitz" without offering a reason for this name. This is the first place this name appeared, and has no evidence to support it. Unless evidence does come foward abotu this name, it should not be used. glocks out 20:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
From his days as Defense Secretary during the Gulf War, Cheney was intensely interested in biological warfare. Libby, who worked for Cheney as an under secretary from 1990 to '92, shares his boss's obsession with biowar. Known in the Administration as "germ boy," Libby was obsessed with pre-emptively vaccinating the entire population against smallpox. (The fixation even extended to Libby's 1996 novel, The Apprentice, about a smallpox epidemic.) [5] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed a lot of content largely due to style and what looks like editorializing and speculation. I think there's valuable information here, though, so I'm posted it here and maybe it can be worked in better: Kevin Baas talk 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
what is this pov fluff quote by Mary Matalin doing in the lead paragraph? i'll be removing it to the talk page, from where it can be added back into a more appropriate place (and context) in the article, if required. Doldrums 06:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Republican strategist Mary Matalin, a former counselor to Cheney and a friend of Libby, describes him as someone who did "for the vice president what the vice president does for the president. He's exceedingly analytical, detailed, strategic, bright; and he's discreet." [7]
Removed the word "covert" in description of Plame since it is not supported. Fitzgerald has only stated "classified" (he made the distinction between classified and covert in news conference). And in Plame's civil suit the term "covert" is not used, only "classified." Thus, only "classified" not "covert" is justified here.
Why hasn't anyone decrypted his first name beginning with an I? Shandris the azylean 12:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed this because it no longer makes any sense. If someone familiar with the details can twist it into shape then feel free to re-add.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wasn't John Dean a white house staff member who was indicted for acts while in office? He was convicted of obstruction of justice regarding Watergate.
"He resigned immediately. The entire incident was caused by the Democrats in their vain effort to meddle with the George W Bush presidency." I question the neutrality of this statement. And I claim that the article does not present both sides of the story equally. Another spin attempt?
Libby is Jewish. Shouldn't that fact appear in the article?
Bolton is a comic character: thank God he is gone. Evil man.
24.201.227.244
08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any source for the statement: Had he not resigned, he may well have been summarily dismissed? I think this is unwarrented speculation. Guettarda 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2 years earlier - after the leak story broke - Bush stated publicly that if anyone in his admin. had even LEAKED the information then they would be "dealt with" - which is unlikely to have been anything less than dismissal. Political commentators of both stripes say that no one with 5 pending felony charges could ever stay on the WH payroll. There is now no doubt that Libby was one person who leaked the information. He doesn't deny that. He denies that he lied from whom he got the info.
Davidpatrick
22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think there ought to be much debate around what Bush said -- as it was quite clear. Bush said anyone connected to this scandal would be dimissed from the administration. If that actually happens or not is a question only time can answer - but Bush said what he said, and that can be quoted factually and fairly.
4 White House officials have told the prosecutor that Libby discussed the info with them BEFORE Libby claimed he got the info from any reporters. Then the 3 reporters that Libby testified to having spoken with all testified that they had got the info from HIM and that none of them had given Libby the info. That is 7 people who have sworn under oath that what Libby said in that regard was a lie. And Libby's own handwritten notes from one month earlier show that Libby got the info from Cheney. And in JUNE. 7 people - and Libby's own notes. That's sufficient for this piece.
Davidpatrick
04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Bush's "promise" has been a moving target for a long time. There's no reason to take it serously. Guettarda 02:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
For Wiki purposes surely we should take Bush at his word - otherwise we are pre-judging him as a liar. Davidpatrick 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course - but you still need to cite it, write, and source it properly. R
Who in Grant's administration was in Libby's position? This is not mentioned in all the "first in 135 years" hoopla.
What did he do between 1975 and 2000? CalJW 22:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I am also interested to know if he is married and if he has children. I think that might play a role in his willingness or unwillingness to go to jail for 30 years (as opposed to a plea baragin that might implicate people to whom he is presumed to be loyal. Anyone know? Evelyn
Well, I'm guessing he'll get a presidential pardon, so he probably won't have to worry. Alex 21:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
All the references were poorly labeled and not balanced at all. Some of them didn't exist any more. So I chopped them out. It might could use some more good, properly labeled sources.
It is generally accepted that Lewis Libby played a significant role in the outing of Valerie Plame. This has some speculating about the role of Vice President Cheney in the leak.
Aren't these weasel terms? We need to determine:
glocks out 22:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Who was Libby's "Principal Deputy" (this is the term used by Fitzgerald) who suggested that, "information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson"?
"Libby was the first White House staff member in 130 years to be indicted for acts in office" <-- It seems like there are not enough qualifiers in this statement. It seems like you need to make it
What if the Vice President of the USA did reveal Plame's identity to Lewis Libby? Could Cheney be impeached for doing so? Mightberight/wrong 22:33, 29 October 2005 (AST).
Just wondering what this bit in the trivia section relates to libby:
And also, were the payments illegal? I just thought they were improper since there was never any investigation or calls for one. Viper Daimao 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Scooter Libby as author anyone? He wrote a book about bears raping 10yo girls in cages and deerfucking. Thank you NYT!~~
I agreed with the edit, but the summary was too good not to post. Eliot 01:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Where is he now?
I'd like to read something about what mischief Libby is currently up to, perhaps in the Trivia Section. And does anyone know if he concurs with the recent admission of Richard Perle about the failure of Rumsfeld’s management of the Iraq war?
The opening paragraph gives the name Irving and the trivia gives him Irve glocks out 21:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I feel like this article ought to be at either I. Lewis Libby or Scooter Libby. I have rarely seen him referred to as just "Lewis Libby" (without the initial). john k 23:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a problem with his unsourced, truncated quotes and analysis?
Valerie Plame was a CIA agent in 20 years. Blowing her cover could be harmfull for all her contacts in the past as covert agent on WMD's questions. The blowing could make it more difficult for other CIA agents in the future to find trustfull cooperation with persons all over the world.
The Presidents father, not only former president but also former Director of CIA, said once, at a speech, when the CIA headquarter in Langley, Virgina was rededicated, as the George Bush Center for Intelligence, about those, would expose clandestine CIA officers(as Valerie Plame): "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those, who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors....".
Doesnt really seem like this belongs here or anywhere. Viper Daimao 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Noticed user has made same additions to related articles. [1] Viper Daimao 20:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we please make a concerted effort to sort out the Rove-work on whether or not there was any reason for there to have been an investigation, a special prosecutor, and a series of actions by the Bush White House culminating in obstruction charges over something that wasn't actually a crime?
It's becoming obvious that she was covert. [2] Regarding the (now removed) Fitzgerald quote, the reticence of federal officials to discuss the matter shouldn't surprise, or confuse, anyone at this point.
Can we have a productive discussion here and settle the matter and the language?
How about "non-official cover"? This seems to be a non-controversial way to describe it. john k 01:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone else read the stories about this novel, which Libby apparently wrote ten years ago? Somebody should add a section about this truly weird book under trivia. Bestiality with bears? Painting pubic hair? This guy has a strange imagination... 208.27.111.121 16:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it's just written weird, but there is a pointed effort to make it clear that Libby isn't indicted on revealing a covert's name, only about lying. This is true, but it's weird to me that this article has to specifically say what Lewis Libby was not indicted for. Might as well add he wasn't indicted for smuggling plumbs across the border. I'm pretty sure it's just how the sentence is phrased though. Maybe the article should be written in such a way as to protend truth without having to tell what isn't truth. I don't know. Thoughts? glocks out 00:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The Fitzgerald umpire statement here originally implied that he thought that Libby's lying prevented him from determining whether a crime was committed in the first place. However, Fitzgerald refused to say whether he could make that determination or not, and it is not clear whether Libby made that determination easier or harder. It is possible that Fitzgerald has determined that there was no original crime, but that he is still justified in prosecuting anyone who lied or interfered with his factfinding.
I also inserted the word "allegedly" before the list of things that Libby supposedly did. The indictment says so, but some of those items are in serious doubt and Libby will surely contest some of them.
I deleted, "He made clear that in this instance he felt he was the equivalent of the umpire - and that Libby had (figuratively) kicked sand in his eyes - making it impossible (so far) for him to determine if there was evidence of such a crime having been committed in the first place." It is not clear to me whether Fitzgerald has made any such determination or not. What he said at the press conference was, "And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view." It would be better to put in the Fitzgerald quote than to use the extremely misleading restatement of the quote.
I changed, "He has not publicly commented on the testimony of the four White House officials and three national reporters whose testimony directly contradicts his testimony." We don't know for sure how the others testified to the grand jury, and we don't know whether there are any contradictions. Perhaps someone could detail the alleged contradictions with a NPOV. Schlafly 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this has really gotten out of hand here. Most of it either belongs in the Plame article or the Plame affair article. I am referring to all the stuff from Some legal observers, especially conservtive ones, have argued that Libby never should have been indicted for leaking former CIA officer Valerie Plame's name, on the grounds that her ostensible cover company.... until the (now) end of this section Without a leak of covered, secret status there would be no leak crime and possibly no justification for the investigation from which the Libby charges arose. It reads like apologetics. It's way overkill. Perhaps it belongs even in a new article called "Brewster-Jennings" (which would already be longer than many articles of other better known companies). But all this speculation about what undercover firm Plame might have worked for (almost none of which has any sources) is rank speculation, and two degrees removed from Libby. Further, the first sentence I just quoted is misleading, because he wasn't "indicted for leaking....". Further, the last sentence I just quoted "possibly no justification for the investigation" is also misleading, because it leaves out that the CIA itself requested the investigation. And most everything in between is just as flawed -- either by being misleading, unsourced speculation, or tangential. (Who cares that a particular zip codes has a lot of millionaires?) I suggest the entire section be removed (or at least moved to some other article) -- with apologies to whoever put all that work into it. Thoughts? -- Sholom 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps his recent usage of crutches could go in the trivia section? Along with an explination if anyone has it. 24.31.29.171 08:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
From an NPR transcript: MIKE PESCA: So here we have I. Lewis Libby, the most powerful adviser to the second-most powerful man in the world and no one knows his actual name, until now. Libby was born in New Haven, Connecticut, and attended Yale there. I called the New Haven library and talked to a librarian named Brad Bullis. Bullis is a member of the National Guard who spent time fighting in Afghanistan, is not one to shrink from a challenge. Bullis called the librarian at Libby's alma mater.
Mr. BRAD BULLIS (Librarian): And she invited me to come over and take a look at some yearbooks, so I looked at the Yale Banner for 1972 and we found that his name is Irve--I-R-V-E--Lewis Libby Jr.
From the Washington Post: Several aspects of Libby are subject to varied interpretations, or at the very least, casual mystery. Libby is loath to disclose -- even to close friends -- what the "I" stands for in his name. Matalin credits USA Today with "breaking" the story that Libby's first name is "Irv" (though other publications had reported "Irving" and public databases list him as "Irve"). · Katefan0 (scribble) 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This name comes from Conspiracy Planet. The article doesn't even give a reason for it. It simply states, "Scooter Libby aka Irving Lewis Liebowitz" without offering a reason for this name. This is the first place this name appeared, and has no evidence to support it. Unless evidence does come foward abotu this name, it should not be used. glocks out 20:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
From his days as Defense Secretary during the Gulf War, Cheney was intensely interested in biological warfare. Libby, who worked for Cheney as an under secretary from 1990 to '92, shares his boss's obsession with biowar. Known in the Administration as "germ boy," Libby was obsessed with pre-emptively vaccinating the entire population against smallpox. (The fixation even extended to Libby's 1996 novel, The Apprentice, about a smallpox epidemic.) [5] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed a lot of content largely due to style and what looks like editorializing and speculation. I think there's valuable information here, though, so I'm posted it here and maybe it can be worked in better: Kevin Baas talk 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
what is this pov fluff quote by Mary Matalin doing in the lead paragraph? i'll be removing it to the talk page, from where it can be added back into a more appropriate place (and context) in the article, if required. Doldrums 06:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Republican strategist Mary Matalin, a former counselor to Cheney and a friend of Libby, describes him as someone who did "for the vice president what the vice president does for the president. He's exceedingly analytical, detailed, strategic, bright; and he's discreet." [7]
Removed the word "covert" in description of Plame since it is not supported. Fitzgerald has only stated "classified" (he made the distinction between classified and covert in news conference). And in Plame's civil suit the term "covert" is not used, only "classified." Thus, only "classified" not "covert" is justified here.
Why hasn't anyone decrypted his first name beginning with an I? Shandris the azylean 12:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed this because it no longer makes any sense. If someone familiar with the details can twist it into shape then feel free to re-add.