If there is any proof of that whatsoever I will drop my objection to that material being included in the article.
As it stands however, I'm going to edit accordingly.
Tufflaw , 6 March 2006 (UTC)And by the way, regardless of whether this eventually stays in the article or not, this portion "any mention of the lobster/Mellinda/Spaz encounter is dumped out from the show, edited/filtered from the forums, and hastily censored from Wiki artices by protective "pests"" is clearly POV and unencyclopedic.
Remember we're trying to create an encyclopedia here, not satisfy somone's agenda.
People who have been following O&A since the early NEW days are aware of the Melinda/Lobster girl story. The line where "mentioning lobster or Spaz will get you banned on some websites" is clearly a shot at wackbag, which is wholly not fair because it's well known that Anthony frequents there and not the other message boards as much, thus they were simply respecting his wish for it to be kept on the "down low." I think as a respectable and fair encyclopedia, it should be limited to as objective as possible and as limited in detail as possible, to avoid too much... Payneos , 7 March 2006 (UTC) The reason it matters is twofold.Once an article rises above the bar of notibility, can it really contain too much factual information?— franl | Actually, your vandalism of this article can be found here , where you added: "* O&A are a virus, and once contracted, there is no cure.Tufflaw , 6 March 2006 (UTC) I am here to document the truth.I find it amusing that you earlier said you're 'not here to satisfy someone's agenda' and yet now you admit you yourself have an agenda.