User talk:BobbyDeanMartin

While I like connecting things as much or more than anyone here, it can be abused by conspiracy theorists. Prompted by the (your?) change to Vince Foster, I did a quick look around the pages and pages of stuff on the web, and there is certainly plenty of fodder for a separate article summarizing the theories. But to include a single random statement, phrased to insinuate conspiracy without actually coming out and saying why it's relevant, can have only the purpose of getting readers to think there was evildoing by Clinton, which is not neutral. Wikipedia can be a good place to write up an objective summary of the controversy; it deserves more than the one offhand nonsequitur. Stan 16:00 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)