I removed the MediaMatters section of links. Anyone who thinks this belongs on a Savage info page is crazy. MM is an anti-conservative site that offers sound boards for Savage haters, who have a clear hatred of Mike.If anything, MM needs a page of its own with all the references it wants to Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter....
i did the rewrite, but i wasn't logged in, if anyone cares...
--Hugh Manatee 07:30, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)
I removed the NAMBLA refrence about Ginsberg because his "Defense" of the organization was solely on first amendment grounds, and not particuarly of its aims or goals. See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allen_Ginsberg.
it was old data - thanks
thanks, the Ginsberg ref is more of a slap at the savageWeiner than it is Ginsberg. In Some of Ginsberg's stuff Beat flows so easily. Lawrence F. has done it for me here and there also. I happened across the Savage article yesterday, and it was almost devoid of any content, so i brought up some old data, did a couple of quick lookups and composed it. I did most of the Savage research almost 2 years ago now, so some of the urls in the references may be dead. He pissed me off when filed the lame domain name lawsuits against the small website owners.
Then i composed a lame attempt at a beat/prose insulting bio of savage, posted out on usenet and a few boards. It now sits in a crevice of a more recent abBushContentSite(used as early filler for the site) i collaborated on, and it is still getting a lot of hits (5 to 10 new + 3 or 4 returns a week), eventhough i am unable to find any offsite web links to it. The sue_doePointer emailBounce from that site is getting hit with various trojans and worms about 3 times a month also, mostly STMP'ed from a Baltimore area cablebox node with ForgedByLuser headers. Between the site host's email server and my antivirus/personalSecurity habits, the 3l33tlamer hasn't a chance. Anybody who would execute a script email attachment from parts unknown without at least scanning it through antiVirus and a text editor should have all pop3 privledges taken away, and be forced to use a web interface to receive mail.
cheers --Hugh Manatee 20:05, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)
Aside from a few minor links, reformatting refs and grammar tweaks the main changes I made are:
- deleted "purportedly with a legal fund funded with Scaife money" - a tenuous and rather speculative link (unless I'm missing something) as it suggests it was for this purpose;
- deleted ref to 3rd bullet in contradictions re raves about liberalism but had PhD from UC -- not persuaded that espousing conservative views is necessarily in contradiction with having a PhD in ethnomedicine;
- added full Ginsberg papers archive details to the ref section and deleted duplicate from article text;
- Deleted text of 1970 letter as gif of original is not online, only text verison so added link and removed duplication by citing Seattle P-I article only.--Bob Burton 21:13, 6 Jan 2005 (EST)
s'ok with me
In re: purported Scaife funded:
Actually, it is fairly well documented, i used the purported because;
enough data from one article of Scoobie Davis' Horrwitzwatch has been cited as fact, and although I believe Davis' intentions ae honest, let's face-it, a site calling itself horrowitzwatch ddot com is a wee bit biased against Davey H. at the git, and for some reason, Davis does not list the name of the organisation directly. I would intentionally do something like that just to withold google juju (page rank) from a disliked opponent i was trading immature barbs with online.
The davis article I cited and is this one.
In that article is a media transparency link to its Individual Rights Foundation page. Media Transparency is site i have not perused often or agressively chased threads that stream from it, but have not run into obvious distortions, although some data seems a little behind the the times. I am heisitant to cite a link through a link, both urls being less than rock-solid without a qualifier, ergo purportedly was used. Even in my sue_does, i believe in credibility and honor. BTW, the Scaife ref is not important, it was something i placed in the original article, and there was another reference no longer online that solidified it a bit more. I was lazy when i rewrote and posted the article here, and did not dig for another pointer or two. They were articles detailing the part of the Savage lawsuit aimed at one (and only one) Berkeley official. It was a targeted attack by Savage/Horrowitz for some persoanl reason.
In re UC, Berkeley:
that one i miss a little more. it is directly in focus with my evils of the political bi-polarity ravings. UC, Berkeley is not what the American right claims it to be, but they do hurl their claims often. Something that goes like:
- UC, Berkeley is the left coast of america's last bastion of the evil and discredited marxist philosophy.
And c'mon, you don't find it dissonant that a man who throws hate like Savage holds a one of a kind 70s degree in Nutritional Ethnomedicine? Savage obviously does, or he'd proudly reference it on his website(he does not), and he would not allow the Savage Nation book or Newsmax to call it "Epidemiology and Nutrition Science", which does sound like a little harder on the science side than the former. Maybe it's a cultural difference. There are many bewteen Aussies and Yanks, but oddly there are at least as many comparisons. I have proposed that our collective colonial histories have a similitude (convict-dissident outcast and both having frontier settlers). Mindsets in many ways are alike, but politically there are big differences.
The rest is fine with me. I pretty much dumped an old parody anti-savage piece up into a space sparsely filled with styrofoam. There is still a lot of room for research regarding Savage. What i've seen of the Paul Revere Society is highly dubious in regards to its educational value. It is pretty much a site to sell cheap savage crap. Talk Radio Networks, Savage Nation's syncicator is a religious freakshow too. I noticed SourceWatch doesn't even have a stub for it.
Most of my wishing for Savage's downfall faded away after he lost the domain lawsuits and droppe the federal business interference suits. I really don't care what hate he spews, i am a free person, i do not listen to him. --Hugh Manatee 10:18, 7 Jan 2005 (EST)
If this is truly open to ANYONE, then why do honest, innocuous, or humerous comments get erased almost immediately after they are made? It's clear that this bio is a hit job on Savage. example: Savage has done this and that, but look what all these other people and hate groups think about HIM. Their views are inconsequential to his personal information. What really matters is what He (Savage) thinks and says, not what you or i or anyone else thinks. If you have something to say, say it on YOUR page.
Otherwise you're not fooling anyone with this excuse for an honest page about one human being. If you don't like him i can understand it, ( get in line) most people can't stand him. But he puts it on the line every show, and when he's gone,probably fairly soon, there will be no one to replace him, and even those who hate him will miss him too, at least for a little while.
So, i'll try to ad some interesting things to this site if i can, but it seems that somebody here has a clamp-down on any improvements to this page.
- This is a collaborative page written by at least eight people. What matters is their perception of common opinions of Savage and the man himself. Even if this were Wikipedia, which it is not, that would be the case. If you feel they are mistaken in some way, please explain why. Do not make unsourced changes.
- This is not a humour site or a blog.
- Is it the case that when you or he make an assertion it's honest, and when other people do so they're part of a hate group or somehow irrelevant?
- Is this a "hit on Savage" if all it's saying is what he's said and people's responses to that? Does he mean what he's said (that's honesty, right?) or not? If a lot of people don't like what he says, we say who they are and why they don't like it. And it only makes sense to post his assertions here for comparison.
- Why do you think that people that disagree with what he says hate him? Do you hate people who disagree with him?
Mememe 12:16, 11 Mar 2006 (EST)
the screenshots of 2 Savage tp Ginsberg letters
I ran into my gif copies of the letters recently on an old CD, and believe that I can find them without too much pain, if SW thinks it is germane. One is extremely gay sounding, the other is straight hippie/dippy
--hugh_manateee 11:25, 16 Aug 2006 (EDT)
I have removed a chunk of unreferenced material, added the full book list and tightened up a few bits.
These sections were unreferenced:
- was born in the Bronx, in 1942, the son of a Russian immigrant family . He
- a Ph D. in Nutritional Ethnomedicine from the University of California, Berkeley, is a respected and often cited source of herbal lore information, has authored at least 19 books, and founded an I.R.S.-recognized tax-exempt 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational organization, The Paul Revere Society.
- Michael Savage is best known for his popular syndicated radio show (from 6-9pm eastern), which is characterized by his caustic and vehement comments which are often targeted at progressives, homosexuals, feminists, liberals, pacifists, lawyers, Democrats and Clinton. His fierce rhetoric ridicules other conservative talk show hosts/pundits, who he calls "Bushbots," such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
- == Education ==
- Queens College, City University of NY-BS, Biology, 1963
- University of Hawaii-MS, medical botany, 1970
- University of Hawaii-MA, medical anthropology, 1972
- University of California, Berkeley-Ph.D., Nutritional Ethnomedicine, 1978
- Ph D. Dissertation:
- "Nutritional Ethnomedicine in Fiji"
- By Michael Alan Weiner
- © University of California, Berkeley, 1978
See indented notes on these sections
- Savage has on other occasions said that San Francisco Bay Area high school girls who were participating in a feed-the-homeless program wanted to get raped behind a trash dumpster;  that immigrants rampant procreation along with the gay agenda is a conspiracy against white heterosexuals; that Korean neighbors might be cooking your dog on a BBQ.
- dead link so now unreferenced
- When his radio show started in the mid 90's, right-wing radio was in ascendancy, and Savage Nation took off in syndication, at one time having over 300 stations broadcasting it.
- (re SFBG resolution) The resolution eventually failed due to the lone dissenting vote of Ed Jew.
--Bob Burton 04:40, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
Reinstating Media Matters Links
There is no basis for deleting the Media Matters of America links. They are simply a list of links to posts relating to Savage. MM posts contain material from transcripts or other primary source material that readers are likely to find useful. Readers can make up their own mind on what weight to give MM material. --Bob Burton 08:48, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Why do you choose to clog the page up with numerous links to the media matters site when one link will do? Simply type Michael Savage in the search bar and all the links to Savage on that site show up on one page. All you need to do is put that page in this article, instead of all the clutter of individual links. I'd do it myself but someone threatened to "block" me. Freeeditor|September 24 2007
Media Matters is a left-wing operative of the Democrat party. If you don't know that you are sadly mistaken. Read through any one of those threads and you'll see the mentality that exists at that site. The site dislikes Savage with a passion, and yet you think material from it belongs in a bio about Savage? Nonsense. This is a Michael Savage page; not a , "what Media Matters thinks about Michael Savage" page. --[[freeeditor| September 5 2007
- The links that you are trying to delete include actual audio clips of Savage saying the things they quote him as saying, so the fact that he said them is solidly established. The fact that you dislike the political leanings of Media Matters is no reason to delete them. If you persist in trying to censor this information, we will have to block you from further editing. --Sheldon Rampton 20:42, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
What do you mean "block" me from editing? Do you own this site?
- SourceWatch is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, which owns the site. Sheldon and myself are staff of CMD. We and other sysops (most of whom aren't CMD staff), have the power to block editors who choose not to abide by our reasonably simple guidelines on contributing. Blocking editors is a measure of last resort as we prefer to encourage people to abide by our policies and treat the efforts of others with respect. Where an editor repeatedly deletes material without justification, this will be interpreted as vandalism and the user blocked. So I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. --Bob Burton 21:17, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
SW: An "Encyclopedia"?
This looks more like a Savage bashing forum than an encyclopedia.
I see an awful lot of OPINIONS posted here without references.
The person who dropped the "Media Matters" link was banned from edititing?
Media Matters can speak for themselves. I think maybe a single link to their site vs. trying to maintain an ongoing list of all their beefs with Savage would be easier to maintain, as the last links on here are from 2006 and I'm SURE he's said something a Liberal Fascist wouldn't like since then.
I'm heading back to Wikipedia...