User talk:William M. Connolley

Beware the Flag of the Rouge admin!

To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X. Proverb for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. I tend to remove pointless chatter on this page. If I've removed your edit with a summary of "See the proverb for the year at the top", this is the proverb I mean. If I've simply rolled back your edit, it is because I've told you this before and am now bored with you. Sorry: it it up to you to be more interesting. I live in hope that some people might read and think about the quote from Hobbes, above. If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this. If you're wondering about 3RR, you can try /3RR. You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once. Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. My Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log Dispute resolution, Bible style: If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. — Matthew 18:15

The Holding Pen

Reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I can help in small ways, though no longer being professionally involved. I wonder if there is an embedded prog taskforce? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Prog taskforced?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ocean acidification

A reader writes:

"Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments.[31] This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.[32]"

I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it was User:Plumbago [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Correctly deduced. It was me. It may not be worded well, but I think that it's factually correct. Basically, as well as its other effects on living organisms in the ocean, acidification is also expected (see the references) to dissolve existing carbonate sediments in the oceans. This will increase the ocean's alkalinity inventory, which in turn increases its buffering capacity for CO2 - that is, the ocean can then store more CO2 at equilibrium than before (i.e. the "implications for climate change" alluded to). As a sidenote, it also means that palaeo scientists interested in inferring the past from carbonate sediment records will have to work fast (well, centuries) before their subject matter dissolves away! Hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Double diffusive convection

Bit surprised there is no article on DDC? Has the term gone out of fashion? It was half the course in "Buoyancy in Fluid Dynamics" when I did Part III 23 years ago. --BozMo talk 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember is was a nice demo on the fluid dynamics summer school DAMPT ran. Not sure I would still be confident of writing it up 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have to suggest it to Huppert or someone. --BozMo talk 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If one of you two makes a stub, I'd be willing to read up on it and make it a longer stub. Awickert (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What a kind offer. I have started here: Double diffusive convection--BozMo talk 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All right - I'll get to it (eventually). It's on my to-do list. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

CSS site

Forgive the quick note, but I happened to notice the comments at the top about CSS, and some places to learn about it. I second the site mentioned, but also take a look at the CSS Zen Garden at [[2]] - it's a great place to quickly see what CSS is capable of doing. Basically, it's a site where people take the exact same HMTL page, but use a different .css file, and completely change how the page looks. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Current

CF topic bans

[Trimmed. See [3] and [4] for details William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]

Reviewed: [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, looking back at the ANI ban review, I still think that it would be better to simply send it again to ANI to confirm that the community supports that the ban is indefinite pending review (because some people, including the closing admin, appeared to think that it was just a review of a one month topic ban). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CC

I've just noticed climate change has accumulated lots of cruft, not to mention a distressing number of obvious errors. If you want to help with cleanup that would be great. BTW you may be interested in this. Boris noticing climate change have bourgeois excess and provocations. Duty is assisting heroic efforts to institute reliability. Basis for new five-year plan here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo. What happened to the Russian accent? It is about time I actually did something useful for climate articles instead of attracting flak for blocking people. OK William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Spiffing William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

augh

I'll admit I didn't really assume good faith about the Abd arbcom given some recent actions of yours, but after reading Abd's posts on the case I've done a complete 180. He is even more annoying than Giovanni33. Jtrainor (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well I'm glad you've seen the light in the end :-). Lets hope it isn't an oncoming train William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Block of Abd

This block of Abd: "08:21, August 9, 2009 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs | block) blocked Abd (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Violation of ban at t:Cold Fusion) (unblock | change block)" is completely out of line. Not only are you highly involved with this user and have history with him, you are currently the two primary parties in an ongoing arbcase. This is a clear abuse of admin rights and I will be proposing a temp desyssop pending the final decision in the case. While I am still looking into the details to confirm this, it appears the one month ban by Heimstern had ended and Abd had just ended his self ban of the CF article. If you carry out any further actions re Abd, I will block you and may ban you from the case. I will also present this block as evidence in the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes WMC, you are far too enmeshed with this user, and should back well away. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. Verbal chat 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So Rlevse, your mind is already made up on how you're going to vote on the case, eh? And I thought you were one of the more reasonable arbs. You sure showed me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By his definition he's now involved. Very poor. Verbal chat 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a lot of confidence in the new arbcom, that they would be more clueful and less heavy-handed than previous incarnations. Looks like there are different faces but nothing else ever changes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact this years arbcom is entremly intolerant of admin error or admins taking a stand against fringe tinfoil hattery. Look at the way they dealt with the JZG case when they community overwhelmingly endorsed the view that there was no signifciant case to answer, one admonismet for an action endorsed by the community and we are one clueful admin less. Brilliant. I expect Rlevse to recuse from this case now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they were under directions from Jimbo to crack the whip on admins. Sure as hell glad I gave up the badge last year -- doing hours of volunteer work and putting up with continual abuse only to be slapped in the face for it must get old after a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)What strikes me as most surprising here, is that Rlevse, despite being an active arb on this case, apparently has no idea about what the basics are (no matter whether the decision was right or not), to the extent that it indicates that he hasn't even read the brief... That's even more surprising considering that the case was supposed to have ended yesterday. (i also wonder why wizardman is suddenly active/voting on this case, despite the the arb list showing him to be inactive) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you find it "surprising" that an arb would act without being fully informed? Are you new around here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman's status hadn't been updated from inactive to active. Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's very unusual for parties to block each other in the middle of a case. WMC should back away for the time being. If Adb violates his bans, that should be cited as evidence against him and another admin can deal with it in the meantime. Cool Hand Luke 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the aggressive nature of his word here, would it be unusual for Rlevse to NOT recuse from the case? Minkythecat (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be unusual. Arbs can do whatever they want. There's probably arguments between themselves behind the scenes, but once one of them does something publicly the Blue Wall goes up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You should not have blocked Abd when you're both parties to the same arbitration case. I haven't looked at the evidence, but the evidence is irrelevant when something like this happens. Since you're both parties, you're not "uninvolved", and therefore can't use that title. You should not have blocked Abd, period. I have explained myself in further detail at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision#"Temp desyssop of William M. Connolley" motion (Mythdon's comment). If you wish to reply to me, please respond there. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

@R: While I am still looking into the details... I think it would have been an excellent idea for you to have been sure of the details before acting. When you are sure, do let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time that Abd decides to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man you have to resist the temptation of hitting that block button and instead post a diff in the case pages. More productive in the mid/long term. Also, you should make a compromise not to block Abd anymore during the case (and then not block him if he does something carefully designed to prompt a block from you, like in the first block). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not condoning what Abd did, but you, WMC, should know not to block someone when you're a primary named party taking action against another primary named party in an open ongoing arbitration case where you have a history with each other that you are very involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an answer to the question you're avoiding William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Given your comments on here, ie threat to unilaterally ban WMC from the case - and isn't that ironic, since it appears Abd wants to claim WMC acted that way - will you recuse? Yes or no? Minkythecat (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest discussion is moved to case pages

Someone has said it would be better to keep all the discussion in one place. Can I suggest that the arbitration case pages are a better place to discuss what happened here? I've said so at other user talk pages as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Judge Dredd

If you think [6] counts as a personal attack for likening you to Judge Dredd then tell me and I will withdraw it. However I thought you migh appreciate it. --BozMo talk 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fair enough (you're pursuing an interesting line there). Can I have the motorbike too? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Had never heard of Judge Dredd. Now why did the title Mutants in Mega-City One make me think immediately of Wikipedia? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've mined a rich vein here. I can feel a cabal logo coming on... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking Judge Judy... much more fearsome. I'm not sure if my cabal membership is official yet, as he only states it in a "response" I haven't seen posted anywhere official. Verbal chat 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The cabal welcomes new members. All you need is basic sanity and a willingness to shoot from the hip (oh, and the sekret handshake, of course, but we don't talk about that) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You talk waaaay too much to be likened to Dredd :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But he never removes his helmet. Let's hope there isn't a block war. Verbal chat 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For your pleasure

I'd almost forgotten about this little compilation that I started a while ago. It seems especially appropriate lately. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es

Hi there. I am bringing this to you because you have blocked User:Aradic-es a number of times. I know there are POV users on all sides in the Balkan articles but this one has been getting out of hand. See here for explanation. I reported him (and User:PRODUCER) for edit warring but there are serious POV issues and long term warring. I simply don't know whether to take this to any particular place or leave it and try to mediate. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have warned Aradic and reported him for further edit warring along with my report. This is obviously more than the edit warring, which has several sides to it. This edit warring is backing upsome pretty unsavoury abuse of wikipedia and POV pushing. Anyway sorry to bother you, I see you are away now, I will sort this out as best I can :). Polargeo (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Time travel

Any idea when time travel became one of the "unsolved problems in physics"? Long time after I did Part 3 anyway. It looks as those some scifi fans have turned this into a pseudoscience article with gems like: "Time travel to the past is theoretically allowed using the following methods: space traveling faster than the speed of light, The use of cosmic strings and black holes, Wormholes and Alcubierre 'warp' drive. " Time for a little scientific consensus perhaps... --BozMo talk 13:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as i know timetravel is theoretically possible - by using wormholes. The idea is that a wormhole does instantaneous transfer - so:

1. create a wormhole - fix one end at your location (A)
2. send the other end (B) on a long travel at relativistic speed and return it to your location

You will now travel trough time when using the ends, confer the twin paradox. (of course there are lots of problems here... energy etc in creating the wormhole...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC) [heh - is in the article, i should've read it first ;-) ] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Create a wormhole. Rightho. You mean create an abnormality in space-time.. by prayer? Aside from the various technical problems I think that a consensus of a vast majority of scientists would say that time travel is not ever going to be practically possible. By the time we have an article suggesting that something might be possible by traveling faster than light we have a reality problem, I think. Geometries which allow otherwise violate determinism, causality, cosmic censorship,Hawking's second bet etc. which is why most of us think TT only exists in dope filled towers. Presenting it is an unanswered question does not come close to justice on what we reckon the answer is. You might as well make the existence of another unconnected universe an unanswered question in physics... when I were a lad the time travel thing was used as a proof that wormholes could not exist not that the equations were the blueprint for a time machine. --BozMo talk 15:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was possible for us now (nor even that it would be possible for us later) - just that the concept itself isn't ruled out by theory, and that it is in fact an integral part of theory. Iirc the "creation" of a wormhole would have such an enormous energy requirement that we are talking the sum of energy of several suns. I do not agree that there is a consensus that it will "never be possible". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Nb: creating a wormhole is not the springing point here - since at least hypothesis states that the universe may be riddled with them in quantum foam (so enlarge one instead (which will still have a stupendeous energy requirement)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, if time travel were possible, it would be available everywhen the instance it is invented ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, or at least (from the above theory) everywhen after the creation of the first one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rightho, after you. Interesting scientific consensus case I guess; given anyone who is prepared to be silly can publish a teen book or get famous by taking a bet with Hawking, we could only really get anywhere by survey data of scientists. However we were taught that the Cosmic censorship hypothesis was a bit like the Axiom of choice; the only dissenters were people notable for their dissent. --BozMo talk 16:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the viable solutions for wormholes are unstable, so even if we had one, if anyone entered it it would be destabilized. Kind of like the shiny convertible that some hapless teen in a movie isn't allowed to drive. Awickert (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you're so hostile about it... The "solution" that i mention is one that theorectical physicists in Denmark at least have been talking about. Note the "theoretical" part of the physicists, i have not and will not claim that it is a viable technology (in fact if it ever where to be, it would prolly be millenia out of our reach). The trouble here is the distinction between the "viable" and the "theory" part - engineering wise: Get out of here! Theoretically: Maybe. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Canary Islands

Hello. For some time are fraud and manipulations by IP 79.xxx.xxx.xxx/83.xxx.xxx.xxx about metropolitan areas in Canary Islands. This IP cheats on es and en wikipedia. On es wikipedia administrators blocked article before the IP [7],[8], [9], [10]. IP provides a sources in which nothing writes of this, he manipulating the sources. He gave no sources for his theories. Talk does not give results (not counting the spam). Please block the articles: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Tenerife against the IP. I do not want to have an edit war, but something must be done. Inter-man (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look at Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and can see only a few problematic recent edits. Certainly not enough for semi protection or a range block as drastic as 73.xxx. Are you sure that the problem is currently severe on en? Mind you, I am a canary, and I know what I say, bay is cute William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For now, I wait a week. I improve (with User:Phirosiberia from es wikipedia - He also noted the problem [11], [12]) articles: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Tenerife, La Laguna, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, Canary Islands. We will watch this articles, if came edit-war from IP, I will say here again. Inter-man (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello world I'm back

Yo. Anything you think I've missed, feel free to let me know. No, I haven't kept up with the piles of trash. Conclusion: Stubai beats Cambridgeshire hands down William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Given that this month's theme is Theatre of the Absurd, did you ever notice Atmospheric models is not simply the plural of Atmospheric model? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but I know now. I might even help William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

It took me a bit to find out why the orange bar was lit but I got a good laugh when I finally went to hit my watchlist. Thanks, laughs are very needed right now. I'm very pleased to join the dark side.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Mish (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

More problems with Marc H. Rudov article

Please consider another semi-block for the above article but this time for much longer than seven days. The same user (I'm convinced it's Rudov himself) keeps trying to insert the same biased phrases. The article's talk page shows I've tried many times to compromise with him.

I recently requested an SPI. This resulted in an indefinite block for TheNoNonsenseMan. Have a look at the archived report. This diff proves that anonymous user 98.234.124.104 is making nearly identical edits and is therefore most likely the same person. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

When is it appropriate....

To refactor another editors talk page? [[13]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the situation if you wish, however the prevailing opinion has been if you make 60,000 edits it's ok to discount others polite opinion because "they have bit a newbie (once) and have poor grammer." This wasn't a personal issue but a disturbing attitude trend.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as though this has now been explained. You now know about WP:DTTR and you've had an explanation of why Deb wasn't refactoring the talk page, at least I think so. Might I suggest also that the template you used A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages... may not be all that helpful as it doesn't mention the page concerned... or did you mean Luke neil wilson? In whihc case it might well be redundant, given the notice above. I don't think you were told because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning were you? Could I say, that it is always helpful to give diffs when trying to report / explain these things; I'm having to guess exactly which refactoring you mean, and so on. But if there is a remaining problem, do let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a resolution on the article. To clarify the issue wasn't the refactoring talkpages that was a very minor offense, my issue had been with the comment that "I'll be ready to accept your warnings when you" the two reasons given were A. Have proper literacy and B stop biting newbies. In this case I hadn't bit a newbie and thought she meant a warning recvd prior. The Issue was two sided though. I am sensitive where it comes to my vision and my typing is a direct problem with that (so a bit personal) and my other issue is that a warning templated or not if valid should at least be acknowledged and not said to be invalid due to those reasons. I wasn't interested in the personal aspect however the overall issue that as an admin, you should be an example. I messed up templating and then getting sensitive and Deb came by and helped explain things from her way and in her viewpoint I'd have been ticked too. We are all human so I'll take what I can from the situation and learn from it.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

People can get a bit waspish when you template them. Amusingly, it is "grammar" not "grammer" but that is spelling not grammar. a warning templated or not if valid should at least be acknowledged and not said to be invalid due to those reasons - they didn't say it was invalid (did they?). They said they wouldn't accept it until X and Y. Slightly different. But all fairly unimportant, and surely best passed over and forgotten? I think you can overdo the admins-should-be-examples bit. We're all imperfect William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That's where it comes down to isn't it? I screwed up too, so we both took something away from the situation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BTW. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom has labored and brought forth a mouse

Looking at the present vote tallies it seems that after all the megabytes of blather arbcom will not implement any meaningful remedies. There's a few hours of my life that I could have spent doing something more useful, like polishing the drainpipes in the basement. I'm taking bets on Abd's next arbcom case: even money on Raul, 2:1 odds on an omnibus Global warming case, outside bets on something truly psychedelic like a case agaist arbcom itself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, its pretty cr*ppy isn't it? There is so much wrong with this gigantic pile of t*ss that it is hard to know where to start or end, but I think H's desperate attempts to get SB to recognise reality would do as a recent fair example [14]. Sometime or another when I get back to a proper link I need to try to analyse the many gross failings of this case. I think I'd go for the GW case, myself, there are enough septics crawling out of the woodwork to encourage him William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)