User talk:Dbachmann/archive1

Hello Dbachmann/archive1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

User:Meelar 19:40, 21 Jul 2004

Re:Bush Talk

You suggest that this has come into play, but you are in error. No comparison is being invoked by me. Rather, I merely pointed out that Ireland remained as Neutral country during WWII and as such did nothing to oppose NAZIs. This is an irrefutable historical fact and is not a comparison. Using this fact, I pointed out the absurdity of the other editor's aim of inserting a reference to the so-called Ireland-wide anger against Bush. If we insist on stating what Ireland (or any other country) thinks, we should also look at the track record of that country and see if we should even care what they say. When Ireland sends substantial troops to help stop the genocide in the Sudan, then I will care more what they say. Until they prove themselves in that or a similar way, I will continue to credit their views with a ranking of zero Rex071404 16:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even so, the rule you invoked states "comparison", which I have not done.

take a minute to read the remaining article. The rule doesn't state that the discussion is over at that moment either, and still that's what is associated with "Godwin's Law" now.

Also, NAZI is an English hodgepodge word that is part acronym and part abbreviation. It comes mainly from the German words for National Socialisism. However, the Nazis [1] originally called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party or Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei

Nationalsozialistische
NA tionalso ZI alistische

See - it's 1/2 abbreviatiton and 1/2 acronym. It's a bastardized word. Quite appropriate for the bastards that the NAZIs were. In any case, please buff up on your world history before you again lecture me. Rex071404 16:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

German happens to be my native tongue, so believe me, I am quite aware of what you are telling me. Only that "Nazi" is not an *English* hodgepodge, but a simple *German* short form, spelled phonetically: "Nationalsozialisten" (pronounced /na-tsi-o-nal-so-tsi-a-lis-ten/) is shortened to Nazi (pronounced /na-tsi/). It would be pointless to pick "ZI" to abbreviate "Socialism", woudn't it? It would have had to be the *NASOs

anyway, I was nitpicking at a nitpicker. Rex seems to have trouble enow on his hands without being lectured to by me, or lecturing me, for that matter.

Arabic grammmar

Sorry about that. Character code set issues. Didn't notice. I'll try to be more careful in future. –Hajor 14:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My Siggy

It's supposed to be gray, I was a little distraught when I saw it as green in IE. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Switzerland

I just reverted your edit of the French name "Confederation suisse" in the article Switzerland; although it may look a bit strange in this case, adjectives are not spelt with capital letters in French. See example on the top of the page http://www.admin.ch/ch/index.fr.html.

Middle-earth scholarship category?

I thought you would definitely be the one to mention this to, since it is definitely your field around here.

What would you think of starting, say, a Category:Middle-earth scholarship? (I suggest that name because it is in keeping with the current naming scheme and also most of it does relate to study of Middle-earth through Tolkien's writings rather than study of, say, Tolkien's biography.) That would be a bit more organized than shoving the language journals under Middle-earth languages and other related articles under who-knows-what. (Good work, by the way. I never really did understand the relationship between the various publiciations, since they were all started before I discovered that there even was a community of Tolkien fans and scholars.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Viking

I am more than happy for Wiglaf to work on the intro, as ever. He has the happy knack of not writing slapdash POV verbiage — Sjc, I wonder how you get anything done on WP if it is your habit to immediately attack people with sarcasm and arrogance. I have long admitted that "A Viking is a pirate from Scandinavia" was an unhappy wording, even though not false in the context. You seem knowledgeable, and if you would descend so far to talk about the issue rather than making snide remarks and picking fights, you could actually contribute something useful. In the future I will only react to your comments if they are reasonably polite and to the point. dab 17:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I sugest you stay off my talk page; historical revisionists get very little respect from me and are treated with the contempt which they so richly deserve. I will be watching your work with close attention. Your preface was not as you (again, as elesewhere, disingenuously) put it unhappy, it verged on vandalism. I have you duly flagged as a mendacious moron with a propensity for writing stuff which he does not understand. Now I have better things to do than waste them on airheads like you, as a brief scan of my contributions will more than reveal. I suggest you find something more apposite for your meagre attributes to engage themselves in. Sjc 04:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

restored above rant, as I decided I'm not required to hide people's shameful behaviour. For the record, my mendaciously moronic version is here (properly backed up here) – dab 14:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Viking

I have just won an extremely tiring discussion with a stubborn POV crusader against the breeders of Heck cattle. I don't have the energy at the moment to dive into a new subject that may take even more energy from my work and dissertation. At the moment, I would like to modify his contribution, but I will give it some time. There are many people at Wikipedia, and in due time texts are polished up. Regards, Wiglaf.

Quitting?

I hope you aren't serious about leaving Wikipedia. You have given valuable contributions to it.--Wiglaf 17:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see, I hope to see you get back soon. I am impatiently waiting for my tutor to give me back the second half of my manuscript. I use Wikipedia to get my mind off it :), but I have a serious addiction myself and should get some time off as well.--Wiglaf 19:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Human

Homo Sapiens

I agree with your thoughts on the need for most of the material at human to be moved to homo sapiens and for the article to do a better NPOV job. Moving, however, is a big deal, as I suppose, and I don't want to take it lightly. Are you in the mood to visit the talk page for that article that is in desperate need of NPOVisation? Tom 04:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You said you were going to put "it on PR". What does that mean? Thanks. Tom 17:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant WP:PR. dab 17:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Troll

I think we're far from a dead end at this point. Don't despair. I look at the point we're at as the point where the participants go back home and maybe think a little about this while they are driving around. Then in a couple of weeks we might start making some headway. At Mormonism and Christianity we had a discussion for months that makes this one look like child's play, and I feel like this one is, as I mentioned to User:Angela, only getting started, though more heads and ideas are always good. As long as we keep our cool and keep on trying, we will all be surprised at the quality of the result. Tom 14:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also had a question for you. You used a word I am having a hard time getting a working understanding of. What do you mean when you say "troll"? What is a troll? Tom 14:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

let's not go there. I know that "troll" as used in discussions is mainly a slur. perception of trolling is to some degree subjective, though it implies intent (i.e. you are only a troll if you know you are one, you are not one if you are only naive or obstinate). A left a note on Rednblu's page saying that I did not assume hostility on his part, and held none on mine. What made me say "I feel like I am feeding a troll" was that he kept coming up with analogies that were either too confused to make sense, or just faulty, instead of addressing his points plainly. This contrasted with his obvious good-faith contribution in other parts, and made me wonder if he was experimenting with an overly smart-assed socratic discussion style, or just muddying the issue for a laugh. Since I have not invested too much love in the article Human, I decided I did not want to grow too attached to it, especially because I think my points could be argued by many other wikipedians. I am not quitting -- I will try to clean up Talk:Human when I have some time, and a will come and vote in case a poll comes together. My concern is not that Human is in danger of becoming terribly POV-ridden. It is in danger, however, to be turned, by well-meaning hands, into an unreadable watered-down babble: I'm all for giving all relevant keywords, controversial or not, concisely, and with proper reference. dab 15:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that helps, especially the great link (isn't the Wikipedia great?). So a troll refers to somebody who "trolls" around looking for trouble, or somebody who jumps out from under a bridge and says, "Rowwwrrrrr!" when you are trying to do something serious. I think what you meant when you said you felt like you were feeding a troll is that you sometimes wondered if he was intentionally trying to get your goat. So a troll is somebody who just likes to stir up trouble. I was wondering about it this week, and I wondered if I could be a troll. I thought, "Well, in a way we on Wikipedia should all be trolling around looking for POVs to neutralize." So I ended up as confused as ever about the word troll. The article really cleared it up. Somebody once called me a troll at www.a-i.com because they thought I was pretending to know less about chatbots and asking insincere questions. Now I see that they also probably thought I was trying to cause trouble. To avoid trolldom, I guess you need to be forthright. Tom 18:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strange also that you should mention socratic discussion style. Somebody at Wikipedia once got really upset at me and flamed me severely, including that "you are no socratic teacher." That hurt a lot since I didn't even know what it meant. Moral of the story: I guess we have to use a lot of give and take. You sure were smart to take a little break. I guess there are facets of our best efforts that will rub others wrong sometimes. Tom 18:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

p.s. Thank you for the kind words about our Mormonism and Christianity success. Tom

dab, there are some pretty serious and pointed accusations (apparently researched some) against Rednblu being levelled at Talk:Creationism. I apologize if you were right and he really is a troll. And I thank you for guiding me toward finding out the full meaning of that word. They are accusing him of being a creationist in atheist's clothing. I think this is something that needs to be cleared up one way or the other. I (we all) have given him the benefit of the doubt. But these accusations seem to have some substance. Tom - Talk 23:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, dab. I am new to this, but after a little research, I guess we need two people (at least) to ask Rednblu about this and clear it up at his talk page. On the one hand he shouldn't have to put up with the attacks he is getting, or on the other hand, he needs to come clean or be banned. Would you be willing to join me in talkking with him? Tom - Talk 23:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your good words. Red appears to have the interests of the Wikipedia itself at heart, and that goes a long way. And he is being a good team player at Human.

Monkeys

Monkeys children of God. I am with you more than you know, and I realize that the facts are definitely not exactly as we conceive them. I do believe (tentatively, of course) that only humans are free-will heirs of God. But I also believe that there is an eternal spirit in all lovely things. At least, if I am to believe the reports of people who have died and returned, as well as some of the sayings of Jesus, I am compelled to acknowledge that flowers, and chimps are also loved by and proceeded from the Father. But let me say I am compelled by my background and knowledge to stand for the POV that has been slighted at Human, whether or not I think it is perfectly factual. I believe that by diversity of thought we approach more closely to fact. Tom - Talk 15:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Human vote

I'm very sorry about my vote jumbling the layout; I think my browser (Firefox on Windows) was unable to handle the size of the page properly. Although it does fine above the 32kb barrier, it apparently has trouble at whatever size that page is. Would you mind reverting my edit to fix the page, even if it means getting rid of my vote? Thanks, and again I apologize for the mess. I'll keep an eye on it and come back and vote later, if some of the older discussion is archived or I figure out what's up with my browser. Wesley 17:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

poll

vote for taxobox at top of page, 11 votes, like every other animal. Vote for taxobox in biology section, 9 votes. 11 > 9. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arabic names

Halló Dieter, Thanks for looking at Talk:Ahmad ibn Fadlan. I a not familiar with Arabic names, I am familiar only with searching an comparing. Please look at Talk:Idrisi too. Regards Gangleri 22:22, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Halló Dieter, Thanks again! I have seen that youu moved the page. I worked on de:Benutzer Diskussion:Martin-vogel#Al-Idrisi before I made all the notes at Talk:Muhammad al-Idrisi. Martin started the article. Do you have the time to edit all the pages that use all diverent variants of links to Idrisi, ... and change them to links to Muhammad_al-Idrisi. (Das ist eine Sch...arbeit!) This is because at some point we will have multiple REDIRECT's not supported by Wikipedia Software. We schould continue the talk in English at Talk:Muhammad al-Idrisi.
Could you please write your comment about Greek, Indian, Japanease, Chinease, ... names at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#indications_about_bibliographic_item.28s.29_.28see_Catalog.29? I know that it can be done from one day to the other. Gruß Gangleri 16:20, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Thanks Dieter, a few lines below I added Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#meta_name.3D.22KEYWORDS.22_content.3D.22....22. This could be a work arrond not to use names as I, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Ibn Idris Ash-Sharif was born in 1099 C.E. in Ceuta, Spain. in [2]. Regards Gangleri 22:04, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Halló Dieter, please take a look at Talk:Muhammad al-Idrisi#consistent name usage. Thanks! Gangleri 23:47, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Halló Dieter! You wrote: for goodness sake, no mis-spelled variants, please. we don't want to feed the web with those. common alternatives are normally listed initially, in the lead section. Could you please make somewhere an example with an arabic name? Regards Gangleri 01:20, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

a good example is Al Battani. We have redirects from Al-Battani, Al-Batani and the latinized Albatenius, Albategnius, Albategni. The full name is also given right at the beginning of the article. dab 08:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European

Hi - I've added Category:Indo-European as a subcategory to Category:Ethnic groups (categories are meant to form a graph, all reachable from Category:Fundamental). If this strikes you as the wrong place, please fix it. Thanks. -- Rick Block 01:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

very nice, thanks. dab 09:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Albanian language

Though you aren't a specialist, you say, you're much more competent than I to add some information to the Albanian entry, perhaps little more than what surfaced recently at Talk:Pelasgians. (I swelled with pride at your brief compliment there and don't want to overstep myself.) --Wetman 12:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eru Ilúvatar

Nice job on Eru Ilúvatar, especially the quotes from Tolkien! [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sura

Thanks! I'm learning a lot myself researching them, although I doubt I'll manage the whole 114 myself. Knowing the background of each sura can really help in understanding it. - Mustafaa 01:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Old Swiss Confederacy

Hello Dieter, I'd just like to inform you that User:Sj has nominated this article as a featured article candidate. Personally, I had planned to let it go through peer review first, especially because I am essentially the only author, but now that it is on FAC, I'd very much like more comments on it. Could you maybe review it and tell me your criticism on FAC? Or maybe even help improving it, if you see things you feel should be improved? Thank you, Lupo 14:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Old Hittite

I'm interested in splitting up and fleshing out the texts you've put up on the Old Hittite article in wikisource. Can you let me know where the original texts came from? Ben 20:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

God

"if you think I am biased"

No, I don't actually, and would appreciate any assistance regarding User:The Rev of Bru. I certainly won't "agree to refrain from editing for some time", but I have made conscious decisions to avoid provocative edits. Frankly, I have seen enough of this user (having reviewed all of his edits) that I admit to assuming bad faith. The problems with him, his incivility, accusations of vandalism and other problematic edit summaries, and controversial, provocative antitheist stance spreads across every article he edits, not only God. I thank you in advance for any assistance you might provide, [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 17:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope your right about the age thing, I was more deeply concerned. As far as how you might best be helpful, comments to User:The Rev of Bru are of at least symbolic value, especially if a RfC becomes necessary. Also, I think it would best for us to set a good example by calmly discussing whatever concerns you seem to have with me, which you have repeatedly alluded to. Patiently awaiting, [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 18:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

at least some of Bru's concerns I would bring up myself, without all the abuse of course

This is what prompted me to suggest we might have some discussion between ourselves RE: concerns. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 20:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade

I would ask you to review more of Sam Spade's edits, particularly the ones dealing with atheism and theism, in which he usually takes an extremely insulting stance, claims to hate atheists, claims he would rather die than be an atheist, etc, before claiming you have no problem with the bigot. I think if anyone has a case for needing Rfc, it is him. Particularly review the comments made before you asked him to stop being so provocative. (edit) You may also like to review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atheism, and note the discussion on Sam Spade there. Also, could you, in my talk, go over with me where you think I am being rude or abusive. I hope that is a misunderstanding. The Rev of Bru

I am not here to pass judgement on Wikipedia users. Yes, I suppose it is no coincidence that Sam has hostile disputes while others are left in peace. Let him deal with it. There is one user who has been hostile towards me (see Viking above), and my reaction is to simply ignore him altogether in the future, and not to convince as many people as I can that he has a bad character. If a someone makes offensive edits, he will get in trouble wherever he goes, without watchdogs following his trail. I was involved on Talk:God, and in this case, it was clearly you who started the hostilities. Sam is answerable for his edits, but not for his character or his religious conviction. dab 13:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry? You are not dealing with it, you have messaged me telling me to basically 'leave Sam alone,' when HE is attacking me. I am not trying to convince you that Sam is a bad character; I am asking you to maybe look at HIS edits before completely agreeing with his accusations against me (as you did when you messaged me telling me I was in the wrong.) I totally disagree that I started anything. Sam is answerable for his POV, his hatred of others leading to extremely biased articles against wiki policy, and his personal attacks against me. His religious conviction and his character are his own concern until they lead him to attack others. The Rev of Bru 13:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine, so we agree. I didn't review all your edits either. Maybe I misjudged you, and you were just angry already for reasons I don't have knowledge of. It's a bad idea to do anything on WP when angry. Look, I am basically in your camp. I objected to the same edits by Sam as you did. I don't know about hatred, as far as I can tell, you and Sam were just angry with each other. Come on, all we ever see is text typed by other people, it's not like we have to deal with each other 'in the flesh'. I was trying to point out that if your concern is really the article and not the user, my approach proves more efficient, i.e. consistent but friendly correction finally rid us of the "all cultures have gods" inaccuracy. So do what you like. I will thank you for keeping an eye on bigotry here, and I tried to reason with you because I would have liked you as an ally so to speak, on pages like God etc. But I am afraid that I cannot subscribe to what I consider a hostile and aggressive approach to solve these problems. In my view, you and Sam should just ignore each other, at this point. If you decide not to, don't expect me to take sides. If pages get protected, I will just go back to work on my quiet, undisputed articles.dab 14:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I don't see where I am adopting a 'hostile and aggressive approach.' All I want is NPOV articles. I don't expect you to take sides, and am not, and would not, ask you to do so. I wanted you to review Sams edits to see why you should not take his personal attacks against me seriously. The Rev of Bru

I didn't take seriously any attacks. It's ok, I really just wanted to clear the air to get back to the actual article, I hope you don't see me as meddling in affairs that don't concern me (I feel concerned as soon as things spill to the Talk pages, but I am happy to leave arbitration to others...). At the moment, I think we are making progress again. Thanks for your comments on Talk:God, they are to the point and helpful. dab 15:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Admin

I just noticed that your not an admin. You should be (assuming you'd like to be). I'd nominate you, but with the motley crue I have chasing me about at the moment I'm afraid you'd bear the brunt of their hostility if I did. I suggest you self nominate, in which case you'd have my full support. Sam [Spade] 14:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. I'm in no hurry to become admin, and I guess if I stick around on WP I will be, sooner or later. I agree that your "enemies" might listen up if you nominate me, but I am not afraid of people scrutinizing my edits, and the fact that I actually edited against you on God will make your nomination seem unselfish rather than partisan :) Feel free go either way. dab 15:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

btw, how do I find out if a given user is admin? dab 15:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in: you could visit Wikipedia:List of administrators, or try Special:Listadmins. BTW, I think you'd make a fine admin, and if Sam doesn't want to nominate you, I'd do it, if you want. Lupo 15:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hm, four seconds after I posted this he did it. Talk about serendipity... Lupo 15:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now that Sam has nominated you, you should go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dbachmann and formally accept or decline the nomination. (Just replace the comment "This user has yet to accept the nomination" as you see fit.) Good luck! Lupo 16:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to say all the above but edit conflict. Anyhow, cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:24, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration

Transliteration#Issues in transliterating particular languages - any thoughts on making an Arabic page? - Mustafaa 00:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

or a section on Arabic alphabet. I expanded the list on Transliteration for the moment. dab 11:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks! - Mustafaa 18:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

God

I seem to see you getting a bit stressed on Talk:God. I also see you making innaccurate assumptions regarding my opinions, emotions, etc... I would ask you to remain calm, take a step back, and carefully consider my statements, without "reading between my lines" (which usually ends up in seeing things which arn't there, where I am concerned ;). I am not angry at you, nor trying to aggravate you. I refrained from discussing with you and bru in your lengthy overview of the article because I didn't like the page format you chose, not because of any intent to be difficult. please be aware, i want a factually accurate, NPOV article as much as you do :). Sam [Spade] 21:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IDDQD

hi dab, Thank you for your notice. I just fixed it (Troy Picture Sources). I am new on wikipedia. I will learn quickly. Thanks again. :)

Policy

I actually kinda like your ideas, but don't intend to follow them unilaterally. I have a section of my page for policy proposals User:Sam Spade/Policy Proposals. Your idea reminds me of some things adam carr has proposed over the years. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 22:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

cheese!

I was puzzled by that opposition, too—probably your analysis is right. Judging from the contributions (both yours and hers), it is only a matter of time until you two will meet... In that case, this link might be interesting, too. Lupo 09:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:-D I resolved not to touch a Jesus-related article, ever. And I'm beginning to think all these hotly disputed articles are just love lost. There are so many stubby and crappy articles out there in need of attention... but somehow I enjoy the disputes as long as they are productive dab 10:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

not very nice?

Please stop with the complaints about my editing God, I obviously don't agree with your ideas about non-protected pages not being edited prior to consensus, and neither does policy. There is nothing "not very nice" about my copious improvements to that page. Edits which you disagree with I discuss, and I often compromise in a manner agreeable to yourself. The only problem that I see is your idea that that the page is not to be edited without agreement from you prior, or two days going by, or whatever other ideas you might have. If you like these ideas, please submit them as a policy proposal. Until they are voted on and approved of, I do not intend to unilaterally begin obeying them, and why you might think I would is beyond me. Thank you for your interest in promoting civility and caution, but please relax, and refrain from bossing me about. Sam [Spade] 18:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None of which were improvements? Thats rather scalding criticism, especially considering my edits involved overhauling the page. Now you've got me worried! if you'd like to discuss things on Talk:God, I'd be glad to listen, the whole point of my overhauling the page was to get it ready to have the dispute header removed, and now your not making me feel too optomistic about that... If you don't feel like discussing it further, or are busy elsewhere I'll understand, Sam [Spade] 18:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)