tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33112888.post2760433058673107483..comments2008-04-13T16:29:39.966ZBillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14239989492128801120noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33112888.post-66618496508499414372008-04-13T16:29:00.000Z2008-04-13T16:29:00.000ZEvery post here has made me very happy. Cheers!Lavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14239989492128801120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33112888.post-63986086119028400272008-04-11T14:21:00.000Z2008-04-11T14:21:00.000ZIf you replaced "POV of article" with "an accurate description of the subject", and "those bothered to reply" with "those bothered to edit wikipedia", it'd be an apt way of describing why some Wikipedia articles are a bloodbath.Andjamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08112060411447806899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33112888.post-71788306585621210842008-04-09T21:21:00.000Z2008-04-09T21:21:00.000ZLewiep, it's clear you are from the school of "I can't express myself".<BR/><BR/>The article eloquently described loads of things accurately.<BR/><BR/>You are (yet again) wrong.Dr* Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03477835188537933171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33112888.post-16649603952424590612008-04-08T14:14:00.000Z2008-04-08T14:14:00.000ZThis is both utterly wrong, and complete bullshit. I <I>emphatically</I> disagree with it in it's entirety.lewiephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03599847681469514146noreply@blogger.com