User talk:JackSarfatti

This user has been Arbitration Committee. See the block log .

\/archive 1

Hello, JackSarfatti! First,

OK why not remove all of this above as well

([1]); se

e

All my edits to the article have been made while logged in, and thus show my name in the history. I did not make the edit to which you refer. Checking the history will show the user ID or IP address of the persopn who did. DES ^(talk) 03:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Discussion Jimbo with Swimpy

On Oct 16, 2005, at 6:11 AM, Gary G. Ford wrote:

Thanks, Jim!

I would like to NOTE that the kind of program of Theoretical Physics in Development on the Open Net which Jack Sarfatti leads - in contrast to mere exchanges of finished papers, often short, between Institutionalized Physicists loathe to wait on the slow Peer Review (ie, Union Label) Journals - IS a remarkable aspect of our time, therefore deserves your encyclopedia's recognition.

I am NOT asking you to give a Good House Keeping Seal of Approval for what Jack produces, just not to allow a hatchet job by the Defenders of The Faith to strike him down as a heretic because what he does is in deep competition with the Official Organs and Institutions of PAID Academic Physics.

Sincerely,

Gary, Advanced Iowan Idiot, [email protected]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

I am afraid that perhaps both you and Jack are mistaken about our role here. We are an encyclopedia. We merely report on the world, we are

• not* in a position to evaluate his contributions to physics, and we

refuse to attempt to do so. What we will do is report fairly, accurately, and honestly on what we can. Gary, you write "Not everyone will catch every nuance, or understand immediately the significance of a new combination of ideas..." This is fine, and I accept it, but it is not relevant to our project. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Jimbo

I have archived your talk page, as it was getting too long for any reasonable person to follow.

You are entitled to post to your user talk page as you wish, within extraordinarily broad limits. But I had hoped you would postpone discussion of the Wikipedia article about you and your work, until we had resolved the matter of Wikipedia:Civility (q.v.) and gotten your account unblocked.

If you'll tell me - right here on this page - that you're planning to withdraw your threats of legal action unconditionally - then I will gladly unblock your Wikipedia user account. I believe the other Admins will support this.

You can then assure us of your good faith by deleting all the adverse comments you have made about other contributors, as your first act upon returning.

Then we can work together as a community to improve the Jack Sarfatti article, as well as other article related to your work. Uncle Ed 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have wanted to remove all that stuff anyway in ALL older archived versions. Is that possible?

No, as I explained on the phone we need to keep the archive versions.

Before the others will agree to let me unblock your Wikipedia account, they would like a statement from you in which you:

• Commit to stop making legal attacks

Agreed - no problemo [User:JackSarfatti] I have not made any for several days unless someone is impersonating me?

• Agree not to delete but to mark like this any statements of yours that you wish to retract

Agreed - no problemo [User:JackSarfatti]

• Promise to refrain from personal attacks

--Uncle Ed 20:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - no problemo Let's hope they take "Yes" for an answer. :-) I had little idea what Wiki really was when this started.

--[User:JackSarfatti] 2:45 PM Oct 17, 2005 (PCT)

On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Dan Smith wrote:

Tony,

You are correct in surmising that there is much politics involved in the disclosure issue. However, you greatly oversimplify that politics.

For one thing, the Aviary is very far from being a monolithic entity. That much should be clear just from the discussions you have seen here.

But there is a much larger issue that you broach, and this has been the focus of my discussions with Jack. And I dare-say that Jack is way ahead of you in this regard. Jack has been reluctant to press this issue, simply because he does not want to lose his physics audience. And I agree, but time is running out, and we must press on with the core issue presented to us by the Visitation.

The physics problem pales in comparison to the anthropic problem. In putting forward the key role of signal non-locality in the existence of mind and consciousness, Jack is demonstrating that sapience is an elemental aspect of reality. Mainstream Physics is still far behind in its understanding of this foundational issue.

What are the consequences of this new understanding? It is simply the key to all understanding.

It is the reason for the Visitation. It speaks to the necessity and thus to the omnipresence of Sapience in the world. The Visitation demonstrates that mind in the world is unobstructed and unobstructable.

You must understand that Jack, with one idea, has stood the Copernican world-view LITERALLY on its head. Now, with the presence of the Visitors, the proof is in the pudding.

We live in a self-organizing world. This is the fact of Teleology. The Big-Bang and/or the appearance thereof was no accident. Teleology necessarily pre-dates biology. This is the point of the Anthropic Principle. Richard Gott, as pointed out by Jack, with his pre-inflationary Closed Time-like Curves, also recognizes this fact. We only need now to take it seriously and take it to heart.

Neither the Visitors nor we fellow-sapiens are irrelevant to the physics. It is becoming clearer every day that the physics that does not serve sapience is a physics of no account. This fact should have been an obvious truism, but in learning this lesson the hard way, we have learned it well.

Why, then, we must wonder, has this positive truth been so carefully concealed from us? Why do the Visitors and the Insiders seemingly conspire to keep us in the Dark?

That is what I am here to explain on their behalf. You may well think that you would much prefer to get this message directly from the horse’s mouth. OK, then just think of me as the designated horse. This is just SOP, is it not? I think you call it the prophetic tradition. Do you suppose that tradition was an accident, or is it part of the self-organization of the Cosmos?

And who is going to hold my coat? I think you already know that, too. And who is holding his coat? The three Magi, who else?

Dan

From: Jack Sarfatti [2] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:35 PM To: Dan Smith Subject: Tony Smith on Dan Smith & UFO reverse engineering

bcc

On Oct 16, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack,

if your dark energy / Josephson junction model describes how to build machines commonly thought of as UFOs, as I think it does, then it seems to me that, even if they exist, ET/UT are IRRELEVANT because they cannot disclose any more than what you already know and therefore ANY DISCLOSURE-DAY EVENT ABOUT ET/UT (whether Dan's 911 2008 or any other) IS ALSO IRRELEVANT.

Yes, of course. That is exactly my position. All these UFO meetings like in Vegas are a waste of time. It's only value is to the people who make money off it. It's preaching to the choir.

When Dan said to you

"... that your efforts are being underwritten by the USG. This flat out doesn't make sense. Why would the USG be allowing you ... to inform our enemies? ..." both you and he missed the obvious explanation:

"... THE USG FUNDED ... PUTHOFF (and maybe others) BELIEVING THAT YOU WERE ALL WRONG, and THAT YOUR WORK WOULD BE USEFUL AS DISINFORMATION. ..."

Well they were 50% correct -eh? Puthoff's stuff is wrong. :-) Actually I did think of that and even mentioned it from time to time.

NOW THAT IT IS BECOMING CLEAR THAT YOUR WORK IS NOT WRONG (probably much to the surprise of any USG elements ..., which may be Dan/Aviary/etal)

THEY (probably Dan/Aviary/etal) HAVE A PROBLEM:

Your work is already out on the web so it cannot be silenced, but if it is allowed to be fairly evaluated by any possibly competent elements that might exist in the USA black project community, then Dan/Aviary/etal will look very bad for having publicized your work as wrong disinformation a la Puthoff stuff instead of having appreciated how good your stuff is at an early stage and then taken it black, thus keeping it from the view of anybody in China, Iran, or wherever else.

How could Dan/Aviary/etal deal with such a problem? Perhaps by a twofold strategy of

attempting to discredit your work in the public web world and getting you to agree to "Cool it, Jack." and work only through them, so that they can get an (undeserved) foot in the door in any future Manhattan project.

From your statement:

"...Some pretty amazing things happening here too. But they are hush hush. Dan Smith and I are on the right track now. We have gotten The Signal loud and clear. It actually all fits. ..."

it seems to me that you may be falling into a trap. Dan/Aviary/etal very likely do not have any real inside ET/UT information that they can understand. You do understand how the stuff works, so they are co-opting you into the prison of their circle of incompetent jerks, where they can isolate you from direct contact with any possibly competent elements that might exist in the USA black project community.

No, that is not happening. :-)

Such direct contact between you and any competent USA black project folks would be highly embarrassing to them and would cut them out of any role in such a Manhattan project.

The above is only my opinion as an outside observer. As such, I have no idea whether or not any possibly competent elements might exist in the USA black project community, or, if they do exist, how to contact them.

Tony

On Oct 17, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Senator Byrd built a huge think tank to do that exactly in his home district with tens of millions of Fed dollars. It was called ISR and Jim Corum was its first scientific director. Corum and the CEO of ISR met us at ISSO at 3220 Sacramento Street in San Francisco I think in 2000. Creon Levit & Saul-Paul Sirag & I think KH? attended the meetings I was in with them. We hired H at ISSO and then he went to SARA where he still is last I heard. H says he has a lot of inside info on retrieved alien stuff. H used to work for Eugene Mallove who was, of course, murdered recently. We also met an old guy on Board of SARA who allegedly was present at 1943 Philadelphia Experiment, which explains Jim Corum's interest in it because Corum was Chief Scientist at SARA before going to ISR in W.Va.

On Oct 16, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc

"UFO Black Ops" wrote:

ISSO 1999-2001

This was an operation done with full knowledge of top levels of the USG Intelligence Community who monitored it. Several former Soviet-bloc physicists were brought in as consultants including Dr. Valdimir Poponin, allegedly a personal acquaintance of Gorbachev's. We were interested in evaluating the controversial claims of "Russian torsion field weapons" and, therefore brought Gennady Shipov over from Moscow several times. On one trip Shipov lived with Sarfatti for about 2 weeks. Richard Hammond, an American physicist from Fargo working on torsion fields for US Navy at one time was brought in as well as R. Kiehn a former scientist for US SAC and retired professor from University of Houston. Shipov worked with Akimov in Moscow who allegedly had strong military connections in the Soviet era. Sarfatti was the senior theorist on the American side of the ISSO core staff that included Saul-Paul Sirag. He arranged for Creon Levit to be borrowed from NASA AMES to run the daily operations of the project. Over a million dollars was given to SARA, a TRW spinoff DOD contractor in Huntington, Beach CA to further test a system developed by Jim Corum. Corum also wrote papers on "The Philadelphia Experiment" and had entre to the Tesla Archive in Beograd even during the Cold War. This was unusual. Corum later went to ISR in W.Va, a think tank doing exotic work with USG funds provided by Senator Robert Byrd and his Congressional counter-part in his home district. The key objective, of course, was to try to figure out how the "saucers" really flew. All of the key scientists had interest in that, with the possible exception of Hammond and Kiehn. Harold Puthoff was brought in as a consultant. Ken Shoulders was also involved as were many others whose schemes were tested. The key foreign figure was Professor J. P. Vigier from Paris who had been Louis DeBroglie's assistant for decades. Sarfatti arranged for a Telegraph Hill Penthouse for Vigier to spend extended periods meeting the scientists flowing through ISSO. Vigier and Levit made a trip to Budapest in 2000 to meet with two Serbian physicists Z.Maric & A. Dragic who were experimentally testing an exotic atomic energy release idea of Vigier's of obvious interest to USG Intelligence because of its WMD implications. See the paper "On the possible Existence of Tight Bound States in Quantum Mechanics". pp 349-356 of the same volume of one of Sarfatti's papers, i.e. Vol 126 of Fundamental Theories of Physics,

----- Original Message -----              

• From:* Gene Loscowski <mailto:gene.loscowski@gmailcom>

• To:* RICK DOTY <mailto:[email protected]>

• Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2005 16:38

*Subject:* Re: Thomas Mack         

Richard: All information pertaining to JROD

and the CR are still highly classified and I will not discuss,

not answer any questions regarding those two items.

Gene

Well Gene need not say more. He said it above. If Gene is for real, he is clearly admitteding by implication the reality of at least "J-ROD" as an alien ET. (see notes at end)

On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:

Does anyone know where Corum is today?

ISR pulled all reference to Corum off their site following the NASA BPP shutdown, which was the same time that the Ning Li antigravity contract ended, in Fall 2002 as I recall?

Dan should know that I likely 'remote viewed' most of this material prior to tracking it down on the web. Based on the RV'ing there is some connection to a WMD triggering mechanism for small portable H-bombs. Hal Puthoff confirmed that the Shoulder's research implied basically the same idea, regardless of the correct underlying theory for EVO (exotic vacuum objects) and Paul Werbos at NSF commented that the Russians had been looking into devices based upon magnetic monopoles or dyons. Monopole-like events are reported by the same French-Russian cold fusion researchers that apply the EVO idea to their fusion theory. There is a connection to the Fondation Louis de Broglie.

http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/presentation.html

This is perhaps connected to the Vigier theory of the extended electron mentioned by Jack?

Probably. I have now proved that the electron is extended spatially into a micro-geon like Vigier assumed. That's what the dark energy core does. Also it is a simple way to understand quark-confinement in SU(3) QCD.

There is also the curious report in Popular Mechanics based upon the interview with cold fusion reporter Eugene Mallove that mentions the cold fusion h-bombs.

Dangerous Science	 

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

"Although explosions have from time to time occurred in cold fusion apparatus (see "Two Deaths And Two Mysteries"), these devices would not be incorporated directly into nuclear weapons. Instead, cold fusion cells could, with minimal effort and expense, be used to provide a supply of much-needed tritium. It is difficult to speculate about how much gas they would have to produce since the size of the nation's tritium reserve and the current production of civilian power reactors is, for obvious reasons, a closely guarded secret.

Even if the tritium production from some of these devices proves to be too small to be significant for America's H-bomb production needs, a positive review from the new DOE cold fusion evaluation committee will move this controversial field of research back into the scientific mainstream. Cold fusion researchers are rightly excited by this possibility. Among other things they are hopeful that Science and Nature, the two leading international science journals, will begin publishing results of their cold fusion research. But this time their dream must be tempered with the fearsome new reality of international terrorism. Mallove told PM that scores of cold fusion experiments have revealed the production of enriched uranium, plutonium and tritium. If, as much of this research suggests, cold fusion can be used to produce weapons-grade materials, terrorists will have the ability to unleash destructive force previously available only to the world's major nuclear powers. The same tabletop devices that fulfill mankind's dream of creating unlimited quantities of cheap power may also be the source of the world's greatest nightmare: homemade H-bombs in the hands of terrorists bent on ending civilization."

Gary S Bekkum Starstream Research

Original Message -----

From: Jack Sarfatti To: Dan Smith Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:48 PM Subject: UFO Manhattan Project in West Virginia?

On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:

Off the record quote from Director X at a US Government Agency:

[What is the WMD potential from a causal de Broglie 'double-solution' realist quantum theory]

"...if it turns out to be the critical clue that tells us how to manipulate magnetic monopoles or dyons...there is some Russian work saying that could be used to catalyze baryon decay...

Let me translate.

Efficient, fast baryon decay would imply the ability to use ANY earth matter as a nuclear fuel, with 1,000 times as much energy produced per gram of nuclear fuel as we now have with fission or fusion. I think I understand why there was some Russian interest in that, dating back to Sakharov...

But -- it would be speculative to imagine this would be any more of a WMD threat, say, than tokomak research. Who knows? WAY too early to know. Even if it happens, which is also speculative..."

Meanwhile, Dr. Jack Sarfatti has written a review related to so-called torsion weapons:

This note is based on the recent torsion-gauge theory paper of the Brazilians Arcos and Pereira “Torsion Gravity: A Reappraisal” of Jan 2, 2005 on the Cornell Archive clears up some loose ends still hanging from the torsion propulsion workshop at ISSO in 2000 prior to Vigier IV at UCB where we looked the work of Kleinert in Berlin, Hammond in North or South Dakota?, Shipov in Moscow and Bangkok and Tesla expert Jim Corum (who left SARA and went to work for Senator Robert Byrd's ISR think tank in West Virginia before disappearing into a black hole :-)),

[see "Vanishing Trail of Jim Corum"]

...but came to no clear conclusion on the Russian claims (e.g. Akimov) of advanced torsion field propellantless propulsion and exotic space weapons systems. The considerations below are independent of the Brazilian’s claim that torsion and curvature describe the same dynamics from alternative force and geometrodynamic complementary views. I do not like that idea at all, but time will tell.

Gary S Bekkum Starstream Research

On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:25 PM, cosifan wrote: John, we weren't talking about 0-2s. We were talking about 0-4s and 0-6s.....Rmc

[email protected] wrote: Sorry but I think that's 0-2. The Navy does have a Lt. Commander (0-4) and Commader (0-5) all the time. A Captain (0-6) is not a flag officer.

The issue is the use of Commodore, which is equivalent to a Brigadier General in other services, is only used in war time. The Navy flag officers start with Rear Admiral, but they may have either one or two stars. These are called lower or upper half respectively. When refereing to a Rear Admiral one cannot be sure of his ranK unless you know it.

John Alexander

Sent: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:56:28 -0700 Subject: Thomas Mack on Danny B Crain, NOT Danny R Crain,... who's for REAL?!

1 of 2 Attached Message From: cosifan <[email protected]> To: Green, Christopher <[email protected]> Cc: RICK DOTY <[email protected]>; Gene Loscowski <[email protected]>; Hal Puthoff <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Thomas Mack Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:59:48 -0400 Confusing? Not the way it is now, a Lieutenant Commander is an 0-4. So, the Crain at DIA retired as an 0-4. Danny Benjamin Crain, not Danny R. Crain was an 0-6. Is Danny Benjamin Crain now Burisch the great hoaxer?.....Rmc

Pay Grade: O4 [Image removed] Lieutenant Commander (LCDR)

Green, Christopher wrote: This has always been an arcane and confusing area:

A NAVY "Captain" wears the Eagles of an 06 in the Army and Air Force...a full "Bird Colonel" ...but ranks as a one-start (Brigadier) which isn't a real rank in the Navy...

So for protocol...on bases that are shared, or when cross-visited...a Navy Captain gets a one-star flag on the car, a one-star parking place, billet, and so on.

The reason is historical; the "extra" rank of a Lt. Col level...an 05...in the Army and Air Force (separated after the WWII...the reason for all this) in the NAVY is called "Lt. Commander" and never is used except in War.

Yeah, the issue of pay grades vs. ranks is a curious one. When I was in the army, we had a chart on the wall of battalion HQ which compare the ranks of the four major services: army, navy, air force and marines. I think Wikipedia has some reference info about this somewhere. Uncle Ed 10:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JackSarfatti,

For you to know for the future, Wikipedia has a policy against editing under different account names–or anonymously–while your editing privileges have been suspended by a Wikipedia administrator.

71.139.97.67 (talk · contribs) appears to have been used by you to make several edits during the time that you were blocked. (Several statements made by this editor were signed as you.) Please don't do this should you be blocked in the future; you may communicate through Wikipedia email or through your Talk page here.

I'm glad you've had a chance to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and standards. Hopefully this marks a new start for you as a productive editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea of what you mean? :-) If I signed them, then obviously I was not blocked, was I? Take up this matter with Uncle Ed and Jimbo because I really do not understand what you are talking about here and I am too old to try to learn. It is a minor issue and I am too busy to try to figure out what you saying. :-)

[Jack Sarfatti}

If you can call me on the phone as soon as you wake up on a Monday morning (while I'm busy in my time zone), you're not too busy to learn a simple convention or two.

Try signing your remarks with 4 tildes, to create a signature timestamp:

~~~~

That's how I'm able to sign like this: Uncle Ed 19:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent of all charges

OK I see what you mean. But you are simply wrong in your facts. Uncle Ed and Jimbo had unblocked me then. :-)

[Jack Sarfatti]

Please try not to break up signed comments made by other editors; it's confusing to follow who made which comments on a talk page. It's particularly confusing if you insert section breaks like the 'innocent of all charges' note. I've reassembled my comment for clarity. It is also helpful to use indenting when replying to other editors; again, it adds to clarity. A colon before a paragraph causes it to be indented. The text below

:One indent
::Two indents
:::Three indents

Looks like

One indent

Two indents

Three indents

The edits I was referring to were made while you were logged out, so they appear as the contributions of the anonymous user with your IP address: Special:Contributions/71.139.97.67. Those edits were made between approximately two and three in the morning on October 18 (I'm guessing you're on Eastern Daylight Time.) Your user account, User:JackSarfatti, wasn't unblocked by Ed Poor until ten o'clock this morning: (link to block log). Please be careful in the future, that's all I'm asking. If you have been blocked by an admin, wait for the block to expire or be lifted until you edit again, even anonymously. Carry on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack lives in San Francisco, so he's on Pacific Daylight Time, three hours earlier. --Calton | Talk 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also I work fast, multi-task - I have other things to do and SIMPLY FORGOT to log in. Nothing intentional there. Jack 2:24 PM Oct 19, 2005 San Francisco

Hey, did you know you can sign your posts automatically by ending your posts with ~~~~? That makes a link to your userpage and adds a handy time/date tag. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Jack Sarfatti ?

Try this. Type this into your talk page...

Hi! My name is Jack Sarfatti, and I like pie! ~~~~

It'll show up like this.

Hi! My name is Jack Sarfatti, and I like pie! JackSarfatti 02:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make sense? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you read my comments in the Hilbert space talk page about your article on Hilbert space not being good. If want to know why I think why your article isn't good, I included a quote of wrong information already in the talk page, quod vide. -23:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean "Hamilton formulated a new description of classical mechanics which was eventually housed in an infinite-dimensional phase space. In this space, a point represents the entire physical system." ?

What's wrong with that? I am not saying phase space is Hilbert space. Is that what you assumed? In any case that statement hardly makes me a "crackpot". The phase space of classical fields is infinite.

What's wrong with that? I am not saying phase space is Hilbert space. Is that what you assumed? In any case that statement hardly makes me a "crackpot". The phase space of classical fields is infinite. Looking at Lethe's page he seems to be a mathematician with the typical arrogance mathematicians have toward theorertical physicists and vice versa. Feynman referred to their penchant for "rigor mortis" that is evident in Lethe's remarks here. I have a PhD in physics from the University of California BTW. Lethe seems to be part of John Baez's clique trying to take over the Internet Math/Physics which explains his "crackpot" remark since John Baez has held a personal grudge against me for more than ten years including spreading a false story about me and Gell-Mann, which never happened. What Baez did do was to garble a story Ed Siegel told me about him and Gell-Mann. Baez simply substituted my name where Ed Siegel's should have been. Jack Sarfatti JackSarfatti 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)![reply]

I guess you're not addressing me here? -

Talk

02:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure I am. Jack Sarfatti JackSarfatti 03:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)![reply]

Well why do you say "Lethe is this, Lethe is that"? I know what I am, and don't need to be told. Furthermore, I am accustomed to being addressed in the second person when having a conversation. -

Talk

03:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Try using just one account, to avoid any confusion.

And email me again if you get blocked, but please try just to stick with your user:JackSarfatti account.

All the best. Uncle Ed 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been previously warned about making legal threats before, per

I have blocked this account pending withdrawal or resolution of the legal threats. -Willmcw 00:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted here that user meco requested unprotection of this page here on Jun 02 2006 and I denied the request. My reasoning is stated at that link, and repeated here: Sarfatti did, before the protection was placed, attempt to use this space as a soapbox. As he is indefblocked from editing, there should be no further reason why this page needs to be altered. Syrthiss 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]