Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp/Archive 1

Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	This article contains some passages that previously appeared in the corresponding wikipedia article. I was the original author of those passages there, so no "from wikipedia" disclaimer is necessary. George Swan 12:09, 11 April 2008 (CDT)
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

How much detail?

In another article one editor thought I had presented too much detail. It seemed to me that some other editors disagreed.

Editors and other Citizendium authors might think this article has too much detail, while agreeing that the level of detail in Uighur captives in Guantanamo was appropriate. I would really like to know people's opinions.

Cheers! George Swan 12:17, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

Hi George I have not been following the discussions relating to your articles so just point me to the right page if this has been discussed before. How much of this work is original research? I'm not sure at what point this is reporting news as opposed to documenting history. You seem to be very close to a line that I would consider journalism, or commentary, which does not seem to fit the role of an encyclopedia. Or does it? Chris Day 12:41, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

I think it's probably true that this looks a little like news, except that now most of it is old news -- isn't that history? Regarding original research, we never did get around to refining the crude WP prohibition that was brought into CZ initially. Now, there is some disquiet about prohibiting oriignal research, but we don't actually have any ground rules about what might be permitted...

AS far as detail is concerned, this looks fine to me. The pictures are interesting and relevant, and I have not seen them before. My only query is if this is the right page title, i.e. probably these should be on a subpage for an article on Guantanamo Bay [do we have one?] Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:17, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

Martin, thanks for your comments. Did you take a look at the table Chris moved to the catalog subpage? Do you think selected quotes of officers commenting on the captives's orange or white uniforms belongs in the main article? What about selected quotes of the captives' own comments?

FWIW reporters who are allowed to observe the military commissions are commenting on the colors of the captive's uniforms today. Omar Khadr is allowed to wear a white uniform, and live in Guantanamo camp four -- the camp for "compliant" captives. Mohammed Jawad, also a minor when he was captured, wears an orange uniform.

Cheers! George Swan 18:11, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

Chris, thanks for your feedback. The discussion I referred to was at Talk:Uighur captives in Guantanamo.

I am still confused by the various subpages, and what belongs in them. For instance.

You ask how much of this is original research? I dunno how to answer that question, because I am still trying to figure out what that means here. So far as I know the quotes from the captives' transcripts has only been published in their transcripts themselves. Over on another big wiki I believe these quotes would not be considered to lapse from its policy on "original research", because the quotes are not accompanied by a novel, unreferenced interpretation. They aren't accompanied by any interpretation at all.

If I am following what my correspondents here have been telling me, the Citizendium hasn't yet finalized a policy on original research. Would this example be a good candidate for discussion whereever contributors are discussing the wording of the policy? As a plain old regular author, not an editor, my input is still welcome in that discussion? Can you tell me where the discussion is taking place?

Cheers! George Swan 18:11, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

George, see the discussion at CZ Talk:Original Research Policy as well as take a look at the the original research section on the forums. I agree your articles can help us delineate what we want to consider as original research, and how to present information such as yours. In the meantime, you are progressing well as an author to present the information and let the editors work through exactly what it all means. Editors don't always have to agree, but given the right atmosphere, we hope they will eventually reach a solution that is tenable to everyone, including our authors. Keep up the good work. --D. Matt Innis 18:54, 11 April 2008 (CDT)/constable

Hi George, I guess your articles will be a learning experience for us all as we fine tune our raison d’etre and the usage of subpages. Chris Day 12:08, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

Use of orange jumpsuits during protests

The wikipedia article has a subsection on the use of orange jumpsuits during protests of conditions at the camp. It has a picture of a sculpture of a orange suited figure between to guard. If it can be uploaded here I will upload that picture, and ask other contributors for their opinion as to whether it is appropriate for use on this article.

I will ask the fellow who wrote that section to consider porting it here.

Cheers! George Swan 12:17, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

catalog

I moved the table to the catalog subpage since it fits that purpose perfectly. Chris Day 12:43, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

Guantanamo captives' uniforms

So punctuated (there's more than one captive with a uniform).

We ought to consider the word "captive" carefully and alternatives (e.g., prisoners, detainees). The names for controversial things to contain arguments. I don't make any claims here (and trust me, I won't!) but this does need some consideration.

CZ has no official policy about "how much detail is permitted." --Larry Sanger 19:55, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

My reaction is that the word "captive" carries less legal baggage than the alternative words, and is therefore less controversial. It is a straightforward description, whereas "detainees" implies a legal act of detention, "prisoners" implies that they are covered by the rules of the Geneva Convention, etc. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:23, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

Thanks, yes, of course, it should be captives' not captive's.

Rather than figuring out how much detail is permitted, I would rather figure out how much detail is welcome. I wouldn't want to try to contribute material that was generally regarded as unwelcome, even if it complied with the strict wording of the policies. I am not going to try to exploit any loopholes.

Martin has read my mind. I chose "captive" over "detainee" because I thought "detainee" implied that the captivity was both legal, and routine.

Some writers refer to the individuals in Guantanamo as "convicts". But to be a convict they should have been convicted of a crime. None of the individuals held there now has been convicted of anything. David Hicks was convicted and sentenced, following a plea bargain a year ago. He spent about two months there, after his conviction, prior to his transfer to Australia. He is the only individual held there who could be called a convict. Only 19 of the individuals held there have faced charges.

Internee is another possible term for the men held there.

I think some human rights workers make the case that the most accurate term for them is "kidnap victims". I chose "captive" over "internee" because it might turn out, that their captivity was not legal after all, and they have been basically "kidnap victims".

There was something Kafkaesque I noticed while reading transcripts from the first annual Administrative Review Board hearings. The officers sometimes remind some of the captives who offered completely credible sounding responses to all the allegations against them, that, while they acknowledge that the captive may have been an innocent victims of mistaken identity, when they were brought to Guantanamo, the Board members knew, for a certain fact, that the captive has now spent years hanging out with some very dangerous men, who hate America, and they have to make their recommendation as to whether it is safe to release them based on whether their captivity radicalized them, and turned them into an enemy, while in Guantanamo itself.

Cheers! George Swan 10:11, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

Well, "captive" has its own negative emotional overtones. I don't offhand have a substantially better term to suggest, though. And of course different words will weigh differently with different people - I would have felt "prisoner" was more neutral than either "captive" (on the one end) and "detainee" (on the other). (And to suggest that "prisoner" implies Geneva doesn't make any sense at all to me; people in police/civil custody are very often spoken of as "prisoners". It's "PoW" that implies Geneva.)

And the situation you describe is indeed Kafkaesque - but it may also be very real. Sigh, "fairness" and "life" aren't natural partners. J. Noel Chiappa 11:28, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

"prisoner" may seem a neutral term, but is in fact laden with subtexts. Only when it is clearly a criminal act [e.g. the holding of a person against his will by an individual or a non-state organisation] does the word escape some of those connotations. Otherwise, "prisoner" implies either the holding of persons by a state within a prison, carried out within the rule of domestic law; or, it implies a prisoner of war, as described by the Geneva Convention. The persons being detained in Guantanamo were captured in foreign countries without any legal authority and are being detained illegally, although there appears to be no legal remedy thus far. Since "captive" has no legal implications, the word is ideal. And yes, it has negative emotional undertones: these are to be expected from a situation that is deliberately flouting the rule of law and denying basic human rights by locating the prison in Cuba. Are we expected to avoid making legitimate statements about the political decisions of the US administration? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:13, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

All terms have subtexts (for different people, as Noel observes). I only want to state, as Editor-in-Chief and in clarification of our policies, that our neutrality policy requires us to choose a word that persons from ideologically/politically different positions can agree to, or disagree least with. If "captive" will do, well done, George; I leave you (all) to determine the facts. --Larry Sanger 12:42, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Original research concerns

With all due respect, on their face, Mr. Swan's entire series of articles appears to be original research and does not belong here but his own personal blog or other website, until it can be traditionally published. Stephen Ewen 23:23, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

This is not CZ policy as I understand it. He is not offering new theories, or making claims that challenge traditional disciplines, therefore the content is original information as opposed to original research. See the recently revised CZ policy guide on original research: I think this sort of material fits in with those guidelines and is appropriate for CZ. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:11, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Steve, this is a serious allegation, and should not be made briefly or casually. If you make such a claim, you should explain, in a lot more than one sentence, on what grounds you make it. On a quick glance, the present article appears to be based on the sources stated in the notes. Do you think there are some claims that it makes that are not substantiated and purport to be based on, for example, original first-hand observations of George Swan? That's what I would take "original research" to mean. --Larry Sanger 12:46, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

I can hardly believe what I am hearing. Based on what you have just spoken, Larry, anyone can make "observations" about the world and come here and publish them at Citizendium. No need to first publish them in academic journals, books, or magazine articles, just give them to Citizendium! But if this sort of article can stand, then I have a whole series of articles, complete with photos, that I can publish here about Haiti - my "observations" conducted within Haiti. But I would not actually bypass traditional publishing to do that, of course. George has, and is being encouraged to do so. Stephen Ewen 14:06, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Steve, I am now wearing my Editor-in-Chief hat: please answer my question. Please do not turn this around on me or anyone else. Let's have a dialogue. I am not "laying down the law" by asking you a question. :-) --Larry Sanger 15:14, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Not encouraged by all, see my points above. Clearly these articles are going to lead to a big discussion on where the boundaries lie. I have to say than at the beginning of this debate I side more with Stephen than Martin. Chris Day 14:18, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

This project is going to be filled, indeed overwhelmed with cruft, unless there is a stricter criteria for what gets included. Stephen Ewen 14:20, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

I fail to understand what "observations" are being discussed here. These are recorded facts [from the US government!] which are not widely publicised, although they do need to be put into some sort of enyclopedia framework. Richard has made some contributions to that; I have argued for details not to be lost, since this is a major issue of our time. There are no new claims being made about international law or sovereignty: if there were, I am sure they would be made with reference to published literature. So, I repeat Larry's apposite question: what original observations are being made here? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:04, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

I think what's being objected to are the articles' titles, how the content is arranged (the format), and the prose. I think I would be okay with the content were it better accounted for (different titles, written narratively, not just thrown together). --Robert W King 15:07, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

That's fine, Robert. Let's start over, then. If you or Steve have a specific objection, then what precisely is it? Imagine that you are issuing an indictment. What are the charges and what is the evidence, please? --Larry Sanger 15:17, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Well, those are my objections. It's being presented very bloggish, specific, sectional. Most of this stuff should be in an article about Guantanamo Bay, not standing on their own. I think the appearance of original research comes from the fact that most of what's written is based on sole analysis, when it should be corroborated with other primary sources. --Robert W King 15:21, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

OK. If that's all you can say, here is my official answer as Editor-in-Chief: not enough information from the person making the objection. Over and out. --Larry Sanger 15:35, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Haha, well I agree that the presentation of material can probably be improved, but that it is not an issue of original research. The problem with preparing an article on Guantanamo Bay is that that actually might end up looking like original research. Maybe Richard would like to comment on the possibility of using existing sources to prepare such an article? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:49, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Stephen, I am willing to take your concerns seriously, and I am going to take them in the spirit of a good faith attempt to address what you see as a problem.

You mentioned a concern over a series of articles I started. Would it make sense for me to ask you to share your concerns about other articles I started, either on their talk pages, or in some central place, like CZ Talk:Original Research Policy?

With regard to your suggestion that this material belongs in an article about Guantanamo Bay... I asked for guidance, above, about how much detail the existing contributors would welcome here. Now, in my opinion, there is far more worthwhile material here than would fit in a single article. Someone above referred to this material as "cruft". If everyone could agree on what was "cruft" we could establish a "no-cruft" policy, and be done with it.

I recognize I am the newbie. I recognize that I am contributing material on controversial topics. I respect that some people may view this material on the war on terror may as unwelcome here, even if it doesn't lapse from compliance from policy. If an overwhelming number of people found it unwelcome I think it would be in the Citizendium's interest to formalize policies that laid out for contributors what material was and wasn't welcome.

With regard to the concern that this material was not previously "traditionally published". It was published by the Department of Defense, and has been available on their website for over two years. Back when the Department of Defense first published the documents they were cited by thousands of newspapers. Granted, I am not aware of the Department of Defense publishing these documents on paper. Is that what you meant by "traditionally"? Are you suggesting that if the material published on paper it could be used as a reference here?

Thanks! George Swan 17:39, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

George: the decision was made by the Editor-in-Chief (and I agree completely) that this material does not constitute original research, as defined in the latest CZ policy guidelines. Several other issues that might be pertinent are Neutrality Policy and maintainability. The CZ neutrality policy you are aware of; maintainability should not be an issue, as the material of of interest to a large number of people. Therefore, your material is unequivocally welcome on CZ; comments from other authors or editors to the contrary are in breach of CZ professionalism rules. You will note that the Constrabulary has removed one such comment.

We do have to worry about the presentation of material, however. I still think that an article is needed on Guantanamo Bay, but from the comment made below by Richard Jensen it looks to me that this would be so controversial that it is not possible to start one. Political opinions on the matter may well be the cause of some negative responses to your work here. Please do not be discouraged. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:35, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Martin, just to clarify, I have not decided that there is no original research issue here; I have only said that those making the accusation have not made their case in anything like an adequately clear or detailed fashion. Moreover, I urge them not to raise further serious accusations of this sort unless they are prepared to back them up with specifics, and stated in as professional a way as possible. For example, they could state which sentences they believe are the result of original research, and what they mean when they say that those sentences were the result of original research. Until they do something like that, we are not obligated to read their minds as to what they might be thinking. From my own quick perusal, I do not see any obvious original research problem here; but I remain open to rational persuasion, as I dare say most of us are.

Also, everyone, do please refrain from any comments about the merits of other people's remarks, as these are inherently flame-bait and liable to be removed in the same way that similar remarks might be blocked by the moderators of certain moderated mailing lists; cf. the {{nocomplaints}} template.

Finally, everyone, thanks for your ongoing patience and forebearance...  :-) --Larry Sanger 21:09, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Constabulary note

There has been a decision made by the Editor in Chief above concerning the status of original research on this page. Any further discussion concerning original research needs to move to the CZ Talk:Original Research Policy page or to the forums. Otherwise, please keep this discussion page related to specific ideas concerning this article. --D. Matt Innis 17:48, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Poor article

This is a poor quality article based on undigested raw materials. It seems unaware of issues of prison discpline and reward/penalty systems, and seems unaware of the large literature on that topic in criminology. It's proof that articles have to be based on expert evidence. Richard Jensen 18:32, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

I find this to be a very strange comment, since it implies that there is somehow a rational justification for the activties in Guantanamo Bay. If someone expert on the Third Reich and its camps were to present a comparative analysis, I have little doubt that many people would object to that. I do not believe that conventional criminology would have much to offer us, as I am slightly familiar with the discipline.

Actually, above I asked you (Richard) if we are able to prepare an article on Guantanamo Bay. If your answer is that we need an expert on prisons, then I suppose we cannot. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:20, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

As for the Nazi camps, actually I wrote the only CZ article on that subject, as well as most of the CZ material on the Third Reich. An article on Guantanamo would be welcome if the author studies first some of the rather large corpus of literature on the subject written by numerous experts. Martin Baldwin-Edwards criticizes CZ authors a lot but that puts me in mind of a rule among history journal editors: do not send a book for review to a person who has not written a book, for their expectations of what books should be like are much too high. If Martin tried his hand at the Guantanamo article it will give some perspective on the problems CZ authors face and I promise not to criticize his efforts too harshly. :) Richard Jensen 21:48, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Richard, you have expressed the concern that I seem to be contributing material without reading the commentary of experts first. For the record I believe I have consulted the commentary of experts. The school of law at the University of Pittsburg publishes a journal called "The Jurist". It has covered Guantanamo extensively. And I have read just about every article on Guantanamo published there. I have read all the studies published by the legal scholars at Seton Hall University, and the rebutal published out of West Point. I have many other articles I think you would regard as written by experts.

Now, if there are some other specific articles you think I should have read, please don't hesitate to offer specific references. George Swan 01:45, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

While acknowledging I am not a subject field expert in criminology, I would like to point out that it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that Guantanamo is not a prison, that the individuals being held there aren't being punished, and aren't being rehabilitated.

Does that mean a criminologist's input wouldn't be very useful? Of course not.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that an article can't be worthwhile, if it merely provides a neutral, referenced beginning for a topic, if it lacks the analysis of subject field experts?

Cheers! George Swan 01:27, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

At the moment, I do not have much spare time to engage seriously in such a difficult topic as Guantanamo Bay. We should also note that we need articles on Rendition, extraordinary rendition and probably something on G. W. Bush and the US "War on Terror" before we can write the Guantanamo article. This is something that experienced editors can do alongside the invaluable expertise of George Swan. I do agree, Richard, that some historical perspective is needed on these articles, in order to make sense of much of the information. However, that perspective requires spending quite some time finding and reading the appropriate material. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:33, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

This is an interesting discussion and thanks for moving it in the direction of a meaningful dialogue. I think we should encourage people, however, to work on whatever articles they want to, whenever they want to. More is done, and done efficiently, on a wiki that way--even if it means we must rewrite some articles when a new, related article arrives. Of course, I think we need articles on all of these topics. --Larry Sanger 09:52, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

Color coding

The article tells us nothing about the uniforms at all except that "Captives who were regarded as "compliant" were issued white uniforms; captives who were regarded as "non-compliant" were issued orange uniforms." Rather minimal info and the article shows an unawareness that the practice of color coding prisoner uniforms goes back over 100 years (see this article for proof) and the orange/white/blue jump suits have been standard in prisons for years as well (and standard in some civilian roles too.) Unaware for example of the IRA prisoners in UK and how they protested (by going naked.) What we have here is a trivial stub that is mistitled and falls far below the CZ standards of quality research. Richard Jensen 21:28, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

I wonder whether some of the missing material that triggers Richard's concern is in the material that was moved to the catalog subpage? The captives and the officers comment on the significance of the color of the captive's uniform. From reading the transcripts a reader might conclude that at least some of the officers regarded the color of the captives' uniforms as significant, and that it played a big role in whether they recommended release.

On the other hand some captive's testimony, and some human rights critics, suggest that the assignment and re-assignment of uniforms can be arbitrary. Some captives have suggested that their behavior had generally been good, but that they had been blocked from being regarded as "compliant" by a few bad reports from guards who took an unfair dislike to them.

Does anyone have any objection to my copying a few selected quotes from the catalog page back to the main page, to start to address some of Richard's concerns?

Cheers! George Swan 22:52, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

I think George is pretty well mixed up on the issue. He thinks that color causes behavior not the other way around. In any case the article is about clothing not about behavior, and apart from color it says almost nothing about the clothing. He needs to study what prisoners wear in the US and EU before he rushes to judgment. Dealing with raw historical data like this is difficult for experts -- we train history grad students for 7-10 years in grad school in how to do it before we call them experts, and we would send this article back and tell them to do some serious reading first before writing an encyclopedia article.Richard Jensen 00:11, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Well, I agree that some other reference points are needed before being able to interpret the information about Guantanamo. From a purely theoretical standpoint (as I know nothing about uniform and colour coding in prison settings) you might expect that a simple system of coding according to behaviour would have implementation problems or even break down. This is because of human behaviour, such that there would be some sort of feedback effect (e.g. colour causes behaviour) rather than purely the intended mechanisms. It is a good idea to look for material on comparable settings, because as Richard notes, it is difficult to interpret primary material. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:24, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Richard, wrote:

"I think George ... thinks that color causes behavior not the other way around."

1. Richard, are you saying you think I believe that captives broke the camp's internal rules simply because they were issued orange uniforms? If so, I am frankly mystified how you arrived at this conclusion. I do not believe I wrote anything to support this conclusion. And, I assure that I don't hold this view.
2. Are you merely saying that we should not accept, at face value, any protestation from orange clad captives that they too had been compliant, and didn't deserve to be stuck in an orange uniform? If so I completely agree we shouldn't take the protestations of innocence at face value.
3. Are you saying you believe all the documents that say the white uniform signifies compliant behavior should be discounted, and that the DoD has some other real policy for how it determines which color uniforms the captives are issued? Granted this is a possibility. Granted I am not a professional historian, or even a gifted history student. But my non-expert reading of the documents is that they don't support this conclusion. I accept that you are a professional historian, and I accept that you may be able to see evidence for hidden policies that are not evident to an amateur, like myself.

Richard, I do my best to treat your concerns with respect. I know you are a widely published academic. I am completely confident you are correct that it takes years of hard work at grad school to turn gifted undergrads into professional historians. I wouldn't dream of pretending that I am a professional historian, or that I could even match my analysis skills with those of a gifted undergrad minoring in history.

However, I think there is a surface meaning to all the DoD documents which say that "compliant" captives are issued white uniforms. I think there is a surface meaning to the captives' confirmation that the policy was that they were issued white uniforms to signify they were being rewarded for their good behaviour. I think there is a surface meaning to the officers sitting on the Boards and Tribunals congratulating captives for being rewarded with white uniforms, or alternatively, asking them what they did to deserve being stuck in an orange uniform.

Now, as I have told you on your talk page, on this talk page, and on Talk:Uighur captives in Guantanamo, I am the newbie here. As I have told you, several times already, I am still trying to figure out the relative roles of authors and editors here. I want to be deferential. I want to be open to the possibility that I may be told I am not being sufficiently deferential to the structure here.

But, if there is a surface meaning to the documents I read may I assume that the author/editor hierarchy does not oblige me to abandon the surface meaning of the documents on faith? May I assume that an author is entitled to ask a limited number of civil questions when an editor states a conclusion without explaining how they came to that conclusion?

Cheers! George Swan 09:50, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Richard, I try my best to fully understand the points of view of those who have concerns over my contributions. Would it be possible for you to take the time to spell out for me which passages I put in article space triggered your concern they were "rushed judgments"? Thanks! George Swan 09:59, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Color does cause behavior; there's a famous study I believe done by 3M years ago that determined productivity and workplace attitude was affected by the color. I may try to find it; someone correct me if I am wrong. --Robert W King 10:22, 15 April 2008 (CDT)

Recommend merging this into main Guantanamo camp article

This really has no meaning outside the context of Guantanamo, so why is it a separate article? There were a number of quotations embedded in footnotes, and I moved them into the text.

There are also a disproportionate number of pictures with unusually long captions. This is not a place to make speeches.

Unless there is a strong objection in a week or so, I'm going to merge this into the larger article. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I have absolutely no objection to what you want to do to clean up biased, or agenda-driven stuff, or to make it all more comprehensible (the major goal) within an overall framework -- just as long as vital articles such as Ken Rosewall and the art of the Eastern Backhand Grip don't vanish mysteriously into Talk pages because of their obviously biased slants, hehe. Anyway, how much can one friggin' polymath do?! You must type (and THINK) at a trillion words per minute! Take a break, man! Go feed yer cats. Or go buy their food. (I used to buy 10 cans each of 10 varieties of Fancy Feast [I think] for my one "The Beast", then rotate them strictly.... Hayford Peirce 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)