User talk:Yerranos

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Yerranos!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

I'm surprised you don't have one of these yet. Welcome to the Dollhouse! ħψɱɐUser talk:Human 15:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, greetings, Yerranos. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Your website...[edit]

Needs an editor. Badly. You're making yourself and your co-religionists look like a bunch of idiots.PFoster 19:47, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd submit a quote from that mess to FSTDT, but I can't pick one—just about everything you say on that site is horrifying. --transResident Transfanform! 19:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I don't know what "FSTDT" is. What is it? Some liberal censorship organization? --Yerranos 20:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I, too, briefly sojourned your wiki way, and was similarly unimpressed by some of the writing I encountered. Also, your list of questions to challenge atheists with was, to say the least, horribly burdened by two things - one, my not caring about most of your vital questions, and two, inherent assumptions in many of them rendering them moot. Fundamentalists say the darnedest things, don't they? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)


Considering that they're based on logical fallacies (many of them beg the question) and a tragic misunderstanding of what atheism actually, I probably couldn't answer those questions. --transResident Transfanform! 20:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I read your questions. You're dumber than a sack of hammers any given Conservapedia sysop.PFoster 20:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I tried to start, but the majority are not, in fact, questions.--Bobbing up 03:18, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Sadly, I've got nothing better to do. Answers, as best as I could. (Note, I am an Agnostic, so perhaps I don't count?)

  1. Your law argument is inapplicable - evidence is the "deciding factor."
  2. You seem to think that all atheists are a single person. Some hate all theists and say it has no right to exist. Some do not. Do all people who fall under a specific umbrella have to agree on all points? Hint: no, they do not.
  3. Because that's not the way evidence works.
  4. It does not take more faith to believe in evolution, because evolution is based on evidence. You have based this question on an inaccurate statement, meaning there can be no answer.
  5. This is not a question. Moreover, as a statement, it makes no sense.
  6. This is also not a question. Moreover, it is completely ludicrous. I'm beginning to regret this.
  7. You work many misconceptions into one question. Not even touching your views on homosexuality, A) you clearly misunderstood "humans evolving from apes" B) we don't "banish" people for not "advancing" the evolutionary process C) eugenics and racism are not a part of evolution.
  8. This is also not a question. Your demands become more ridiculous as your list goes on. Please see the above comments about different people within the same group having different opinions.
  9. NAQ (not a question). This statement makes no sense. Are you saying that children should not be allowed to think for themselves so they won't disagree with their parents?
  10. NAQ, and more to the point, not an issue atheists have to deal with
  11. Half a question. You suggest atheism is pro-racism, but that doesn't make it true. You seem to think that, without god, nothing is able to be judged. This belief is false.
  12. NAQ, atheists don't believe in hell.
  13. NAQ, and are you really a part of the "back to the kitchen" movement?
  14. NAQ, but I'll let this one slide. Children do not need indoctrination, and it is the responsibility of the school to not promote any single religion. You would be encroaching on the rights of the children and the freedom of religion of non-christian families. What happens to the Hindu child who doesn't believe? Ostricizing can be both mentally and physically harmful.
  15. NAQ, there is no contradiction between not believing in god and believing in the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. One is a supernatural belief (hint:god) and the other is a natural possibility. Oh, and putting artificial limits on a person's answer is stacking the deck.
  16. NAQ, I don't agree with your premise, so I view your conclusion as flawed. In other words, cut this "if" crap that presumes half the answer.
  17. No, "godsight" is not a genetic trait.
  18. All people are the products of evolution. You are not special, or in any way superior to anyone else.
  19. A series of NAQs - atheists are able, and many produce great analysis and critique of said book. As for your Hitler bunk, please see here for the fallacy you present.
  20. NAQ. Not enough information. Am I the leader of the atheist society? Why are the Christians invading? Is there a peaceful solution? Could this question be any vaguer?
  21. NAQ. Your question is based on a fallacy. Atheists do speak out against those religions. It may not appear to you because you are not one of those religions. If you live in the US, those religions are minorities, and most often, they aren't trying to force their beliefs on others.
  22. NAQ. I believe you "asked" this one before. At any rate, your comparison is invalid.
  23. NAQ. LOADED with fallacies here. You assume all christians keep the Ten Commandments in every way at all times, which is so laughably untrue I can hardly continue. Your characterization of atheists is almost true, until you reach the "whatever their sensuality carried them to do." This is not true about atheists. There are people who do bad things on both sides, and until you realize that, your reasoning will always be hamstringed in diatribes like this one. Moreover "worse" in what? You need to be more specific.
  24. Surely when people lay aside their morals, this results in immorality, but you've built up a dichotomy that does not equal "christian v. atheist." Atheists have morals, they just don't view them as sent from god. Surely you don't think a christian has never "laid aside morals?" Why am I even answering these questions? Your obvious attempts to snipe and attack are getting tiresome.
  25. You again reveal a remarkable misunderstanding of the views of the people you obviously hate. Considering we are animals, would you like to be held to a lower standard? Is that what you're shooting for? Personally, I believe our human reasoning and consciousness should mean we are held to a higher standard, and should want to be held to a higher standard.
  26. Really? Working on Sunday? That's what sets you apart? And I suppose there's never been a gay christian. And no christians have ever committed adultery. Oh wait, there it is, "ANY true Bible..." Your plausible deniability. Guess what, you don't have the right to disown one of your members every time they do something wrong. For example, have you ever lied? Yes, I guarantee it. Whoops, looks like you ain't christian no more.
  27. False dichotomy. I suppose you think it's impossible for there to be no hell and still not murder someone. If the only reason you, personally, are not murdering people is because you believe in an eternal punishment, you are not a good person. A good person would do the right thing regardless of punishment or reward.
  28. NAQ. Again, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. We've been over this already. People don't lose their "human" card for acts of inhumanity. They're still yours, deal with it.
  29. NAQ and totally out of left field. Is this really an "atheist" question? I didn't hear a lot of christian groups extolling the virtues of Michael Vick.
  30. We apparently have to take your word that god is somehow unquestionable (because god hasn't said anything about it to me). What makes you and what you say "above questioning"? Moreover, at the risk of answering a question with a question: Why not? Does your god hate curiosity? If god did exist, what would be the harm in trying to understand him better?

I doubt you really wanted answers, but there they are. Enjoy. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Excellently done, Arcan, I couldn't be bothered after reading the first one or two ridiculous assertions. All credit to your staying power. SusanG  ContribsTalk 05:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, you got further than me.--Bobbing up 05:31, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Ten Commandments[edit]

Looking at your site, you seem to be pretty interested in the Ten commandments and feel that they should form the basis of law. You might be interested in our Ten commandments article which shows why this would be a very bad idea.--Bobbing up 03:22, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Interesting Quote from the site: "ATHEISM is synonymous to DEMOCRACY. DEMOCRACY is synonymous to EVIL." (in "Atheism Equals Error") The site's a laugh from start to finish! SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:21, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Sticking strictly to the Ten Commandments, my favourite is VII which, according to Youranus prohibits marital relationship between a man with a women who is married to another man but not the other way around. I'm not sure if this means that single women are free to screw all the married men they want (and presumably married men screw all the single women they want - I'm sure my wife will understand!) or whether, in Youranus's eyes, such behaviour is inconceivable. Silver Sloth 06:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Interesting List[edit]

"Christians are moral because they fear hell" We atheists do it out of common sense

"Thou shalt not kill" applies to citizens

20 ways for children to please God

A few American abuses


Americans, You can not force democracy on me!

Atheism Atheism Equals Error

Atheism is derogative

Atheism is incapable of denouncing racism, murder, or any other sin

Atheistic "Wisdom" is Foolishness Atheistic Misconceptions

Atheistic Wisdom is Foolishness

Atheists Know God Exist Atheists MUST worship satan

Atheists are FOOLS


Can atheists live a moral life?

Child Discipline

Citizens for the Ten Commandments

Confounded Contradictions

Death penalty


Democracy causes the innocent to die

Do we have the right to choose who shall die and who shall not? Evolution

Evolution is not science nor fact

Fake Christians

Free will

God doesn't love everyone

Green "stuff" in American society

Hate Exist With Love

History of atheists is a history of repeated evils


I challenge you atheists


Jury duty is wrong

Little baby boy recalls his abortion

Man CANNOT rule himself

Moral Decline

Moral Decline of the World

New Holocaust

No absolute freedom

No freedom to sin

One Truth, Real Truth


Paul did not preach democracy


Population Control

Practicing Christian, or False Christian?

Prevalent Misconceptions

Pro-Justice, Pro Death-penalty

Psalms condemns democracy

Questions for those professing atheism


Righteousness, the Standard of Measurement

Satan loves passive "Christians"

Sentiments opposing the death-penalty

Sentiments opposing the death-penalty/Debunking

Separation of church and state

Ten Commandments

Ten Commandments in Public Schools

The Bible

The Ten Commandments

Thou shalt not kill applies to citizens

Two teens: Which would result in the better citizen?

Two teens: Which would result in the better citizen?/Brian

Two teens: Which would result in the better citizen?/James

USA Constitution Preamble is False

USA constitution

USA constitution bears part guilt of Colorado school tragedy

Verses that condemn democracy

Voices supporting the death penalty

Why do atheists insist that God does not exist?

Yerranos's article list.

Don't ask! SusanG  ContribsTalk 03:41, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't believe it![edit]

I can't believe that you guys (& gal) wasted so much time on this. Jollyfish.gifGenghisIs the Pope a Catholic? 05:14, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's nice not to just leave things without a response.--Bobbing up 05:30, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Neither can I, Genghis! What a load of $%!$*%. (But you must have wasted some time or else you wouldn't have realised what a waste of time it was! :-P SusanG  ContribsTalk 05:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Surely a parody, no? Bondurant 05:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't tell me that Poe's Law has struck again!!--Bobbing up 05:39, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
To be fair, my answers were just something to focus on during a minor bout of insomnia. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Its most likely a parody, but everybody's doing it. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 06:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
The name Yerranos is suspiciously close to Your Anus which suggests parody but only a true nutter would expend that much energy in creating the Wiki, surely? Silver Sloth 06:45, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


1. a)Depends on which reason the christian is said to be wrong. b)Under such "law" (which is a really crappy one by the way) then yes. c)Differences beetween "races" of people are pretty much negligible, either way, common sense has more to do with cultural context and personal experiences, something we would label "common sense" today such as going out on a stormy day with a large, metal pole raised high in the air would have been the spearhead of physics a few centuries ago. d) Depends on which "law" I'm using, and then I would explain why when I use it. e) I can't with complete certainty.

2. Just because its dangerous doesn't mean it should be illegal.

3. Proof of something is not required when there is no evidence for the opposite claim and the burden of proof rests on said claim.

4. Faulty premise, evolution doesn't require faith at all.

5. Not a question, and doesn't make sense. It is impossible to honestly worship something you also honestly don't think literally exists.

6. Not a question. In a metaphorical sense, I do. In a literal sense, although I can't "prove" it, I contend that no such entity exists based on the aforementioned lack of evidence and burden of proof.

7. a)Not a question. Natural selection allows for benefitial traits, however small, to dominate and eventually reach completely different structures, this includes backs and feet provided they result in a better ability to perpetuate its genetic information. b) Doesn't make sense, even if it is true that they don't "advance the evolutionary process" (and it isn't), banishing them is not going to fix it, and promoting said advance is not something we would want to do if it involves such ethically repulsive actions. c) Doesn't make sense, using natural selection involves doing nothing, its called "natural" for a reason.

8. Such a statement can be sane and civil simply by accepting that not everybody sees organisms with no neural activity such as embryos as living beings, while the same can't be said as easily about other organisms such as born babies or adults.

9. Uhh, why would I, as an atheist, want to refute that?

10. I'm not in the mood of finding proof of things I don't believe in.

11. Neither of the things you mention entail acceptance of real, negative consequences produced by racism. If said racism is limited to speech, then yes, such things are "racist" in that they don't walk over a fundamental right of others, which is a stupid reason to be labeled racist.

12. Depending on which hell. If it is the one spouted by fundies, then 0.

13. I have no statistics availible right now that support either position, however, I also have no reason to suppose said occupations result in such tragedies. Either way, denying women such rights is not a good thing.

14. I don't think they would, to any meaningful point. However, such actions infringe on freedom of religion which is a really good idea for modern civilizations.

15. There is evidence of life in the universe (us), therefore the only extrapolation needed is the belief that it exists on other parts of the universe, this is an hypothesis that, while posing a conclusion that at this point in time is arguably unreasonable, does makes experimentation worthwhile.

16. It can't, it simply implies uncertainty.

17. No, a more likely answer is simply a personal difference, and whatever genetic difference there could be between christians and atheists (which is a stupid proposition by the way), is not going to be meaningful over the course of 2000 years.

18. Because they're able to reason and all that stuff. Also because arguments exist independently of those who make them.

I'm too bored for more so good night. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 05:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Now there's a thing[edit]

The only image on the site & look where it came from. For those who can't be bothered to go there: Conservapedia SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Answers to your questions[edit]

I'm bored, so I'll answer these. Note that I am an agnostic, not an atheist; I do not know whether God exists and I do not claim to know.

  1. It is not a matter of law, but of evidence, as there is no scientific evidence for a god's existence. I do not claim that it is by common sense. I do not claim that common sense is the same for everyone, and race is irrelevant. I make judgments based on science because it is based on evidence and facts, with knowledge as its goal. The scientific method tries to come up with answers based on evidence, rather than trying to prove a conclusion that is taken for granted.
  2. Christianity is not in itself bad, and religious freedom is important as a basic element of a free society. What is problematic is when people try to force their personal beliefs on others. The Constitution of the U.S. implements the separation of church and state to prevent the government from participating in such activity; this work with the guarantee of religious freedom, not against it.
  3. As an agnostic, my answer may differ somewhat. There is no proof that God exists, nor is there proof that God does not exist. In absence of evidence, I believe neither. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so the burden of proof is on those who claim God does exist. Otherwise, I could claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, and you couldn't prove me wrong.
  4. Evolution is backed by overwhelming scientific evidence, has made correct predictions based on its theory, and provides a logical explanation that assumes very little. I have little "faith" in evolution: if it were proven wrong, I would support whatever theory had taken its place as the best supported by evidence. However, believing that an all-powerful being that has never been proven to exist created the entire universe? That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, and it requires great faith in the absence of such evidence.
  5. This question assumes the existence of Satan, which there is no evidence for, and is thus invalid. Prove that Mars being made of garlic is not a result of the French Revolution, and I'll consider answering this equally ridiculous question.
  6. Also based on flawed assumptions. Prove that you are not following Zeus' will without saying that Zeus does not exist. The argument works both ways, and I somehow doubt either of us is about to bow down and worship the ancient Greek gods.
  7. To greatly simplify the evolutionary process, mutations build up over many generations, leading to gradual change in a species based on natural selection. Apes gained straighter backs because those with genes for slightly straighter backs had a higher survival rate in the long run, leading to change in a species. The part about homosexuality assumes that it is detrimental, a mere assertion contradicted by scientific evidence. The last part misstates natural selection, since natural selection is a process fueled by natural genetic changes in a species, not conscious discrimination. Natural selection is thus entirely unrelated to racism.
  8. How can I call God a murderer when I don't believe God exists? The question is invalid.
  9. This question assumes that free thinking in children causes them to be spiteful to Christian parents. Since this is not true in most cases, the question is invalid. Also, free thinking is a good thing, so why would I want to refute that anyway?
  10. I don't believe Heaven and Hell exist, so the question makes no sense. Also, I do not claim that all atheists (or all agnostics) would have the same fate in a hypothetical afterlife even if it did exist. Need I drive the point home by asking you to prove some nonsensical statement yet again?
  11. There is a difference between believing that something should be allowed and believing that it is good. I believe that religion should be allowed because it is the right of every human being to hold personal beliefs; however, I also believe that religion is very frequently harmful, and I oppose much of what religions teach. Also, would you be so opposed to freedom of beliefs if, say, the government was predominantly Islamic? Then a lack of freedom of beliefs would entail suppression of Christianity as well.
  12. This assumes Hell exists, making the question invalid.
  13. This question asserts without proof that women should not be in certain occupations, that their presence there causes acts of abuse, that God exists, and that such acts are anti-God if God exists. You also seem to be suggesting that women should not be anywhere where they could be abused. Since abuse by husbands is a frequently seen crime, what do you suggest is an appropriate place for women? As nuns? In a little bubble? Your question is so flawed as to be completely invalid.
  14. The teaching of the Ten Commandments in public schools would violate the rights of members of any non-Judeo-Christian religion. To give an analogy, would you be fine with your children being taught Islamic law if you lived in a predominantly Muslim country?
  15. Believing that God exists is an act of faith, requiring belief without evidence. Searching for intelligent life on other planets does not require you to believe that such life actually exists; it is a matter of curiosity rather than faith.
  16. I do not claim that there is no set truth. However, that statement is understood to mean that not all truth is set, not that there cannot be anything that is always true. Mathematics is always the same, but the quality of a book is almost never the same.
  17. This question asserts without proof that God exists and that the Bible is right, invalidating the question.
  18. Why should people listen to Christians since they are "only evolving ancestors of hairy, protruding nostrils, arboreal apes"? Evolution works both ways. And why should we listen to anyone since they are just older versions of babbling, crying infants? It's nothing against humanity that we are descended from creatures less adapted for higher-level mental processes.
  19. I say that those atheists and agnostics who condemn Scripture without understanding it have no business doing so. I also say that those Christians who condemn science without understanding it have no business doing so. Whether Hitler was a Christian or not is irrelevant to the question, and depends on how you define "Christian".
  20. It depends entirely on the nature of that atheist society, as atheists are by no means a homogeneous bunch. Without knowing anything about the two nations in questions beyond the predominant religion of each state, there is no way to answer the question.
  21. In most cases, I don't think it's anything personal against Christianity. It's just that, being the most popular religion in the U.S., it makes the most sense to criticize it. Also, religions that claim just a philosophy rather than a deity will come into far less conflict with atheism.
  22. This question assumes that God exists, and is thus invalid. In my personal opinion, abortions are not a good thing, but making them illegal does not prevent them from occurring, and it also makes it dangerous and criminalized. The best way to reduce abortion is to make it safe and legal, and meanwhile address the root causes that necessitate it so that it becomes unneeded.
  23. This question is a false dichotomy between perfect obedience to the Ten Commandments and total sensuality and irresponsibility. Also, the Ten Commandments are not bad in theory, but in practice they are followed quite selectively by many religious people. With regards to the last sentence, I make no claim that America worse than all other countries on Earth as the evidence contradicts such a claim.
  24. Another false dichotomy. There are other "spirits" aside from always doing right and never doing wrong, and doing whatever we like. By definition, immorality is incompatible with always doing right; also, laying aside moral concern pretty much implies immortality. So this question is a tautology, simply restating its premises and definitions.
  25. I have not heard of any atheists advocating murder; if there are some, they are clearly far from what the vast majority of atheists believe. Also, while humans share common descent with other animals, we are not the same as them. We can agree that murder is wrong, and that humans are different from other animals. This question makes no sense since it ascribes beliefs to atheists that they do not hold.
  26. To the first sentence, it depends on the individuals and on the animal. Also, this question is invalid because it assumes that living in a way more similar to other animals is wrong, that atheists are closer to non-human animals than Christians are, and that homosexuality is wrong. Another example of flawed logic in the question is that you assume that since atheists do X, and animals do X, X must be wrong. Atheists breathe air, and animals breathe air, so should we all stop breathing?
  27. Again, atheists and agnostics do not advocate murder. I don't care whether there's a God, Heaven, or Hell; murder is still wrong for many reasons outside of religion. So of course abstaining from murder is better, and Hell shouldn't factor in at all. You seem to assume that religion is the only things holding back humans from turning into insane criminals. As for the last sentence, you ask for negative proof, and the burden of proof is on you.
  28. This question is so filled with unproven assertions that I will not bother to list them all, and it is completely invalid as a result. You also assume that your interpretation of Scripture is correct; perhaps it is you who does not understand the Bible. You cannot simply say that those Christians whose actions you do not agree with (or even those who commit horrible crimes) are not Christians, at least not without redefining Christianity to fit your arbitrary definitions.
  29. Address the social issues that cause crime, and there will be plenty of space in prisons. Just because many people commit crimes doesn't mean lesser crimes should be ignored. You also assert without proof that atheists support imprisonment for harming non-human animals.
  30. You assume the existence of God. I understand what your definition of "God" is, but you still have no proof that such a God exists. I do not know whether such a God exists, but at least I make no foolish claims that I do.

Hi there![edit]

Considering that you have made no attempt to edit articles or talk pages, it is my belief that you are here only to promote your personal site and your essays. Therefore, the links to YerranosWiki on your user page have been removed as linkspam. I have replaced them with a copy of the questions from your site, since various people have amused themselves by answering them.

Happy Hogswatch. <blink></blink> 04:46, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough I suppose. The only objection I'd make is that the website is great fun. It's one of the more hilarious things on the web. There is a reference to it in Poe's Law though so I suppose we won't be taking the fun away from everyone completely.Damo2353 05:02, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Fair? Hmm. I hate to always be the whining spoiler, but isn't someone entitled to his own User Page, castle or not? Anyway, it wasn't an offending or spamming user page: if I had a blog I would mention it in my user page as well. And he was also nice to let people know about his questions, which provided plenty of fun to RW users. I'd revert to his version of his own page. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 06:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I rather think that we should allow the link. 1) Hey it's his userpage. 2) I think the site is really worth a read and people might want to see what other stuff is there. 3) It looks a tiny bit like censorship. --Bobbing up 06:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I suppose you're right. Let it never be said that I support censorship. We really should write some proper rules for this kind of thing, though. <blink></blink> 06:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Somewhere we do say that people's user pages should not be tampered with.--Bobbing up 06:35, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
But there are situations in which we do tamper with them -- in the case of vandals we add {{vcat}}, for instance. <blink></blink> 06:39, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I guess it comes under "common-sense-exceptions". An editor's User page space is inviolable; they are free to do with it what they want (common-sense-exceptions apply), and no one should edit it without permission. However, the user talk page space is public and does not belong to the user. No deletion of talk page material is permitted, but archiving may be done periodically. I think we should edit user pages as little as possible.--Bobbing up 06:58, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I Call Parodist[edit]

Sorry, but there is no way you're for real mate. Having looked at those questions and your wiki, I'm convinced you're pulling our legs here The Lay Scientist 20:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

...Nah. <blink></blink> 20:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
There is a (rather muted) debate about this at Poe's Law. I agree with you, but we seem to be in the minority Damo2353 21:01, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Website gone?[edit]

Your wiki seems to have vanished. SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:15, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

It's still there, according to the link on his user page. However, he appears to have vanished from it. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:26, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I can't raise it - I'll try again. SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:36, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Yup, My Bad. It's there - sorry. SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:39, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
As you say, he's not been there since 3 July. SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)