Tremendous news...

BP is reported to be funnelling about 6,000 barrels of oil per day from Deepwater Horizon following the initial qualified success of its top hat emergency containment procedure - up to one half of the estimated rate of spill. Whilst cautioning against over-optimism I would estimate that further improvement is possible over the next few days as vents on the containment cap are closed down. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank BP for its skill, determination and professionalism in obviating the worst effects of the spill pending a complete solution to the problem in due course.

km

*crickets*

What a naked example of sucking up.

That's right... and not a pump in sight.

km

Ummm... the report is only 20% is being siphoned off. They hope to be able to get up to 75% siphoned in the coming days if they can control the pressure in the dome. The worst effects? Why don't you go to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida and take an oil swim.

Read this if it's not too dark in your Mum's basement:

About 250,000 gallons of oil have been f...cean every day.

They are trying to control it with valves. Oil under that much pressure doesn't need a pump, but it does have to be controlled.

Thanks.

km

No, that's wrong... 6,000 barrels is between one third and one half of the estimated spill.

km

Until it is completely contained and the decades of cleanup is completed, the whole thing is going to bring BP down, as it should.

Right on! Make them pay for it all!!

Not really... the shareholders are protected by limited liability so if BP goes down it's out of your control and you can kiss goodbye to your precious retrospective penalties.

km

Not to worry, km. You suck — even without a pump.

In other words, you don't give a flying flip about the impact to the people, the ecosystem, and the economy of the region. Please tell me again about your sociopathic disorder that you call stoicism.

And tell me when we might be able to kiss you goodbye.

No, not in other words... read my words and don't try to substitute your words.

km

Your words imply profit at all cost.

"BP is reported to be funnelling about 6,000 barrels of oil per day from Deepwater Horizon following the initial qualified success of its top hat emergency containment procedure.


And we know this isn't true. If it were, you'd certainly link to corroborating material to back up the claim. I'm not interested in any pointless circle jerk about whether you have or haven't backed up your statements in the past.

You made the above statement. Or you made up the above statement.

Oh, please ~ I have to laugh at myself that I even bother, because ~



xxxxxxxxxx





(A heart-felt thank you to the peep that made the above possible. You know who you are. And, no it's not Steve, for those of you that might care to guess. )

No, I was just explaining out how limited liability works... investors are only liable to the value of their shares... when the money runs out, that's it.

km

You mean you hope it isn't true... but unfortunately for you, it is,

km

Provide a link and I'll believe you.

Don't, and I won't.

"You mean you hope it isn't true... but unfortunately for you, it is"

Seriously? You think I'd rather win an argument with you than see British Petroleum finally make some kind of dent in the nightmare they've brought to my country? That's your game, not mine.

WTF ever.

I think he's gone barmy because it's British Petroleum. It's that simple.

Barmy? In what way?

km

Oh, no doubt. And he won't substantiate his original post in this thread. Ah, I see his response to you, Max.





If I may?


xxxxx

Well

You can Thank BP when the oil reaches England next month , when it reaches your shores

Make sure you include how skillful they were and their (determination) that they polluted the whole planet - oh and demonstrated (professionalism)

What a Joke

They are reporting that about 6,000 barrels have been recovered in a day (so says the Times). However, how much is being put out by the damned thing is still not known, nor is it known what the cutting of the broken pipe did. If the cut added 20% to the flow, which is what was predicted, and if the flow was large enough to begin with, then recovering 6,000 barrels per day may just get us back to what the flow was to begin with. If it was the upper limit estimated by the feds, 19000 barrels per day, then a 20% of that is 3800 barrels, so the actual improvement is 1200 barrels per day. But the fed's estimate is the lowest. The worst-case estimate is 100,000 barrels per day, and 20% of that is 20,000 barrels, so recovering 6000 barrels is not even a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

If you go to the estimate page, note that a barrel is 42 gallons.

Max, that what I've said from his first defensive salvo — his position is wholly nationalistic, even though he denies it. And of course, we're all anti-British, according to his Stiff Upper Lipness, no matter how many of us have clearly stated that our anger is with a corporation called British Petroleum, and not with the GB or it's peeps.

Barmy? Methinks youse be too kind.

At this point, the rate of flow is almost moot in the face of the anticipated duration of flo. Two more months IF the relief wells hit their mark on the first attempt. I've heard that this could conceivably continue through the end of the year! So even 5K barrels a day over that long a span could lead to a global problem.

You really are a complete prick.
I live here in Florida and it makes my heart break.
The Gulf already gets a huge dead spot in the middle of it every year when the temps get too high. A large anaerobic spot where everything dies and nothing can breathe or live.
Caused by global warming.


Now lets throw a few gallons of oil on it.

I saw a news clip of a bird that was so totally soaked and coated in oil.... made me f'kin sick to my stomach.

I live on the south end of the tip of Florida... just on the other side of the spill. We are going to the beach tomorrow so I can enjoy what may soon be a nightmare to behold.

We live next to the Port of South Miami and there are oil takers parked offshore nearly all the time... and we get tar balls and blobs just from the small leaks on those vessels. I can only imagine what this mess looks like on the other side in the Gulf. How you can defend BP is beyond me. The only reason I can think of is your a complete prick....or you just enjoy riling everyone up in here on a constant basis which would mean... you are a complete prick.
Or
C: All of the Above.

All I did was suggest that there was room for cautious optimism about the top hat procedure judged by the amount of oil being collected at the surface. Seemed to go down like a lead balloon - not one word of appreciation despite the many technical difficulties that had to be overcome. Now what we're seeing is a lynch-mob mentality and a determination to blame BP at all costs without inconveniences like facts getting in the way, for example that the rig was supplied to the company with hidden defects which caused the blowout. Oh, and the line that because 'B' stands for 'British' any advocacy of the company's position is nationalistic is complete drivel... to all intents and purposes BP America is an American corporation, quoted on Wall Street and everything like that.

km

All you have to do is a quick google search on '6,000 barrels' or something like that... or you could check out yoyo's link to the New York Times.

km

Yeah, if... if it was their lower limit of 12,000 barrels they'd be collecting half the spill and if it was the higher limit about one third - just like I said.

from the article:

"technicians involved in the operation say they are concerned that as they succeed in gathering more and more oil, they may have trouble handling and storing all of it. A ship on the surface is capable of collecting 15,000 barrels a day, Admiral Allen said."

Perhaps they should speak to six to find out how he managed to stop it rising to the surface?

km

Nonononono, Slick. Your claim — your task to back it up. We are growing more than a little weary of you banging your rabbit and then answering challenges with My, look at the time. Gotta go buh-bye. Weak. Weak. Weak.

I'm afraid you are mistaken, Nuc, my man. One cannot truly be a complete prick if one has no balls.

Standard response to your line of crap.

Sure, let's thank the the guy that shot us for handing over a band-aid.

Considering the costs, seems like a reasonable plan.

For example, those defects were brought to BPs attention by the rig owners, and BP said Pffffffft. Keep going.

Nope. The drivel is all yours. Your unapologetic nationalism-as-a-defense-rationale is not only obvious, it's about as objectionable as the crap now filling the Gulf. And your so-called stoicism? Don't make me laugh. You haven't got the spine to fulfill the criteria.

BP America is a subsidiary of BP. It is not autonomous. Otherwise, Tony Baloney wouldn't be soiling his knickers and pining for "his life" all over the media. And everything like that.

Drub a dub dub in a tub. Of crude, dude.

I already have done - yoyo's link to the New York Times. For your information however it's for those who challenge a statement to back up their position.

km

I read the Times story before yoyo linked to it. The NYTimes is my start page. It does not support your claim anywhere near as much as you think it does. Parts of the article may run along a somewhat similar track, but overall, it still admits that there is yet to be a clear and reliable determination. So, you still haven't provided what anyone would call solid proof. And the fact remains that such data is still very hard to come by. Unless, of course, you are the all-knowing keymaker.

Your assertion was pretty specific. Now support it with equally specific and relevant documentation. Or will this be yet another case of My, look at the time. Gotta go buh-bye.

What on earth are you talking about?

You are a dreamer thinking that BP is really tackling this problem.Where were they a few weeks ago?J

BP - worried about more oil coming to the surface than they can handle. I was just thinking they need to know about your experiment where that didn't happen.

km

In the Gulf trying to contain the spill.

km

I'm still not understanding your point -- that experiment was intended to see if, absent any other influence, oil would rise in a tube due exclusively to the oil being lighter than water (in my experiment, it didn't) ... my set-up was intended specifically to reduce as much as I could the influences of pressure on the experiment ...

Given that, I'm not sure how those results would be helpful in the case of the gulf spill where air/sea/oil pressures are massively significant factors ...

No that's just a sliding scale - the deeper the water the greater the pressure - the material factors in my experiments, your experiment and the BP operation are all the same except that mine managed to replicate what's actually happening whereas, for some reason, yours didn't.

km

The reason mine doesn't replicate the situation in the gulf (as much as any kitchen table-top experiment can ;-) is that the oil isn't under any pressure other than that of the equalized air inside the flask. In the gulf, the oil is under tremendous unequalized pressure that's not represented in my experiment.

The only functional difference I can find between my experiment set-up and yours appears to be the use of cellophane as a seal vs. a rubber stopper, which leads me to theorize that that must somehow be the factor leading to the different results ...

Well, when you immerse your container into water the oil is under the same type of pressure, but much less of it, as the oil in the Gulf subsea reservoir. Suppose instead of oil in your experiment you used a gas - what would happen to it after immersion?

km

No, immersing a closed, hard-sided vessel in water, does not make the inside pressure dependent on the depth of the water. If that were the case, submarines would be impossible.

I can't believe I'm responding to this :p

Uh, no.

The oil in the well is under pressure from rock and trapped gasses, not water. Or do you believe plastic wrap is somehow equivalent to 18,000 feet of rock?

You've obviously never heard of 'the bends' that divers suffer inside diving bells... submarines use ballast tanks to take in air or water to make the vessel rise or dive at will.

km

Hmmmn that's strange because when it escapes from the rock... it's still under pressure my God, this is like teaching the juniors.

km

Hey you better believe it...


I get the bends every time I read some of these threads !

The bends does not occur in self-contained, solid-sided vessels. It occurs when air pressure, in open-sided vessels, or in scuba gear, has to match the water pressure. So in "diving bells," the bottom of which are open, air pressure has to match water pressure to keep the water out of the bell. Breathing such highly pressurized air makes it possible for a greater amount of nitrogen gas to dissolve in the blood stream of people who breathe the air, and the bends is, quite literally, the bubbling out of that gas when the air pressure is reduced as the bell (or, in case of scuba divers the diver) comes up towards the surface and the water pressure, hence the air pressure, reduces. The fix is to put such divers into highly pressurized, solid-sided vessels on the surface, where the air pressure can be raised sufficiently to make the nitrogen re-dissolve into the blood, and then reduce the pressure very slowly. In short, the bends proves my point in two different ways.

edit: the wiki article is pretty clean on all this, by the way.

I don't know why you guys argue with this half-wit.

This is a topic that really hits home for me (as it were), so I've purposely avoided getting into these discussions. Because arguing with this fool would probably put me over the edge.

Well it doesn't make your mistake of discussing a "closed, hard-sided vessel" as if the terms 'hard' and 'closed' were absolute. What's 'hard' is relative to the pressure applied to the object so a structure may be 'hard' when subjected to 200 ibs psi but soft when subjected to 2,000 ibs psi such that the structure caves in. Because pressure in water is relative to depth BP used remotely operated vehicles (ROV's) knowing that man can't operate in or out of structures at 5,000 feet on account of the pressure at that depth.

km

Yeah, and I'm probably the poster boy. But I've selected the "ignore" function again, and this time won't even try to guess what he writing. It's like giving my head and my stomach a spa treatment.

Good, because a break from your prurient vulgarity will be like a holiday for all of us.

km

Surely you can't be that dense? I'm out of this.

Good, so am I - the surface collection rate has gone up to 10,000 barrels a day by the way... strange given your theory that it should all be staying down there.

km

This would not have happened if they told the truth in the first place and not lied about it.

Right on! They lied about the amounts of spilled oil, and they lied about the oil plumes!
Make them pay!!

Lied - no... carp said that all they did was not dissent from industry estimates before anyone was in a position to measure the spill....

km

… carp said?

And keymaker? Did he say anything?

Yep , I said nothing like that Pablo

Anyway
BP went with what NOAA , first said after viewing (satellite Imaging) just after the spill , NOAA estimated at that time about 5,000 barrels per day . Later videos of the spill it self became (mile below) , showed the spill to be much much more .

Simply
I don't fault BP for going with the NOAA estimate (from Space) at all --- I do fault BP for after the under water videos of the BOP where presented to the public and reports that the spill was much much greater --> that BP still continued to use the NOAA claim of 5,000 barrels per day .

Yeah, he pointed out that it was all guesswork until BP issued the first informed measurement.

km

The fact is that BP did NOT issue the informed estimate -- In fact it came from a scientist who watched the first under water live video feed -- to make matters worse , is that BP continued to make the wrong statements weeks after

No that wasn't a measurement but an estimate.

km

Well what you actually said was that "5,000 barrels was first reported via satellite imaging when the leak first happened - BP went with that figure , it is certainly not BP estimates ."

What Mike said was that BP 'lied'.

km

I never said it was a measurement ? I just wanna to get that across

And when you think about, the only way to get a (measurement) is to place a meter at the broken well head , Everything else is a calculated estimate

What time is it in the UK?

No I said what BP did was a measurement. They measured how much they were collecting at the surface multiplied it by two because they knew they were only getting half of it and came out with the first informed measurement... alright 'meastimate' of the spill.

km

06.39 hours.

km

What if the shoe was on the other foot and oil was spilling in tremendous amounts in the English Channel would you care than or say no big deal like the jerk Tony Hayward?

Don't waste your time, Jerry. I've repeatedly called him on his refusal to acknowledge the impact in human and environmental terms, and his only answer is that he (and he has the gargantuan gall to claim he speaks for all Brits) is a stoic, and is therefore above any display of emotion.

In fact, it's got nothing to do with stoicism. Rather, it points to a profound sociopathic disorder that renders him clinically numb — and proud of it!

This is why I've once again (and permanently this time) opted for the "ignore" option in his case, and I cannot tell you what bliss it is not to see his dispassionate, bigoted, imperialistic screed dripping down the forum walls like some toxic liquified mould.

But watch, he'll probably puke up another line-by-line rebuttal — which of course he'll claim is for everyone's benefit rather than a response to me — even though he knows I'm not reading it. Frankly, the only benefit I can imagine ever being offered by km is the sight of the back of his head getting smaller and smaller.

BFF?

Eh?

Oh like c'mon, like really, fer shu'. I know u 2 r Best Friends Forever.

DOH! Those are just two dots I'd never connect.

Pho' yeah, it was supposed to be permanent last time - how childish.


Not reading it, don't make me laugh - that's what you said last time.

km

Steve, he's missing you already. I'm telling you; he likes when you talk nasty to him.

If I missed him, I would take better aim the next time.

*snicker, snort, giggle*

The following came out today about BP's current 'meastimate'. The article applies today and also to the time of the first 'meastimate'.



Scientists challenge BP containment claims
Cast doubt on statement that device could capture 'vast majority' of oil

Some scientists are taking issue with BP's statement that a containment cap placed over a gushing well could be capturing "the vast majority" of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico.

They suggest it's misleading, if not irresponsible, to make such a statement when the company has acknowledged it doesn't know how much oil is flowing from the busted well, or how much the spill rate has increased since engineers cut a riser pipe so it could properly fit the containment cap.

"I don’t see that as being a credible claim," said Steve Wereley, associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University and a member of the Flow Rate Technical Group, a national panel of scientists and engineers tasked with determining the spill size.

[…]

"I do not know how BP can make that assertion when they don’t know how much oil is escaping. I would say that statement is their hope and aspiration," added Ira Leifer, a researcher in the Marine Science Institute at the University of California Santa Barbara who is also a member of the flow-rate panel.

[…]

Judging by live undersea videos, "it looks like a freely flowing pipe," Leifer said. "From what it looks like right now it suggests to me they’re capturing a negligible fraction."

[…]

The Flow Rate Technical Group is working on an estimate of the amount of oil spewing from the cut-off riser and could have a number by the end of the week if it gets suitable data from BP.

[…]

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of Environment and Public Works Committee, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., requested that BP "provide full access to all video" related to the spill. The panel received 12 minutes of new high-resolution video Tuesday from BP.

[…]

[…]any statement on the proportion of oil being captured and saved from the Gulf is, like most of the underwater spill videos, murky, said Leifer.

"BP is arguing with[in] itself. I’m happy to watch their argument but it would be much nicer if they would let in some scientists to make measurements," he said.

—————————————————

BP is proving to be disastrous at all levels!

Pure guesswork... "it looks like a freely flowing pipe" is hardly scientific. Leifer can only see what's escaping not what's being captured - BP can see both.

km

You don't understand

It is what that has been escaping is the problem --- I do NOT wanna hear what they captured to save their bottom line .

One Gallon that has escaped is already to much - they talk about collecting about 50% is a freaking JOKE .

No I'm saying that BP is in the best position to judge the overall volume and everyone else is indulging in wild guesswork - including you I might add.

km

Unfortunately for the world as a whole, BP could err in its calculations or be misleading us. BP also is in the best position and has the motives to lie to us about the truth of the quantity of oil spilled.

The consequences for all, specially for the communities bordering the Gulf, —and even along the Atlantic coast and Cuba and the Bahamas there— is uncertainty on the resources and the level of the response that will be necessary to effectively mitigate a damage already inevitable, and that will still be growing exponentially long after the gusher is stopped.

Like Leifer says in the article linked: "it would be much nicer if they [BP] would let in some scientists to make measurements".

Exactly!

Leifer sees what he's permitted to see.

You can post and link to enough common sense, fact, and evidence to throw the earth off it's orbit. But this two-headed* idiot and amateur stoic will still insist that BP is not only blameless, but should be worshipped for its recovery "efforts".

May I recommend "Ignore this user"? It's damn near as satisfying as unfriending someone on Facebook.



*One head up BP's ass. The other up his own.

To sum it all up this is a putz in the first order.Just like Tony Hayward.J

Exactly... so his conclusions aren't worth very much - pure guesswork.

km

You said you are an atty. What kind of clients do you represent? Crooks like BP J

Exactly!

That's why Leifer says in the article linked: "it would be much nicer if they [BP] would let in some scientists to make measurements".

Unfortunately, the supposed reasons why it would be nicer are obscure - no wonder BP aren't taking any notice of them... measurements of what?

km

No, I'm teaching at the moment.

km

I've discovered that you've been right in many things you say about km that i thought were exaggerations on your part. From some time to now i have been discovering what you mean in a number of cases.

km can be exasperating and self centered, insulting, but you can be really mean and rude, full of rage, in your answers (funny and creative too), and i wouldn't like to position myself as your firing target.

I can understand that you both are always clashing.



…and, thanks, but i already ignore him by answering or not at my pleasure.

It's incredible how absurdly childish you can be!

From: BP's "meastimates" as you call them. to: why we need an accurate measurement of the rate of flow.

There's nothing childish about it - the article is self-contradictory.


According to the article:

"Wereley told msnbc.com on Tuesday: 'I do not know how BP can make that assertion when they don’t know how much oil is escaping'".

So how is anyone else going to know? If your so called scientists put themselves in BP's position they're not going know either.

With the work BP has to do and the responsibilities they have to their workforce the company would be failing in its duty in my opinion if it took any notice of people who can't even join up their own tendentious ramblings with some sense of coherence.

km

Such as?

km

How many barrels a day was BP extracting before the explosion?

I find it interesting that according to the figures today, they're recouping more barrels per day than BP had estimated as the upper limit of what was gushing out.

Interesting is one word for it.

Everyone knows BP increased its estimate when they were in a better position to know.

km

They've been deliberately — and falsely — understating the volume since day one because they are aware of the $4,300/barrel EPA fine that they will be slapped with. It defies logic, though, that they thought the world would just take their word for it.

Your accusations have zero credibility.

km

It defies the logic of everybody except British Petroleum. They're living (on the edge of financial ruin right now) in the classic corporate bubble. I'd bet serious money on Hayward's eventually being ousted, but ~ Too easy, no real fun in that kind of action. Might as well bet on where the sun's comin' up tomorrow.

I am serious about this question. I cannot find the answer anywhere.

Obviously the bpd is at least that amount.

The world hasn't seen much logic from your side of the Atlantic to be honest - irrationality, bias and outright victimisation more like.

km

At first, I thought it was odd that we can't find that figure, so I kept prowling around. I snuck up on this tory ~ as good an explanation as any for the dearth of info out there ~


BP buys search term "oil spill" from Google


Weird. The google search landed me three other links, but in the time it took to switch from that open tab to paste the url here, and then back . . . Now there's just the one link above.

Yea, it is totally bizarre. The amounts go from 1000 to whatever pbd. Doesn't BP know what the pbd were before the explosion? Of course they do.

BP is spending an awful lot to time and money trying to tell us what a good bunch of people they are.

Actions speak louder than words.

Oh, Hayward is toast. Milquetoast to be precise.

Actually, BP wasn't extracting anything prior to the explosion. They had been in the process of capping the well so that a production rig could be brought in to replace the DWH and start actually pumping crude.

I remember a snack we had in London (file under "you can't make this shlt up") called Drippings on Toast ~



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


OK, now that's not what it looked like when we had it, but . . .

Thanks Steve.
That explains why I couldn't find it.

True.

oh,oh - looks like the rest of the world doesn't share your logic.

The financial toll of the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico escalated Wednesday as BP's stock plummeted to a 14-year low and fishermen, businesses and property owners who have filed damage claims with the company angrily complained of delays, excessive paperwork and skimpy payments that have put them on the verge of going under.

Stock movements? The markets are bound to be a bit jittery before liability is resolved.

km

I would like to put you in the Gulf where the oil is and see how you would feel with the oil all over you and another person to be with you Tony Hayward both reeking with oil all over you.J

Indeed, a bit jittery. Looks like Chapter 11 is just around the corner.

I've begun to think that he is not really an attorney either.

Never said I was.

km

I recall once saying that I wouldn't trust him to plead a parking ticket. But he surely does exhibit the worst traits that most people associate with that profession. What I find more questionable is his alleged educational career. Exposing young minds to his bigotry and imperialistic attitudes is a frightening prospect.

He hasn't shown me anything that would support any of his claims. He has no credibility with me.

PS: The "Ignore This User" button should be renamed "Shun."

A barrister.

From Wikipedia:

I have to disagree, Michael. One of the few things I've always thought was beyond dumb is the kind of terminology that gets abused in ForaLand. Shun ~ OK, it's not quite as bad as "banned" ~ but they're both way too Biblical in proportion to the actual action.

If I ruled the world, nobody would ever be "banned." They'd be kicked out. Blocked. Cut off at the ankles. Banned just carries so much conceit.

Ahem, rant out of the way, I propose a different take on the Ignore Button. Peeps, I present for your consideration ~


xxxxxxxxxxxx


This sucker is still soooooooooo workin' for me. Feel free to make it yer own!


LL

To be honest I couldn't care less what you believe.

km

No, it should be named Baloney-Buster

Hey, me gots a pair of 'em running up and down my staircase!

I'd also like to thank you for not knee-jerkin' my every post with your usual low-grade drivel.

km

Yeah, but I bet both of yours are straight.

Bada-BING!

That's it, direct it at him instead...

km

A barrister is not an attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that while the barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, the barrister does so when instructed by a solicitor.


So, this is like ~ Those who can do, and those who can't . . . are just barristers?

I'm gonna ask Archie Leach about this. Oh. Wait. He was just a barrister, too.

As I understand it, a Solicitor is a more general legal representative that is hired directly by the client to oversee a case. A Barrister has a more specific expertise in a particular aspect of the law and is retained by a Solicitor as appropriate to actually represent the case in court ...

A Barrister usually has very little direct contact with the client. A Solicitor usually doesn't engage in a courtroom (although this has apparently been changing over the years) ...

In the US, the two functions are mushed together in the form of an Attorney ...

At least, that's what a quick bit of interweb research tells me. I'm sure KM will happily correct any errors ;-)

I don't doubt we'll all be corrected. But happily?

Mmmm, happily, I'll just have to guess.

.
I haven't been over here for a while but I see you haven't lost your touch.
.

Welcome back!

km

I thought that ignore this user would make the user entirely invisible. Alas, it ain't so. Oh well . . . good enough.

He may not have lost his touch, but he's hemorrhaging audience. The number of people who have hit the "Ignore this user" button next to his name is growing. Pretty soon, he'll be talking to himse... oh yeah. What else is new?

A quite impressive 50 per cent there - went up from two to three... although they all started reading 'em and chatting again in my premature 'This is great' thread.

km