This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Byrgenwulf (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 28 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:29, 28 September 2006 by Byrgenwulf (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)archive contains earlier material from the talk page; August 2005 -- February 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
archive2 contains earlier material from the talk page; March 2006 -- June 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
archive3 contains earlier material from the talk page; June 2006 -- September 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please post new comments to the bottom of the talk page; I will almost always respond to comments on this page itself (makes comments easier to find -- I encourage you to do the same) so check back! Sdedeo (tips) 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
After a couple of months contributing to wikipedia in various ways, I've found that it's no longer as much fun as before. I've decided to go on an extended wikibreak, and I wish everyone luck. Sdedeo (tips) 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I'm back, and working on medcabal again. I still have a great deal of faith in the wikipedia project. Sdedeo (tips) 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I have gone on another break; please see my user page for more discussion of this issue. Sdedeo (tips) 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note — I feel quite the same, actually. Completely demoralised — when I sat down earlier to do some work I battled, because I kept on thinking of this discussion and trying to force myself to stay away and not feed the flames.
I similarly apologise for being condescending (and I have). I actually wholeheartedly agree that the article needs something on Lorentz invariance violations (arguments pro and contra), just maybe not quite as it was — we've certainly, between us, dug up enough concrete citations to do it properly. Removing your paragraph entirely was perhaps a mistake: the better thing would have been to change it. But I haven't the time at the moment, and am so impatient with the situation here that I just deleted (although ye gods this little discussion has taken enough time that the whole article could have been rewritten properly!).
I am not even a mindless defender of loops. Simp — I wouldn't bet on it being right. Sal — I wouldn't bet on string theory, either. I know the theory has lots of problems, but I just don't think that the Lorentz violation thing is one of them (although, of course, maybe there is some breaking of Lorentz invariance waiting to be discovered, and it isn't a "problem"). At the moment, I don't care. But I'm glad we can draw this to a fairly amicable close.
I am replying here because I shall be archiving my own talk page anon. Remove this as well, when you have read it, if that's what you want. Byrgenwulf 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)