Talk:Podcast/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RE: 129.100.67.169 and the Voices.com link removed

The above IP posted an external link to voices.com, I explained my edit in the notes. Voices.com is based out of London, Canada. Using a quick DNS IP search with that IP shows that the IP originates from, suprise, Canada [City: London, Ontario]. Testerer 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Podcasting Wikiproject

I have proposed I Wikiproject for podcasting. If you're interested, make sure to add your name unser 'interested users'. The list is in alphabetical order, so jsut scroll down to see.Ganfon 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea and would like to see that WikiProject come to life.Testerer 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The project has since been started. Visit the project page if you're interested in helping the project. Ganfon 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully, RE: Podcast Dirs in Ext Links

For the longest time there's been some internal copy that has been helpful for people to avoid listing the hundreds upon hundreds of Podcasting Directories within this article that is merely intended to tell people about what podcasting is.

Please do not add links to individual podcasts, podcast software, podcast cons or podcast directories (including Podcast Alley). Links should only be here if they help explain *what* podcasting is. External links should explain podcasting in more depth or from a different angle than Wikipedia can, they should not simply be a repeat of this article.

I really agree with this statement, I think others do also, so I think it is fair to restucture the external links accordingly. I think it would be a big mess if there were tons of directories included in this article. itunes isn't listed, I think that is a good thing because you don't have to understand itunes to know what podcasting is and how it work, which this article explains pretty clearly. Any comments or concerns, would be glad to discuss it. It did recently strike me that someone may read the subsection of the external links titled Lists of Podcast Directories. This may be a bit confusing as it is intended to list actual lists of directories. Directories of Directories, if you will. Not links to one specific directory. I'll try and explain it better in subtext. Testerer 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

IF anyone has any thoughts on the OPML directories on this list- I'd be interested in talking. There are a few questions some might have as to their inclusion. I don't really think any of the links below should link to a page where someone sees an actual podcast listed, but if its opml and changes constantly then maybe. But if its heavy on the advertisements, should it be included? Any help would be great.Testerer 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that they should be mentioned, and that iTunes, perhaps, should be specificlly mentioned...but other than that I don't think we need to include a long list of directories. The article is intended, as mentioned above, to tell what podcasting is. Directories should be mentioned, so people know about them, but if they need to find them they can turn to Google, that's what it's there for. Ganfon 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

This article is one that people love to vandalize and edit based on their feelings, and often emotions. One of the oldest arguments around the term "podcast" has been its Etymology. Someone recently deleted this line

"The term "podcast" is derived from Apple Computer's mp3 playback device iPod."

This is in my mind, slightly questionable, but considering popularization, it's probably true, and should be kept. That is why I undeleted it and included it in this edit. I also tried my best to come up with (hopefully ultimate) solution to please everyone, but still be true to both history and reality. I really wish there wasn't a drastic need for people to claim the etymology of this word, but it is very important to accurately reflect the history of the term, and thus, my edit falls back on both nature and the word "pod" itself, no doubt a reason Apple chose the term, it's previously understood meaning. I'd consider this to be a significant edit so I'd be interested in feedback. Have no problem with it's removal, but this always seems to be a hot issue related to this article, the name. Yeah, it's got something to do with the ipod, but because the word or notion of "pod" wasn't created by Apple, I think we have a duty to try and bridge the gap, if you will. So this was what was added.

"However, known synonyms for the word pod are capsule, case, container, hull, husk, shell, and vessel. A pod is obviously a container of some sort and the idea of broadcasting to a container or pod correctly the describes the process of podcasting. More about the name itself can be found in the History of podcasting article."

I really tried to reference this section, so much of this article isn't referenced at all, especially any connections to the ipod itself, or other origins. Any thoughts?Testerer 07:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit notes are not the same as fair discussion. More importantly, 3 referenced lines of content have been deleted without debate, and what has been inserted is not at all referenced. Please reference your changes, or at least take part in the discussion and provide counter points for your POV. I think the previous copy was more accurate in it's description of both podcasting and it's etymology. One cannot lazily site Ockhams Razor, btw- Ockham's razor has nothing to do with etymology. That is not a fair comparison. Many, many words have deep histories and often controversial origins. Sorry, you need to reference your material if you wish to delete my referenced material, or at least play a part in the process. Please leave a note on my user page or whatever you wish, but I don't think your edit does the concept and word itself, justice. This article is almost entirely unref'd that's a huge problem, there are lots of places to improve this article. Truthfully, iPods have nothing to do with podcasting, despite many a million spent on marketing, podcasting a method of syndication and a style or genre of amature internet radio. I'm not entirely happy with the edit I made, but its ref'd and pretty clearly describes why people "get" podcasting. Millions of people, who've never bought an iPod. Don't forget, people who come to this article often have no idea what podcasting is. There is already a giant misunderstanding that it requires and ipod, even an mp3 player. I think we owe it to all users to take the time to clearly explain everything- not limiting ourselves based on some cliche or brevity, we also, in my opinion, should be careful not to lead people to false conclusions, by not accurately detailing true etymology.

You seriously think that Apple didn't use the word "Pod" because of what it meant before their device came along? No, obviously they picked it because they wanted universal understanding of concept. iTV, iPhone, iPod, all really easy for users to get. It's the Apple version of each, in the iPod's case, it's the Apple version of a container, and in reality, it is exactly, technically what the iPod is. To ignore the etymology of the word Pod itself is both hasty, and I'm afraid sloppy. Keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia with extended articles, this isn't a Dictionary. We owe it to users and readers and frankly, to ourselves to be accurate in everything we do, this is a hugely watched and vandalized article, we must be as clear as we can, and use the discussion pages intensely in order to follow the community driven wiki model. Arguably, the only thing that could be cut is this line

"The term "podcast" is derived from Apple Inc.'s portable music player, the iPod"

It's not referenced at all and is hugely impactful on the entire article. Aside from an unsubstatiated article in the Guardian, there has been no real reference that confirms this, yet I included it because it's probably true, and obviously part of the definition of podcasting that many people understand. I'd like to see every big statement in this wiki with a clear reference (or two) but they are not, my edits about the etymology are ref'd and I'm more than willing to discuss anything, with everyone. This is why I felt it ok to revert, yet keep the iPod mention as I did initially. Thanks. Testerer 07:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

new link

hi, there is a new podcast portal, its for hebrew users and it will be nice to get a link to it too. the url is http://www.icast.co.il the name of the site is "icast the israeli podcast" 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)212.143.158.164 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lotsa Edits, no discussion?

I've seen lots of recent edits, major, unsubstantiated edits that I believe are not helpful to readers. Please take part of the discussion on the talk page. I'll revert most of the edits that seem arbitrary. Thanks for being a part of the process. As always this is a very popular, often disputed article, so I hope that everyone discusses all major changes thanks! Testerer 05:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought I would add a couple of glaring examples of why I'll revert most of the recent, not discussed edits.

• Ben Hammersley did not coin the term "podcasting" in 2004. Read way back on the discussion page for all of the talk on this. Also, you can't really link to a newspaper article citing itself as a good reference on this word's origin. It seems a bit circular to stand on it's own. I wonder if everyone knows that podcast.com was registered in late 2002, a while before the claims of coinage from the source at The Guardian.

• "A podcast is a series of electronic media files," is perhaps the worst way I can think of to describe what a podcast actually is. The previous versions that stood the "test of time" were far more accurate. The fact that subscription has been a prominent point is important, but ultimately not critical to podcasting itself. Many, many people download directly or use a news reader and then pick and choose what media files are downloaded and when. To say they are "distributed periodically over the Internet by means of a Web feed." is lacking entirely in accuracy and definition.

• The 2nd paragraph reads quite poorly also as it dumbs down the actual concept itself and makes no mention to the idea of broadcasting to a portable device. It speaks as if it must explain itself away from the iPod, this is why I feel early versions are superior, they were more universal in the explanation, they were also edited in great part by a group instead of just one person.

• The Mechanics section is also troubled.

"Podcasts are very simple in setup. The person who wants to distribute the media file, currently in most cases audio, places the file onto the internet. This file could be an MP3 audio file. People can either visit the site and click the download link, or the author can also place a feed link on their website, which is a file that tells programs where the media file is located."

This seems very, very rudimentary and overly simplistic. Podcasts are not, in fact, very simple in setup. This paragraph is perhaps the best example of recent inaccuracies and over simplifications that have been changed in this article. No, podcasting isn't complicated it all- but must we lower ourselves to saying "Podcasts are a very simple setup." ?

• Another problematic phrase:

"This feed is what allows people to automatically know when new files can be downloaded, so they can subscribe to updates."

Sorry, you subscribe to a feed usually so that it automatically downloads the media for you. I have no understanding of what the "so they can subscribe to updates" part means, it will be just one of many reversions. Aside from the fact that whoever edited the mechanics section put their version "on top" of the old version instead of actually improving what was there is very confusion to readers.

In the mechanics subsection we have a great example of needless, ambiguous duplicity:

"Podcasts are very simple in setup. The person who wants to distribute the media file, currently in most cases audio, places the file onto the internet. This file could be an MP3 audio file. People can either visit the site and click the download link, or the author can also place a feed link on their website, which is a file that tells programs where the media file is located."

Uh... This file could be an MP3 Audio File?

"The publish/subscribe model of podcasting is a version of push technology, in that the information provider chooses which files to offer in a feed and the subscriber chooses among available feed channels. While the user is not "pulling" individual files from the Web, there is a strong "pull" aspect in that the receiver is free to subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) a vast array of channels. Earlier Internet "push" services (e.g., PointCast) allowed a much more limited selection of content.

Podcasting is an automatic mechanism whereby multimedia computer files are transferred from a server to a client, which pulls down XML files containing the Internet addresses of the media files. In general, these files contain audio or video, but also could be images, text, PDF, or any file type."

Is it just me or are there like 3 definitions/explanations of podcasting mechanics? And yet these edits were made because someone felt this article is too long?

OK enough said, on to revert to previous versions.

Thanks. Testerer 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, reversions have been made for what I believe is the betterment of this article. I also removed spam in external links in the process. Podcasting is not to be over simplified because someone wishes it's mechanics and how news readers work should be simplistic and elementary. Podcasting is pretty basic. I feel that the current article, which is simple a former version is superior in both it's referenced claims (many ref'd claims were removed and much new info was added without actually referencing anything) and it's universal, detailed explanation of this subject. I strongly encourage use of the discussion page as it is very important to arrive at changes based upon accuracy and not particularly on one person's POV. Testerer 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One more example

I realize I reverted some edits but wanted to give one more, symbolic example of the problem with the recent edits and "simplification".

"A podcast is a media file, such as audio, that is distributed over the Internet, either through being downloaded like any other file, or to people subscribed to the podcast's feed."

This isn't entirely true at all. What about people who download podcasts through Bit Torrent? This is an example of where attempts at simplifying something will often erase some of the most important details. The 2nd half is also a bit flawed. Subscription and downloading though important, are not ultimately linked. I subscribe to many podcasts and are alerted to when new enclosures are released on each feed, but as a user I get to decide which I download. Because I subscribe does not mean (or anyone else) downloads. Maybe this is the best thing about a podcast? Like a blog you can subscribe and know when something is new, but you can decide to download or not. Of course the automation from Feed -> Computer -> Mobile Device is important, but it is well explained and mentioned already. OK, that is enough for 1 night, I just wanted to give another explanation of why I reverted edits to help others understand. Testerer 06:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I like alot of the subtle improvements of this article over the last few weeks, I don't think we need 5 subsections in the see also section. Appcast and Torrentcast have no wiki articles at all. Screencast isn't defined in cunjunction with podcasting or RSS, Photocast links to iphoto. Hence I removed this data. Testerer 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Name Controversy

I removed the subsection that discussed the supposed "name controversy" but was only really substantiated by the opinions of one person. All of that Leo centric info can fairly be placed into his article but it really makes a mess of this article. Another thing, the subsection titled "Podcast trademark claims and disputes" is also quite uninformative and not really related to Podcasting itself. There might be a need for another article on Podcasting Trademark and Legal Issues, but should the main article, already a bit lengthy, grow with each bit of gossip and every rant that someone goes on. There was no name controversy and readers may not need to know (or care) about what companies allegedly received C&D's for trademark infringement. Any attempts at slimming down some of the excesses in this article would surely be a boon. Testerer 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OR- create an actual article on Netcast and stop the redirect to this article, describe in that article the history and propagation of the term. Testerer 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of term wrong

I'm sure theres no way in hell the apple crowd is going to accept this but podcasting refers to broadcasting from a Line6 pod and the term has been around since 1998, the ipod didn't exist until 2001. It's not ipod although I'm sure 99% of all people would be hard to convince otherwise. Pod = 1998 line 6 pod - recording equipment. Mithotyn 03:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

podcast.com was registered years before the ipod was released/announced. The origin of the term is storied and though I think it needs help I'm focusing (at this time) on other areas. Go for it, be bold. Testerer 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that the domain name was registered in 2002, one year after the arrival of the iPod, and even then, it had no content on it until 2005. Check it out, dude. (2002, 2003 and 2005, respectively.) --MarkKB 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

taxes

Does anyone know about new taxes? I've got something here. Should we mention this in the article?--Popopp 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article does not say what type of media is usual

Is a podcast normally just audio alone, or is it video? The article does not say.

It depends on the podcast feed of course. A podcast is really just a way of sending and receiving information. Testerer 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More info on podcatching clients needed

I was about to point my listeners to this article for info about podcasts and non-iTunes ways of subscribing and to my horror found that a part of this entry reads more like an ad for iPod/iTunes. I understand the danger of products advertising here but I feel there are at least 5-6 (Nimiq, Juice, Doppler, RSS Radio, iPodderX, AmaroK) established podcatchers that should be listed here. I'd be happy to do it if there are no objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiklukes (talk • contribs) 10:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and did it. Please expand or expunge as you see fit.--Dominik Lukeš 10:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wikipedia is not a "how to". This is a specific article about what podcasting is not about news readers. Testerer 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle but in practice Wikipedia is very much a how to. Try the entry on Tar it's more informative than the Linux manual pages. Comparisons of software applications for different purposes also abound. IMHO, this entry seriously suffers from lack of practical information on how people actually go about producing and receiving podcasts. That is very much a part of what podcasting is and a reader of the article can get a much better idea of what it is with some practical examples. Right now the article only makes sense if you already know what podcasting is. Point of fact: most podcatchers aren't very good newsreaders and vice versa (I've tried a lot of them). --Dominik Lukeš 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to this article- again

It seems as the constant need to rewrite this article continues as i've (and others who i will not name) have been lax is watching its' evolution. Not only has it grown superfluously, it also has some misinformation, more than just a bit I'm afraid. A few examples in a section I recently edited.

"In other words, a podcast is a collection of files (usually audio but may include video) residing at a unique web feed address."

In other words? This is a needly, duplicitous and most importantly, incorrect definition of the primary subject matter. A podcast is not a "collection of files" it was previously defined in this article to be something different altogether, although I realize this paragraph was added probably added to clarify a poorly written first definition. Uh, a Podcast is not a Webcast. And a podcast is most definitely not "residing at a unique web feed address". 'A podcast is a file distributed through syndication feeds, typically multimedia files, typically through RSS. Podcasting boomed as a result of RSS adoption (and ATOM but by and large RSS 2.0 is more widely adopted). The term "podcast" also refers to a Program or feed that distributed through syndication feeds. It is quite simple why are people confusing readers by being so obtuse?

"People can "subscribe" to this feed by submitting the feed address to an aggregator (like iTunes - software that runs on the consumer's computer)"

Why is itunes linked to again and again in this article, much work was done to keep commercial interests and establish product neutrality and integrity here. Not to mention that itunes is not truly an aggregator so much as it is a "podcatcher"- you can't subscribe to feeds for blogs or photoblogs or photocasts etc. "Consumer's computer" Bleck!

"When new "episodes" become available in the podcast they will be automatically downloaded to that user's computer." On iTunes by default the might?!? This kind of narrow viewpoint compels me to work more on this article. Readers are not getting an honest explanation of much as it is currently written. It is the user's choice of course whether or not have files downloaded automatically when their feeds are updated. Of course it isn't mentioned but podcasting also allows the user to automatically move files to a portable device.

"Unlike radio or streaming content on the Web, podcasts are not real-time. The material is pre-recorded and users can check out the material at their leisure, even offline."

This is also not entirely accurate. Many podcasts are recorded live and then later syndicated. You can indeed listen to a live "podcast" and then download the podcast of that program at another time.

This is just a start, this article is a mess. Managing Podcasts on your ipod? Why was the RSS logo removed when it's pretty much the standard icon to click on to reach a podcast feed? Testerer 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Certain podcasts can even be live and interactive. Dozens of podcast enthusiasts can be on at once, with the host being able to control their audience in the same way a radio host can."

This is/was actually in the article! Right after saying this wasn't true, someone added this. "Dozen's"??? This information is important but poorly written and not accurate. Sorry, this article needs HELP. Testerer 03:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Post edit comments

I've done a significant edit of this article, I've stayed away from some obvious areas because they tend to be more divisive and may not be as important to readers as far as knowing what a podcast is. I have however removed a lot of spam, plenty of misinformation by some contributors who have not widely explained the mechanics and basic syndication/podcast related concepts. You can't tell people that when they subscribe it's automatically downloaded. You have to be honest and say that it's a choice. If you honestly didn't think to mention, you probably don't need to be editing the article for podcasting. It has long since one of the most volatile and constantly vandalized articles I've seen on wikipedia. To anyone editing, reversing, changing, expanding this article I ask and remind you all to please remember something.

if you change the article and include new content, you need references, if you don't have a reference for wild claim, it will eventually be deleted by a responsible user

Also please remember that wikipedia is a big, big place. This article is to explain what a podcast is and what podcasting is. Just that. Please try and help to keep this article honest, neutral, accurate and concise.

One last comment and then I'm off, can't wait to see what other's think always ready for feedback on fresh edits.

Use this discussion page when making any major edits at all

You can help justify and explain your edits by using the discussion page. It helps document the thought process which, in my opinion, is particularly important in forming an accurate article on a subject that cannot merely be defined with just a few words. When the article swells but the number of references doesn't it's never a good sign.

Thanks again, goodnight. Testerer 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use the discussion page

Recently user Clpo14 reverted some of the edits I had done to clean up this article, again with out any regard for the appropriate discussion page. I've reinstated the logo however left the bit about Dave Winer out in trivia, though it was accurately referenced and removed without any reference as to why that was inappropriate. Please do not remove relevant RSS/syndication related and referenced information from this article. The vast majority of the world's podcasts are syndicated through RSS. If you do no think the near universal logo for Podcasting/RSS (orange square w/ waves or a square with those waves) is relevant to podcasting than you probably shouldn't be editing this article. Podcasting goes hand in hand with RSS and ATOM, please include the corresponding icon for ATOM and OPML if you think appropriate though OPML might not be at this time. Again, please use the discussion page for these sort of edits. It is a good fair, positive way to improve the article. Undiscussed, unreferenced changes will likely face reversion. Thanks again. Testerer 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) for edit @ 15:32, 28 August 2007

I wasn't aware I had to present my edits to anyone in order for them to be accepted. I removed the RSS icon because this is an article about podcasts, not RSS. While many podcasts are indeed distributed via RSS, that alone does not justify an RSS-related image. RSS is only barely connected to podcasting. Any images should be directly related to podcasting. The RSS icon does not represent podcasting, ergo it doesn't belong.

clpo13

"RSS is only barely connected to podcasting."

With all due respect I think you should back away from this article. RSS is the primary means of syndication for the vast majority. It's made possible the podcasting boom. A few notable Podcasters who've chosen, stuck with and supported (most of whom use the icon on their page btw) are as follows; Adam Curry, Leo Laporte, Chris Pirillo, Chris Ludon, Steve Gillmor, Kevin Rose, Michael Gartenberg, David Winer, Robert Scoble, Podiobooks.com, the entire TWIT network, all of Revision3, Podshow, Nobody Likes Onions, every major(and minor) podcast directory on the Web, myself, pretty much every podcaster out there swears by, uses, supports and seeks to promote RSS. To say that RSS is only barely connected to podcasting is unfounded and perhaps a bit naive. 76.23.215.101 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Testerer 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"The same reasoning goes for the Winer mention. First off, the bullet point was self-referential, which kind of defeats the whole meaning of the point (it was mentioned that Winer wasn't mentioned, which meant he really was mentioned, if you get my drift)." clpo13

Irony friend, it's called irony, it is also a good point that the person who wrote the spec and a podcast pioneer themselves wouldn't be mentioned in this article. But i wouldn't fight you or anyone else on removal of that piece of trivia as this article does not hinge on that point. Testerer 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Secondly, Winer is the creator of RSS, not podcasting. Again, I completely understand RSS is somewhat connected to podcasting," clpo13

No you don't, I'm sorry. It's like saying water is only somewhat connected to swimming.76.23.215.101 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Testerer 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Including a mention of someone who has nothing at all to do with the concept of podcasting is like including mention of the creator of color television in an article about ABC or CBS."clpo13

May I direct you to a napkin that shows an accurate but clear timeline re: podcasting, it might open your eyes. No Winer didn't "invent" podcasting, no single person invented it. It kinda sprung up from the experiments with audio blogs and content (music) syndication.76.23.215.101 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Testerer 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you want to include Winer here, find a reference showing he played a big part in podcasting. Otherwise, he should stay on the RSS article. Same goes for the RSS icon. (The big point here is that the RSS icon does not represent podcasting.)"

clpo13_(talk) 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The icon does indeed too symbolize that a podcast feed is present, that feed is almost always primarily RSS 2.0. Winer is the sole author of RSS 2.0 and obviously an important innovator (one of many)in podcasting. However, he's not at all connected with the icon that was created by Mozilla and then adopted by Firefox and Opera (and others) as well as supported by the majority of podcasters and sights that feature podcast feeds. IE: NPR, NYT, etc.

The icon and the Winer mention are separate issues altogether. I've mentioned before that the trivial mention however probably contributory is not key to this article, but making sense of both podcasting and it's most commonly associated icon is only fair to readers.

I do have to say thanks for using the discussion page, of course there is no requirement to do so but doing so can help to avoid ridiculous editing wars. Thanks again. 76.23.215.101 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Testerer 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry about resigning with my signature, i'll have to try and stay logged in ;) Testerer 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. Clearly we disagree, but I don't care that much about this topic to push the point further. You win. --clpo13_(talk) 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)