Excepting that the naked short sellign issue is being taken up by a considerably varied group of financial people here, not just the "Crackpots" you describe.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122885715615592401.html for one example.

While it's far from total mainstream acceptance, the current state of wikipedia articles is abysmally onesided and biased toward the NSS=ok viewpoint, with all other viewpoints supressed, and anyone attempting to add such information banned as a sock of a certain user. And no, I am not that user, and have never edited such articles, despite being appalled by their complete lack of objectivity.

Nope, you'd be labeled as meat/sock/whateverpuppets and your contributions to the policies without sufficient article-space edits would be discounted, if you weren't outright banned, as part of an obvious campaign to sully wikipedia's "purity".

For the "sum of all human knowledge" they don't play well with outsiders who don't follow their very specific, and often times completely arbitrary, way of doing things. Expect many many hoops.

Since when are items which give an experience bonus considered fluff?

That's a matter of fact for a jury at trial. The question about who to sue and if the anonymity is protected or can be divulged, it a matter of law for a judge to determine prior to a jury being seated.

As long as he has a case that appears to be valid, a judge can't toss it out based on facts, only a jury can decide that (unless both parties allow for a bench trial, which obviously they can't since one hasn't been served yet).

Shouldn't this be directed not at the publisher, but at the retailer, though? If you get a bad dinner,you go to the restaurant and demand they give you a refund, do you go to the food wholesaler and demand a refund from them?

This might actually be part of the problem. It would interfere with the long-standing internship/apprenticeship period which most law school students/graduates have to go through. Tradition, exploitation of cheap work, and a feeling of "this is what I had to do, so you do too" that all to many of us foist upon younger generations out of spite.

Althoug, really, I suspect more of it is the law school being hampered by overly cautious and spineless administrations.

I suggest instead that these individuals avail themselves of a ship of the line, or perhaps a man-o-war, with a crew of doughty british sailors instead. All this new fangled scientific mumbo-jumbo seems quite unlikely to dissuade these men of low moral fiber, but a peg-leg or two should do the trick, wot wot.

I haven't read, and don't have the time right now to read, the sources for that. But it should be noted, there's a rather significant faction of peta/anti factory farming people using wikipedia to push their pov. That whole movement is replete with people who will abuse, misuse or outright distort facts and studies to prove their point (even if they don't prove causation).

Not only was it a rather small size of elected officials, it was also completely voluntary test in the first place and entirely voluntary to answer the identifying questions.

The small sample size, and entirely opt-in nature of the test and questions lead me to believe these results mean very little (their results regarding colleges in the US is much more instructive, however).