Yes, he is very annoying--all the more so because he's obviously well-educated and therefore hard to dismiss as an ordinary crackpot. He hasn't been too terribly destructive. He just cranks out reams and reams of subjectivist rants with quality inversely proportionate to their quantity. But one or two sentences out of every page he writes actually has some interesting insight worth keeping, and he does put up with my abuse pretty well, so I haven't yet been tempted to suggest any action. Besides, his anonymity will always serve to minimize his credibility, so he'll lose a lot of arguments on those grounds alone. I know I've suggested in the past that perhaps only logged-in users should be allowed to edit, but I think I'm more inclined to leave things as they are, and just have a social norm here that anonymous editors should simply suffer the consequences to the credibility and lose arguments by default. You Wrote: and time's a disquieting. I in just