User talk:Horologium/November 2010

Georgia's Congressional delegation
Thanks for correcting Paul Broun's box shading. I thought I had updated his rowspan since the election so I couldn't what was wrong. --SargentIV (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob Graham
Can you check Bob Graham's page? Someone has disputed the neutrality of the page and posted two paragraphs of absolute drivel that have nothing to do with anything. The guy is going on about Graham's credentials to run a WMD commission....beyond the scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.43.175 (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I pruned back some of the promotional POV nonsense about his book, and I removed a couple of unsupported statements. There is nothing left that is either wildly promotional or a BLP violation, and I don't see any Undue weight issues. The paragraphs to which you appear to be objecting are relevant; he was the chairman of a notable commission, and the commission dealt specifically with WMD use. The article probably needs a good rewrite and some restructuring, but there is nothing wrong with the information presented.  Horologium  (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince Gharios of Ghassan
Dear Sir, Unfortunately you're making mistakes regarding Dynastic Law. There's no legal difference between a monarch who ruled yesterday or 3,000 years ago:

Professor Dr W. Baroni Santos, Doctor D'etat (post-doctorate/ habilitation) from the University of Reims in France in his book "Treaty of Heraldry and Nobility Law" Volume II page 52.:

"Neither the elapsed time, even for centuries, or non-use of the acts of sovereignty exercised by the Prince Pretender, Head of Name and Arms of his house, may be derogated, prescribed or canceled. He/She Retains these rights until the end of times ' ad perpetuam rei tenendam ' which are inserted in the person of Prince Pretender. "

According with the former president of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation Professor Doctor Renato de Francesco in 1959.

"... It's simply ridiculous, from a legal point of view, the distinction intended to be done about Dynasties that have reigned until recently of those who ruled in the distant past. It's not understandable how you can launch at the foot numerous pages of history, only to give luster to this or that family, who, aided by good luck, has managed to remain on the throne, after the year 1815. A Dynasty or reigned or not reigned. If reigned, even in very remote time, deserves the historical and legal treatment as a Dynasty and all its effects."

Also, the Prince's ancestors ruled until 1747 not only the 7th Century. See Sheiks Chemor Gharios JPDante —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpdante (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)