alex thank you for your reply i could indeed use a break from this case but yesterday was a very eventful day as the case closed and then agk answered a question i'd initially posed on august meaning that he refused to engage regarding the false allegation he made against during the brief window during which i had a chance to respond to the fof and then when it made the response it not only confirmed the judgment on content aspect of the fof if begs the question as to why he cited another diff including an exchange with arzel in which arzel not only ignores the content of academically published rs he openly denigrates them in a thread where blocks of text of the formisano text for example had been under direct discussion regarding the perceived legal threat i had no intention to make a legal threat that was all sort of sarcastic play on words relating to specific sequence of events in the case starting with newyorkbrad's comment on my fof on august to which agk refused to reply publicly until the case had been closed yesterday more than two weeks later there were also email exchanges between myself and nyb and agk which i will have to forward to jimbo wales at some point after clarifying one point made by nyb on his talk page the import of the substance is firstly a pun insofar as i make an insinuation about sophistry in the legal field in relation to my perception that agk aspires to become an attorney or whatever they're called in scotland it is secondly an indication that i have taken the time to register at wikipediocracy for future reference regarding earlier comments i had made about the court of public opinion and when did a little looking around there finding an entry about nyb for example who had advised agk that he didn't see any misconduct in some of the points of the fof so it was thirdly an indirect suggestion that he learn something from someone that is already an accomplished attorney if the reiteration of material deleted by agk from his user page within the past two weeks is outing then that is a policy i shall have to examine note that i am not the only editor to have broached the issue of his being an undergraduate in the context of his judgment and actions acting in the capacity of arbitrator in the case at issue there's much more to say on this but i need to get a couple more hours of sleep i have tried to leave links to relevant discussions at jimbo's talk page but have only provided a partial synthesis of the situation not even contrasting the complete lack of an fof on arzel for instance with the response provided to me on the pd talk page shortly after the case was officially closed yesterday if this statement settles some of the concerns regarding my intentions and the severity of the infractions thereby diminished i would appreciate a reduction of the length of the block to facilitate my engaging in the necessary efforts to conduct the appeal without having to exclusively rely on the email system