My methods are in the individual chapters and I just refer back to the earlier chapters for repeat methods. The other approach (one big fat M&M chapter for the whole thesis) sounds way to complicated to me.

Now I am genuinely concerned. What language is inappropriate or offensive on this forum? In all honesty, please can someone clarify if using 'crap' 'bugger' 'bloody' or 'tosser' will get someone banned. Also, if someone is going to get banned, do they get a warning first?

What is green and looks like a bucket?

A red bucket in disguise.

What is black and looks like a bucket?

A black bucket.

What is red and looks like a bucket?

A red bucket.

What did the farmer say to the cow sitting on his roof?

Get down.

What did the cow say?

Moo.

(winning)

None of them fit me perfectly, but being on the verge of leaving university after 13 years, I am probably a 3. Wish I was an 8 though!

And a shortcut especially for this thread that says WINNING in big colourful letters with fireworks and balloons and champagne bottles around it. Please?

I love science nerd jokes! Tee hee.

Good luck, chris!

Winning is tough, but someone has got to do it and it might as well be me.

And I bet they really love it when you call them "admin girls" to their faces.

I agree with golfpro.

It is a bit harsh to criticise the guy in Sydney simply because he doesn't want to correspond with Otto. Perhaps he is genuinely too busy to discuss/answer questions for some unknown student on the other side of the world. How many of us complain about our own supervisors always being too busy and not returning emails or our writing to us - well, chances are that guy is just as busy as them.

Also, we do not know exactly what Otto said in his email to this guy. From the information we have, we cannot conclude that what Otto said was not completely inappropriate, ridiculous and a waste of his time. Not saying it was, but you know what I am getting at.

Why does his response make the guy "unimportant"? From what Otto said, the opposite is in fact the case and the guy is "the leading expert". Weird conclusion to draw, shani, if you ask me.