On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

A harder glance would lead you to spot the references to Sub-Brit,
whose "countless years of sitting in chairs has resulted in quite the
in depth collection of historical fact and technical nerdery regarding
the place" - at least that's the take of the urbexers. (The urbex
contingent and those of the Sub-Brit persuasion don't quite see eye to
eye, you see - though I doubt the urbex verdict on utl would be all
that glowing either!)

I'm from neither urban exploration camp but one relatively small
building sub-brit covered had blatantly incorrect information
regarding its function, the reason being I was extremely familiar with
the site having worked on engineering a complete revamp of all
equipment there in the mid 1980's

Within an organisation of many thousands, the number of people who
were aware of this building only ever numbered a dozen or so, most are
now well into retirement, the number 'online' can't be many, and the
number who would ever know about sub-brit is just above zero

I provided them with detailed info about the building, what its true
purpose was, and where the function they claimed was carried out in
this building was really performed, a few years back I could have even
provided them with all the technical drawings and photos of the inside
of the building, especially as it ceased as an operational building in
the late 1990's. Hell I could have even given them a guided tour!

They plainly couldn't give a stuff as they didn't even acknowledge
receipt and the glaring errors are still there.


--