On Apr 21, 12:01*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
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.

--

You say that you contacted Subbrit about a location where they had it
wrong, care to enlighten us as to where and what?