if( is_logged_in() ) {
if( $current_User->get( 'ID' ) != 1 ) {
do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight
}
}

Obvious but I'll state it anyway: if you're in the back office you don't need the first wee bit, otherwise first verify they've got an ID then see if it's number 1.

Alrite, I'll probz have the cms of the skin actually in the skin itself (i'll be seeing if i can get live previews working).

I thought that there could be multiple admins?
Or multiple people that can modify blogs, so wouldnt this only check to see if the user is the original admin?

Oh and u forgot you // on your comment ;) :P jks

Also had a real issue...

Test if the visitor is the admin (and technically there can be only one):

if( is_logged_in() ) {
if( $current_User->get( 'ID' ) == 1 ) {
$do_a_little_dance == true;
}
}

Or is the visitor a member of the admin group (which by design is group 1)?

if( is_logged_in() ) {
if( $current_User->Group->get( 'ID' ) == 1  ) {
$make_a_little_love == true;
}
}

Or perhaps the visitor is a member of group 1 or 2?

if( is_logged_in() ) {
if( $current_User->Group->get( 'ID' ) =< 2  ) {
$get_down_tonight == true;
}
}

This one is untested by me. Might need to use < 3 to get 1 and 2?

Much better to say "is the current user info equal to what I want" instead of "not equal to what I want" before deciding the world is a very nice place. Then again it depends on it's dependencies eh? I've had that error in a blog post since I don't know when because I didn't look at the date stamp on it. I suppose I should correct it, but then again I'd spend my whole life correcting mistakes made so far in it and probably make a few more which would require me to continue correcting blowouts after I croak, so what's the point?

I have no idea what ur last post is on about ;)
I'll use the 2nd example.

And for the 3rd example the statement:
if( $current_User->Group->get( 'ID' ) =< 2 ) {
Should be corrected to:
if( $current_User->Group->get( 'ID' ) <= 2 ) {
or
if( $current_User->Group->get( 'ID' ) < 3 ) {

I'm not asking you to correct it, im just pointing out your mistake, so you know what is correct (if you don't know already)

Whatever. Same as using slashslash eh? Totally trivial when one considers the nature of the question asked. Do you *really* need perfectly formed examples to get you moving forward? Some folk do and some folk don't. Generally it shows in their question. When it does I take the time to test. When I feel the asker already has half a clue I give them the other half just by typing in whatever it is that'll get them there.

So you're there eh? Rock on!

I was joking with the slashes, and for the second one it sounded like u havent used <= before, so i was pointing out how you would use it.
You took it the wrong way, i was trying to help, so sorry...

No worries. Twas poor code based on observing poor code in a blog post of mine. Originally in the blog post I had greater than 2, which was totally wrong, so I correct the bit that was wrong but not the (whatever it's called...) equalizer bit. I entered this thread with "is not equal to", which again was totally wrong. Anyway I usually test. Unless I don't!!!

No worries: code is life is good!