Talk:Left Behind/Archive 1

MERGE THIS HIGHLY POV RELIGIOUS ADVERTISING AND DELETE THE DUPLICATED PAGES!
As currently presented this article is pure religious POV advertising and totally unacceptable as a NPOV work. It should be deleted immediately. If the intention is to create a NPOV review then all of the attached and equally obnoxious POV religious advertising on those pages should be removed and all of them combined into one single article.


 * It's a wildly popular series and very notable, as such, it should not be deleted. The individual pages are no different from ones on any series.  Being based on a religious book doesn't make the entries highly religious POV.  Wikipedia is not a site for reviewing work, it's for encyclopedic entries, which include descriptions of books such as this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.195.241.54 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

JVMC I just read the first of these books. The sections dealing with the characters and events in the US were childish but readable - but the political sections were completely ridiculous and events outside the US were not credable. It was obvious that the authors have never seen the places they write about.

Ashley 28 Aug 2005 How can you know whether or not the events are credible? - The bible clearly shows that things will change in the end times, so its not supposed to be logic compared to todays world. I have read moast of the books and I think they are very well written because they draw an image of how the end times MIGHT look. - No one knows for sure, and no one is supposed to either...

Seabhcan 16:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why was the Pentecostal/Charistmatic Topics category removed? Seems relevant to me -- while the public in general have certainly enjoyed the books, the eschatology contained in them is mostly allied with Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrines.

I'll wait a few days, then restore the category, failing any further comment. --Jay (Histrion) 21:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning? Pwa-HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one... 131.247.115.61

Manichean
Could someone explain what "Manichean" means in the following quote (from Salon): "On one level, the attraction of the Left Behind books isn't that much different from that of, say, Tom Clancy or Stephen King. The plotting is brisk and the characterizations Manichean." I read the Wiki article for Manichean, but am none the wiser. What is she saying about the characterizations? Zashaw 01:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Manichaean = black and white; a simplistic good-versus-evil portrayal. Ancient Manichaeans had a good versus evil mythology. --goethean &#2384;  03:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slacktivist link
Could User:Vikreykja explain what is wrong with the Slacktivist link? (Slacktivist (Fred Clark's) critical reading and theological criticism of Left Behind) -- Schoen 19:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox &#8594;Vik Reykja 01:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any extended discussion, policy, or guidance on external links that refer to articles that are POV? I ask because I am relatively new to Wikipedia.  I note that one of the existing external links that is still in the article includes a POV criticism of the Left Behind series, e.g.: "But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels."  Certainly articles about advocacy issues contain external links that are POV, but perhaps the appropriateness of this is different in articles on other topics. -- Schoen 06:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This external link is a rambling diatribe. I find it impossible to follow, and in the end, more about the internal workings of that writer's mind. "Critical reading and theological criticism" is amiss. It reads like a soapbox. It reads like a chatroom. It reads like babble. no offense. It is not academic, and sometimes incoherent, like reading smatterings of a schitzophrenic. i'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but those are the impressions i get. i do not see at all how this blog in question is of any help to a wikipedia reader. Kingturtle 19:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. in regards to Schoen's question about POV external links....it used to be common practice that if you provide an external link with a particular point of view, another external link with an opposing point of view should also be provided. the links should be of equal quality. however, with that said, the latest trend seems to be to steer away form POV external links all together, or minimizing them. For example, look at the external links of Hillary Rodham Clinton....there is one against her (Stop Her Now) and one for her (In Defense of Hillary)...the others are more NPOV. Or look at George W. Bush, where none of the external links are pro or against. Or look at John Kerry's external links. They are all academic and NPOV. In short, although it was once common practice to show different POVs, it is becoming the trend to show neither. Kingturtle 20:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a review. It's in far more detail than most reviews, because it dicusses the political, social, and scriptural meaning of every single page, with follow-up discussion regarding the initial analysis.  Agree with the analysis or don't (and post your disagreements right there with it as you like) it's turning into an impressive critique of the LB books and the LB phenomenon, and it belongs in the links section like any other permanent review site would. 67.163.35.217 20:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a review. I can't sum it up any better than KingTurtle did above so I'll just refer you to that. Your insistence on it being there is starting to look like vanity, too.  Please stop adding it back.  &#8594;Vik Reykja 20:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. And it's not the same person adding it back, either. I'm not Schoen. Meanwhile, whilst the Slacktivist review is POV, that is acceptable in a link - Wikipedia does not have a policy requiring all links to be NPOV. It's a detailed critique, and, as noted above, should be included. Stop deleting it.

Since a RfC was made, I'll comment. I see no need to remove the Slacktivist link. There are links to similar sites all over Wikipedia and as far as I can tell they do not detract from Wikipedia in any way.--Heathcliff 21:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the links back onto the page. Given that there are links to the official website, fan site, etc, having a link to a critical review doesn't seem especially unbalanced - full disclosure, I'm a fan of the slacktivist review, but I think it's a good & full coverage, and the kind of thing that exists all over Wikipedia, as people have said. Cromis 02:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Pages for each book?
Do you believe a page for each book would be helpful? Half of the books made the NY Times bestsellet list individually. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 03:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Readable
Could someone look at that first paragraph and tell me what the *** it says? 1 out of every 3 words I never heard of. I don't think you should have to consult wiktionary simply to read the wikipedia. Redge(Talk) 14:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Include the Simpsons episode!
"Left Below" has recently been removed from "See Also" in the article on the grounds of "Irrelevancy". Nonsense. It is a critique on the whole "Left Behind" oportunist fad. And has better artistic value than the original to boot. I say restore it. Luis Dantas 05:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Since Wikipedia began, I guess. Why do you ask? Luis Dantas 10:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when has a Simpsons episode been notable enough for Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, it's a Simpson's episode just having fun, it's not a "critique." It's not notable and the fact that you called "Left Behind" an "opportunist fad" reveals your POV and undermines your efforts to get it in. Now, not only do I think it's nn and irrelevant, I also now believe that you want it in to push your own POV.

However, I am a slave to consensus so if the consensus is that it should be in, who am I to revert.Gator (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are confused, Gator. Even leaving aside the somewhat self-satyrical nature of Left Behind itself, it is legitimate to mention satires.  Plenty of articles do.  It is not POV to metion its existence, it IS POV to hide it. Luis Dantas 18:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think anyone is confused here. You stated that you felt the Simpson's episode is "a critique on the whole "Left Behind" oportunist fad. And has better artistic value than the original to boot." You have your own POV with this and you think the episode supports it. That's not an acceptable reason to include it. That clearly violates NPOV. You can't take it back now, you've revealed your POV on this one and it would be improper for ou to use this as a round about way to push it.


 * You are still confused. It is the "Left Behind" series itself that supports my POV that it is an opportunist (and dishonest) fad, not the Simpsons.  Simpsons only brings the matter to the fore.  Also, mentioning the various possible POV is in itself NPOV. Luis Dantas 22:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you and I have said enough about this, let's let others chime in on this one and, like I said, if there is a consensus to put it back in, then that's OK by me.Gator (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh and no one is trying to "hide" anything, please don't go there.Gator (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The link to the Simpsons episode is showing POV... and it was proven by your comments regarding this matter. I agree with Gator1 here. The Simpson's episode was just making fun of the series, while the Slativist link mentioned above is... more professional for lack of a better word. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
 * True, but ultimately irrelevant. Luis Dantas 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is an example. There is a poem that is featured on Wikipedia. A literary criticism article that is negative about the poem would be okay for Wikipedia; however, an article saying that "the poem sucks and is junk" fifty times over would not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ditto on keeping the Simpsons reference, I am one of those who rely on Wikipedia for citing a critique or satire of some popular trend. The 'Left Behind' farce is ripe for such satire, using the blatant consumerism anxiety tactics of advertising, 'buy this or you will be left behind', La Haye doesnt have an effing clue about what the Kingdom of Heaven is all about, he actually thinks it is a place in the sky that Jesus will magically fly everyone to.  What a moron!

I have some concerns with the sentence
Nov. 25, 2005. I have some concerns with the sentence "In other words, it deals with a Christian viewpoint of the end of the world" in the introduction. The sentence can be read to mean that the books are representative of all Christian eschatology, when in reality there are many different views about the end times in Christianity. I suggest rewording to say "In other words, it deals with one specific millenarian Christian viewpoint of the end of the world" or something to that effect.

Evangelical Concerns
This section is completely uncited and unsupported. It seems like two people with differing view points are arguing with each other and used OR to try and back up their points of view. I see a problem with that and the section is very unencyclopedic. I say that if it can't be cited it just needs to be removed. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Should I just put a "copyedit" or NPOV tag? Gator (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

666 in the books
I do think that the section belongs... but it may not be in the right place. Maybe on the individual sections for each book (that I am creating)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentalist?
has reverted my improvement of the language, claiming that the previous version is "much less POV". What, exactly, is POV about calling Tim LaHaye a fundamentalist Christian? To my knowledge, this is simply the recitation of known fact. A fundamentalist is someone who reads religious texts literally. Tim LaHaye has written a series of novels that reads first century Jewish scripture as if it fortells twentieth-century politics. Or perhaps it is the poor grammar that you are defending... &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is disagreement on that point and it's better just to stay away from that. Other than that I support your edits 100%. Well done.Gator (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you claim that LaHaye is not a fundamentalist? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, do not have an opinion on the subject, but I know others do. Best just to leave it alone adn avoid a POV dipsute.Gator (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I will revert your change until someone does in fact make this absurd claim. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I personlaly don;t hold the view doesn;t mean it's not out there. Please don't do that. I'm tryiong to remain objective here. Just becuase I don;'t espouse the view is a poor treason to disregard my opinion that it's POV. Think about this.Gator (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Many fundamentalist would say that LaHaye is not following the exact word of the Bible in his novels and is going well beyond what the Bible says. I don;t ahve an opinion on this subject but that doesn't mean that it's not POV. All I'm saying is just stay away from it is all.Gator (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Please use edit summaries more often. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because his interpretation is inaccurate doesn't make it any less fundamentalist. If you aren't making the absurd claim that LaHaye is not a fundamentalist, then your reverting is inappropriate. Only when someone actually argues on this talk page that LaHaye is not a fundamentalist is there a reason to remove the phrase. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Only when someone actually argues on this talk page that LaHaye is not a fundamentalist is there a reason to remove the phrase." Are you serious. No, that's not the way things work. If someone says that the war in Iraq is wrong and I don;t beelviet hat do I ahve to wait until someone comes forth to hold that view before an edit can be made? Course not, NEVER throw away someione's opinion here in Wikipedia, it's one of the cardianl sins. Just because I don;t have an opinion doesn;t mean that my opinion that it's POV is invalid. That is ridiculous and your approach stinks.

I've reverted to your form. Not worth fighting over every little thing and you obviously aren't interested in compromise (I had not problem with pretty much everythign else you edited) as much as you are throwing my opinion on POV away just because I don't personally believe what others do. Once again, poor form and that was not the way to go about things here. NO hard feelings though. Good luck to you.Gator (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and you're still not using edit summaries. Please rectify that. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Lahaye is a fundamentalist in the sense that he abides by the fundamentals of the Christian belief system. That's what any fundamentalist is: a person who abides by the fundamentals. However, it has become evident to me that there are many interpretive differences of how to read Scripture. Lahaye writes as a pre-tribulationist and a pre-millenialist, that is, a person who believes the tribulation is yet to come, and will be followed by a millenial kingdom. He also believes in a secret rapture that will precede the tribulation by a short interval. This is actually a minority belief even among fundamentals; I am a fundamentalist, but I do not believe in a secret rapture, and I have yet to conclude where I stand on millenialism. And though I do not believe in a secret rapture, neither do I fully discount those who do - those who originated the interpretation may have had wisdom revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, but I'm not going to live my life on the assumption that I will be raptured before great tribulations, or that I and others will have a "second chance"; as far as I know, by faith alone are we saved, and a secret rapture would amount to a "sign", a proof. Lahaye and I definitely differ on the rapture point and possibly on millenialism, but we are agreed on many other fundamentals of the faith family we share. GBC 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio notes
I'd say delete the descriptions because we have individual pages on the characters. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Time and Date
I'd like to know when the first books were written, and when the series became popular. Captain Jackson 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Left Behind was written in 95. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Left Behind" & "Left Behind (series)" split proposal
I am proposing that as most of the material in the article Left Behind refers to the series of novels as a whole that the article should be renamed Left Behind (series) and that the space vacated should be worked up as a proper novel article for the original novel, as has been done with the next three (Tribulation Force, Nicolae, Soul Harvest) in the series. Does anyone have an objection to this. I am prepared to do the work and will leave this question open for a few days. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  16:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree... we have the same problems with Tribulation Force. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This has now been actioned and these comments are outdated. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it True?
Is it true, as I have heard, that the books have scenes that amount to almost gleefull depictions of non-born-again-christians being cast into hell, and things like that?

Max J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.161.131 (talk • contribs)

No.Gator (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again no - these book envoke strong emotions as they relate to eternal matters of destiny. So don't believe everything you hear or read about them. Let them talk for themselves and if said to be un-biblical check it your self. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  09:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt that they do. I can very well imagine the authors of these books bending over their desks with glee as they write page after page of anti-atheist, end-day judgment infused bullshit in the form of false words and flawed, immoral opinions. I don't hate Christians, but I hate Christianity and what it's done to literature. It sickens me that people can make a career off selling this bs and fueling the fire of Christian supremacy. So, yes, I don't find it hard to believe those rumors. But I've never read the books --and I don't want to--so don't take my word for it. Oh, and before anyone says anything, I know: I'm going to Hell. ;-)

As of this moment the event of the story is NOT true, The characters will always be a worl of fiction though. It's coming the event these books are talking about is coming!--Hornetman16 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs more variety in the Christian Criticism section
This section badly needs an injection of the opinions of (the vast majority of) Christians who think that the entire fundamentalist literalist dispensationalist premillenarian mindset is just plain wrong. Currently, it only talks about people who disagree because they think the prophecies have already been fulfilled. (I didn't want to just wade in and do it myself because this is clearly an article that's had some disputes in the past, but if I get time to scrounge up some good sources I'll do it if no one else beats me to it.) --Bth 12:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are large number of Christians, among them most Roman Catholics, who do not accept the vision of the End Times and the interpretation of Revelation as promoted by these books. Read this for a general summary of Catholic objection http://www.catholic.com/library/false_profit.asp Cravenmonket 19:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote about Dan Brown's work twisting scripture is confusing and misleading. The quotation is directed at Dan Brown's DaVinci Code, and only casually references Left Behind. On first reading it seems to imply that Dan Brown authored Left Behind.


 * I left a link to a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) response. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the kid's version of Left Behind?
Where it follows around 4 kids instead of adults? - 70.71.202.54 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Criticism
I have changed the section under Christian criticism a bit. The book did not say that no Catholics were raptured, only that many who thought of themselves as Catholics were not raptured. 71.31.156.118 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Region codes?
Can someone explain that section? It seems devoid of anything academic. So take any number and add it to itself then subtract it to get the original number. (5=5+5-5) It is no trick or symbolism; its how numbers work. Pointless since it lacks any value as it sits now.

Here it is: Each of the ten regions (prophesied in the Bible) in the Global Community, the Antichrist-headed world government, is given a code that is also used when the Mark of the Beast is applied to Global Community loyalists. Each number is obtained from a mathematical expression involving three sixes, the number of the beast. (Example: a citizen from the United Carpathian States would receive a 216 on his or her right hand or forehead).


 * United North American States: -6=6-6-6
 * United South American States: 0=(6-6)*6
 * United Great Britain States: 2=(6+6)/6
 * United European States: 6=6+6-6
 * United African States: 7=(6/6)+6
 * United Pacific States: 18=6+6+6
 * United Asian States: 30=(6*6)-6
 * United Indian States: 42=(6*6)+6
 * United Russian States: 72=(6+6)*6
 * United Holy Land (Carpathian) States: 216=6*6*6

Without any reasons given to keep this elementary math it should be deleted. C56C 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This does'n't need to be anything academic or wonderful in the mathmatical field - it is literally just a recounting of the scheme of calculation and number assignment used within the series. As such it sould be referenced (i.e. to indicate which title in which it is first mentioned and explained). ::  Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic
I heard "Glorious Appearing" has a scene where all Catholics in the world are swallowed up in to the Earth and not redeemed.
 * Uh, no. There isn't. 69.40.246.235 02:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew language
Considering all the times that the Tribulation Force members had to go to Israel for some sort of event, I'm surprised that they didn't ask Rabbi Ben Judah to teach them the Hebrew language so that they could more easily blend in and understand those around them. GBC 04:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * Some practicing Christians, evangelical and otherwise, have shown concern that the social perspectives promoted in the Left Behind series unduly sensationalize the death and destruction of masses of people. In addition, some Christians deny the key eschatological beliefs underpinning the plotline.

How many are "some"? It seems that the "others" are a fundamentalist minority of evangelistic protestants; the phenomenon seems to be largely an American one. In Europe, this kind of fundamentalism is almost non-existent.

Tom Sine on this:
 * Many American evangelicals—believing that the "Y2K crisis" (remember that?) would trigger wide-scale social breakdown and set the stage for a one-world takeover—stored away large quantities of food, medical supplies, and guns. At the same time, British evangelicals hardly gave a thought about end-times fears. Instead they saw the crossing the threshold as an opportunity to birth a range of new ministries.
 * The difference reflects the difference between an eschatology of kingdom transformation and hope versus an eschatology of inevitable deterioration and fatalism. The Left Behind series could influence many outside the evangelical movement to succumb to an eschatology of escape and disengagement, in contrast to the biblical vision that people can be a part of the in-breaking of God's new order even now.

So, there are not "some" Christians that critisize "Left Behind", it's more that "some" Christians like it, whilst the vast majority does not. These two "somes" are either from fundamentalist evangelicals who want to claim more influence of Christianity than they ever had; or from people critisizing Christianity to declare that all Christians save "some" are fundamentalist evangelicals. Either way, it is an untrue statement; even Tom Sine, an evangelist, harshly critisizes LaHaye and Jenkins, and I sincerely doubt they have a big following outside fundamentalist circles (at least not since they published "Left Behind". Therefore the "Neutrality" tag. --85.181.35.144 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-arranging sections
I don't know if anybody is still watching this page, seeing that most of the discussion on this page was over two years ago. If you are, I wanna discuss the possibility of moving the list of books, soundtrack, spin-offs to below the summary, response, criticisms. This would ensure better readability, increasing the strength of the article. Would've done it myself, but thought I'd try swinging for community majority, if possible. You may reply on this page itself. a JC freak  y A k  18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Franchises Deleted"
Seriously does the following really belong here?:

"==Franchises== Fans of the series have been repeatedly disappointed by franchises that are released based on the books, such as the films and the graphic novels, as in each case only the first two titles are produced and the rest seem to be always ignored. There are rumors that a fourth film is in the works by Cloud Ten Pictures, and fans can only hope that this film will be truly based on "Nicolae".  The third movie in the series had so many plot differences from the book, that to fans it seemed that they were watching an entirely different story. "

I'll give you all threee guesses of what's wrong with it.
 * Ok. Mebbe it doesn't belong here - I agree with ya. Thanks for keeping an eye out. :) a JC freak   y A k  16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Official website as source
I just added some information on sales figures and an award the series won using the official website of the series as a source. Although it is not neutral, of course, I hope it will be acceptable for this factual information. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Christian-Catholic-etc.etc. belief?
Now I have not changed the page in what I believe because it would be biased seeing as I a protestant, but a question that would have much to do with the good of the page is that where does the theory of the rapture originate? Because as much of it has reference to the book of Revelation, nothing there has any indication of such an event. User:Rembrant12~not logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.225.41 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An unusual reference to the Left Behind Series.....
Here it is in the ACM Queue journal, is an IT magazine. http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=165 Wouldn't have expected to see it in a technical journal! Mathmo Talk 00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tribulation Force (group)
Hi, I have noticed that an article about one of the characters was flagged for notability reasons last February. It was suggested that it be merged to Tribulation Force (group). I have looked at that article, and it features prominantly a list of characters who form the group. But there does not seem to be any indication that any of the characters are notable in accordance with either WP:N or WP:FICTION, and neither particulalry that the group is.

I suggest that all of the articles mentioned on the Tribulation Force (group) article should be merged to this article, or improved to show how they are indeed notable in accordance with WP:N.

Garrie 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)