Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 21

= October 21 =

Need help interpreting St. Augustine
All right, I know it says not to cross-post, however I posted this question previously on Language and was advised to ask questions like it on Humanities. I hope it's okay if I post the same question here since I'm not trying to spam or anything. If it's a problem feel free to delete.

---

Hi. I'm cracking my head open trying to figure out what a certain passage from St. Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis means. The passage in question is Book 2, Chapter 9, "The shape of the material heaven." The passage in question is available as a Google book preview at. He appears to be discussing whether a Christian is bound by Biblical authority to take a particular view on whether the heavens are a sphere completely enclosing the earth or are rather suspended above it on one side. Augustine appears to believe that the heavens are spherical, however it seems that some were disputing this, quoting a passage from the Bible which talks about the heavens being stretched out like a skin.

The difficulty is that in paragraph 21, Augustine writes that "if [people who say that heaven is spherical] are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault. For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved." That would seem to suggest that Christians interpreting the Bible can use their external, natural knowledge to throw light on the best interpretation of what the Bible is saying.

However, in paragraph 22, Augustine writes that "...the image of a skin presents a more serious difficulty: we must show that it is reconcilable not with the sphere (for that may be only a man-made theory) but with the vault of Holy Scripture." In this paragraph he seems to be saying that all that matters is that Christians' interpretation of the skin passage is consistent with the rest of the Bible, and that divine revelation through the Bible must take precedence over human reasoning, such that the spherical-heaven theory must be rejected if there is no reasonable way to interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with it. Note also that earlier he had said that "The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men sumise," which is more consistent with the theme of this passage.

But it seems highly implausible that a great thinker like Augustine would have contradicted himself in the space of just two paragraphs. Could a fresh pair of eyeballs take a look at Chapter 9 and tell me if there's something I've missed? The main question on my mind is the extent to which Augustine believes that Christians' external, natural reasoning and knowledge should play in their interpretation of Scripture. Paragraph 21 seems to suggest that it should play a big part, but paragraph 22 seems to suggest that Christians may have to place their faith in a certain interpretation even if their reason tells them that the Bible, interpreted that way, cannot be right. (No, I am not worried that the sky is a flat like a vault...lol) Thanks! Schmitty120 00:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think in speaking about heaven as a sphere, the phrase, "provided only that this is proved," is important. I think the reasoning is that we must view the idea of "heaven as a sphere" as being a theory. Since it is "only" a theory, we are free to assume that "heaven is a sphere" is just a bogus conclusion derived from fallible human observations and reasoning. "the extent to which ....reasoning and knowledge should play" a role.....I think the text indicates that when our senses and reasoning agree with the Bible, then all is fine. When our senses and reasoning contradict the Bible, then we should just assume that our sense and reasoning are confused. The "contradiction" that I do not understand is why there is such a show of trying to reason it all out when the adopted line of reasoning is based on an unquestioned assumption that everything in the Bible is literally true. --JWSchmidt 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Judge's options
What are a judge's options after a jury has handed down a guilty verdict in a criminal case? --72.77.114.183 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)( Assuming the judge does not like the jury verdict)
 * For the U.S., see Judgment as a matter of law and Judgment notwithstanding verdict. GreatManTheory 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the UK, it depends on the crime, but the court nearly always has some discretion after the verdict is arrived at. Most criminal offences are governed by statute law, and a range of available sentences is set out in the Act relied on. There are a few mandatory sentences (for instance, murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment, and possessing some firearms carries a minimum sentence of five years), but even in such cases a judge can recommend a minimum term before a prisoner is considered for release. When it comes to manslaughter, on the other hand, after the killer is convicted a judge has the power to grant an absolute discharge. In a magistrates' court, you get summary justice and most sentencing is on the spot, but the sanctions available to magistrates are limited. In higher courts, it's common nowadays after the verdict for the court to adjourn for psychiatric and other reports which will help in arriving at a fair sentence. Xn4  02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

India National congress
Which parties are India National Congress's arch-rival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.124.89 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Politics of India should contain the answer, if one exists!87.102.16.28 10:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka political arch-rivals
Which parties are Sri Lanka's political arch-rivals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.124.89 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See Politics_of_Sri_Lanka and please do you own research - in this case it would involve going to the Sri Lanka article, moving to the "goverment and politics" section, clicking the link to the main article - looking at that article for a list of the main parties - and then reading it.87.102.16.28 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA in Tibet
What evidence is there that the CIA aided the resistance in Tibet after the Chinese invasion of 1951? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Cassius (talk • contribs) 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tibetan resistance movement (this article is uncited)
 * Also try http://ww.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=+resistance+in+Tibet+cia+help&meta= or similar
 * The information found typically may be debateable...87.102.16.28 10:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

William Walsingham
In the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age, William Walsingham, the brother of Francis Walsingham, is revealed to have been involved in the Catholic plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth. His brother managed to spring William from prison, and apparently shipped him off to France. What happened to William from there? Corvus cornix 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this was one of the movie's flights of fancy. Surely, there wasn't a real William Walsingham, except that it was the name of Francis Walsingham's father? Xn4  04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Corvus cornix, I have not as yet seen Elizabeth: the Golden Age (it's not scheduled for release in England until November), but if it is anything like the prequel it would be best not to take the history too seriously! Clio the Muse 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How disappointing. Thanks, guys.  Corvus cornix 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i think they might be getting him muddled with william stafford who was the brother of edward stafford ambassado in france. william was involved in the stafford plot of 1587 and there is the possibility that edward stafford was a double agent working for the spanish. there was no william walsingham as francis was an only child. why can't they get someone to advise on these films that knows their history!!

Robert Reston
Another Elizabeth: The Golden Age question. Rhys Ifans plays a Jesuit named Robert Reston who was involved in the plot to assassinate Elizabeth. Was Reston a real person? Corvus cornix 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not under the name of Robert Reston, at least. Xn4  04:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the character was based upon John Ballard, a Jesuit priest involved in the Babington Plot?

Jesuit Robert Person is thought to have been involved in the plot to assassinate Eliazabeth.

Cawnpore Massacre
I understand that the Mutiny of 1857 is now celebrated in India as the first war of independence. Is the massacre of the women and children at Cawnpore also celebrated? Thin Cassius 04:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlikely isn't it.87.102.16.28 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some links: Indian Rebellion of 1857 and Siege of Cawnpore.


 * The precise facts are somewhat confused, and, inevitably, disputed. It is not clear who gave the order to massacre the 200-odd captive women and children, but it is clear that the rebelling sepoys refused to do it.  They were dismembered by four local butchers and their bodies (some apparently still alive) cast into a well the next day. Remember Cawnpore! became a rallying cry for the British.


 * I would be interested to know how this event is considered in India currently. I doubt it is "celebrated" - perhaps taken together with the other despicable and brutal acts of violence perpetrated on innocents (and not-so-innocents) by both sides? -- !! ?? 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Madaba map (mosaic)
(question moved from misc desk for better chance at an answer)87.102.16.28 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read your articles on the mosaic Madaba map in St. George's Greek Orthodox Church in Madaba.

Please, can you tell me who did the mosaics??

You say when it was done but you don't say who did the work... who ordered it done.

I need this information. If you can't help me, please tell me who can ... thank you very much.

(email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.86.250 (talk)


 * I'm sorry, 87.102, I have a feeling that this is unknown and unknowable. Clio the Muse 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronanciation of a Sanscrit word
How yhe sanscrit word 'Sadhana' is pronanounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.220.117 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)85.75.220.117a

alsid


 * Unfortunately, I don't have IPA on my PC. It rhymes with "pardoner" or even "gardener". The first a is long, pronounced as in tart, the other two a's are short, pronounced like the u in butt. The d is aspirated, though most western speakers wouldn't bother with that subtlety.--Shantavira|feed me 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So something like [saːdʰənə]? Note that it only rhymes with pardoner and gardener in non-rhotic accents. If you're American, those words could mislead you, because there's no actual R sound in sadhana. —Keenan Pepper 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I don't think the questioner is troubling with macrons, there are three possible Sanskrit words: (A) sadhana, (B) sādhana, (C) sādhanā. Keenan Pepper's advice is correct for (B), an adjectival form meaning "directing to the goal; procuring; expressive of, designating; carrying out, effecting; subduing, vanquishing; gaining power over (by spells), summoning (spirits, deities)," etc.  (A) is an adjective meaning "wealthy" (literally, "together with riches"); I doubt it's the word in question, but its pronunciation would require a stressed version of the schwa in the first syllable (IPA ? if so, [sʌdʰənə]).  It is possible that the questioner means (C), a noun meaning "magic": .  All three three are stressed on the first syllable.  Wareh 02:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For pronunciation in English, a lot of leeway is given. As to how older (as in centuries older) Indians would have pronounced it, Wareh has it well. I would add, though that Sanskrit probably wouldn't have reduced unstressed vowels to schwa, especially the final one, as it is quite important to the phonology of the language. Although English speakers are generally not used to distinguishing unstressed vowels, it is very much possible. We're assuming here that the 'd' is /d/ (dental), rather than /d̪/ (retroflex). Modern Sanskritists don't make the distinction when pronouncing it in English discussion, but in Sanskrit itself, it's quite important. 130.56.65.24 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not assuming; there are no Sanskrit words with retroflex d that fit the bill. And I've never met a modern Sanskritist who didn't make the distinction.  In Sanskrit, a is the only short vowel that is reduced to schwa, so there is no ambiguity.  It has nothing to do with stress; I just couldn't bring myself to write schwa in a stressed syllable.  Wareh 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascist Poland?
Is it right to describe Poland as a Fascist-style dictatorship after Pilsudski's coup of May 1926? I am thinking here of a possible comparison with the Clerical Fascism of the Dollfuss regime in Austria. 217.42.110.227 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In a word-no! There are some superficial comparisons between the Pilsudski regime and that of the Fascists, in that ultimate power lay with one man, boyed up by themes of national renewal.  But Pilsudski never sought to monopolise all the channels of power.  His principal office was that of foreign minister, and he was only premier for two brief periods.  There was, moreover, no enforced ideology, like that of Clerical fascism in Austria, and the only Polish Fascist party, the Falanga, was banned by the regime.  Pilsudski was also a sincere Catholic, and never embraced any form of anti-semitism.  Yes, the Sanacja government established after the May Coup was authoritarian; yes, it ended the chaos of Polish democracy, but in terms of policy and practice the Pilsudski government was never more than a old-fashioned military dictatorship.  Clio the Muse 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazis and Christians
I have two questions on this topic. First, in what ways did dislike of the Weimar Republic generate support from the Christian churches for the Nazis? Second, what degree of support did Hitler receive from the different Christian denominations in Germany? 217.42.110.227 12:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nazism and religion may be of use. Algebraist 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the following goes rather off-topic.
 * That article says under the catholicism section "With the Church's strong view against Communism and its cooperation with Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, some in the Church looked at the Nazi party as an ally at first." (my italics) But in the film Massacre in Rome, which depicts an event that took place towards the end of the war right under the pope's nose, hundreds of people (mostly Jews, don't know if that is of any relevance) were killed as retaliation for a resistance attack. And the pope did nothing to change the minds of the Germans, despite the fact that they themselves weren't too keen on doing it, so he might have easily convinced them to reconsider. One reason given by a representative of the pope was that between the two rivals the nazis and the communists, the former were the lesser evil. At least, all this according to the film, and I can't say how accurate the depiction is. DirkvdM 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The churches found the political atmosphere of the Weimar Republic uncongenial; it was at variance with an authoritarian tradition embraced by the Lutherans, and its social policy on issues like education and abortion offended many of the core Catholic beliefs. Hitler, moreover, was careful not to offend the the sensibilities of the churches. Alfred Rosenberg, for example, was forced to publish The Myth of the Twentieth Century, his anti-Christian polemic, privately. So, when the Nazis emerged as the main opposition to the Republic they obtained the support of many Protestants, including such prominent figures as Martin Niemöller, though the Catholic community for the most part continued to give its main support to their own church-sponsored Centre Party. Clio the Muse 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Austerlitz
Was the allies decision to face Napoleon at Austerlitz a mistake? 86.147.184.120 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at Battle of Austerlitz? It's a good article. Xn4  19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was; and it was a battle that would never been have fought if the old fox had been allowed to follow his instincts. In retreating towards the Carpathians, the Russian commander was drawing Napoleon into a desert, extending his brittle lines of communication still further. By joining up with Bennigsen in Hungary, Kutuzov would have further boosted his strength. But Alexander was with the army, and Alexander wanted glory. There was glory alright, but not for Alexander. Clio the Muse 01:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Royalty and Passports
A current question on the Misc. Ref. Desk has led me to these questions: does reigning royalty carry a passport when travelling? While I am quite sure that Queen Elizabeth, for example, joins no line for customs, immigration or security, is she still "wanded" and asked the usual questions about the purpose of the flight and whether she packed her own bags? (And what do they do when she says "No.") Is royalty assumed to have such allegiances to their own country, at least, (and history notwithstanding) that they pose no risk to offend? And then, as a follow-on, now that the world has gone mad about security checks on airlines, are diplomatic bags coming in and out of the country by whatever means of transportation, still accepted without being checked? Bielle 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Queen does not require a passport (as passports are issued in her name), this also applies to her as Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. The rest of the Royal Family do require passports. Here is my source. . DuncanHill 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about when travelling outside the Commonwealth? Surely the schmuck at JFK won't recognize most of the royal family (note lower case). —Nricardo 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, DuncanHill. As for Nricardo's question, the Queen is unlikley to see the "average schmuck" at any airport, and anyone who is assigned to deal with her entourage is likely to have memorized the faces of everyone involved.
 * I am still curious about the security matters, though. Bielle 16:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume she uses chartered vehicles, if not her own, so she wouldn't be asked airline security questions like whether she packed her own bags. —Tamfang 04:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be asked about her business in the country or the purpose of her flight. Anyone involved would know all that ahead of time. Incidentally, I think that those questions are only asked of people travelling to the US, but I could be wrong there. As for standard security matters. With the Queen's lugage being under tight surveillance by the Secret Service, or whoever takes care of it, I think it would be quite useless to doublecheck. - Mgm|(talk) 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Diplomatic immunity. Xn4  19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

discrimination of Germans in Norther Ireland
I am from Germany and I have the possibility of working in Northern Ireland.

Would I as a Protestant be discriminated by the Catholics because I am protestant and by the Britons because I am German?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.233.33 (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is mostly Protestant. It's the Republic of Ireland that's predominantly Roman Catholic.  Britons are probably less xenophobic than Germans, but may still harbor animosity.—Nricardo 16:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is only slightly more protestant than catholic these days. In my experience, British people are often more xenophobic than German people, tho' having never visited NI I cannot comment on attitudes there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would add that Irish people of both North & South have a very good reputation for hospitality. DuncanHill 17:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the comment concerning the alleged xenophobia of the Germans. I can, of course, only speak from personal experience, but in all of my travels across Germany I never encountered any trace of hostility or discourtesy. Even my mangled attempts to speak the language were received with great patience!

Anyway, 83.59, sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland arose under very specific historical circumstances and are highly unlikely to affect outsiders, regardless of their confessional attachments. Local people will generally recognise each other's background by their names, where they live, where they socialise and by their political attachments, if these are openly expressed. Going to any given church would, in itself, not serve to mark you out. And if you are every asked if you are a Billy (Protestant) or a Dan (Catholic) just say you are an Old Tin Can! Clio the Muse 22:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio's right, if you're an outsider, that will likely 'let you off the hook', so make that plain (speaking with a heavy German accent might help :) ). Actually, what you call what is more likely to get you into trouble. Geographic names can be tricky in the British Isles, and especially in Ireland. See British Isles (terminology). I started that article, but I'm still confused. The Euler diagram includes Ireland in the British Isles, but some (many?) Irish will object that that terminology makes their island an 'annexe' of Great Britain. And of course 'Ireland' can mean several things. So it's easy to make mistakes, especially since what is a mistake depends on whom you are talking to. Whenever geography, politics or religion enter a discussion, be prepared to become apologetic, make it clear you're a foreigner and ask people to explain. If next you listen with interest, that is bound to ease the tension. Then again, don't get too uptight about it. I never encountered a serious problem with this in Ireland (the Republic, that is), and I imagine it will not be very different in Northern Ireland. DirkvdM 09:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A doubt that I can't find answer!!!
I really be thankfull to someone that tell me who said: " if there was a fire, and i saw a cat and a picasso pic, i'd take a cat, coz i choose life over art.."? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.107.187 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Something similar is attributed to Alberto Giacometti (referring to a Rembrandt painting though, not a Picasso)
 * «Dans un incendie, entre un Rembrandt et un chat, je sauverais le chat.»
 * Meaning: «If I were caught in a fire and I had to choose between a Rembrandt and a cat, I'd save the cat.».
 * As often, I couldn't find out when, where, and why Giacometti was supposed to have made that statement. ---Sluzzelin talk  17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to return that compliment. If I had to choose between saving a Giacometti sculpture and a cat, there would be no contest. Xn4  22:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The sculpture probably could whidstand the fire anyway! Keria 09:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And if it melted a bit, who'd know the difference? &mdash;Tamfang 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's quite enough, ye philistines! You know the statement wasn't deprecating Rembrandt. On the contrary, he's saying that even the most valuable and sublime work of art cannot be worth more than the life of a creature (or something like that, I don't know whether the quote would work if "cat" were replaced with "slug"). Anyway, stop slagging off Giacometti, I happen to love his art! ---Sluzzelin talk  20:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not alone! Clio the Muse 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Go Giacometti!!! :) --S.dedalus 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a pity the talented Giacometti mentioned cats. e e cummings puts the thought better: "a pretty girl who naked is is worth a thousand statues". Xn4  19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading aloud in the 19th century
How common was it for a family member to read a book aloud in the nineteenth-century U.S.? I searched Wikipedia on reading aloud but found no history of the practice. I know that the Bible was often read aloud, but what about books and serials, such as those by Charles Dickens? 69.201.141.45 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For a crude start, there is some (uncited) discussion in print here. Wareh 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't give many details, but I do remember reading about things like that happening in various books from the period. These might be one of your best sources. Little Women, for example, I think talks about reading aloud to one another. Although it's not the US, Jane Austen talks about reading aloud to people at the beginning of the 19th century in England (I think Mr Knightley reads aloud to Emma and Mr Woodhouse in Emma - corrections welcome, it's been some time).130.56.65.24 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In English cotton mills in the early C19 the girls would chip in together to pay one girl to read aloud. --Wetman 07:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bible, at least, was usually read aloud in evenings. Corvus cornix 18:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslim women in 19th century Egypt
In the 19th-century work A Yankee Engineer Abroad, Part II: The East, the author states on page ll that the women in Egypt were not acknowledged to have souls. Was this correct? I have found writings in Wikipedia concerning the houri and whether there are more females in Muslim paradise than men, but nothing concerning the "soul." 69.201.141.45 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't know about that (a doctrine that women don't have souls is more usually attributed -- incorrectly -- to a local Christian episcopal synod in France in 585 AD). However, there are some hadith which state things like Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet said " I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful" (Sahih Bukhari 1:28) / Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women."(Sahih Bukhari 4:464), etc. - AnonMoos 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos's quotations, whatever their currency, would seem to offer support for the view that women do have souls, since otherwise what immortal substance would be subject to punishment after the end of bodily life? Wareh 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Born at sea
What are the rules on the nationality of a baby born at sea (or in an aircraft over the sea for that matter!)? -- Sgroupace 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends. Note that not all countries use a Jus soli (right of soil) system to confer citizenship: many, such as Japan (see Japanese nationality law) use a Jus sanguinis (right of blood) system. In this case, it would likely be a question of what citizenship the parents are, and if the boat/plane is in a country's sovreign territory. --YbborTalk 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

linking to other wiki articles
i am new at this. i cant firgue out how to link the entry i just created to other relevant wiki articles. how do i do this?Meilanfang 20:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Use double brackets around the words you want to link. See WP:LINK for more information. --YbborTalk 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You should probably read over Introduction before you start editing, if you want to get the most out of your time here. --24.147.86.187 02:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)