User talk:Gabr-el

Surprise is on our side!

SURPRISE IS ON OUR SIDE! Hi, welcome to my user talk page. What, were you expecting a greeting party?. About Me My Religion Qualifications My major contributions Achievments Me in a box When I am Angry, I feel like this What I think Current projects Talk to me people Email me people

i agree

yes i agree, with you that many battles were exaggrated. Including ajnadyn and fahal. i have found some good books over it in the military college in my home town. i will be giving references from them they suggest some reasonable numbers for fahal yarmouk and ajnadyn. Thanks for your response. Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• And yes i would like to add that according to muslim sources the power of byzantines was shattered in levant and they were no longer able to defend egypt as they defended syria against the muslim invasion.

At its peak the primary sources even exaggrated mention only 50,000 roman army in egypt. the strength of muslim army that invaded egypt wil also help one to understand that what was the level of roman defences there only 4000 men under Amr ibn al-ass marched to egypt and were later reinforced by only 8000 men, making total army of only 12,000 men ( which is half as compair to army of Syrian invasion ) i have saw many western sources that says "after loosing levant heraculis prepared to defend egypt" i mean if this was the defence that 12,000 can run over with the help of copts rebels, then i would not call it a defence. heraculis didn't had resources or man power for that task, which implied that roman suffered great losses in levant and western anatolia. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Komnenian Army

The Komnenian army page is now much improved, it contains material which might be usefully transferred to the main Byzantine Army page, as a great deal of the arms and armour information equally is applicable to the whole period c. 950 to 1204.

Regards,

Urselius (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought that with a little tweaking the arms and armour section for the Komnenian page could be used to fill the gap in the description of the Middle Byzantine period army's equipment on the Byzantine Army page. I don't see any particular need for doing it quickly, but the information is now available. Your input would, of course, be appreciated.

Regards,

Urselius (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Nicaea (1210)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Siege of Nicaea (1210), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Siege of Nicaea (1210). Aramgar (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: WTF?

That would appear to be the result of an accident when I was trying to fix some page-move vandalism with some other admins. I noticed I'd gotten beat to it a moment too late, and apparently stopped it halfway through: when I checked my logs, I didn't see that it had been deleted. Thanks for notifying me, I've restored it now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if it wasn't, we'd have kinda been in some trouble there.... >_> Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Scripture, Aramaic, Chaldean

Like your quotes from Jesus on User page, also read about Mar Paulos, learned more of the Chaldean Church and its recent history. My appreciation grows. I read Aramaic am in Syro Chaldean Church offshoot although my interest here in Wikipedia is KAL 007Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Achaemenid Assyria

Thank you khon. I think its ready for a good article review. Chaldean (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See how things work better when we work together through diplomacy? I'm glad we got something good done. Chaldean (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy source dude

Why don't I find it surprising that he's at it at other articles? I've lost count of the times he has been challenged for sources, then he puts some up and a brief reading of them reveals them to not be a source for what he has added. Either he's not very bright or he's outright deceiving people. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week of hell, I tell you. The high point was explaining to him how one uses a search engine properly [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. Well, hello, and I am glad you will let it stand. The Fall of Constantinople has always been an interesting event to me. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Emotional is not the best way to say it, which I stated

As I said in the article, "A better way to say this is it is not emotional so much as a position of faith. Wikipedia has no faith; it is beyond its ability and purpose. Does that make sense?" The position you have stated is one of faith. I am not speaking from faith or any other position but policy and style. I have taken the position you have taken and lost the argument. I have stated that several times. You have no need to be offended; however, if you want an apology I freely give it and please accept it. Regardless, the position of style remains the same. If we can see it clear to have it changed, I would be very happy. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question on my talk page, please delete it when you are done, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC) I am glad you asked. When I stand in church and remember how I got my faith, I am always so grateful for those graces. St. Thomas Aquinas, when he was writing about Divine Revelation said "There are some truths that some people will not accept unless they hear it straight from God." I guess I was one of those people who needed to hear it that way. NancyHeise (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Humiliating

Certainly the emperor would have considered the defeat to be humiliating. Thus it should be attributed to him. The concept of humiliation is also culture specific (Roman may have considered "kiss[ing] the ground before the Sultan" to be humiliating, but the Sultan himself, presumably a Muslim, put his face on the ground on atleast 5 occasions everyday). Because of its subjectivity to POVs, this should be attributed per Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. You may say "the Byzantines suffered what they considered to be a humiliating defeat."

On the contrary you can mention that the emperor was stripped of his ceremonial rituals and honors. This probably wouldn't require attribution.Bless sins (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the point. Muslims (and as you said Christians and Jews) take pride in putting their heads to the ground. They don't consider themselves to be "humiliated" before God, but rather amongst the honored ones.

The discussion above we are having points out that the term "humiliating" is quite subjective and POV. It should be attributed to the party that considers the humiliation.

Yes, I will add any developments I know of, that are not covered in the article.Bless sins (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Double battle!

Hi,

I've just created a page on the Battle of Hyelion and Leimocheir and subsequently noticed that it already exists under the name 'Meander Valley.' Obviously they should be merged. In my defence I have original primary sources for my description (Choniates), it is a little more detailed, and the name I chose for the battle comes from these.

Urselius (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was my bad

Reading the section again, I agree that I have been quite uncivil towards you, and I do appologise for that. I rushed my reading in a ten min break at work, added with the stress of given the position of my boss who leaft for maternity leave - which I am in no way qualified nor trained for, I hope you can understand how I assumed the worst straightaway.

And yes, I can see now that Christians and Muslims never lived, and never will live peacefully in the middle-east as long as there are fanatics and hardliners on BOTH sides. And BTW, my family were Christians as recently as my great grandparents, and we WILLINGLY converted, not by force.

Take Care now. Pink Princess (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, my username is supposed to be foolish like I explained to you before - and it's purpose it to make fun of superficial idiots who make assumptions about me from a wiki name, not seeing past the irony. Pink Princess (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, you do fully deserve that appology after I re-read what I written and really regretted it. I'm very thankfull for your acceptance too, and very glad our friendship can be restored. Pink Princess (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Cooperation

Hi bro, thats a great idea, and it'll also teach me how to properly use wikipedia. I'll be very gratefull if we'll be able to do that sometime rather me not learning how to edit and just angrily rant. It'll also be fun and bring me my first pride of improving something here. Its a very good idea man, just contact me whenever you have time and I'll be glad to help out. Thanks bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabuchadnessar (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine-Arab Wars 780-1180

This isn’t about who’s “far more resourceful,” or who’s “petty.” It also isn’t about nationalist pride or bragging rights. Were the Arab armies larger than the Byzantines? I’m sure they were. But I’m guessing and so are you. Try reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. How about a published source that gives some estimate or approximation of the actual size of the Fatimid and Abbasid armies? Bart172 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So referring you to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research is now an act of bad faith? You need to choose your words more carefully. For one thing, if you make comments like “It is a widely accepted fact that if you have more land and more men and more resources, as you do when control all of the Middle East, then you have more. Capeach?” that sounds a lot like original research, and it sounds like you have no verifiable sources. And if you’re going to write things like your first comment on my talk page, then I’m going to ask about WP:NOR.

Second, you’re still doing it, you’re still engaging in original research. Specifically, it’s WP: SYN. You’re citing sources that say Byzantine armies were outnumbered and using that extrapolate a conclusion about the actual size of the Abbasid and Fatamid armies. That’s not an unreasonable leap, but it’s still a leap. How about actual sources that directly discuss the size of Abbasid and Fatamid forces? That’s what you need under WP:NOR. Published sources say that the Fatimid forces were always quite small. See The First Crusade 1096-99: Conquest of the Holy Land by David Nicolle at p. 26. And the Abbasid forces were not enormous. Contemporary sources consistently said that the Abbasids were outnumbered when they brought down the Umayyad forces. See The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State by Hugh Kennedy at p. 98. Bart172 (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Achaemenid Assyria

Well, we are close to making it a good article. But the reviewer wanted a few citations for the last two paragraph's you wrote; "Beginning in the 1st century BC, the Romans began expanding their Empire at the cost of the Parthians. Initially the Nomadic military tactic of circling and shooting worked to deadly effect against the slow heavy moving infantry of the Romans. In time however, superior technology and strategy drove the Parthians out of the Mediterranean and most of Asia Minor. The Parthians continued to resist Roman rule, invading and in turn being invaded by the Romans many times, with their capital Ctesiphon being sacked three times. The consequence of these bloody and inconclusive wars meant that the Assyrian provinces bore the brunt of the fighting, with Assyrian troops fighting for one side and then, at the change of the governing of the lands of Mada and Athura, fighting for the other side. Naturally such events served to undermine the Assyrians.

By the 2nd century AD under the Emperor Trajan, the Romans began to achieve the upper hand against the Parthians and established the Roman Province of Assyria along the Euphrates and Tigris. " Chaldean (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't take any credit for that article, unless you take equal credit. Your the one started, I just finished it. I guess we make a good team. Chaldean (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that I'll be visiting the OC this coming month :) I am looking to buy a business there. How far is it from SD? Chaldean (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'll be renting a car, but don't know if I will be allowed to put that many miles on it. But when I do move there, We'll definatly meet up. Chaldean (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trollshere

Template:Trollshere has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. dorftrottel (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

birthday

Yes I had a birthday almost a month ago. The fish you see in the picture are halibut - and those are actually small ones (can you believe it?). There are fishing boats up there that have cranes attached to the back so they can actually bring it the really big ones that can get up to 400 lbs. We dont have a crane and are very happy that we have only ever caught the "little ones", they taste better anyway. Thanks for the nice happy birthday message. NancyHeise (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Map of the Byzantine Empire

I have a disagreement on the subject of the map of the infobox of the article with the User:Red4tribe. I say that the map of the infobox has to depict the empire during the reign of Basil II when the empire reached its highest peak. However Red4tribe confuses the peak of the empire which is an economic, military and cultural progress with the territorial extent of the empire and thinks that the map of the empire under Justinian's reign must be put when the empire really was larger but had not succeeded in resolving all its problems and cannot be characterized as the best time of the empire. I explained him that the map of the article has to show the empire under its zenith which is a matter of a general situation and not a matter of extent. After all the extent of the empire under Basil II was not very small! I need your suuport in order to persuade him. Dimboukas (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Men kissing men

Is uncommon, but not really taboo in the West. It has been steadily declining in popularity with the growth of homosexual awareness, both in Socialist and Capitalist countries. Here is a fresh example of such a kiss: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5mUOauqk950 (3:18). --217.172.29.4 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

That user in the BG Wikipedia who created the Balkans map of 1355 is currently inactive so I created this map. It is also rude (my second attempts and I don't have a clear idea how to work with Photoshop) but still I think it is better than this one. What do you think? --Gligan (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

But of course, its ok for people to chant death threats to Pope Benedict XVI in London - otherwise that would be violating their freedom of speech now, wouldn't it?

Don't you see that by denying someone else's freedom (of speech), you are cornering yourself and destroying the very foundations of your beliefs? "People who are against freedom of speech should be allowed to say this." What do you think of that statement? It is strange, how could they convince themselves to say they are against freedom of speech, is it not? Mallerd (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you see that there is a difference between expressing your freedom of speech, which includes freedom of religion, of thought and of dissent and that abuse of a right is not permissible in a democracy, such as chanting death threats and so forth? There is a difference between attacking Islam (a religious ideology and therefore a mere discussion) and threatening the blood of another man (which is murder). Any fool who cannot take criticism of their religion or any religion that cannot take criticism is unable to stand to reason. Religions are beliefs and if a belief is indefensible, why should people demand the blood of those who attack another religious idea? You can attack opinions, but in a democracy there is a fundamental right to life liberty and property, John Locke. Freedom of Speech is not the freedom to say whatever you want at all for it would be a crime for me to threaten you by law. It is the toleration of this crime that I attack, but if you insult my Christian faith, I would in fact welcome it and engage in a discussion (a defense), but I would not demand your blood. Now do you see? Tourskin (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what the actual difference between expressing and the so-called abuse is? The truth is that a democracy just doesn't work if all are equal. If a muslim says that one, by attacking Islam the religious ideology, is attacking and perhaps even threatening him and his way of life. That puts one on the same level as the so-called abusive ones, while he is sincere and does not want to abuse anything. The game "freedom of speech" cannot be won in a state which has ideals such as equality for all etc. In life it is different: everyone accepts that there are exceptions on the rules (I don't know if that is a correct English way to put it), such as police-violence, judges and more goverment organs. When it comes to individuals however, everyone should be equal and everyone should be allowed to say what he or she wants. This doesn't really matter as long as everyone doesn't blame eachother of abuse of their right. When they do, there will never be a winner of the discussion, because in this matter for some reason all are equal. Even the exceptions of the rule are somewhat forced to surrender to the power of the people, their verdicts are often in favour of freedom of speech and thus equality. That is the case, one should accept that by labeling another as abusive he does not win anything. The one thing that is above all laws and police actions is violence. If you really want to be the winner of the discussion/conflict, you will resort to violence. Mallerd (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

An abuse of a freedom is such that it leads to a destruction in the democracy or rights of another. For example, no one has a right to have their religion protected from opposing opinions as this destroys our right to free speech. We only have a right to what we can say but we have no right to demand the murder or threaten someones life because that violates a fundamental right to life. I can attack any religion I want so long as I am not provoking anyone and it would be within my right to freedom of speech for this is holding a opinion, and does not threaten anyone else's rights. If someone was to say that I strongly disagree with Islam/Christianity because... and then went into detail, that person would not be violating anyone's rights and therefore the right to freedom of speech would not be an abuse in that case. What would be a violation is if someone threatened to kill someone as that violates their fundamental right to life. I don't know why you are talking about violence to solve discussions, that has nothing to do with this. Tourskin (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fundamental right to life? Rights like these do not exist, humans have made these rights up. They are not part of natural life. As such, one cannot tell another what to do and what the best way to live is. Still, I think you miss the point that there can be endless debating and in the end there is no "winner". By the way, I am not saying that violence is a way to solve discussions, I'm saying that eventually you will resort to violence because you see discussion is no longer possible. I am also saying that violence is above all laws. Simple words cannot stop the might of the the fists. Perhaps you are familiar with the words: "War knows no laws, except to conquer.". The same thing in societies, governments do not quell uprisings with new laws do they? No, they enforce their will through police violence.

Its not called police violence, but "state coercion". Now then, if you wish to participate in a western democracy, then you must accept these rights. That is my why opinion is valid. Everyone has a right to his life in that you have no right to take it from me and I have no right to take it from you. If you cannot accept this fundamental cornerstone of western civilization, then I cannot reason with you and should not participate in a western democracy if you will not accept her rules. Men must be governed and better that they be governed with rights to protect our individual selves from the tyranny of the masses. We no longer live in a world were majority rules, or violence decids, for the bill of rights and other legal documents such as the United Nations Human Rights demands everyone's rights be respected - of course not all countries accept this right and those that do practice it at various levels. What worries me is your rejection of these rights; human beings have an intrinsic worthiness and therefore have rights. Tourskin (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know if Muslims believe in the Ten commandments in the old testament of the Bible, so forgive me for my ignorance of Islamic law, but if you are a Muslim, Christian or a Jew or any relgion with strong ties to Moses, then you must believe in rights for the ten commandments command us to respect everyone's rights to property (Thou shall not steal, thou shall not long for another man's wife, although wives are not property) and right to life (thou shall not kill). Tourskin (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, for the sake of the discussion I shall accept the rights as given. What you say is important, you do accept government action and intervention, but apparantly you do not accept the supremacy of the state in all cases. That is why discussion concerning "freedom (of speech)" is endless: suddenly everyone is the expert and everyone's opinion is holy. One should see that is useless to make comments about someone else's opinion if the other beliefs in such a freedom of speech. The substantial part of one's opinion can really only be changed by himself. It is possible however, to persuade someone to stop evangelize his opinion. Then it is not necessary to stop believing in your own opinion. The ultimate goal of a human being is to be as happy as possible. I do not reject the idea of having rights, I do reject the idea that you actually have them. You only have rights (at least where you and I live) because another human being tells you so. I hope you understand this difference and I'm always careful not to rely on my rights to much since I do not feel them as being a part of my nature. Mallerd (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion. I think what you are saying is that these rights are not always to be respected? In that there are "evil" people out there who will not respect you? But if you mean that rights are artificial, then I must disagree with you there. As a Christian, I believe everyone has a right to life and property as is written in the Old and New Testament of the Bible. Furthermoore, the original point of this discussion was that the right to life supercedes the right to freedom of speech, which is why I said that it is wrong for someone to threaten another man's life, tieing this back to what we are talking about, because I honestlty believe that as worthy moral creatures created by God we have rights, God-given rights to life and so on. Tourskin (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC) It is an interesting opinion you have there that rights are artificial, one I use to hold - I only agree with you in this matter if one was to say that we have no rights because God is the only one with a right to us. But In my opinion, we have rights to respect each other, but God has superior rights hat override our own rights. Tourskin (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, rights are not always respected. By what are they not respected? By nature. In the end, the "fundamental" right to life does not save you from dying. All around you is nature (nature created by God or not) and we should recognize that rights have not come with the evolution/creation of humans and therefore are not part of our nature. It does not mean we should not respect eachother's rights, but when we start commenting eachother's opinions on content, we start a discussion which will never know a "winner". I saw you do this anyway and I thought I'd point this to you, since it is "waste of time" (sorry to put it that way). Often people are not willing to enter debate in a manner so that their opinion can be changed like you say. Furthermore, there will always be people with a different opinion that will never be persuaded to your side. If you stop evangelize your opinion you still hold your opinion, if someone is willing to enter debate, then you can speak your opinion. Debates are often absent and it is more "yelling" about eachother. This is different than debating someone on the content of a opinion. Can I ask what your native language is? Mallerd (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My native language is Aramaic, and am an Assyrian by ethnicity. Rights are not judging how life is to be played out naturally but how we treat each other, and as Moral absolutist I hold that we have inalienable rights, thats just my opinion. My opinion is also that our right to life is greater than our right to free speech. Whats your native language and ethnicity?Tourskin (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I see that many people think that morale comes after rights, though, as such that rights are fundamental in the sense they are at the base of our human being. My native language is Dutch, I speak it most of the time. My father is Indonesian and has taught me the Indonesian language when I was young, I have not spoken it in a while but I make frequent edits to Wiktionary. My mother is half Dutch and half Russian, though I only had Russian in school for 1 year, so I understand it on a very elementary level. Do you still live in Iraq (Chaldean) or do you live in Europe? I know 1 Chaldean christian, he has taught me that happiness comes before everything, is that typically Chaldean? Mallerd (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could say that Chaldeans all view happiness before anything, but all races contain both scumbags and selfless heroes. I live in the US right now, tho was living in England for 14 years until I was 18, and in Iraq until I was 4. Happiness before everything? If happiness is loving God and loving one's neighbour, I would agree. Tourskin (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen

I am not going to start an debate over this - you know what - only because you want it. The section of the article which is ridiculously linked in the particular version can be found directly BELOW the linked line. The point is not the naming (I originally - mistakenly read that the line said "but also Byzantine Empire" - in continuation to "it was known to many of its western European contemporaries as Empire of the Greeks; and had it said so my edit would have been completely justified. If one would want to claim that the naming "Byzantine Empire" was used already during the Empire's existence then you'd have to do more than write so in Wikipedia. Do you see the misunderstanding?). --Kurt Leyman (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose your right

I saw Constaninoples fall from a strictly military view but politicaly your right it was a devastating blow to the west. thankfully though they were prepared enough to resist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Haw Haw29 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Righteous Outrage

How (very) dare you censor my earnest query! May Heaven pardon your naughtiness. I'm still on the fence... golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My comment 'on wikipedia (is) not welcome'? Are you a representative of the Foundation or G-d Hisself? A little less presumption, my good man. For dust thou wert and all that. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment is all it takes to get called 'sad', 'pathetic' and 'little'? By some dude with a page full of Jesus quotes on his user page? I do believe in God and suggest you try it too :) Blessed are the peacemakers, eh?golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)