Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Intellectual Decline?

Give me a break. She was nineteen when she was tried and executed. No psychiatrist would discount a possible diagnosis of mental illness because a nineteen-year-old who was having auditory and visual "visions" was exceptionally intelligent. Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders often do not become debilitating until much later than the ill person's nineteenth year, and in no way are symptoms of intellectual deficiency or decline a necessary component of the syndrome of severe mental illness. The intellectual decline paragraph should be deleted in any evidence-based discussion of the question of this historical figure's possible mental state. Arkhamite 17:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! As a man who has been "certified" by the state of Texas as "mentally ill" and who hears noises--which noises have been termed "psychotic" and "auditory hallucinations"--I'd like to throw in the personal observation that saying that all psychotic disorders lead to ever-increasing decline of intelligence is a load of hooey. Absurd.

If you give credence to the IQ tests that you can find on the internet, my IQ is 140. When we play strategy-based games around the house (or across the internet), my win percentage is more than 75%. My regular companions in these competitions almost always have at least one degree, usually have served in a supervisory capacity at least for a while, and include the chief editor at the American College of Emergency Physicians, an ex-VP of somethingorother at Chiquita Banana, two rocket scientists (well, they ARE), several programmers, a woman who sold her interest in an advertising company she and another guy created for an untold amount (but in 6 figures not starting with a 1, and she's 38), and a math professor. I beat one friend with an internet-tested IQ of 141 so many times in chess he won't play with me any more (I think our record was 13-0 when we quit, but I wasn't trying to keep count), and my record when locked up in a mental hospital ("for my protection") was 216-9 (I kept a log) against both patients and staff. I won 97 games before my first loss. I take around 20 pills a day and have memory problems, but my problem-solving skills have not declined. My communication skills declined are still good, and I offer this entry as anecdotal evidence. I wrote a letter in German earlier today, defined a few words from Spanish for my house-mate (we were watching a movie in Spanish with subtitles), and there are a few blogs I could offer in evidence...But I think I've proved my point.

I'm 47. I'll admit that I could have declined mentally since my youth, but that would not be consistent with my test scores and it would mean that I was smarter than "pretty damned smart" back when. Actually, it would be quite handy if I could blame all of my shortcomings on a mental decline but, alas, I do not believe that the facts would bear me out on that.

It is inarguable that many people who suffer from long-term mental illness including psychosis sometimes are so afflicted with their perceptions of events which transpire only in their subjective universe that they are unable to concentrate well enough to formulate and execute solutions to simple problems. I have seen people like that, and I have also seen how, after being properly medicated, some are able to regain their capacity for objectively coherent thought. "Crazy" and "stupid" are not interrelated except in two very limited senses: a) some psychotics have such frequent distractions of hallucinatory nature that they lose the ability to concentrate on events in the real world, though these people can sometimes talk with lucidity and coherence about their delusions; and b) some people are so stupid that their lack of intelligence is classed as a mental illness (though generally not by psychiatric professionals).

As far as any associated "physical decline" goes, the physical decline related to psychiatric or psychological disorders is generally that associated with being poor and an outcast. If crazy people have access to decent nutrition, they do not generally have any sort of physical debilitation whatsoever. This is from a 6'2" 204# man who nearly got his ass whipped by a 5'9" wacko. (Of course, he attacked without warning and I finally was able to subdue him before the staff got there, but the bruises were real and, had I not had some training in aikido that perfectly suited one of his attack moves--I am pretty efficient at tossing you across the room or putting you in a submission hold if you grab my forearm--it might have been a different story. Another relatively sane and perfectly healthy adult woman was beset by a big-time wacko with about three teeth and over 60 years of age (I saw her medical record) carrying a large purse and was knocked from her feet and got a burst eardrum in the encounter.

I'm not a psychiatric professional, but I could play one on TV without too much of a stretch. I've certainly been in a position to observe mental illness up-close and personal, and I have read a lot about mental illness with particular attention to psychoses, the case law surrounding mental illness with particular attention to bi-polar disorders and psychoses (I would prefer not to get locked up again), and have read a lot of the DSM. In my opinion, my opinion on this particular subject is pretty well-informed...and the section about her mental decline (shown immediately following in italics) should be removed. It reflects bigotry and prejudice and is patently offensive to anyone who is mentally ill.

Besides the physical rigor of her military career, which would seem to exclude many medical hypotheses, Joan of Arc displayed none of the intellectual decline that normally accompanies major mental illnesses. Joan of Arc remained astute to the end of her life and rehabilitation trial testimony frequently marvels at her intelligence. "Often they [the judges] turned from one question to another, changing about, but, notwithstanding this, she answered prudently, and evinced a wonderful memory." Her subtle replies under interrogation even forced the court to stop holding public sessions. If Joan of Arc's visions had some medical or psychiatric origin then she would have been an exceptional case.

If you insist on including this speculative and ignorant (as in, "ignorant of mental illness symptoms and indications") observation (and ungrammatical) passage, perhaps the following would be appropriate. I will replace it in the next week or so if there is no discussion or debate. (The original will be kept above, so repair other than reversion will be possible.)

In spite of the physical rigors of her military career, Joan of Arc remained her mental acuity and physical well-being to the end of her life. Witnesses of her rehabilitation trial testimony frequently marveled at her intelligence. "Often they [the judges] turned from one question to another, changing about, but, notwithstanding this, she answered prudently, and evinced a wonderful memory."[65] Her subtle replies under interrogation even forced the court to stop holding public sessions.[66] Joan of Arc's visions could have had some medical or psychiatric origin, but there is no indisputable evidence of this based on the historical accounts.

--Kencomer 14:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If Joan of Arc had been a serial killer, none of this debate about whether or not she was mentally ill would be infesting this article. This despite the fact that there is no statistical connection between criminal behavior and psychotic disorders. All a religious figure like a saint needs to do is invoke the godhead and any evidence that the saint's visions may have been hallucinatory is automatically discounted by believers. But let someone who has committed an offense against the Mosaic Law invoke the insanity defense and watch the congregation run for their rope and torches.

And since when did discussion of whether or not a person who lived hundreds of years ago was having divinely-inspired visions fall within the legitimate purview of secular scholarhsip? Sounds like some of the "historians" cited in this article would look at a painting of the Last Judgment, with Christ pointing one way for the saved and another for the damned, and see their own face instead of that of the Son of Man.

Arkhamite 17:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all of the documented information about Joan of Arc's visions comes from her condemnation trial transcript. Due to the very unusual nature of that trial there's a legitimate chance that this document does not supply an accurate report of her mental state. Another possible explanation is in the use of metaphor, which was much more highly devloped in the fifteenth century than today. Some of the testimony may have been purely symbolic. So the literal text reading upon which all psychological interpretations depend is open to question. It may seem odd that experts publish speculation on this subject, but they do.

Wikipedia strives for neutrality on all subjects, religion included. Joan of Arc happens to be one of the most popular saints of the Roman Catholic Church, which means this article needs to respect the point of view that those visions had a divine origin. You might reject that perspective. The article still needs to represent it.

What you seem to suggest is that Joan of Arc may have had a florid manifestation of schizophrenia (or some similarly profound psychotic disorder) that did not yet prove debilitating because of her age. If you want to reflect that opinion in the article you'd need two levels of sources: first, something that documents a delayed onset of debilitating symptoms after complex hallucinations have occurred for some time. Then, a specific researcher who suggests that as a possible explanation for Joan of Arc. Durova^Charge! 14:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, by that standard of scientific proof, the unreferenced and unverified statement in bold below should surely be removed. It has stayed here as such merely out of prejudice and misplaced religiosity and nothing more.

"Besides the physical rigor of her military career, which would seem to exclude many medical hypotheses, Joan of Arc displayed none of the intellectual decline that normally accompanies major mental illnesses."

Imagine how your religious readers would react if I posted in an article that "Pope John Paul II clearly did not die the easy, painless death that usually is granted to someone who prays a lot." The unverified statement about intellectual decline is the same thing. I know at least one person with a severe mental illness (me) who by all conceivable measures is as smart or stupid as he ever was, with absolutely no change in smartness or stupidity according to mental health status.

I again call for the removal of the statement about intellectual decline in the interests of fairness and accuracy. If you want to seek verification of such a statement, I remind you that a study giving I.Q. tests to people with mental illness would be the only possible way to do it. Find data from a study like that, and some that indicate mentally ill people normally decline in intellect, and then you have begun to justify that statement, assuming that such a decline can occur even before the age of nineteen. Then you must localize your assertion to a person who describes auditory and visual "visions" she believes to be of supernatural origin, and determine whether the absence of intellectual decline proves anything other than that such a symptom may not have been present in this possible case of mental illness.

Even if most of us did decline intellectually with time, this does not mean that all of us do so. Maybe only the non-violent mentally ill get stupider, while the bloodthirsty ones like the Maid of Orleans get smarter. Here's hoping I'm wrong!

Arkhamite 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may have a good point there. It's been very difficult to achieve the right neutral balance for that section. You have my apologies if the phrasing offends you. Perhaps you could help improve the way the article expresses a certain idea.

This thought speaks to a reader who supposes that Joan of Arc's visions may have been clinical hallucinations, and that those hallucinations arose from some psychological (as opposed to neurological) condition. She had first petitioned to go see the king when she was sixteen and stood trial at age nineteen, which indicates she experienced those hallucinations for at least three years. Her trial testimony states that she had visions for six years. Most people who suffer a major mental illness for that long display other signs of - I'm reaching for the right word - cognitive impairment? disorganized thought processes? imbalance?

The larger point that fits within is that psychological speculation about Joan of Arc is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Although her contemporary enemies raised many invectives against her they never doubted her sanity. Durova^Charge! 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenics don't lead armies and hold their own against college trained judges with a desire to discredit your life in a kangaroo court. And you lose all respect when you call her "bloodthirsty" since if you knew anything about her you'd know that she never killed anyone. Get real.--Killaferra 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither did Hitler. Oops I violated Godwin's Law of Hitlerdynamics. Shame on me. Just ignore me and hopefully I'll go away.

Arkhamite 13:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between Hilter and Joan of Arc, idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phu2734 (talk • contribs).

Primary difference in developmental terms being the Y chromosome.

Arkhamite 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Interposting has made this thread a bit complex. First, WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. Let's not hurl insults at anybody. Second, to the long and very thoughtful post of January 27, I'd have to check this page's long history to be certain but I think you've pinpointed one of several spots where some well-intentioned minor contributors have blunted the language inappropriately. You seem to be in an excellent position to correct the problem and I welcome you to do so. Please bear in mind that the passages you've quoted cover two distinct areas: psychological and neurological explanations. Most neurological disorders that produce complex hallucinations usually produce physical symptoms as well. The cited discussion of temporal lobe tuberculoma is one representative example. I don't think the article says anywhere that psychiatric disorders produce physical symptoms.

What the passage that garners your strongest objection attempts to express is that Joan of Arc's basic mental health wasn't questioned by her contemporaries and that she even seemed exceptionally sane to them. Although psychiatry and psychology did not exist in the sense we understand them today, they had a concept of madness. For comparison see Charles VI of France (who was father to Charles VII, the king Joan of Arc crowned). The royal court that had known that king's reign scrutinized Joan of Arc for any irregularity and she fit within their paradigm of a healthy religious visionary. As a social outsider in nearly every sense of the word, she had no strings to pull that would induce them to overlook eccentricities. Schizophrenia is one of the more commonly attributed "diagnoses" regarding her. Isn't disorganized thinking or some cognitive impairment associated with that? What the psychological and neurological interpretations essentially assert was that she had florid hallucinations over quite a few years, but almost no other symptom at all. I suppose that's possible but it doesn't make her an obvious fit for any particular disorder.

I'll tinker with the intellectual decline phrasing - you've made a good catch there. Please drop in from time to time and make sure it doesn't creep back. I'm an administrator on this site now and don't have as much time to devote to this article anymore. As with her birthdate, this seems to be a point that needs periodic attention. Durova^Charge! 17:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jehanne would not have been an exceptional case of mental illness if she were smart and hallucinating. That's called an intelligent ill person. Last sentence of section entitled "Visions" should be deleted.

Arkhamite 03:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that intelligent people sometimes hallucinate. The point is somewhat more nuanced: for five centuries after her death no one suggested she had been ill, mentally or otherwise (except for a brief case of food poisoning shortly before her death). She would be an exceptional case if she had six years of florid hallucinations and no other symptom of incapacity, which appears to be why no consensus has formed about what illness she might have had, if she had been ill at all. Durova^Charge!

Appearance

Her appearance: What's the best description to tell how she looked like at the time, and why didn't any of depictions or images of her didn't survive at that time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paterson973 (talk • contribs).

So far as we know, she sat for only one portrait at Reims near the time of the coronation. Her career was extremely short - little more than a year in public life - and her family was too poor to have commissioned a portrait when she was younger. There might have been one other portrait painted from memory. At the hermitage of Notre-Dame de Bermont, a site near her hometown where she often went to pray, a fifteenth century fresco was discovered underneath two later paintings that has two depictions of a young woman: one as a peasant girl praying and the other dressed in male attire. The praying figure wears a red dress - the same color that Joan of Arc usually wore as a peasant girl according to nullification trial testimony. If this depiction can be counted as accurate then Joan of Arc was blonde.

Piecing together details from written sources gives more information. Fabric purchase records for her clothes indicate she was 5'2", which wasn't particularly short for a woman in the fifteenth century. When she entered public life she assumed male attire and walked with a manlike stride, yet she had a feminine voice and an uncanny ability to shed tears at dramatic moments such as when she asked the king to approve her plan to march on Reims. She must have been a gifted natural athlete. For example, when she first arrived at Orléans she went on nighttime parade through the crowded streets and one citizen's torch accidentally lit her pennon on fire, she lowered her pennon and turned her horse to stamp out the flames. Onlookers were amazed to see her perform such a difficult maneuver without injuring anyone. Apparently she also had strong bones: she endured both a blow to the head from a stone cannonball and a fall from a 70' tower without a fracture. She could couch a lance, which indicates good upper body strength. My own guess is that these circumstances suggest a gymnast's build. She doesn't seem to have been partirecularly pretty. In spite of her youth and health the men who testify at the nullification trial consistently report that they did not find her sexually attractive. One called her passably good-looking and that was one of her supporters. Yet her squire - who dressed her for battle and had the chance to see - said she had beautiful breasts. Durova^Charge! 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what ever happened to the painting she sat at Reims? Whatever happened to the painting, was it destroyed, lost, unfounded, etc? Thanks. Also to add, i found a source from 1 of your links in the front page, is this source reliable or not.

We can only answer that we know very little indeed. We know that she was about five foot two in height, thickly made, muscular, and very strong.

Her eyes were far apart, and somewhat prominent. Her hair was black. She was reasonably good-looking, but by no means pretty. Her complexion was distinctly dark. She had a red birthmark her left ear, and was gifted with a low, sweet and compelling voice. That is absolutely all we know of her physical characteristics.

A further description of the Maid is contained in a letter from Milan, written on 21st June 1429. De Boulainvilliers was Chamberlain to CharlesVII, and Seneschal of Berry. His description is as follows:

"This girl is reasonably good-looking, and with something virile in her bearing; she speaks but little, and is remarkably prudent, in what she does say. She eats little, and drinks wine still less; manages both her horse and her arms superbly well; greatly likes the company of knights and soldiers; scorns the company of the rabble; sheds many tears; has a happy expression; so great is her strength in the endurance of fatigue that she could remain completely armed during six whole days and nights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paterson973 (talk • contribs).

Nothing is known about what happened to the portrait from Reims. Perhaps the best we can hope is that someday x-ray analysis of an old canvas might reveal it underneath a later painting. That sort of thing happens occasionally although I wouldn't hold my breath over it. Could you post the links to the other descriptions you found? Regarding her hair color, it's been widely reported to have been dark based on a single piece of evidence. In the mid-nineteenth century Jules Quicherat reported a single strand of hair stuck to the seal of one of her letters. He had no way to tell whether that strand was hers or someone else's such as the scribe who took her dictation. That strand has since been lost.

Bear in mind the possibility that interest in her physical appearance may reflect our own era's cultural bias that places more importance on that information in women than in men. We don't know what Charlemagne looked like either, or William Wallace. Durova^Charge! 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the source I've got the one I quoted, is from the front page of Joan Of Arc as external links. From this site, not sure if it's 100% accurate but it looks like a site where all things relating to her, her life and so on. http://www.jeanne-darc.dk/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paterson973 (talk • contribs).

I didn't find it on the front page. It's a frames-based site so if you describe how you navigated there I'll follow the same path. Durova^Charge! 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On the left panel i clicked the link under 'Virgin Body' where it took me to that quote.

On another topic, there is a Gallery of Art presents "Joan of Arc" in Washington. I am wondering if anyone took a trip there? And how it was, just interested in the outcome. Hopefully don't mind about it if I post it here.

Links: http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/press_results.asp?Exhib_ID=85

some of the images: http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/FrameSet.aspx?s=ImagesSearchState%7c0%7c0%7c-1%7c28%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c1%7c%7c%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c7%7c%7clyon%7c15744190666232823%7c0%7c0%7c0%7c0&p=&tag=7Paterson973 (talk • contribs).

Regarding her appearance, the unsourced summary at the start of the page is questionable. I'd place more trust in the excerpts from documentary evidence that this site also supplies. It's worth noting that at the end of the page where it discusses her virginity, the author(s) of that site don't seem to know very much about hymen examination. I haven't attended the Corcoran Gallery's exhibition. Bear in mind also that this page is for discussion of the Wikipedia article. I don't mind answering short questions if they relate to a term paper or class assignment, but if you seek a discussion forum you should try a different website. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Visions/voices

72.131.5.129 posted an unsourced assertion recently that the article incorrectly uses visions to describe experiences that were solely auditory and today made wholesale changes to that effect, again without citing any reference. Here are some quotes from the trial that contradict the IP's claim:

• she answered that the voice was the voice of St. Catherine and of St. Margaret. And their heads were crowned in a rich and precious fashion with beautiful crowns.[1] (p. 58)
• she answered that it was St. Michael whom she saw before her eyes; and he was not alone, but accompanied by many angels from heaven. (p. 59)
• Asked if she saw St. Michael and these angels corporeally and in reality, she answered: "I saw them with my bodily eyes as well as I see you; and when they left me, I wept; and I fain would have had them take me with them too." (p. 59)
• Asked if there was a light, she answered: "There were three hundred knights and fifty torches, without counting the spiritual light, and I seldom have revelations but there is a light." (p. 61)
• Asked if she always saw them in the same dress, she answered she always sees them in the same form; and their heads are richly crowned. Of their other clothing she does not speak: of their robes she knows nothing. (p. 71)
• Asked what part of them she saw, she answered the face. Asked if the saints which appeared to her had hair, she answered: "It is well to know that they have." (p. 71)

These ought to be sufficient to establish the point. Per the above I'm reverting the IP changes. Durova^Charge! 07:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Worshipped or venerated?

The article in the picture caption of her birth village states

"The village church where she worshipped is on the right behind several trees."

This strikes me as erroneous because Catholics do not worship saints, but venerate them. If this article were not a featured article I would have corrected it immediately as a clear mistake, but now I wonder whether I miss something. Andries 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The caption says that Joan worshipped there, not that she is worshipped there. Presumably, she participated in Mass there, which means that she worshipped God. Freder1ck 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

Okay, I misread. May be we can re-formulate that by saying that she went to Mass there. Andries 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be bold in updating the page in this case. The information is more specific and non-controversial. Freder1ck 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

This is the first time this has come up. While it would be accurate to say she attended mass at her village church, that wording would seem to understate the point. She seems to have spent many hours there in prayer in addition to regular services. Durova^Charge 22:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Somo one can use it in here, I don't know where to put it

Estatua de Juana de Arco en la Abadía de Westminster.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domingo Portales (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. Try uploading to Wikimedia Commons. There's a link from the main article. Durova^Charge! 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Joan of Arc's death, did she died from smoke inhalation or heat stroke, burned alive?

Found this article which argues this topic about her circumstances surrounding her death. This should be cited in the Main Page.

http://www.stjoan-center.com/topics/Death_by_Heat_Stroke.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phu2734 (talk • contribs).

Most people who died at the stake died of smoke inhalation. Joan of Arc's executioner complained afterward that he had not been permitted to do any of the things that would have made her death more humane (supporters of a condemned person would often bring bundles of sticks to ensure a death from smoke rather than fire). So unfortunately, she probably did really burn to death. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Heart

I grew up with the legend that her heart was not burned. Is this true?Therequiembellishere 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
i think i may have read that at the end of Twain's book, that her heart wouldn't burn, so the English threw it into a river. The Jackal God 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the witnesses at the retrial testified to that effect. It was probably a hagiographic embellishment. None of that trial's other witnesses repeated the claim although several of them had also been present at the execution. The circumstances of her death - with the body reduced to ashes and thrown into a river - make the claim unlikely. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WEll, if you believe in a higher deity, Durova, then it could make sense.Therequiembellishere 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My personal beliefs are not at issue here. What is at issue is the probability that, if the claimed miracle did occur, then everyone who had been present would have testified to it instead of only one of several witness who reported on the execution. Durova^Charge! 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

O, sorry, I was supposed to have a ";)" there. Sorry if I offended you. Therequiembellishere 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. It's just worth pointing out that, regardless of a reader's religious POV, that particular claim remains improbable. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

What's with all the juvenile vandalism in here? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. This is not the first article on a historical figure I've seen this happen to - Caligula is one on my watchlist that needs frequent reversions. My guess is that's its kids who want to vandalize a "real" encyclopedia article, and pick a famous historical figure that they've heard of. --Stormie 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it originates from school IP addresses. I could semi-protect the page to cut down on the problem. So far that step hasn't been necessary. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone else semiprotected the article and I've gone ahead and semiprotected this talk page for a week. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Female wartime crossdressers

I've restored the category. The deletion note asserted that Joan of Arc wore men's apparel only for practical purposes (which is mistaken - she also wore men's clothes in social situations when there was no need to do so) and that the category's exclusive purpose is for women who disguise themselves as men.[2] The category name refers to crossdressing not male impersonation. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon further research I've uncovered and corrected this edit[3] at crossdressing during wartime that had been made by the Joan of Arc vandal. This may explain the confusion. Durova^Charge! 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Joan of arc report...

I have to do a report on joan OF arc and i am so pumped this web page gave me so much info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.110.45.203 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome. But please check up everything you learned here with other sources. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)