Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[wenglund]

Wade,

Let's grant (for a moment, for the sake of argument) that the EA and GAEL are mysterious documents, produced after the Book of Abraham, for an unknown reason. In that case, where does the translation of the mummy epitaphs that Chris Smith mentioned in my thread tie in?

The two notebooks containing the so-called mummy epitaphs are curious in their own right. As Will mentioned, there is nothing in the historical record or the texts themselves to indicate that Joseph was involved--except perhaps his signature on the cover of one of them.

There is also some uncertainty as to when the were produced--whether before, or during or after the EA/GAEL project was commenced or discontinued.

However, in terms of this discussion, I think it reasonable to surmise that regardless of who one may assume was involved in translating the mummy epitaphs or when one believes they were translated, it is unlikely that the EA/GAEL was the means of translating all of it. That, to me, is telling.

I believe the same may also be said in relation to the creation of the Egyptian Counting document.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 2, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I just found out that the topic of whether or not Will accurately represents the critics viewpoint has been discussed on my so-called "home board". Here are some quotes from key critics that illustrate that Will doesn't represent their position accurately:

Brent Metcalfe: "I don't know a single scholar who has ever argued that the Egyptian alphabet and grammar project provided a translation key for the entire BoAbr (though I believe a strong case can be made that Abr. 1:1–3 evolved out of the project)."

Dan Vogel: "I certainly don’t think the GAEL and Alphabets were necessary before translation could begin."

Chris Smith: "[i believe the A&G were used to translate] those three verses [Abr 1:1-3] and a few others in chapter 1."

Kevin Graham: "I do not believe the GAEL were used to translate much beyond Abr 1:1-3"

Regarding the RLDS scholar Richard P. Howard, he has said, "it may be helpful to suggest that the Book of Abraham represents simply the product of Joseph Smith Jr.'s imagination," so also I doubt he would say that the EA/GAEL was an functioning lexicon that was actually used to produce the Book of Abraham.

Okay, it looks as though the critics, as a group, have, over time, moved from believing the EA/GAEL was the "modus operandi" for the BoA, to then believing it was the "modus operandi" for the first couple of chapters of the BoA, to now believing it was the "modus operandi" for the first three verses of the BoA.

So, with that clarification out of the way, let's go ahead and address the current position of the critics.

The positions you quoted above speak to the beliefs of the critics about how the EA/GAEL ended up being used. Would you do us a favor and ask these same people what they believe was the intent for which the EA/GAEL was created, so as to see if their beliefs line up in terms of perceived intent and use.

Also, please ask them what explanation they have for why they attribute so little (6%) of the Book of Abraham translation to the EA/GAEL?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

At the risk of being a broad Nanny, I just want to say ...

How wide?

Lehi

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

"Parts" and "degrees" are two completely different things; their "distinctions" are not "insignificant".

Of course, I never said they were insignificant, did I? What I did say is that: “The EA documents also reference “parts” and “degrees”, but the distinctions are insignificant in the context of this study, and I have therefore omitted them.”

And, in fact, in the context of my Analysis by Character Study, the distinctions between “parts” and “degrees” are not significant when it comes to the characters in the EA documents. I only reference them when it comes to the GAEL documents, where they do have significance in the context of my study.

You know, you’re becoming more and more like Metcalfe with each passing day: you resort to niggling over inconsequential minutia as an evasive tactic when you’ve been backed into a corner .

There was a time, not long ago, when you used to be almost entertaining. Now you’re merely … what was that word Droopy dropped the other day? Oh, yeah. Pestiferous. You’re merely pestiferous.

.

.

.

In response to my question about where on the papyri one can find the characters that Phelps included in the May 1835 letter to his wife, you responded:

Right next to "Mehitabel".

Evasive and pestiferous.

I suppose hiding for so long in the shadows of a fifth column will do that to a guy.

[Analytics]

OK, Analytics, now that we have gotten that out of the way once and for all, why don't you share with us a different explanation put forth by critics of the purpose of the Alphabet and Grammar, and please cite for us a source that pre-dates Christopher Smith's summer 2010 article in the John Whitmer History Association journal.

I hadn’t read the Ashment article until this morning. I’m wondering if you are misunderstanding what Ashment means by “modus operandi.” When he said “Thus, contrary to Nibley's assertions that the A-G documents "were not used in any translation,²⁴ they indeed were,” he is saying that they indeed were used in some of the translation—specifically Abraham 1:1-2. He is not implying that the way Abraham 1:1-2 was translated lexiconically from the A-G was the primary “modus operandi” for translating the whole thing.

What he meant by “modus operandi” is that Phelps and Parrish would first write a character from the papyri, and Joseph Smith then dictated the verses that were entailed in that character. The connection of this modus operandi and the A-G is that the A-G itself proves that Joseph actually “felt that one and the same sign--and even parts of signs--could be used on several different levels in order to produce expanded meanings, with the result that entire verses could be produced from a single sign.”

He later reiterates that this is his primary thesis when he says,

Further evidence indicates that the "eighteen hieratic marginal symbols" (there are twenty-seven in Manuscript 2) were indeed felt to be closely connected with the text of the Book of Abraham. That each of the various hieratic signs from Papyrus JS 11 was written before its corresponding English text in at least Manuscripts 1a and 2 is demonstrated by the fact that in several cases all the English text which was juxtaposed to a set of hieratic signs invades the space alloted for the text accompanying the next set of signs.

Answering your question directly, the "purpose" of the A-G was simply part of "early efforts to decipher the papyri."

Edited November 2, 2011 by Analytics

[William Schryver]

I hadn’t read the Ashment article until this morning. I’m wondering if you are misunderstanding what Ashment means by “modus operandi.” When he said “Thus, contrary to Nibley's assertions that the A-G documents "were not used in any translation,²⁴ they indeed were,” he is saying that they indeed were used in some of the translation—specifically Abraham 1:1-2.

Are you serious?

Really?

And do you honestly believe that others following this thread are buying into your attempt to bluff your way out of this?

Really?

Let's look at the Ashment quote in its entirety once more:

… it was felt that one and the same sign--and even parts of signs--could be used on several different levels in order to produce expanded meanings, with the result that entire verses could be produced from a single sign. Thus, contrary to Nibley's assertions that the A-G documents "were not used in any translation,"²⁴ they indeed were and indicate the "modus operandi"²⁵ for Smith's "translation" of at least the first two chapters and eighteen verses of the Book of Abraham.

Edward H. Ashment, Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study, from The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, Vogel ed., (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1990): 221-35 (emphasis mine)

I've enlarged the text so you can't miss it this time.

He is not implying that the way Abraham 1:1-2 was translated lexiconically from the A-G was the primary “modus operandi” for translating the whole thing.

Yes, that is exactly what he is implying. And his unquestioned authority among so many of the apostate sheep is precisely why this concept of the A&G was believed so pervasively until Chris Smith recognized problems in the thesis, and wrote his paper, which was published in the summer of 2010.

Oh, well ... I suppose it was too much to expect you to just accept the undeniable facts and move on.

It is enough for me to know that, once again, it has been demonstrated that it is not wise to accept uncritically the things ex-Mormons have been saying for the past 40 years about the origins of the Book of Abraham.

What he meant by “modus operandi” is that Phelps and Parrish would first write a character from the papyri, and Joseph Smith then dictated the verses that were entailed in that character.

Ashment wasn't talking about the Abraham manuscripts. He was talking about the Alphabet and Grammar documents. I realize that you are almost frantic to alter Ashment's obvious meaning of modus operandi in the quote in order to get you out of this bind. But it ain't gonna work, buddy. It is what it is. It says what it says. Ashment clearly believed and argued that the A&G was the modus operandi by which Joseph Smith translated the papyri in order to produce the Book of Abraham. But he hadn't done his homework. He hadn't really examined the documents in order to see that such a thesis was not tenable in light of the textual evidence.

It cracks me up no end to see you and your buddies thrashing about so wildly in your efforts to deny this simple and undeniable fact. And to what end? To try to prove me wrong in a single paragraph from my presentation? Why? Even if you were right, it would have no impact on my thesis. It would change nothing. Don't you see that this is a meaningless battle for you?

Oh, well ... I suppose it was too much to expect you to just accept the undeniable facts and move on.

It is enough for me to know that, once again, it has been demonstrated that it is not wise to accept uncritically the things ex-Mormons have been saying for the past 40 years about the origins of the Book of Abraham.

Nice try, though. Sort of ...

Edited November 2, 2011 by William Schryver

[Chris Smith]

Yes, but I find your arguments unpersuasive because they lack any evidence.

You choose to find my arguments unpersuasive despite the evidence.

I'm embarrassed for whoever gave you a rep point for this piece of sheer denialism. It's one thing to disagree with your opponent's arguments. It's quite another to pretend no such arguments exist. As long as you remain committed to this rhetorical tactic, constructive discussion will be impossible.

Enjoy the echo chamber,

-Chris

Edited November 2, 2011 by Chris Smith

[mfbukowski]

How wide?

Lehi

Whhooooeeeeyyy- Thanks- I needed that!

Edited November 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Loran Blood]

I'm embarrassed for whoever gave you a rep point for this piece of sheer denialism. It's one thing to disagree with your opponent's arguments. It's quite another to pretend no such arguments exist. As long as you remain committed to this rhetorical tactic, constructive discussion will be impossible.

Enjoy the echo chamber,

-Chris

In other words, like Metcalf, your answer to an open, formal, public debate on the issues in question is a resounding, if thoroughly rationalized "No."

[William Schryver]

Enjoy the echo chamber,

Maybe you need another cup of coffee this morning in order to get your bearings.

This isn't MDB.

[wenglund]

d) Perhaps the best way to see just how infeasible it would be to use the EA/GAEL to decipher the papyri, let alone translate part or all of the BoA, is to challenge the reader, particularly those who believe the EA/GAEL was used tfor such purposes, to go through the EA/GAEL and decipher/translate the following section of one of the Joseph Smith papyri:

Let us know if you are unable to get anywhere and why?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

- a small furry mammal on the jungle floor

Edited November 2, 2011 by mfbukowski

[William Schryver]

By the way, for those interested, I have just uploaded a video extract (4 minutes 30 seconds) that specifically addresses the fact that the EA/GAEL also attests a dependency on very specific portions of the Doctrine and Covenants--a text that (quite obviously) has no relationship to the papyri, and which (quite obviously) pre-dates the GAEL itself.

EA/GAEL Dependency on D&C

[Cobalt-70]

I'm just going to wonder out loud here why, since Joseph Smith had no idea regarding the Egyptian language whatsoever - none - in either its hieratic or hieroglyphic forms, you think it ever would have crossed his mind to attempt word for word transliterations from Egyptian to English?

Having translated the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was regarded by his followers as having a mystical ability to translate the Egyptian language. After all, he was able to translate characters from the golden plates which scholars like Charles Anthon could not. Smith did not seek out the Chandler papyri--they were brought to him on the assumption that as "a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet," he could translate another Egyptian artifact. He had to at least try.

[Mortal Man]

Of course, I never said they were insignificant, did I? What I did say is that: “The EA documents also reference “parts” and “degrees”, but the distinctions are insignificant in the context of this study, and I have therefore omitted them.”

And, in fact, in the context of my Analysis by Character Study, the distinctions between “parts” and “degrees” are not significant when it comes to the characters in the EA documents. I only reference them when it comes to the GAEL documents, where they do have significance in the context of my study.

It's utterly astonishing that you still cannot understand the difference between these terms. Until you do, you'll be missing, as you like to say, an "essential element of understanding" concerning these documents.

The terms "part" and "degree" are used the same way in both the EA documents and the GAEL. Your statement above is complete nonsense.

"Part" is short for "part of the alphabet".

"Degree" is short for "degree of the character".

You are using "parts" as if the term applied to characters; i.e., you state in your paper, 'there are no characters that appear in multiple “parts”.' Of course there are no characters that appear in multiple "parts". It is the Alphabet that appears in multiple "parts". This fundamental misunderstanding appears to have had a snowball effect on your apologetic efforts regarding the EA/GAEL.

You know, you’re becoming more and more like Metcalfe with each passing day:

It is outrageous that you are comparing me to Metcalfe.

I am not Metcalfe.

I am the vicar of Metcalfe.

My initials stand for "Metcalfe's Minion".

you resort to niggling over inconsequential minutia as an evasive tactic

Honestly, I hated to have to bring it up, because the separate meanings and contexts of the terms should be so plainly obvious. But then it occurred to me that your conflation of these terms, as if they were somehow interchangeable, was having monumental consequences for your missing manuscript theory.

when you’ve been backed into a corner.

How does your refusal to answer my question constitute me being backed into a corner?

There was a time, not long ago, when you used to be almost entertaining. Now you’re merely … what was that word Droopy dropped the other day? Oh, yeah. Pestiferous. You’re merely pestiferous.

.

.

.

In response to my question about where on the papyri one can find the characters that Phelps included in the May 1835 letter to his wife, you responded:

Evasive and pestiferous.

I suppose hiding for so long in the shadows of a fifth column will do that to a guy.

I'm glad you're feeling better. It's nice to have the old William back.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Cobalt-70]

In other words, Cobalt, Joseph does not appear to have been at all concerned with a general lexicon - an actual alphabet and grammar of a language in the normative sense - which could then be used, once understood, to construct any particular text one wished. Joseph was concerned with specific, core theological/metaphysical concepts and ideas key to what the Church understands as the "plan of salvation." There appears to be no evidence that his concern extended to understanding Egyptian qua Egyptian such that, if you placed any Egyptian text before him, he could give you some degree of a competent translation. Indeed, as Joseph didn't understand hat language (as the critics are always wont to point out), why continue to belabor this?

Joseph was concerned solely with what the texts he had in his possession from the Chandler mummies actually said, not with the Egyptian language per se, and I think the evidence Will has made explicit here bears that out.

I think Joseph Smith was very concerned with general Egyptian lexicon, just as he was almost immediately thereafter with learning Hebrew from Joshua Seixas. He wanted to understand the ancient languages in which scripture was written, including both Hebrew and Egyptian. If he did not believe that he was producing an Egyptian grammar or an Egyptian alphabet, then why did he say in his journal that he was "arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients"? Though less sensational, it is far more straightforward to take Smith's journal at face value than to imagine that what he called an Egyptian "grammar" and "alphabet" was actually some kind of Templar or Masonic cipher.

[William Schryver]

It's utterly astonishing that you still cannot understand the difference between these terms. Until you do, you'll be missing, as you like to say, an "essential element of understanding" concerning these documents.

The terms "part" and "degree" are used the same way in both the EA documents and the GAEL. Your statement above is complete nonsense.

It's utterly astonishing that you believe I don't understand the meaning of "parts" and "degrees" as they apply to the EA/GAEL. Have you ever watched my presentation all the way through? Watch it again from about the 1:30 mark of Part 1 to the 5:30 mark. I take a full four minutes to explain the meaning of "parts" and "degrees" in the context of the EA/GAEL.

It is outrageous that you are comparing me to Metcalfe.

Don't blame me. The transformation has been in you.

I am not Metcalfe.

That much is clear. You at least have some sense of humor, but it's fading fast.

Honestly, I hated to have to bring it up, because the separate meanings and contexts of the terms should be so plainly obvious. But then it occurred to me that your conflation of these terms, as if they were interchangeable, was having monumental consequences for your missing manuscript theory.

The only thing that is plainly obvious is that, when absorbed in your own set of assumptions, you don't pay attention very well.

How does your refusal to answer my question constitute me being backed into a corner?

That question is merely a prime example of how, when absorbed in your own set of assumptions, you don't pay attention very well.

I'm glad you're feeling better.

Better than what?

It's nice to have the old William back.

I am a paragon of constancy in the universe. Always have been. Always will be.

Edited November 2, 2011 by William Schryver

[Cobalt-70]

My primary thesis concerning the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham will, in course of time, be published in its entirety. Whether you will consider the journal for which it is slated "respectable" remains to be seen. I have noted that most Mormon critics are loath to characterize any journal associated with the Church or BYU as "respectable."

If you can get it published in BYU Studies, then all the power to you. I cite that journal all the time. Despite being an organ of BYU, the journal editors care about its reputation outside the insular world of Mormon apologetics, and will not admit anything that does not have at least an air of general academic respectability. Good luck.

[Analytics]

Are you serious?

Really?

And do you honestly believe that others following this thread are buying into your attempt to bluff your way out of this?

Really?

Relax Will. Take a deep breath Will, count to three, and go to your happy place.

I don’t have a horse in this race. As I’ve occasionally browsed these forums over the last several years, I’ve never paid attention to Book of Abraham threads. I've never studied it. Never read about it in Vogel's book. Never read about it in any book for the matter.

You are obviously incredibly vested in the belief that various critics have been making a particular argument over time. You referred me to Ashment ¸whom I consequently read. You asked me a question. I provided a sincere answer. Again, I don’t have a horse in this race—I just answered your question.

Restating my position for the record, Ashment’s primary point is clearly that “the Book of Abraham Manuscripts are the written results of Smith's dictating his interpretation of hieratic characters from the Breathing Permit and imaginatively reconstructed signs, with each scribe first drawing the designated characters prior to recording accompanying interpretations.”

The bulk of his arguments focus on proving that this is really how the Book of Abraham was created—that this was in fact his modus operandi. With lots of other evidence, the A-G indicate that this is in fact how the Book of Abraham was created.

His secondary point is that “the A-G documents represent initial efforts at deciphering, among other things, the hieroglyphics from Papyrus JS 1 (the original from which Facsimile 1 was taken), ending with the first two signs of the Breathing Permit of Hor (Papyrus JS 11).”

He was correct (from the “new” perspective of Chris Smith) to note that Nibley was wrong in stating that the A-G "wasn’t used in any translation,” because it was obviously used in translating Abraham 1:1-2. That one example is sufficient to prove that Nibley’s statement is false.

Again, the modus operandi that the paper as a whole explains and defends is that “the Book of Abraham Manuscripts are the written results of Smith's dictating his interpretation of hieratic characters from the Breathing Permit and imaginatively reconstructed signs, with each scribe first drawing the designated characters prior to recording accompanying interpretations.”

It does not defend the alleged modus operandi that the A-G was, as you say, “the means by which that text was subsequently “translated” from the papyri.” It doesn’t state that (except for the case of Abraham 1:1-2), it doesn’t detail that, and it doesn’t defend that.

For reference, here is a link to Ashment's essay:

http://www.buchabrah..._dissonance.htm

I encourage everybody to read it for themselves.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Analytics

[William Schryver]

I don’t have a horse in this race.

Apparently you do. You've been tagging around any thread I've posted on for several days now.

As I’ve occasionally browed these forums over the last several years, I’ve never paid attention to Book of Abraham threads. I've never studied it. Never read about it in Vogel's book. Never read about it in any book for the matter.

No offense intended, but it kind of shows.

You are obviously incredibly vested in the belief that various critics have been making a particular argument over time.

Actually, I'm not, as I explained in my previous reply to you. If it were not true that critics have been arguing this for 40 years, it would not have any effect on my thesis whatsoever.

Restating my position for the record, Ashment’s primary point is clearly that “the Book of Abraham Manuscripts are the written results of Smith's dictating his interpretation of hieratic characters from the Breathing Permit and imaginatively reconstructed signs, with each scribe first drawing the designated characters prior to recording accompanying interpretations.”

Restating my position, Ashment's argument is incorrect, and he presents no evidence to support it. He does very similarly to Chris Smith in his Abr. 1:1-3 paper: he argues via assertion (mixed with lots of speculation and conjecture).

The bulk of his arguments focus on proving that this is really how the Book of Abraham was created—that this was in fact his modus operandi. With lots of other evidence, the A-G indicate that this is in fact how the Book of Mormon was created.

I think you mean Book of Abraham. But please describe the "lots of other evidence" that you're talking about. Aside from the characters juxtaposed with the text, what evidence is there that the modus operandi is what Ashment says it was?

It does not defend the alleged modus operandi that the A-G was, as you say, “the means by which that text was subsequently “translated” from the papyri.”

I don't think there's any question that it does.

It doesn’t state that (except for the case of Abraham 1:1-2), it doesn’t detail that, and it doesn’t defend that.

I don't think there's any question that it does.

For reference, here is a link to Ashment's essay:

http://www.buchabrah..._dissonance.htm

I encourage everybody to read it for themselves.

As do I--especially in light of the evidence I have put forth from my 2010 presentation, to which I have provided numerous links over the course of the past several days.

Edited November 2, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mortal Man]

It's utterly astonishing that you believe I don't understand the meaning of "parts" and "degrees" as they apply to the EA/GAEL. Have you ever watched my presentation all the way through? Watch it again from about the 1:30 mark of Part 1 to the 5:30 mark. I take a full four minutes to explain the meaning of "parts" and "degrees" in the context of the EA/GAEL.

You initially observe that the characters "are interspersed throughout [the GAEL], in groups defined by five “parts” and five “degrees” but you never connect "parts" to the hieroglyphic columns on pJS 1.1. Then you go on to say:

Slide#: 170

(Pure Language Ciphers – Example #4 – Abraham Manuscripts.)

The fourth example of a “pure language” cipher key is the Abraham manuscripts authored by Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish. Just as the Egyptian Alphabet cipher key divided the characters into “parts” and the explanations into “degrees,” so also the first line of these two manuscripts tells us that these characters are from the “second part” and their accompanying explanations are in the “fifth degree.”

The characters that follow are designated as being from the “second part” of this particular cipher key, and their accompanying explanations are designated as being in the “fifth degree.”

I have put the (the most) problematic statement in red.

The characters are never divided into "parts" in the EAG documents or the GAEL. Your cipher theory is founded on your erroneous belief that characters are divided into "parts" just as explanations are divided into "degrees".

Furthermore, you state that the characters in question are from the "second part" of the "cipher key," when, in fact, they are from the "Second part of the Alphabet" on the papyrus! Had you noticed that these characters came from pJS 1.1, and that the "parts" in the EA/GAEL matched the columns of the papyrus "Alphabet" then you would never have made the embarrassing claim that the characters came from a Masonic cipher.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Analytics]

Would you do us a favor and ask these same people what they believe was the intent for which the EA/GAEL was created, so as to see if their beliefs line up in terms of perceived intent and use.

Also, please ask them what explanation they have for why they attribute so little (6%) of the Book of Abraham translation to the EA/GAEL?

Feel free to ask them yourself. For my part, I've never seen an indication that any of them ever disagreed with Ashment when he said, "the A-G documents represent initial efforts at deciphering, among other things, the hieroglyphics from Papyrus JS 1 (the original from which Facsimile 1 was taken), ending with the first two signs of the Breathing Permit of Hor (Papyrus JS 11).”

[Cobalt-70]

Which, if actually the case, and assuming as a possibility that seer stones actually exist and have the powers ascribed to them in gospel teaching, means that the translation itself came through the principle of revelation, leaving the EA's as thought experiments or otherwise intellectual exercises having potentially little or nothing to do with the actual translation process.

But I do take note of the sarcastic tone of your "with seer stones, of course" comment, and take note again of my post above regarding preexisting philosophical assumptions.

My note of the seer stones was not intended to be sarcastic. I honestly love the mystical elements of early Mormonism. In the Celestial Kingdom, the scripture says that every Mormon will be issued such a stone. Not much different than Mormons today, except that instead of an iPhone, it will be an iStone.

[William Schryver]

No, you initially observe that the characters "are interspersed throughout [the GAEL], in groups defined by five “parts” and five “degrees.”

Clearly manifesting the fact that I understand the meaning of "parts" and "degrees" in the context of the EA/GAEL.

You never connect "parts" to the hieroglyphic columns on pJS 1.1.

That's an unsupported speculation on your part.

Then you go on to say:

I have put the problematic statement in red.

You either misunderstand or are deliberately attempting to misrepresent my statement. I'm never sure anymore with you.

The characters are never divided into "parts" in the EAG documents or the GAEL.

Again, as explained in Part 1 of my presentation, the 136 characters in the EA/GAEL are divided into five unequal groups called "parts".

Your cipher theory appears to be founded on your erroneous belief that characters are divided into "parts" just as explanations are divided into "degrees".

???

Utter nonsense.

[Cobalt-70]

{Duplicate}

Edited November 2, 2011 by Cobalt-70