Talk:Barry Ley/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please stop reverting & read the edits! --Nate 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Contents

Ley Guard

The Ley guard, or rubber guard has certainly been a huge help to my BJJ career. Having quite long legs, I am naturally inclined towards going for a triangle choke when I am underneath. It takes a bit of courage to sacrifice the standard guard for the Ley Guard, but from there it only a short step to the triangle. Definitely keep this article in. The Ley Guard is now part of the sport. Jamesthorburn 08:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Keep this article. The Ley Guard is definitely for taller people, but is a valid contribution nontheless. Kbenton 11:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation issues

KentKent, you seem to feel that the Taz Academy blog is a good citation to prove that this "Ley Guard" has significantly changed groundfighting in BJJ. Can you point out where exactly the site demonstrates this, and do you have any references that are not Ley's own academy that demonstrate the "Ley Guard" being used in competition or referenced in competition? I would say that if it significantly changed BJJ, it would be very easy to find at least one outside reference to it. FlowWTG 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

New users which all have exactly the same writing style does not constitute proof. Users cannot constitute proof. Please provide a citation or multiple citations that does these things: 1) Demonstrates that Ley developed the Rubber Guard. Please note that most American BJJ practitioners at least have heard of Eddie Bravo, and that Bravo has been putting out free instructionals on the Rubber Guard on the internet for years. 2) Demonstrates Ley is recognized as having developed the rubber guard by some authority - preferably De La Riva or whoever he trains under.

Insinuations

Crumbs! Kentkent was right. Agree with DrParkes and you are almost instantly attacked. Same writing style, huh? Well I´ll take that as a comlpement but I think it is quite clear what you are insinuating. You are saying that I either am, or am being told what to write by, one or more of the people who agree with my sentiments. Untrue I´m afraid but no doubt you allready have plans to block out my input, just like you did to the much maligned DrParkes. Well. Attacks and vandalism on the article in question have all come from 3 or 4 users with EXACTLY the same writing style too if anyone cares to check. From what I have seen of this unholy alliance, they will soon be after me. FlowWTG? Or should I say NATE? Or LOUDENVIER? By the way, Bravo has been using a version of the rubber guard for a long time but has made no claim that he developed it. The version that Ley developed is his own. Bravo does not call it the Bravo Guard. Only Ley´´s version is original enough to warrant being named after him. Meanwhile, from all of your fans, DrParkes, we are here and trying to help. Kbenton 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, note that no matter how many new user accounts appear shouting their support, it does not constitute proof of any sort. FlowWTG 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And to reiterate, please note that no matter how many users appear, vandalising and decrying the work in question, it does not in any way detract from its well provem validity. Kbenton 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability and POV issues solved (Please do not vandalise this talk page. Honestly. Is no one safe?)

I think we can safely say that DrParkes' work has been well and truly vindicated, many times over. Can we unblock him now and give him a chance to speak for himself? Kentkent 21:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

DrParkes is free to make an unblock request himself by using the standard procedure. No one currently involved in this discussion has the power to unblock him. FlowWTG 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not able to contribute to this discussion though, is he? Sinister stuff. If you know the system, you can get heard. If you don't, your work is vandalised. Kentkent 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Loudenvier

I looked up Barry Ley on Google and there are more than a million entries, rather than the 569 your computer found. Strange. There are not as many on ASK.COM but that is usually the case. I also notice from your own page that you are a purple belt in Judo. Again strange as I have yet to find the judo system that uses a purple belt in its grading system. Perhaps your club has its own grading methods. I wonder if you have some other motivation for your attacks on these articles? (the preceding was made by an anonymous user warned repeatedly for removing notices and tags) (The preceding unsigned comment in brackets was made by an anonymous user warned repeatedly for vandalising DrParkes' work and articles on BJJ) Kentkent 09:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like an autobiography. It's about a possibly non-notable living person. This article states that the person had a tremendous impact in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu when in fact he is completely unknown in the BJJ sport scene (possibly not locally tough). Recently the article about Rolker Gracie who is the head of the Gracie Centro Academy here in Rio de Janeiro was deleted because of notability issues, so there is no argument to keep this article in wikipedia. If the book written by the author is notable enough (I don't think so after reading notability guidelines about books), then all information about his BJJ background should be limited to a trivia section (which is also questionable). Regards Loudenvier 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is partially copied from my (Loudenvier) talk page to be discussed here

Well, I've found some strange things. I went to inspect this book entry on amazon. I've found only good reviews, all looking the same, with the same written style. Strange... But stranger yet is the surname of two such reviewers: Parkes... Hum... Remember DrParkes (he was the person vandalizing the BJJ article origins and putting links to de La Riva)? Now the links for the reviewers:

English and American surnames.

As I am sure you are aware, more than one family can have the same surname without being related, or even knowing each other. Try to think of the surname "Silva" in Brazil. I am sure you would find it ridiculous if somebody jumped to the conclusion that everybody with this surname knew each other, or shared the same motivations. Parkes is a very common surname in UK and USA. If you are going to slander DrParkes' reputation still further (and it seems even more vindictive, knowing that he is still blocked and unable to defend himself) can you at least please do it without such laughable evidence as people sharing the same surname. Thank you. And as an afterthought, maybe his wikipedia name is not his actual surname. Kentkent 09:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC). I think this DrParkes is a spammer, perhaps he is even Barry Ley himself... Too much coincidence. Wikipedia is not promotional media. I think his autobiographic article should be deleted or heavily changed. How could this be a best seller if its amazon sales rank is #1,480,420 in books? Best Judo from Isao Inokuma, never an international best-seller ranks an order of magnitude better at #174,665. Dom Casmurro, by Machado de Assis, a brazillian book still fares better than the international bestseller blaggers... I will change that when my block expires (ridiculous block!)

Attitudes

He probably thinks YOU are a spammer. The sales rank seems low but that is all time sales. Amazon to date has had nealy 100 million seperate book titles in its inventory. That puts Ley in the 98th percantile. Maybe Blaggers sold well enough to make it to the top for a short period then trailed off. And do I detect a hint of jelousy? Ley is a published author. No mean feat. They say that those who can not do, teach; those who can do neither, critisise. Why not try to acheive something yourself instead of trying to pull Ley and DrParkes down. DrParkes is still blocked and not even able to defend himself, by the way. Kentkent 08:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Barry Ley is only a BJJ blue belt!!! He is a blue belt! He talks like he was one of the best BJJers in the world. He still has many years until he is able to wear a black belt. Unless his teachers are lenient and irresponsible. Here in Rio at a Gracie academy he would hardly earn a purple belt in one or two years from now. Overseas BJJ progression is much easier because the professors do not want to loose students because BJJ is too hard... But believe me, BJJ is too hard... A black belt is an enormous prize... See the youtube channel for him: [1] Loudenvier 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps these articles should be nominated for deletion. A blue belt is far from a notable BJJ player; Google returns 594 results for him, many of which might not even be the Barry Ley in question; and as for the Blaggers article: I don't see any articles on the higher-selling books you mention, why does this one deserve it? FlowWTG 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is happening because DrParkes is the person promoting this book and Barry Ley in wikipedia. I think he is actually Barry Ley. Those articles will be nominated for deletion. I will call NYC JD (hope he doesn't block me again!) for help. Loudenvier 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference is between looking for either word Barry or Ley and the exact phrase "Barry Ley" which is the more appropriate, also read google test. The main thing I'm trying to improve is the quality of the article if it stays, right now nominating as AFD would be reasonable, possibly with an option to merge Blaggers since notability of that is disputed too. --Nate 09:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotes

To the anonymous users who have been adding anecdotes: wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for recounting personal stories, however interesting, about a subject. This amounts at the very least to original research which is banned by the wikipedia rules. You are welcome to make a case for inclusion of your stories concerning Ley (or for why this article should be here at all) in this discussion page. FlowWTG 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed verification of sources

The sources provided by the author of this article failed verification. The claims are also nonsensical. Following Wikipedia:Citing Sources: All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. I think it would be best to remove those allegations. Loudenvier 13:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, bit too busy to do neatly right now will check back later. --Nate 13:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Successful verification of sources

All the sources provided here have passed verification. The claims have stood up to close examination and therefore it is time to cease this witchhunt. Come on guys. lets be objective. Kentkent 21:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC) I have included more links. Still looking for judo grading systems that use the purple belt, LOUDENVIER.

Judo belt ranking in Brazil:
White, Gray (for under 13 years old), Blue, Yellow, Orange and Green (they all fight in the same category)
Purple, Brown and Black belt (they all fight in the same category).
I'm a brown belt in Judo now, and a purple belt in BJJ since 2004.
But Why are you looking for a system of Judo that uses a purple belt? Loudenvier 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Google

Put in "Barry Ley". That way you get the most accurate results. Anyone who tries it will see who has made the most accurate aspertions as to the subjects notability

The links provided in the article are not valid as reliable sources, they all failed verification. I will tag the article again. Please, do not remove those tags, let other contributors analyze this article, perhaps they could prove the notability better. Regards Loudenvier 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The links provided in the article are indeed valid as reliable sources. They are more than enough successful verification. Tagging the the article is clearly an attempt to decry BJJ, Ley and the page author DrParkes. Please be more fair with your allegations. This project is not for your personal soapbox. It is for everyone and as such, should be neutral. Kentkent 08:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Google

So I would be interested to know how you came up with a figure of 569 hits for Barry Ley on Google? A million or so short of the true figure. Do you know him? You seem to be attacking the articles concerning him as though you had some sort of grudge against him.

You have to know how to search, and you still have to take out homonyms: try "Barry Ley", put the " so that you search for the entire name, or else you will be finding all Barry and Ley in the world. The figure is 562 as of March 2007. Regards Loudenvier 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Still over a million.

Umm... no... it's 547. Here's a Link. Kopf1988 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A million and a half. Two minutes ago.

Sorry, you're doing it wrong. "Barry Ley" is the correct method and returns exactly 547 as of March 16. FlowWTG 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree but its still over a million. "Barry Ley" is definitely the correct method though. You are correct about that. Kentkent 09:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're still misunderstanding. You literally enter, with the quotation marks, "Barry Ley". This method returns around 550 results. Entering Barry Ley will return over a million because it searches for all Barry and all Ley on Google. Of which, around 550 are about someone named Barry Ley. It is without doubt not over a million; it's much less than a thousand. FlowWTG 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No misunderstandins here. "Barry Ley" With quotation marks ("). More than a million hits. Not all about him, there are acouple of other Barry Leys. But the name is not a particularly common one, so a lot of them will be him.He is a published author after all. Commercially published I mean. Not like people putting stuff on Wikipedia.

Biased editing

Does anyone else get the impression that martial arts articles or articles by people with a genuine interest in martial artists in this encyclopedia, are being hijacked by certain cliques? DrParkes has told me that after all the attacks on his articles, not only have people been putting all sorts of ridiculous notices about notability and citations needed (far more than any other articles we have come across, especially those contributed by the offenders themselves) but then they went as far as to block him so that he would be unable to defend himself from their attacks.

What we have noticed is that there is a theme of people trying to promote Judo over Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Even trying to take credit for this entirely functional, modern martial art by claimimg that it sprung from Judo instead of the antiquated Japanese version of Jiu Jitsu.

If you try to correct this propaganda you find that you are banded against and blocked out by little cliques of Judo fans who know how to work the system of this encyclopedia for their own ends. Close inspection of these people´s web pages tells more than you need to know about them. Someone even lists his "partner" is a boxer dog, and what makes that even worse, is that the dog (named after some bodybuilder bodyboarder) is already, according to this person, "married".

I guess that makes me dog :-) Loudenvier 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Blocked because of his own vandalism

Loudenvier was clearly blocked because of his vandalism of DrParkes' articles. Only, he knows the system, and so wormed his way back in. In the section below, he blames DrParkes. In fact, he was blocked for constant and vindictive vandalism. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing POV. It is for massing together all human knowledge, in a neutral way. I am sure if DrParkes were allowed to defend himself, he would shoot his tomentors down in flames. Come on DrParkes, get on another computor. You are quickly reaching god-like status, as a symbol for the downtrodden underdogs on Wikipedia. Show the bullys that they can't get away with riding roughshod over the truth!

Well, I was also blocked because of DrParkes vandalism. He changed the origin of BJJ without talking first. He is wrong because he does not know BJJ history, he is not even Brazilian and as such can't argue with me rationaly, so he uses stealthy means to force his opinions (POV). He would have to provide sources (reliable) to back up his claims. Judo is not ancient, it started in 1884, Jiu-Jitsu started hundreds of years ago. Maeda taught the gracies. He was a Judoka, just read his article to see. It is all provided with reliable sources backing it up. When Kimura fight Hélio the Brazilian journals called the him a jiu-jitsu world champion. At that time in Brazil and Europe Judo and Jiu-Jitsu weren't much apart, as Judo was a school of Jiu-Jitsu and even Kimura, Tomita, Yamashita (the older) called it Jiu-Jitsu at first to the uninitiated foreigners who were already aware of Jiu-Jitsu, but not Judo. That's why BJJ is called Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and not Brazilian Judo, olny after the 50s and 60s it started to change and Judo in Brazil went separate ways to BJJ. Gracie hype is a damn thing. For decades people called Hélio Gracie the founder of BJJ without giving credit to Carlos Gracie, who was the olny Gracie that learned directly from Maeda. It was Carlos Gracie, an exeptional BJJer that taught Hélio and his other brothers. Stay tuned to the BJJ article because it will be revamped with accurate, reliably sourced information. You will be proud of BJJ even more. Loudenvier 19:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Just another question: are you capable of reading Portuguese? If I may be able to send to you as a gift a book about Mitsuyo Maeda and about BJJ origin written by Brazilian history scholars. I would need an address to send it, could be a PO box. Loudenvier 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

DrParkes appears to have been blocked because he kept undoing the vandalism to his articles. I notice that the other chap who was blocked was allowed back almost immediately to continue his unseemly attack on the good doctor's work. Why can't you guys all behave reasonably towards each other. Oh, and if LOUDENVIER is allowed back, why not let DrParkes also have his say. I see that LOUDENVIER is trying to say that a Brazilian would somehow (genetically?) know more about BJJ than someone else. For a start, how does anyone know where DrParkes is from? And I think that the amount of time and effort spent studying a subject bears a little more weight than where you were born. Of course Kano's Judo is not ancient. Jiu Jitsu is and that is what I was saying if you'd care to go back and read it. Please check THE GRACIE WAY and Royce Gracie's ULTIMATE FIGHTING TECHNIQUES on the origin of BJJ. I realise that by coming down on the side of DrParkes I risk being hounded from Wikipedia by the Judo Gang but I thought he should know he is not alone.

I think that I, being a student of Rolker Gracie, may know a little more than you. I may be wrong... But in the end it doesn't matter. We need citations to back up our allegations, and that's what I always do and what you, DrParkes or Barry Ley always fail to do. Regards Loudenvier 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. I, and as far as I can see, the others, have consistantly backed up our facts with solid citations. At no point have we simply voiced our own dubious opinions. Unlike your self. Sorry, but it had to be said. On the other hand, you do seem capable of researching. Why not have a fresh look, with a more open mind? I think that it would be best for all concerned, don't you? Kentkent 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Namedropping

Again with the dubious claims LOUDENVIER. If that is your real name. Being associated with someone like Rolker does not give you their status, now does it? Kentkent 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Origin of BJJ

LOUDENVIER, I think that the reason Helio is credited more than Carlos is because he did more of the adapting. Carlos, according to the Gracies many publications, learned more by rote and copied exactly the Jiu Jitsu that Maeda taught him. Helio, being too small and weak for many of the techniques adapted them to suit smaller people. So it really was him that eventually developed a whole, genuinely new martial art. This art is battle tested time and time again in combat (Gracie Challange). That simply cannot be said for any other martial art. The closest I ever saw Judo come was when Leininger put up a good fight (and lost) to Shamrock. I believe Ben Spijkers had a try too, and got his head stamped on by Renzo Gracie. If Helio himself says that the art is adapted from Jiu Jitsu, even though you are yourself Brazilian, I don't think you can correct him. He, after all, is just as Brazilian as you. Kentkent 20:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maeda was 1m 64cm tall and weighted 64kg. He was far smaller then Helio. Why did Hélio had to invent anything? Simple, he didn't learn from Maeda himself. He learned by watching Carlos. Maeda fought many fights and lost only 2: against Satake and another jananese judoka. Do more homework, please. Loudenvier 21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Helio

Ah yes. But Carlos only learned what he was taught. He invented nothing. Helio was the one who adapted techniques to suit the smaller frame. And what has Maeda's height and weight got to do with anything? Helio adapted the techniques so he could use them with Carlos and the other students.

George Stvenson said, "A reasonable man adapts to the world around him. An unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men." Helio adapted the the system to his own needs. It is that very adaptabilty to the modern world that sets BJJ apart from the old, rigid, beautiful but outmoded martial arts. (See GEOFF THOMPSON) We are not training to fight a Samurai on horseback or who bows and attacks with fair warning from six feet away, but the drunken thug who assaults us when we are in the street at night, perhaps with our wives or children. Or the drugged up mugger with a knife to our guts.

And what makes you think that you do any more homework than me? You seem to base a lot of your argument on your nationailty and the fact that you are lucky enough to train with ROLKER. Assuming that this information is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kentkent (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


Come on guys, this is supposed to be a nuetral attempt to sum up all human knowledge, not just a way to foist your own opinions on the unsuspecting public.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.34.17.209 (talk • contribs).

I did come across these articles because of User:DrParkes but have only treated them the same as other articles of dubious content & questionable notability, a new editor user:Kentkent seems to be acting as a sock puppet & vandalising these articles, the removal of tags without discussion. is this you? There was also blatant vandalism of other users comments on this page. --Nate 12:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is you who is the sockpuppet NATE. You do seem to share a disproportionate amount of views with LOUDENVIER. And you vandalise the same articles. Jamesthorburn 11:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this comment by a blatant sock puppet is astounding. Ho do you do an IP check...
Being in Brazil one min & the UK the next is one hell of a trick & discussing things with your self on two talk pages is a little on the lines of multiple personalities.

--Nate 09:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Raw Nerve?

Have I touched on something here Nate? Or whoever you are? Are you trying to tell me that you are so innocent about the internet that you have never heard of HideMyIp or the host of similar programs that give out a false IP address? I suppose you will indignantly claim that because I have heard of them, I must be using them myself. I think however that you, in fact, are the one(s) displaying the characrteristics of a sockpuppet a lot more clearly than any of DrParkes´ loyal defenders. I am sorry that we have committed the apparantly heinous crime of challenging your opinions but this is supposed to be a neutral, independant project, and you (all of you) are ruining it. Along with Kentkent, I believe you have some good in you. Why not try and put your obvious inteligence to good use and try to help out a little. Good luck, friend. Jamesthorburn 10:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I only just resisted adding LOL @ the end. --Nate 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good man. I hope this marks the turning of a new leaf for you. Jamesthorburn 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. didn't read your rant just replied to the (pointlessly new) topic --Nate 12:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Other people´s opinions are rants are they Nate? Not a very good attitude, is it? And you seemed to be doing so much better. At least you are restricting your sabotage to the talk page now. Kbenton 12:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reiterating unsubstantiated accusations in an aggressive fashion, that would be a a rant yes.
Now you Switch accounts to further troll a talk page. P.S. if you feel I am being offensive please report it --Nate 12:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on. Unsubstantiated? I think it´s plain to see that you are at fault here. If you did not persist with your uncalled for and unneccessary attacks on the work of DrParkes, I think you would have a lot more friends on this project. You also attack and sabotage anyone who sides with him. As for being a troll I think that this is further projection on your part. You have obviously created multiple sockpuppet identities to make it seem as though others agree with your own rants. I always try and help people before going to the authorities. Where I come from, a person is considered to be of extremely poor character if he does not at least try to sort things out before complaining to authorities. I really think that there must be some good in you. Come on. Lets try to work together eh? Its the decent thing. Kbenton 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandelism

Nate. You and two other users have consistently vandelised articles by DrParkes. No matter what proof he offered, or what citations he gave you it was never enough. Barry Ley is widely reported in the media and a suitable subject for an article. I read earlier that one of you got him blocked so he is unable to defend himself from your assaults. Even the comment on the discussion page that brought attention to his unfair treatment was deleted.

Does this all really spring from DrParkes editing your precious article on Brazilian Jiu Jitsu? I for one believe that Gracie Jiu Jitsu was Carlos Gracie´s family´s adaptation of the Japanese style.

The books THE GRACIE WAY and Royce´s ULTIMATE FIGHTING TECHNIQUES say so. Why would they lie?

For heaven´s sakes, leave these informative and interesting articles alone. Maybe you could have a little look at your own stuff and provide endless citations for them instead. Kentkent 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia definition of vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism and you will note we have not. I frequently check on other edits by those who edit articles I watch and are unwilling to discuss the edits to see if they have behaved similarly on other articles.
You will note I have not removed any references without comment initially and after checking them, as I do not have those two books I have not commented on them. As to the other citations please read WP:RS#Reliable_sources as to why they have been disputed. Please explain which comment was deleted and which talk page, and it can be replaced however editing other users comments as you did above is bad faith. --Nate 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading the Wikipedia definition of vandelism it is clear that you are indeed regularly vandelising articles whose content does not agree with your own views on any given subject. Why not be a little bit more objective and consider what you are doing more carefully before vandelising the hard work of others? It is a shame to see the system, which after all is for the benefit of everyone - not just you, being abused in this way. Come on, why not thrust out your chin and admit that you´ve been rumbled? You will feel better and others will be able to enjoy these excellent articles. Then perhaps you can get on with doing something a little more constructive with your time. I really hope you take heed of this friendly advice. Kentkent 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

go ask for a 3rd opinion on the subject. --Nate 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That´s better! Asking for other peoples opinions is definitely a step in the right direction. Well done. I am proud of you and you should be proud of yourself. Remarkable attitude improvement my friend. Kentkent 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBarry_Ley_Archive_eae4.html"