Talk:David Paterson/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Patterson Had Affair with a State Employee

At today's press conference, Gov. Patterson acknowledged that he had an affair with a state employee who was not under his supervision at the time. The employee still works for the state and Patterson noted that "we will try to accommodate that employee's wishes." Not a fun day to be that employee!

[1]

Rpatrick955 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day

Ok someone changed the fact that he was sworn in on St. Patrick's day to "tradtionally" St. patrick's day. I reverted it because the reasoning stated in the edit summary was that St. Patrick's Day was held on the 14th and 15th because of the religous holiday also this week. This is comlettely untru however the article was reverted back to state "traditionally". It is my opiion that this is incorrect and should read "was sworn in on St. Patrick's Day" not " on what is traditionally St. Patrick's day". does anyone agree??

As I said on your talk page, St. Patrick's Day was moved this year. However, I would suggest just changing it to "March 17", which is probably more encyclopaedic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You would suggest that huh? Funny I jsut said the same thing on your talkpageEMT1871 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Great minds, I suppose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[out]Seems to me that the fact that it's St. Patrick's Day is really quite irrelevant, traditional or not. Tvoz |talk 05:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The opening line of his inauguration speech dealt with St. Patrick's day, which makes it relevant, and the succession occurred on St. Patrick's day, which makes it encyclopedic. MrPrada (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, doesn't seem too important to me, and the text didn't explain the relevance when I commented here. I don't have strong feelings about it, but the relevance ought to be included if "St Pat's" is mentioned, otherwise it appears to be unnotable trivia. (I missed that line in the speech - although couldn't help but see all the green in the audience...) . Tvoz |talk 07:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tvoz |talk that the St. Pat's day is totally irrelevant, even if Paterson was wearing a green tie. Besides his quote about being Governor of New York, we should summarize what he said in his speech! Yoninah (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Affair

Paterson discloses extramarital affairs.

Here's a heads up. --Sharkface217 03:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of "I am the governor" quote?

There's a large pull quote: "Let me reintroduce myself. I am David Paterson and I am the Governor of New York State!" What's it there for? It has a lot of emotional significance, and may be good-naturedly humorous; it's hard to be sure without watching the speech. But it doesn't seem to further the legit goals of this article by telling you about his possible policies, his biography, or his character.

Perhaps a more politically significant quote, from the same transcript currently cited ([2]):

And so what we are going to do from now on is what we always should have done. We’re going to work together.
With conviction in our brains and compassion in our hearts and love for New York on our sleeves, we will dedicate ourselves to principle but always maintain the ability to listen.

That shows an effort to shift away from Spitzer's confrontational style, which, if he follows up on it, is of some practical importance.

Does anyone want to make a strong argument for keeping the current quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.115.15 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's out of place. Isaacsf (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I believe the quote should stay, although admittedly I added it. The emphasis was on reintroduce myself. My personal hope is that he ends up as more of a Chester Arthur than a John Tyler, but in any event I think it adds context to the fact that he is has gone from an unknown quantity to a national figure in one week. I think if we can get audio of the quote (I have video, but I do not have a program to seperate the audio) and put it next to the quotation box, it will add further context. MrPrada (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep but only in context. It should be written that he told jokes and humorous lines for half an hour, then interjected this quote, then switched over to a more traditional inauguration speech. Yoninah (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a correction comment: He did not tell "jokes and humorous lines" for half an hour. Listen to the speech again if you must. He did though spend a good amount of time thanking people for coming and general service to NY. And also, the quote "Let me introduce myself: I am David Paterson and I'm the Governor of New York State" was the last thing he uttered of the speech, not in the middle. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

naming of section "Governor of New York"

I think calling the section "Governorship" is silly, and inconsistant, and atypical English.
Perhaps we should call the other section Lieutenant Governorship? Consider: also

  • Attorney Generalship
  • Supreme Court Judgeship
  • Mayorship

I recommend restoring the section to the title of the position held: "Governor of New York."
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we use "presidency" rather than "President of the United States," along with several other similar designations, including mayoralty (not "mayorship") and "vice presidency." English is a funny language...it's got some strange words. How about "gubernatorial" for a weird one? Nevertheless, "governorship" is the word to describe the term of incumbency in the position of governor. A search for the word in Wikipedia reveals 2122 hits, for what it's worth. (Yes, far fewer than "governor," but context is important.)

Isaacsf (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Yellowdesk - what's the reason for not calling it "Governor of New York"? Tvoz |talk 05:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Although there is no official MoS, nearly all of the other Governors use "Governorship". While that is not a reason to change it to "Governor of New York", I think that is perhaps a phrase better suited for Simple Wikipedia.
According to dictionary.com: gover·nor·ship (gŭv'ər-nər-shĭp') n. 1. The office, term, or jurisdiction of a governor. 2. the duties, term in office, etc., of a governor. Origin: 1635–45; governor + -ship
MrPrada (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the word is incomprehensible, just that it is unnecessarily stilted. Tvoz |talk 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Large, unused reference list

Someone put these here originally to be used to garnish text for the article. I think that there is not much more new information that can be garnered from these, but they may prove useful as additional footnotes for what is already in the text. If they cannot be added in the next week or so, they should be deleted. MrPrada (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to delete, there's no scarcity of electrons or disk space. There's a great deal in these sources that would fill out the bio, not already in the article. There are also two interactive resources, the timeline, and interviews with politicians that have value as external links alone. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"legally" blind?

I'm curious: Is there also non-legally blindness, or why is there this strange qualifier? I'd gess it would be enough to mention that Paterson is blind and no need to strengthen (?) that point by pointing out that he also fits the legal definition (within the US, I guess) of blindness... 79.199.106.246 (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the phrase belongs. Legal blindness is, if I recall correctly, defined as having less than 20/200 eye-sight. Patterson has some, but very limited vision in one eye, therefor if you wanted to get specific he couldn't be concerned blind in the absolute technical sense as he has SOME vision, but it is so limited that it would be silly to consider him sighted just because he isn't TOTALLY blind, so we have the term "legally blind" to include those that have a small, but insignificant amount of sight, as well as those that are totally blind in the technical sense. 76.121.222.69 (talk)

What makes him legally blind? Is it possible to be illegally blind?--92.43.66.5 (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a (&^%^*^$R*^ encyclopedia. Use It. 76.17.251.13 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

From a medical dictionary, http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10614
Legal blindness: The criteria used to determine eligibility for government disability benefits and which do not necessarily indicate a person's ability to function.
In the US, the criteria for legal blindness are:
Visual acuity of 20/200 or worse in the better eye with corrective lenses (20/200 means that a person at 20 feet from an eye chart can see what a person with normal vision can see at 200 feet);
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well from the optic atrophy from the injection in his childhood days, his left eye is totally blind I believe, and in that right eye that he can see from, he has somewhere around or less 20/400. He still does what he needs to do on a daily basis though.
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Paterson Executive Chamber

The start of term dates of some of the public officials listed in the "The Paterson Executive Chamber" box in the "Governorship" section of the main article are wrong. Many of them, such as New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, began their terms at the start of the Spitzer Administration in January 2007. This section should be edited to reflect the dates that these various state officials assumed their positions, not the date that David Paterson became governor! 68.174.27.152 (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just how the templates are used on Wikipedia. I would agree that it makes sense to use the actual date they start, but from the perspective we tend to use it is when the Chief officeholder took over (see John Tyler, Chester Arthur, Millard Fillmore, etc.) MrPrada (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I can't make a modification to the infobox of the Paterson Executive Chamber. It says the Lieutenant Governorship is vacant. But Senator Joseph Bruno as Temporary Senate President is also now Acting Lieutenant Governor. I'd like to indicate that in the box that Senator Bruno is Lieutenant Governor (Acting). ESCStudent774441 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When I created the template I listed Bruno as acting lieutenant Governor, User:Roehl Sybing blanked it so you may wish to ask him why before returning it. MrPrada (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

30th not 29th district

Is there a ref for this change? It looks like maybe he was elected to the 29th and possibly through redistricting, it became the 30th. The categories at the bottom of the page have him starting in the 29th and moving to the 30th. Possibly a result of the 2000 census? Isaacsf (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the references cite the two different numbers. Check them out. (Or at least both districts were cited in the references I put in on Saturday or Sunday, before all the hubbub on inauguration day.-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I had already checked them out, and I understand there are two different numbers cited - that's the point of my comment. We are listing, in this article, that he represented the 29th district from 1986-2003, and the 30th from 2003-2007. My question is this: a change was made to the section titled "Political Career" to say that he was elected to the 30th district in 1986, which I don't think is the case. Isaacsf (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

discrepancy about being the first legally blind us governor

at the top of the article it state "He is the first African American governor of New York, and the first legally blind governor in the United States."

but later in the article, it states "He is the second legally blind governor of any U.S. state (Bob C. Riley served as Governor of Arkansas for 11 days in 1975).[43]"

the first statement cannot be true if the 2nd statement is true. 12.22.132.5 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Jon 18 mar 08

You are correct; he is not the first blind governor. It seems some editors are not familiar WP:OR and WP:VER...I've made the correction. Isaacsf (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What confuses this issue is he is New York's first blind governor, as well as New York's first African-American governor. They're local milestones, not national ones, but they are commonly touted in articles about him and I suppose it's easy to get confused. Rob T Firefly (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Arkansas - Riley (and Joe Purcell) was never Governor, just Lieutenant Governor peforming gubernatorial duties as 'Acting Governor'. If Riley (and Purcell) were Governors? Mike Beebe would be Arkansas 47th Governor. So which is? Governor or not? GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good question. Someone should answer it. Please ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times wrote a correction on March 19 to note that Bob Riley was the first blind governor rather than David Paterson. That was what prompted me to include this information within the article. Seleucus (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Riley's picture hangs in the capital, he was an actual governor. http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/03/ark_claims_first_blind_governo.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by James1906 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Day one as governor?

I assume no one planning on going on like this, with headings for "Day two as governor", "Day three..." ad nauseam. I guess there's no reason not to wait until more information on his term develops before trimming the fat off such entries, but let's face, it, it's going to happen eventually. In the mean time, maybe people could hesitate to add stuff that we know is just going to be removed later as it is crushed by the weight of history? -R. fiend (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe tomorrow he'll resign because of all those affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.42.120 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The significance of "Day one as governor", at least when I named the heading, was that he was faced with the budget, held the press conference, gave the speech, dealt with the transition, gave an interview with his wife, and still managed to sign five pieces of legislation. It might not be WP:Brilliant Prose but I still think its a significant first day. MrPrada (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

First blind Governor in the USA

Actually, according to List of Governors of Arkansas - Lieutenant Governor Bob C. Riley was never Governor of Arkansas. But merely the Lt Gov performing the powers & duties (of Governor) as Acting Governor. Therefore, Governor Paterson is indeed the first legally blind Governor in USA history. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary resource. However, it does seem that he was not actually sworn in as governor (see [3]). Having said all that, Wikipedia is not intended to report such original research (see WP:OR) and if the folks who are publishing articles on the subject can't agree on it, we don't need to be expressing an opinion on the matter at all. Isaacsf (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The Riley source is unreliable & so both should be removed from this article. Accordingly, Paterson is the 'first' legally blind Governor in USA history. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There's really very little point in us discussing this...the point is whether or not the assertion meets WP:VER and WP:OR standards or not. If you can find refs that meet that standard, I say we should put it in. (What I've seen so far is that reporters are more interested in "saying" he is first than actually finding out if it is true.) Isaacsf (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
IF Riley & Joe Purcell were Governors of Arkansas (IMHO, they were). Then Mike Beebe should be the 47th Governor, not the 45th. We've some serious inaccuracy problems here. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How about if we just remove the ref to "first" or "second" entirely? Or, as an alternative, something like "It has been variously reported that he is either the first or second legally blind governor of any state in the U.S. Opinion differs as to whether Bob C. Riley's term as acting governor makes him officially first or not." - with references that state it both ways? Isaacsf (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's acceptable, as Arkansas itself seems unclear as to wheither Riley & Purcell were Governors or not. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the State of Arkansas official websites all indicate that Beebe is the 45th governor and that Riley is not officially considered in the line of succession. This would technically make Paterson the first blind governor.

I think the state's official websites qualify as verifiable sources. --Smokytopaz (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They may be official, verifiable sources, but our bar here is WP:VER and WP:OR. What matters here is not whether or not he is the first anything. Rather, the important thing is what is verifiable. Is Arkansas claiming that Paterson is the first / second / or any numbered blind governor of NY? All Arkansas is claiming is its own governors; even if they say Riley wasn't governor, that is not a verifiable source that Paterson is first, and that is what we need in order to put it in this article.
We should not be editing for the sake of editing. If we find a reliable source that settles the discussion once and for all, we can change then. Otherwise, I move for some version of the text I entered above (starting with "It has been variously reported..."). Isaacsf (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There's another option. If we can't determine Riley's status (Governor or Acting Governor), then for now, we should omit xxx blind Governor in the USA. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Isaacsf (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has stated plainly in its error and clarification box, "Getting it straight", on Saturday, March 15, 2008, page 2A (Little Rock area editions; northwest editions may vary), that the legally blind Riley was governor of Arkansas for 11 days in 1975, and thus was the nation's first legally blind governor. The editorial statement is in response to an Associated Press wire brief which published the day before, referring to Paterson's potential claim to the distinction as the first blind governor. If there should be additional printed or web references to aid in the search for verifiable sources, I will add them as I see them, and welcome others to do the same. — ArkansasTraveler (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the American Foundation for the Blind had similarly added to the claim of Paterson as the first legally blind governor of any U.S. state in this press release, but also issued a correction of the release indicating its position that Riley was the first legally blind person to serve as governor of a U.S. state. While this statement was also referred to in a New York Times blog, I thought the link direct from the organization would be helpful. — ArkansasTraveler (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This means then, Riley & Purcell were Governors of Arkansas (not just Acting Governors). As a result? Mike Beebe should be the 47th Governor of Arkansas. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually to be exact he's Caribbean-American...

Article: New NY Govenor is son of Caribbean nationals Date: Wednesday, 12 March 2008 Source: www.cbc.bb - Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

Link: http://www.cbc.bb/index.pl/article?id=193759

The son of two Caribbean nationals is posed to become the new governor of New York following Wednesday's resignation of Governor Eliot Spitzer.

[ . . . ]

-- Article: Paterson claims Caribbean roots Date: Sunday, March 16th, 2008 Source: www.NationNews.com - Nation Newspaper (Barbados)

Link: http://www.nationnews.com/story/306535835764488.php

[SNIP] THERE WAS no better setting to declare one's Caribbean roots.

With at least two million, including thousands of Bajans waiting to jump up to pulsating West Indian music along Brooklyn's Eastern Parkway, David Alexander Paterson proclaimed his heritage.

[ . . .]

That was back in September.

Paterson is the grandchild of Jamaicans and Grenadians.

Born in Brooklyn, Paterson, 53, tapped into the mood when he told the large crowd "this is a day for everyone, everybody is Caribbean."

[ . . . ]

CaribDigita (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


"Paterson was born in Brooklyn to his parents" - who else would he be born too? 203.3.197.249 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


So know Caribbean-American is a race?Of course he is black you can see this.This is the actual problem of usa ,people confuse race with local origin.Augusto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.99.243 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound

"Dinkins" is not a singular noun, but rather a name. Unfortunately, the article for Dinkins has 4 without the trailing "s" and two with it - hardly a decisive margin. A google search on "Dinkins'" vs "Dinkins's" is clearer, with the former far exceeding the latter.

I vote for Dinkins' without the trailing s, as it is more like the spoken way. Would we really say what sounds like "Dinkinses?" That, coupled with the preponderance of google hits, seems to point toward no trailing s.

Thoughts? Isaacsf (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Paterson, an assistant district attorney in Queens for two years, resigned this year to work in City Clerk David N. Dinkins's successful campaign for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan borough president.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How about this one from the Washington Post: "Luv Guv Quits, Film at 11". Retrieved on 2008-03-19. 

As a native who covered David Dinkins' election as the city's first black mayor, I wasn't expecting to see an African American governor here for a long time.

Or this one from the NY Law Journal: "Free: Spitzer Announces Resignation New Governor Has Little Room To Maneuver". Retrieved on 2008-03-19. 

David Paterson once worked on Mr. Dinkins' campaign for Manhattan borough president in the mid-1980s.

Isaacsf (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • We'll probably have to agree to disagree.
    Bob Jones's car, Bill Jenkins's shoe, Melissa Weiss's glasses. The apostrophe signifies a sigular individual's possession. Then there's the distinguishing case: The Joneses' car, The Jenkins' (plural family members) shoes, The Weisses' lovely garden.
    This is what the real difference involved with the single apostrophe without "s" distinguishes between. For the Dinkins family, it would be Mr. Dinkins's shoes, and the plural (father and mother) Dinkins' children.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, we'll have to agree to disagree. I would never write either "Bob Jones's car" OR "the Joneses' car." I think those constructs are awkward. I would write them as "Bob Jones' car" and "the Jones' car." ("Bob" and "the" indicate singular and plural here, not the addition of extra syllables.)
I also thought "Governorship" was both proper and consistent with other articles in WP...and that went over like a lead balloon. Ditto leaving out a reference to whether Paterson is the first or second (or tenth) legally blind governor of NY, Arkansas, or Mars... :-)
Be bold. I'm leaving it alone, and nobody else seems to care. (While you're at it, can you clean up David Dinkins so the article is internally consistent?)
Peace! Isaacsf (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming of "Extramarital affairs" section

I think that "Bear Mountain compact" might be a better section-heading then extramarital affairs. It sounds more NPOV to me, but I'd like to hear what others think before changing it. MrPrada (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally like that the media and everyone jumps on this story like any other story as a velociraptor on fresh meat, looking for anything bad they can find to say on the man as soon as he starts his term. But I guess it doesn't really matter here what I personally think (WP:NPOV). Anyway, I don't even know what Bear Mountain compact is, and even if I did, or rather... I've never even heard this term. He and his wife, unfortunately for them, did have extramarital affairs that they have since resolved between themselves.
I assume the NPOV you are talking about is the word "affair." I can't really think of any interchangeable word for reasonable cause of change. He felt the need to announce it to the public; that's his decision. So Wikipedia editors, I guess, deemed it notable enough (WP:Notability) to include in the article this announcement and story. I do think, however, that as his term progresses, editors should spend much less time and space writing about any and all details of this specific story, or it may seem (and perhaps would be) as just an attempt to undermine or defame him as some scandalous-prone and unfaithful governor (WP:Libel)
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm kind of wondering if maybe this type of information would actually be better suited in the personal details section; it's not really a political issue that's related to his Governorship, is it? I don't work on politician articles much, so I don't know what's commonly done. -/- Warren 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with you, but it seems as though stories are being published that he used state/campaign funds, which affects his governship, so it should stay there for now. Plus, having it up top just seems unbalanced to me. It definitely belongs in the article, don't get me wrong, per WP:N. MrPrada (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A fair point. On a related subject -- what if we changed the title of "Family and education" to simply, "Biography"? Then we could move the civil disobedience text into that section. We could also open a new section on "Policital positions" so that things like his positions stem cell research, the rights of blind people, and whatever else comes out in the months and years ahead, will have a better home than being shuffled into other sections in a vaguely chronological order. (I'm looking at the Michael Bloomberg as a guide here). Thoughts? -/- Warren 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with redoing the "Family and education" section. As it stands now, "Personal" does not seem to be a sufficient heading for the text. I'm not sure if I agree with creating an entire "Political Positions" section, I prefer the chronological layout used in Eliot Spitzer, Mario Cuomo and George Pataki, seems to be the standard for Governors of New York. However, a seperate article on his views (like Political positions of Barack Obama) would be appropriate, as it stands now this bio is approaching the 50k threshold. Family, education and background may also need to be rolled into daughter articles such as Early life of David Paterson, etc. If you would like to take a stab at this (as I did when I chopped up the Spitzer article), by all means, be bold. MrPrada (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion

His religion is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.58.34 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not everyone is affiliated with a certain religion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)