|
In recent weeks Greg Stafford, author of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, has been posting on the message board H2O and was told by his elders not to be discussing doctrine on a board with known "apostates." Below is Greg's post, followed by my response, then followed by Greg's response to me.
Here are three significant posts, one by Greg and two to follow: ________________________________________
GREG
Posted by Greg Stafford [GregStafford] on November 03, 1999 at 10:04:32
Knowing that the person who has been trying to make trouble for me will no doubt communicate my attempt to use a different name and continue my discussion with AF and others, I contacted my PO to discuss matters, again. I do not know if the trouble-maker is a Witness who simply does not share my view of defending the faith, or if it is an opposer who, for obvious reasons, wants me out of here, or who is simply trying to make life difficult.
In any event, after speaking, with my PO, I can see that I did not properly understand the nature of the letter he received. Being informed about it while in the middle of posting to a discussion board did not help, either!
Apparently the Society does not want appointed brothers and sisters to be involved in online debates, discussion boards, chat rooms, and the like. They do not want any Witness to spend their time in these areas, but especially not appoint brothers, for they have been appointed to serve in the congregation, to teach and set an example in the field ministry. I can understand why they would therefore want those whom they have appointed for such important responsibilities to focus on them, and not spend time on those for whom they were specifically appointed.
In view of this, I will no longer be posting directly to this board, and I will only be making one final post to one other board. However, conversations and responses can be given via email or posts to web sites. If AF replies then he can send me an email with the reply attached, and I will gladly send my reply to him and several other H2O regulars, for posting to the board if they so choose. Otherwise, I will make sure it gets put up on a web site, somewhere.
I honestly do believe the discussion with AF has run its course. He has had ample opportunity to prove his point, and he has failed. In the process, as I mentioned, he has misquoted and misapplied a variety of documents, including my first edition. He also spread lies about my relationship with Brother Schroeder. If you read my response to him below, you can see where he even said he did not MEAN what he SAID. Well, no, of course not, AF. That is part of the point: People should not take what you SAY seriously. And unless you come out and tell us what you MEAN, then what good was your post? Again, his sources lied, and he spread the lie without checking with me. You can see, perhaps, why the Society might discourage people from subjecting themselves to such misinformation.
Again, as I said in my Introduction to AF, if anyone has any questions about anything that has been said in my discussion with AF, please send me an email and I will gladly consider it. As of this time, I have received no such emails.
Best Regards,
Greg
________________________________________
Randy
Posted by Randall Watters [2bithonky] on November 03, 1999 at 16:10:47 In Reply to: Last Post to H2O posted by Greg Stafford on November 03, 1999 at 10:04:32: Looks like you have regained your cool and calmed down a bit from your last post when you first found out, which "indicated" a little exasperation on your part. Control!! Now you have sufficiently calmed down to the drone of what "mother" wants. But she noticed your exasperation, Greg. This is not good. Why is the idealogy so hard to kill off? Greg, do you really want to live under this soviet-style system forever? Study the history of the Communist ideology and practice. It all looks good in print, but is murder in real life. ________________________________________
Posted by GregStafford [GregStafford] on November 06, 1999 at 19:07:43
.....
I feel sorry for you, RW, I really do. I almost sympathize with your situation. But then I read the literature you have produced and the stuff you got on your web page, and that sympathy vanishes like JH’s credibility in the face of logical argumentation.
Recall that you wrote: “Truth and honesty stand out as simple and uncomplicated in comparison to the flip-flop nature of circular apologetics.” There are so many things I could use from your materials that would shock those who look to you for “inside” information, but here I will draw your attention to but one, which I hope will give you an opportunity to show us just how hard it is that you search for truth and accuracy.
In your “Thus Saith...,” page 77, you copy the first page of "An Extract out of Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades," found in recent editions of Whiston’s English translation of Josephus’ works. On the side of the copy are your words, “No coincidence that the Jews’ belief about death fit Jesus’ words!” And, “Jesus’ listeners had little doubt what he was talking about!”
Thus, you are here presenting material allegedly from Josephus, as representative of the JEWISH view, that you advance in support of your two-compartment view of Hades so often presented by those who misunderstand the reference to “paradise” in Luke 23:43. What you DO NOT tell your readers is that in Whiston’s Sixth Dissertation in the Appendix to his English translation, he sets out to defend this "Extract" as an authentic work of the Jewish historian, claiming that it was written by him while he was "Bishop of Jerusalem, about the end of Trajan." According to Whiston, then, Josephus converted to Christianity and wrote this Extract while serving as a bishop in Jerusalem. It would not necessarily, then, have anything to do with the views of the Jews living during the time of Jesus’ ministry!
In reading through the Extract it is practically impossible to miss the many references to the NT. Whiston himself highlights a number of these, including parallels to Matthew 23:13 and 25:30, Luke 16:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:37-38, 2 Corinthians 5:2 and others. In fact, the author of the Extract even refers to "God the word; for to him hath the Father committed all judgment; and he in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ" (compare Joh 1:1; 5:22, 27).
Additionally, it is uncertain whether the author of the Extract is in fact the historian Josephus. Indeed, it is attributed to Hippolytus (170-236 CE) in ANF 5, 221-223, under the name, "Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe." The fragment is also available on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae D CD ROM (Los Altos, CA: Packard Humanities Institute, 1993), under Hippolytus. But there is no question that the Extract is the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades, as understood nearly a century (if not longer) after Jesus gave his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Thus, this Extract does not tell us the view of Jewish groups prior to and during the ministry of Jesus Christ; rather, it communicates the views of later Christian interpreters of NT writings.
Is this the kind of “truth and honesty” that you had in mind? Why don’t you stick the above on your web site, and offer an apology to your readers, for misinforming them about this issue? After all, you are after “truth and honesty,” right?
I believe I have gone far beyond the call of duty in bringing some clarity to the issues that several H2O luminaries have darkened. While I greatly regret my decisions regarding how to discuss matters of importance on the Internet, I believe it has ultimately served to show how dishonest, hypocritical and inaccurate several persons on this board are, and that is well worth the lesson I learned.
Greg
________________________________________
Randy (my response to his statements above)
Hmmm...
My first question: Is this really Greg, or one of his buddies he hangs out with researching all this stuff? If it is not Greg and he is lying again I won't pursue this further than this post. Don't make me rush you! :-))
So are you saying that this was not Josephus? Or is it your opinion this is not Josephus? Below you say it is uncertain. Why is it the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades, because it doesn't match your "purer" Christian theology? A few more references from other sources you may consider more legitimate are in order, Mr. Hat. There are quotes from the Talmud on the Jewish view, as well as intertestamental writings, early fathers, more quotes from the fathers, and discussions of the meaning of Gehenna to compare. In fact, I took much of the arguments and compared them here with the note:
The two works I have chosen to stand side by side are "The Fire That Consumes," by Edward W. Fudge (Conditionalist; pub. in 1982) and "Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey (Traditionalist; pub. in 1984). These represent the best of both sides, and are the most recent scholarly works available on this subject. Each incorporates the works of those who have gone before, and enlarges on them. On the left hand side of each page, I will comment on and present the Conditionalist argument (which is challenging the "traditionalist" view), and on the right side I will publish the "traditionalist" comments or refutation of this view. We trust this study will prove enlightening to you, as we feel that there are excellent points made on both sides.
In spite of reproducing large segments of quotes and text from each book, both Dr. Morey and Mr. Fudge have given permission for this project (after the fact: thank you both!) I am indebted to them for their vast knowledge on this subject. Another interesting book to read that is out of print (I believe) is "The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment" by Harry Buis. (Phila:Presbyterian & Reformed, 1957; LOC 57-8808)
This response is obviously now on my website at: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/sorry4u.htm and will be updated. Please tell me specifics on how I have misinformed them. You are implying I was dishonest with my readers.
Ahh, the disclaimer to the elders and the Governing Body. We'll see if Albert Schroeder makes exceptions in your case, because if he allows you to discuss doctrine with "known apostates," then it is allowed to all Witnesses, something I would welcome.
________________________________________
Posted by Randy Watters [2bithonky] on November 04, 1999 at 09:02:44
In Reply to: **RE: Stafford Issues posted by Bethel dejavu on November 04, 1999 at 08:27:42:
I forgot to mention that it is no secret why Ray called his book, "Crisis of Conscience." He managed to escape with his fairly intact. :-))
I agree with AF on the issue of honesty and Greg. Total deja vu back to 1979-1980 when Lyman Swingle pulled a cowardly act by letting Franz and Dunlap take the heat, while he himself was of the same views regarding 1914, the f&ds, etc. I would sit at the head of the table every morning during this time and have to listen to each GB member (Schroeder, Barry, Poetzinger, Kline, and Barber) week by week use names like "spiritual fornicators," "mentally diseased," "liars," and "worms" in reference to those who were leaving. Yet these same ones had their own damning doubts. Swingle tucked tale and lashed out at the "apostates." I went to the secret Bethel elders meetings during this time and wrote down everything I could, which statements I later printed in my 1981 tract, "What Happened At The World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Spring of 1980?" long before Ray wrote his book or any other JW told his story publicly. We have all gone our own way in terms of association, interpretation, etc. but you can see how people like AF, Franz, myself, Tom Cabeen, and many others still do not allow our own personal beliefs to color the facts just because we want to preserve our arses.
Take note that when you have people you look up to as mature men in the "body of Christ" and they fall to the pressure of other leaders to be loyal followers of men, the right decision is to stick to what you know the Word of God is saying and what your heart is telling you regarding truth and falsehood; the path you take is, to me, a measure of the man. Compare the style of reasoning and argumentation in Ray Franz' book with that of Greg Stafford and Firpo Carr and others who are the self-styled Watchtower apologists. Style also reveals the character of a man in the end. Truth and honesty stand out as simple and uncomplicated in comparison to the flip-flop nature of circular apologetics. A person who loves the truth is willing to go wherever that truth leads him, even though it will cost him in terms of friends, position, authority and respectability. Doing so has cost me plenty in terms of the same since 1980, but I could not live with myself if I was a respecter of persons. If you lie to yourself, the mechanics of it will sooner or later be obvious to others, assuming they are not equally desirous of lying to themselves. If they are as well, you now have a following, and the more converts you get, the more it seems to bolster the "reality" of your facade. - RW
________________________________________
Note: At this point, Greg stopped using his name in posting, instead using some other monikers such as AP and Apok. I began to get suspicious that he was trying to avoid getting disfellowshipped or reproved for "breaking Watchtower law" by dialoguing with known "apostates." Not wanting to get into a debate with one of his cronies that I don't know and am not interested in, I first must ascertain whether it is really GREG by getting a confession. AP and Apok simply refuse to respond with a direct answer. I make the dialogue conditional with his confession as to his identity. Note in the following threads how he will not answer for himself, letting others speak for him. They have no way of knowing that it is Greg, as someone else could be using the same moniker or email to protect Greg. An "I am Greg Stafford and am the one you have been corresponding with," would suffice.
________________________________________
Greg responds:
Posted by AP [AP] on November 08, 1999 at 14:52:35 {Nq8EnQ8RVA0hi4VK0MIQMAe0EfOyQM}:
Keeping in mind that there are many of you and only one of me (well, two if you count Travis :), I will address all of those responses I can, when I can. Since none of you emailed me as I requested, I will only entertain those that I think are presently worthwhile.
But, for now, here is some more material for RW's site:
My previous remarks will be prefaced with GREG_1, RW's response will be prefaced with RW, and my latest remarks will be prefaced with GREG_2.
GREG_1
Be sure you get this up on your site as soon as you can! In your “Thus Saith...,” page 77, you copy the first page of "An Extract out of Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades," found in recent editions of Whiston’s English translation of Josephus’ works. On the side of the copy are your words, “No coincidence that the Jews’ belief about death fit Jesus’ words!” And, “Jesus’ listeners had little doubt what he was talking about!”
Thus, you are here presenting material allegedly from Josephus, as representative of the JEWISH view, that you advance in support of your two-compartment view of Hades so often presented by those who misunderstand the reference to “paradise” in Luke 23:43. What you DO NOT tell your readers is that in Whiston’s Sixth Dissertation in the Appendix to his English translation, he sets out to defend this "Extract" as an authentic work of the Jewish historian, claiming that it was written by him while he was "Bishop of Jerusalem, about the end of Trajan." According to Whiston, then, Josephus converted to Christianity and wrote this Extract while serving as a bishop in Jerusalem. It would not necessarily, then, have anything to do with the views of the Jews living during the time of Jesus’ ministry!
RW
So are you saying that this was not Josephus? Or is it your opinion this is not Josephus? Below you say it is uncertain. GREG_2
It is either NOT Josephus or the result of a Christianized Josephus, writing during the reign of Trajan. THAT is where the uncertainty comes into play. Apparently you did not bother to check this out, but were merely glad you found something you could use to jamb the Witnesses' beliefs. Given the fact that the essence of this Extract is found in later writings of the ANF, it was likely not the work of Josephus at all. Are you looking up the sources I give or are you just interested in getting a reply out to try and salvage your misuse of this document? As I said:
QUOTE FROM GREG_1
What you DO NOT tell your readers is that in Whiston’s Sixth Dissertation in the Appendix to his English translation, he sets out to defend this "Extract" as an authentic work of the Jewish historian, claiming that it was written by him while he was "Bishop of Jerusalem, about the end of Trajan." According to Whiston, then, Josephus converted to Christianity and wrote this Extract while serving as a bishop in Jerusalem. It would not necessarily, then, have anything to do with the views of the Jews living during the time of Jesus’ ministry!
END OF QUOTE GREG_2
For reasons given in my remarks, this Extract is not included in modern translations of Josephus' writings. It has nothing necessarily to do with the views of the Jews during Jesus' ministry. It is a much later work, with clear and unmistakable "Christian" additions, which is nothing new. GREG_1
In reading through the Extract it is practically impossible to miss the many references to the NT. Whiston himself highlights a number of these, including parallels to Matthew 23:13 and 25:30, Luke 16:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:37-38, 2 Corinthians 5:2 and others. In fact, the author of the Extract even refers to "God the word; for to him hath the Father committed all judgment; and he in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ" (compare Joh 1:1; 5:22, 27).
Additionally, it is uncertain whether the author of the Extract is in fact the historian Josephus. Indeed, it is attributed to Hippolytus (170-236 CE) in ANF 5, 221-223, under the name, "Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe." The fragment is also available on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae D CD ROM (Los Altos, CA: Packard Humanities Institute, 1993), under Hippolytus. But there is no question that the Extract is the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades, as understood nearly a century (if not longer) after Jesus gave his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Thus, this Extract does not tell us the view of Jewish groups prior to and during the ministry of Jesus Christ; rather, it communicates the views of later Christian interpreters of NT writings.
RW
Why is it the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades, because it doesn't match your "purer" Christian theology? GREG_2
(!) It is the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades because, as I said (you are reading this, right?):
QUOTE FROM GREG_1
In reading through the Extract it is practically impossible to miss the many references to the NT. Whiston himself highlights a number of these, including parallels to Matthew 23:13 and 25:30, Luke 16:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:37-38, 2 Corinthians 5:2 and others. In fact, the author of the Extract even refers to "God the word; for to him hath the Father committed all judgment; and he in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ" (compare Joh 1:1; 5:22, 27).
END OF QUOTE GREG_2
Does that sound like the views of the Jews living during Jesus' ministry? Does that sound like the Josephus whom you read in Against Apion or in War of the Jews?
RW
A few more references from other sources you may consider more legitimate are in order, Mr. Hat. There are quotes from the Talmud on the Jewish view, as well as intertestamental writings, early fathers, more quotes from the fathers, and discussions of the meaning of Gehenna to compare. In fact, I took much of the arguments and compared them here with the note:
The two works I have chosen to stand side by side are "The Fire That Consumes," by Edward W. Fudge (Conditionalist; pub. in 1982) and "Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey (Traditionalist; pub. in 1984). These represent the best of both sides, and are the most recent scholarly works available on this subject. Each incorporates the works of those who have gone before, and enlarges on them. On the left hand side of each page, I will comment on and present the Conditionalist argument (which is challenging the "traditionalist" view), and on the right side I will publish the "traditionalist" comments or refutation of this view. We trust this study will prove enlightening to you, as we feel that there are excellent points made on both sides.
In spite of reproducing large segments of quotes and text from each book, both Dr. Morey and Mr. Fudge have given permission for this project (after the fact: thank you both!) I am indebted to them for their vast knowledge on this subject. Another interesting book to read that is out of print (I believe) is "The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment" by Harry Buis. (Phila:Presbyerian & Reformed, 1957; LOC 57-8808)
Is this the kind of “truth and honesty” that you had in mind? Why don’t you stick the above on your web site, and offer an apology to your readers, for misinforming them about this issue? After all, you are after “truth and honesty,” right?
This response is obviously now on my website at: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/sorry4u.htm and will be updated. Please tell me specifics on how I have misinformed them. You are implying I was dishonest with my readers. GREG_2
I have gone through all of the references in the writings of the Jews during the intertestamental period, and I have found nothing to support the view of a two-compartment Hades as you teach. Please give specific references, RW. You know, like 1, 2, or 3 Enoch, the Qumran scrolls, including the book and proper line referencing. Why are these not included in your reply? You should have some, since the books on which you lean for your information likely have referenced some of the primary sources in their writings, right?
Please quote them for us all. Now that you have acknowledged having no knowledge about the history of the document you use in your "Thus Saith...," misleading all of your readers, I am willing to see what else you have to offer. But please do not forget to take that out of your next edition, and offer an apology to the Watchtower Society for misleading people about material they did not use, and for good reason! GREG_1
I believe I have gone far beyond the call of duty in bringing some clarity to the issues that several H2O luminaries have darkened. While I greatly regret my decisions regarding how to discuss matters of importance on the Internet, I believe it has ultimately served to show how dishonest, hypocritical and inaccurate several persons on this board are, and that is well worth the lesson I learned. RW
Ahh, the disclaimer to the elders and the Governing Body. We'll see if Albert Schroeder makes exceptions in your case, because if he allows you to discuss doctrine with "known apostates," then it is allowed to all Witnesses, something I would welcome.
Randy Watters
GREG_2
I think you will have second thoughts about that the more of your material we discuss. As it is, you are again off track and need to refocus on the charge made against you: You are have misled your readers about the item on page 77 of your book. Please apologize for this error, and we can then test the strength of those other things that inform your present views.
If you cannot admit to your error, and your having done shallow and poor research which has resulted in your misleading others about this issue, then why should I spend one second more trying to help you out on other matters?
Apok
________________________________________
Randy
Posted by Randall Watters [2bithonky] on November 08, 1999 at 15:57:46 {Nq8EnQ8RVAQn4qgfbui2QNyTO0grzY}:
In Reply to: Response to RW posted by AP on November 08, 1999 at 14:52:35:
First, you omitted my very first question, "Is this Greg?"
:My first question: Is this really Greg, or one of his buddies he hangs out with researching all this stuff? If it is not Greg and he is lying again I won't pursue this further than this post.
Are you, the one writing me, Greg Stafford?
then I can proceed.
Randy
________________________________________
Greg
Posted by AP [AP] on November 08, 1999 at 20:31:57 {Nq8EnQ8RVA/CPYT8orz2MAe0EfOyQM}:
In Reply to: *Response to RW posted by Randall Watters on November 08, 1999 at 15:57:46:
RW:
Posted by Randall Watters [2bithonky] on November 08, 1999 at 15:57:46 {Nq8EnQ8RVAQn4qgfbui2QNyTO0grzY}:
In Reply to: Response to RW posted by AP on November 08, 1999 at 14:52:35:
First, you omitted my very first question, "Is this Greg?"
:My first question: Is this really Greg, or one of his buddies he hangs out with researching all this stuff? If it is not Greg and he is lying again I won't pursue this further than this post.
Are you, the one writing me, Greg Stafford?
then I can proceed.
Randy AP (quoting Cygnus)
Posted by Cygnus [Cygnus] on November 08, 1999 at 16:04:46 {Nq8EnQ8RVAJlXzGERuiML4bdfUTIaI}:
In Reply to: **AP=Greg Stafford=Travis=? posted by DANG! (bJ) on November 08, 1999 at 16:01:16:
Actually, "RW" is Randall Watters. Greg is "AP" and is replying to a message to him on a page on Randy's site.
One of Greg's screen names on AOL is Apokrisis1. That's why he signed off as "Apok" on the "AP" post.
Cyg, who has written a couple of "last posts" to H2O and still came back for more like Greg
Does this mean you are will answer the questions now?
AP
________________________________________
Note: AP (supposedly Greg) is quoting someone else who says AP is Greg, but it could be someone else at Greg's computer, or whatever. Greg avoids answering the question directly. I respond with the same question, "Are you Greg Stafford?" He responds in another evasive maneuver:
________________________________________
Randy,
I am not sure I have found your reply, unless you meant this:
Posted by Randall Watters [2bithonky] on November 09, 1999 at 07:54:14
{4Hfg918T5gdhQe9/FouQQNyTO0grzY}:
In Reply to: **Response to RW posted by AP on November 08, 1999 at 20:31:57:
Tell me directly that you are Greg Stafford, quit avoiding a direct answer. What is your problem? Do you always respond this way?
Randy
END OF QUOTE
Is this the reply about which you spoke, or is there another post that I missed?
Also, I noticed that you have not uploaded my last response to your web site. I am sure you just forgot to do so, in view of your interest in fairness and accuracy.
Apok
________________________________________
I again respond:
<< That is the correct one, please reply. Are you Greg Stafford, who has been dialoguing with me? Please answer the question.
Randy >>
________________________________________
Apok's final response:
In a message dated 11/10/99 8:18:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
writes:
<< That is the correct one, please reply. Are you Greg Stafford, who has been dialoguing with me? Please answer the question.
Randy >>
Randy,
If my posting of Cygnus' explanation was not enough to answer this question, what can I say? Let's just focus in on the issue at hand: Will you please change your "Thus Saith . . ." so that the misuse of the Extract attributed to Josephus, concerning Hades, is no longer used for the wrong purpose, namely, of establishing the Jewish view of Hades during the ministry of the Lord?
You make a number of claims about the Witnesses, and this is your chance to show the right attitude, by accepting correction, admitting that a mistake in research was made, and then moving on from there to discuss related issues.
There is a lot to be said about Hades in early Judaism, and as soon as you get past this point, perhaps an enlightening discussion can take place.
By the way, your web site still has not been updated. Also, you claim that I accused you of lying, but that is not true. I simply laid the facts before you, and put the onus on you to live up to that which you claimed in your H2O post. I did not expect you to object so strongly to correction and factual information, which, if accepted, would make what you write less open to criticism. I am seeing a much different Randy Watters than the one I read about in books, and hear from on your web site.
Finally, your link to my book is for the first edition, which is no longer in print. Perhaps you would not mind putting a link to that site from which the second edition can be ordered,
http://www.elihubooks.com. You might enjoy, among other things, the Appendix on Luke 23:43, in the second edition, which contains a useful discussion of Hades, in relation to Jesus' response to the thief, concerning "paradise."
Apok
________________________________________
Randy's Final Response
Whoever you are, you are not admitting your identity. A "confession" from someone else is not enough, you simply won't answer a simple question as to your identity, even after 3 responses you don't fess up. I have no use for deceptive dialogue. Who are you using to play your games, Raul Regrieso, or one other of your buddies, or are you just trying to deceive the Witnesses and the Governing Body as well without getting disfellowshipped? "No, brother Schroeder, I am not directly dialoguing with any former Witness! It is someone else using my name!"
As for the "Thus Saith" book, that page with the Extract was omitted years ago and the last few reprints have not contained it. All you had to do was look at the online version to figure it out.
Until you say that you are Greg Stafford outright and dialogue with me thusly, I have no intention of dialoguing with a stranger.
Randy Watters
Trackback(0)
 |
Articles 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed