Talk:New Ordeal

From Conservapedia

(Redirected from Talk:Essay:New Ordeal)
Jump to: navigation, search

Who coined the term "New Ordeal?"--Franklin 10:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

It's common knowledge. Who coined the term, "Contract on Amercia"? RobS 10:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

No, it is not common knowledge. As for the "Contract on America" that was a democratic spoof of the the Republican "Contract with America" during the 1994 midterm elections--Franklin 11:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I've never heard of the New Ordeal, and I'm not getting any quick info on it from Google. I think Franklin's question is valid - is it coined by the author of the sourced book? --Colest 11:07, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Even the single reference for the page makes no mention of "New Ordeal", nor can I find any online reference to the term in this context. Is this a term that Rush has created or was it created by the author of this page? Boomcoach 11:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Rational_wiki has some discussion of this likewise. RobS 11:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I looked on rational_wiki. The term seems to be your creation, and the cited sources do not support your contention. The 1945 Time magazine article deals with the impending demobilization of U.S. troops at the close of World War Two, and the chart showing flucuations in the U.S. economy deals with the last few decades of the nineteenth century. If you are trying to construct some sort of argument about the New Deal (which did have its shortcomings) this is a very poor way to do it.--Franklin 11:35, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Contract on America was a spoof? Really? Seems common knowledge spoofed New Dealers for 70 years and they didn't even know it. Must be more evidence that they did not know everything afterall, huh? RobS 11:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Is it really too much to ask to drop the sarcasam and just state who coined the phrase? I'm not sure what rational_wiki has to do with this site, either. --Colest 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
It's been common knowledge for decades. RobS 11:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
The phrase may be common knowledge in certain circles, but I think it is not as widely spread as you believe it to be. --Colest 12:00, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Hardly common knowledge. Where did the phrase come from? Can you cite that? Was it in Hayek's book that you cited (although I cannot imagine Hayek being so crass)?--Franklin 11:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well of course, given censorship, oppression, and the Fairness Doctrine for 50 years. RobS 12:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, you are not being censored or oppressed. I have asked you to forthrightly provide your sources, and you have directed us to rational_wiki, where the cites did not support your contention. So, I ask again, what is your evidence for this term? Is it in Hayek or another source?--Franklin 12:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I beleive I've answered several times. RobS 12:27, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, you have not. You have have been asked several times and you respond that the term is common knowledge. Show a little bit of intellectual honesty my friend.--Franklin 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

It also survives in oral histories. RobS 12:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wonderful! Many oral histories have been recorded and transcirbed in book or sometimes journal format. Can you cite some?--Franklin 12:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well duh, what does oral mean? RobS 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did you revert my edit and remove my comment? I repeat: many oral histories have transcribed into printed form/ Can you direct me to a few where I might see this term used?--Franklin 12:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, hit the wrong button (meant to hit mark as patrolled). RobS 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The only reference I can find is in the title of a 1948 book, reprinted in 1968. The book is referenced in Hayak's bibliography and a few other places, but I can find no usages of the term itself.previous unsigned comment added by User:Boomcoach

Doh! Forgot the tildes. Sorry. Boomcoach 11:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)


Where is this found?

I can't find any mention of this in the text at the bottom--it is totally unrelated. Can we take this out? Robs gave no answer above. FredK 15:30, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

After looking around, I can find no source for this except conservapedia. Now that means either conservapedia is that good, or the whole thing is a lie a fiction. I think it is the latter. FredK 15:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Like all CP articles, it's a work in progress. RobS 16:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, the problem is, it is still not a real thing. FredK 16:27, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
If you could find even ONE source for this, aside from that book that doesn't mention it, we could work together. FredK 16:28, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Can't find it, either

A Google Books search on "New Ordeal" Roosevelt turns up thirteen hits, none relevant.

The closest thing to a relevant hit is The New Ordeal by Planning: The Experience of the Forties and the Sixties, by John Jewkes, which is an update to his 1948 book "Ordeal by Planning." A search in this book for "Roosevelt" turns up no hits, nor does a search for "New Deal," meaning that whatever he means by this, it is not a satirical takeoff on "New Deal."

I believe this should be retitled as an essay and "signed" by RobS and co-contributors. It is not an exposition of a well-established conservative locution (like "Death tax"); I think it's a personal essay and that RobS hopes to promote the use of an original or at least poorly-known coinage.

If a home-schooled student were asked, as a fill-in-the-blanks exam question, "What name is used to refer to the period of economic decline between the crash of 1929 and the Second World War," do you think he or she would get credit for "New Ordeal?" Dpbsmith 16:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I concur, thanks for your help and honesty. FredK 16:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Why this kind jokes are kept here?!

If this is some kind of encyclopedia, please, delete. Refering to nothing... --Aulis Eskola 17:34, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

WP:New Deal

I think we're having an impact. Look what WP's been doing to its New Deal entry, they expanded the size of the chart. [1] One of these days I may even investigate the basis of that chart. Oh, they also deleted "Commies in the New Deal". [2] I didn't write that particular subsection, but much of what it linked to I did. RobS 16:58, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

New Cites

The two new "citations" have no apparent link to the article, any more than the first one does. The Time magazine article is about US troops coming back from WWII, and the book is part of an autobiography of FRD, and a fairly early colume of it (2 of 4). RobS, it loks like you are just grabbing anything from the 40's or 50's that has the word "Ordeal" in it. You appear to have created an article out of whole cloth. I don't know if this is a term a favorite prof once used, but to pretend that it is of any common usage outside of yourself is comepletely unsubstantiated. It has no place in any sort of encylopedia, unless you can show some relavent citations, not simply things that have a common word. You might as well se a citation about "New York in the 50's" because it has the word "New" init! Boomcoach 17:22, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Please feel free to improve the article. RobS 17:23, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
It is an article about something that has no apparent existence. There is no evidence that there is anything to write an article about. It is just a name that you appear to have conjured out of thin air. Boomcoach 17:46, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
Well we can do a redirect from Great Bear Market to here, but Great Bear Market only goes to 1942, it doesn't include the Malthusian catastrophe that followed, and the Recovery period. RobS 17:52, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
This is the only incidence of this term, used in this context, I can find anywhere. Unless there's evidence otherwise, it can only be considered a personal essay. Which is fine, but it can't be allowed in an encyclopedia, surely? DoggedPersistence 18:17, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
What? this article or trolls trashing it? RobS 18:18, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Neither. You've concocted a clever phrase (do you work as a copywriter?! :-) ), more power to you, but it's just that - you wrote it, and there's no evidence whatsoever anyone other than you uses it. Therefore it can't really be allowed in an Encyclopedia. If there is evidence of its use that we're missing, just go ahead and provide it, and no-one will have the slightest problem with the article. DoggedPersistence 18:25, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I took your advice above and improved on the article. Thanks for the advice.Associate 19:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)


Since no one other than the author seems to be familiar with the term "New Ordeal", I propose an opening paragraph explaining the coinage of the term, for clarity's sake. Reasonable? Unreasonable?PaulP 23:53, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd like some guidance on an opening paragraph to explain the origin of New Ordeal. Could you provide an example maybe?PaulP 00:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
I thought it was quite obvious and to the point. RobS 00:33, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

This article's discussion page is locked. It is a somewhat bizarre article. I would humbly ask that if it is stay as a mainspace (non-essay) article, the primary author should, in one or two short sentences, explain the thesis of his piece. As it is, I have no idea what it is about. I certainly don't like the implication that right-wing extremist groups are Christian, but I'm sure I must be misreading that. Thanks.PaulP 23:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

See the souricing on it. RobS 00:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for responding. I did look at the article, the discussion, and the sources, but nothing pointed to a known usage of "New Ordeal". This make me think perhaps it was a creative, clever coinage of yours or of someone you know. It did go thru the citations in great detail. Perhaps this could be explained? PaulP 00:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Frankly you have me confused; are you sure you have the right discussion page? RobS 00:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
How about changing this from a mainspace page to something like Essay: The New Ordeal, because it appears to be just that. It is an essay by RobS about a period to which he has given a cutesy name, either of his own creation, or an obscure reference earlier in life. It reminds me of going to college and using words that had become common in our home, but were euphamisms created by my mother or father. Boomcoach 07:37, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

This should be an essay and not an article. If you look at the discussion above that RobS had with Franklin, there is no source for the article. It is not of encyclopedic quality and should be removed.--Oldring 08:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Well you need to show some edit history to show you have an interest in this subject or qualified to criticize other than just responding to troll bait right now. RobS 10:16, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

"Malthusian catastrophe that was World War II"

One other note: RobS mentions a "Malthusian catastrophe." Could someone explain this?--Oldring 08:22, 12 June 2007(EDT)

I was wondering about that myself. It seems to be a suggestion that World War II was caused by world population outstripping resources, and brought back into balance by the war... but a graph of U. S. population looks pretty smooth, as does world population. There's a bit of a downward kink in U. S. population around World War II, but it isn't preceded by any obvious upward kink. Dpbsmith 09:53, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Since the graphs' axes aren't labeled anyway, I think we can go ahead and read into them whatever we wish. Frederick 10:49, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, Rob, for adding more citations. I'll spend some time looking at them to see if they support your assertion. Just remember that just because a document contains the words "new" and "ordeal" does not mean they were used to refer to "The New Deal". Also, if a ref is this obscure that we still haven't settled it over several days, perhaps you should just take full credit where it is due (as you have clearly worked hard on this) and call it an original work.Frederick 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
We can probably use this to discuss the Malthusian consequences of economic planning, as well as economic planning being applied to the Malthusian catastrophe,
  • The Ordeal of Total War, 1939-1945, Gordon Wright, New York, Evanston, and London, Harper & Row, 1968. RobS 11:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Jewkes Book(s)

The three books you list are the only actual usage of the term "New Ordeal" that I have found. The three books you list are also only one book. It was published in 1948 and reissued in 1968. It is also the book cited in the first citation you give, so you now have 4 cites all referring to a single 1948 book. You are trying hard to show that "New Ordeal" is a term in common parlance, at some point in time, but you are just chasing your tail. A term used in the title of a single book, and never referenced again by that term, hardly constitutes a term worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Boomcoach 11:15, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm not familiar with this book, but as nearly as I can tell by references to it, it's about post-World-War-II planning in England. And as Boomcoach notes, "new" refers to a new edition of an earlier book. Dpbsmith 11:21, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

  • The New Ordeal by Planning, John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. RobS 11:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Which I'm not familiar with, but, as nearly as I can tell, is about post World War II planning in England? Or have I got that wrong? Continue at Talk:New Ordeal... Dpbsmith 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Also known as "Ordeal by Planning",this essay was about econ planning in the UK, not the U.S., and while, given his arguments, he prob would not have supported the New Deal, he didn't call it the New Ordeal.
John Jewkes (1902 - 1988) is best known for his book Ordeal by Planning which he wrote in 1946 in an attempt to show that the wartime planning system, which many people wished to maintain and develop in the post-war world, would condemn the United Kingdom to poverty and failure. If Friedrich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom provided a more celebrated philosophical treatise, it was Jewkes who produced a more down to earth and practically convincing case against central planning. Frederick 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
I agree with your comment on Andy's page, Rob, that Jewkes seems to critique Keynesian economics. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH the question at hand, namely where did the phrase "New Ordeal" come from?Frederick 11:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I found a New York Times ad for the 1948 book, January 23, 1949. pg. BR19. (Check your local library, they may also have online access to the ProQuest Historical New York Times for cardholders). The ad says that the book is about lessons learned "after living for two years under the planned economy of the British Socialists." I.e. one could write an article entitled Ordeal by Planning and open it by saying

Ordeal by Planning is a phrase coined by John Jewkes and the title of a book, referring to the period of socialistic economy in England from about 1946 to 1948.

But that's quite different from saying "The New Ordeal describes the period of time between 1929 and 1949, when the American economy finally recovered from the Crash of '29." Dpbsmith 11:32, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Also: This Google Books page from Warfare State: Britian 1920-1970 says "John Jewkes, Ordeal by Planning (London: Macmillan, 1948) is about postwar planning by the Labour government." Dpbsmith 12:15, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Couple points here: The Jewkes' book (either edition; the second edition differs in that it has 35 or 40 additonal pages that deal with the English economy up to about 1960) does not support RobS conculsions. RobS origninal article is about the U. S. economy. Please explain how that supports your argument?--Irat 12:04, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Material moved from Aschlafly's Talk page

I started the following discussion on Aschafly's Talk page. I didn't mean for it to get so long. I'm moving the discussion here; the portion above the horizontal rule is still on User_Talk:Aschlafly. Dpbsmith 13:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Do conservatives commonly call FDR's administration the "New Ordeal?"

Are you familiar with this? Among conservatives, is it a commonly-used satirical name for the New Deal? Much discussion about this is in progress... Dpbsmith 09:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

As the article states, it is not direct criticism of the New Deal, it refers to the period 1929 to 1949, when the US economy finally recovered from the Crash of '29. The term has long been common among investors refering to both the Great Depression and World War II. RobS 10:05, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
I've moved the rest of this discussion to Talk:Essay:New_Ordeal. Dpbsmith 13:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Any proof of that, RobS? You have been asked to support your claim several times.--Oldring 10:09, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Wikipedia uses a redirect for "Contract on America" to "Contract with America"; do we wish to use a Wikipedia model or precedent here? RobS
Rob, why not just admit to effective use of rhetoric? It is a pretty clever phrase, just unique. Actually, why dont you copy and paste the actual quote here that uses New Ordeal?Frederick 10:47, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
  • The New Ordeal by Planning, John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. RobS 11:07, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Which I'm not familiar with, but, as nearly as I can tell, is about post World War II planning in England? Or have I got that wrong? Continue at Talk:New Ordeal... Dpbsmith 11:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Also known as "Ordeal by Planning",this essay was about econ planning in the UK, not the U.S., and while, given his arguments, he prob would not have supported the New Deal, he didn't call it the New Ordeal.
John Jewkes (1902 - 1988) is best known for his book Ordeal by Planning which he wrote in 1946 in an attempt to show that the wartime planning system, which many people wished to maintain and develop in the post-war world, would condemn the United Kingdom to poverty and failure. If Friedrich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom provided a more celebrated philosophical treatise, it was Jewkes who produced a more down to earth and practically convincing case against central planning.
You have to see Jewkes earlier 1948 book, Ordeal by Planning, and Hayek's 1945 work, Road to Serfdom. It is essentially critique of Keynesian economic theory. Some of James Burnham's 1941 Managerial Revolution can also probably fit in here. RobS 11:22, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but I think the question at hand isn't whether Jewkes or Hayek were opposed to Keynesian theory and President Roosevelt's New Deal program. Clearly they were. It's not even whether the New Deal was successful or not. Certainly good arguments can be made on both sides. It's simply whether the term "The New Ordeal" is an established satirical phrase used to refer to the time between 1929-1949 or any part of it, or if it's just a new term you've created.--Steve 11:27, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

<--Believe it or not, there always were critics of Keynesianism, New Deal, and economic planning, despite attempts to suppress publication of Hayak's Road to Serfdom. RobS 13:05, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Why are you citing these works? They have little to do with your original premise which dealt with the U.S. economy, and you STILL have not provided a response as where the phrase "New Ordeal" came from. Stop the distractions, the referring of readers to refrences that do not support your contentions, the dismissing those who challege you as "trolls." Show a little bit of intellectual Integrity. You are an conservapedia sysyop. Now act like one.--Irat 13:34, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Keynesianism has little or to do with the US economy in the 30s 7 40s? The sources say otherwise. And please desist from incivility and personal attacks. RobS 13:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

That is not the question Rob. And a question is not a personal attack. You created a piece called "New Ordeal." Where did the term come from? I simply ask that you no longer engage in distractions, and intellectually dishonest behavior that is unworthy of a Conservapedia sysop. Could you answer the question, please?--Irat 13:46, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

By the way, do you have any proof of attempts to supress publishing the Road to Serfdom?--Irat 14:02, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

The book was actually turned down - on political grounds - by three American publishers, before the Chicago economist Aaron Director secured a contract with his University Press.
  • Richard Cockett, Thinking the Unthinkable: Think-Tanks and the Economic Counter-Revolution, 1931–1983, Harper Collins, London 1995, pg. 100.
  • See also, The Publication History of The Road to Serfdom, Excerpted from Bruce Caldwell’s introduction to The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents—The Definitive Edition by F. A. Hayek. RobS 14:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Further reading

Thank you for updating the further reading. But the term "New Ordeal" does not appear in any of these works. --Irat 13:49, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

New Ordeal speaks of an era, and the events of that era. That era his known under several names, Depression era, World War II, Wiemar period, inter-war era, post-war era, Early Cold War era, Stalinist era, etc. etc. etc. RobS 14:03, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

But you still have told us where the term "New Ordeal" comes from, have you? Please behave like a Conservapedia sysop. This is after all, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Avoiding the question is unworthy of you. Is an answer forthcoming?--Irat 14:06, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Keynesianism has little or to do with the US economy in the 30s 7 40s? The sources say otherwise. And please desist from incivility and personal attacks. RobS 13:41, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I Quit

RobS, obviously you have no idea where the term came from other than that you made it up. I gave you every chance to come clean. Instead, you tried to distract eveyone who asked a question by citing books and articles that did not support your thesis. When that did not work, you called those who challenged you "trolls" and then (as in the case of Oldring this morning) you had another Sysop ban them (makes it hard for them to respond, eh?). So, I am going to leave you alone, but it should now be apparent to everyone that you lack the willingness to back your thesis. If that is uncivil, so be it. If you wish to ban me, fine. I am through with Conservapedia. --Irat 14:27, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

....information on several economic developments in the U.S.... View that the New Deal is threatening to become the New ordeal...
RobS 13:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
  • For the record
  • The New Ordeal by Planning, John Jewkes, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1968. RobS 14:35, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Have you read Jewkes' book? You do realize that it does not support your argument?--Jackbarry 16:28, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Your Essay

This is an essay now, so I think you are entitled to write whatever you want, even if it is "We are all children of Xenu, let me prove it to you".

Remember, though, that the folks above already showed you that your Jewkes book is not a relevant source. You are perseverating now. Please read the above before you cite him again. I really do want you to understand.Alessi 14:47, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Did you read Freeman Tilden's piece in the North American Review? It has nothing to do with your essay. --Philaretes 15:11, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Really? I thought it did. Let's look at just this one excerpt for example:
At least the half of all economic history is concerned with the tragi-comedy of governments getting into debt by extravagance and trying to get out by fraud. A good deal of the other half is concerned with individuals attempting to do the same thing. But governments have the advantage over individuals in this respect, since they are immune from the police power, because they control it. Indeed, it is axiomatic that if the commercial morality of the individual were as low as that of his government, no government could exist.
What concerns us now, however, is not repudiation in specific instances, whether of government or the individual, but of the attitude toward repudiation, as expressed by those whose position, training and intelligence are of considerable moment. While there is yet no blunt statement from high sources that an obligor is to receive special favor if his net fortune prove, on examination, to be inferior to that of his creditor; yet we have clearly arrived at the stage when, regardless of the intent of the obligation, if the debtor suffers a loss, the creditor is to be considered a partner in the borrowers enterprise...
Of course, the leading spirits in the assault upon the contract principle are governments. Whatever specious excuses are given by a government for the repudiation of its promises, either to its own subjects or to others, there is never more than one real reason: that it wants more money to spend as it prefers to spend it. As all governments are liberal promisors, their first thoughts, when more money is needed, and there is a fear of alienating support by taxation or direct expropriation, fly to the devising of some means of invalidating their obligations, and setting up a construction more to their liking. Fortunately for needy governments, a great part of their subjects are also in debt, and would also like to be relieved. Therefore what the government desires, and what would at the same time be popular, happily coincide, and the next thing is to declare that a crisis exits. This is taking high ground, precluding the charge that there is any immoral or illegal purpose of fleecing the creditor class....
Having declared that a crisis exists, which is not hard to do, since governments are generally so clumsy and expensive that a crisis is always within call, all that remains is to alter the standard of value in some artificial manner; and there are a number of ways of doing so. This step, of course, brings all existing contracts that involve money payments into confusion. The unfortunate consequences in respect of these contracts could be avoided by enacting, along with the legislation altering the standard, that preceding obligations should be made good ... not according to the new value, but according to that which existed when the contract was made....
But, even if there were no political reasons against this course, it would be unthinkable to a modern government, for the reason that it has its own obligations so clearly in mind. If its act were not to have the final result of assessing the difference to the creditor, the legislation might just as well not have been passed, and the crisis was cried up for nothing. Of course, the government is even now not in the happiest position, for its expenses increase in exactly the ratio of the degradation of the standard; but this can be met by a further degradation, and that by another...
Meantime, the spirit of default naturally filters down through the body politic. And truly, it is hard for the humble individual to see why, if a government can elude its obligations, or set the stage for a general default based upon one particular kind of contract, it is not equally in order for him to repudiate his promise, however and wherever made. ... RobS 16:01, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Nice excerpt. How does it support your argument?--Philaretes 09:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

That is a very nice cut and paste job. But what does it have to do with the argument you are trying to make?--McIntyre 22:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Cut n paste from where? Rob Smith 13:45, 13 October 2007 (EDT)


"...1949, when the American economy finally recovered from the Crash of '29." By what measure did the nation not recover from the Crash until 1949? Most economists look at real GDP as the best measure of overall economic activity, as a measure of economic declines and advances. Real GDP exceeded its pre-Crash level by 1936 or 1937 at the latest. By 1949 it was almost twice what it was before the Crash. BryanF 18:47, 26 December 2012 (EST)

Personal tools