Changes

m
Reverted edits by JoelR (Talk) to last version by EBrown
Line 60: Line 60:  
:::It could still be a "god" in a metaphorical sense like the one I presented above. Maybe someone who has read her book can clarify this? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:34, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:::It could still be a "god" in a metaphorical sense like the one I presented above. Maybe someone who has read her book can clarify this? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:34, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::Yes, that would be most helpful-- As would a note in the article to the same extent. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 19:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::Yes, that would be most helpful-- As would a note in the article to the same extent. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 19:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
−
  −
== Reversion ==
  −
  −
Why was a quote from another author re-added to the article? It adds nothing to the article, as it has nothing to do with the book. [[User:JoelR|JoelR]] 01:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)
 
nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487

edits