Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
  • Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
Subject: Unexplainable errors in the Halo canon. (Spoilers)
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Esro 'Ecaulee is my name, and I wear black armour....

I remember hearing somewhere that the game would not follow the books... call me crazy.
And just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they are there... unless you are still having trouble understanding water molecules then you should know this.

  • 02.22.2011 7:13 PM PDT


Posted by: Ender Ghost
I remember hearing somewhere that the game would not follow the books... call me crazy.
They did, but still, there's no reason to contradict the novel in every aspect with a plot that makes no sense.

I mean, how hard can it be to make a game based in the fall of Reach? Deploying a group of Spartan III to the battlefield the same day Reach fell, kill lots of Covenant, destroy a base, I don't know, something relevant to the plot that is written in the Halo Story Bible AND the novel. Also, there was a lot of Covenant activity AFTER they glassed Reach, why not add Noble Team trying to survive?


Posted by: Ender GhostAnd
just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they are there...
What the hell does that even mean?

  • 02.22.2011 7:56 PM PDT

Posted By: Beowolfe
-SNIP-


Fun as this debate is, I'm going to stop the argument with you on this subject, neither of us is getting anywhere, and we're just wasting energy, I've spoken my piece, and now we're kinda arguing in circles, so I am dropping this debate. You do not win, but this argument is no longer productive, so I'm done, for now.

  • 02.22.2011 9:20 PM PDT

Posted By: Juan Teran
I mean, how hard can it be to make a game based in the fall of Reach? Deploying a group of Spartan III to the battlefield the same day Reach fell, kill lots of Covenant, destroy a base, I don't know, something relevant to the plot that is written in the Halo Story Bible AND the novel. Also, there was a lot of Covenant activity AFTER they glassed Reach, why not add Noble Team trying to survive?


Are you saying that Halo: Reach contradicts the Halo Story Bible here? Cause if you are, you are way wrong, and unless Bungie/343 publish the Halo Bible, none of us know what it contains. It is certain however that whatever material is put out for Halo, whether it be a novel, a game, a comic book, etc. it's in the HSB.

Most of Reach makes perfect sense, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that doesn't. Sure if you hyper-analyze stuff in Reach more of it won't make perfect sense, but that works for all the other games too, if I wanted to (which I never would) I'm sure I could probably find just as much stuff "wrong" with the Halo Trilogy, ODST, and Halo Wars.

Posted By: Juan Teran
Posted By: Ender Ghost
just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they are there...

What the hell does that even mean?


I think he meant "just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they aren't there".
Aka, you don't have to see something to know it's there.

  • 02.22.2011 9:30 PM PDT


Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted By: Juan Teran
I mean, how hard can it be to make a game based in the fall of Reach? Deploying a group of Spartan III to the battlefield the same day Reach fell, kill lots of Covenant, destroy a base, I don't know, something relevant to the plot that is written in the Halo Story Bible AND the novel. Also, there was a lot of Covenant activity AFTER they glassed Reach, why not add Noble Team trying to survive?


Are you saying that Halo: Reach contradicts the Halo Story Bible here? Cause if you are, you are way wrong, and unless Bungie/343 publish the Halo Bible, none of us know what it contains. It is certain however that whatever material is put out for Halo, whether it be a novel, a game, a comic book, etc. it's in the HSB.

Most of Reach makes perfect sense, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that doesn't. Sure if you hyper-analyze stuff in Reach more of it won't make perfect sense, but that works for all the other games too, if I wanted to (which I never would) I'm sure I could probably find just as much stuff "wrong" with the Halo Trilogy, ODST, and Halo Wars.

Posted By: Juan Teran
Posted By: Ender Ghost
just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they are there...

What the hell does that even mean?


I think he meant "just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they aren't there".
Aka, you don't have to see something to know it's there.


The ONLY thing that made me go slightly "This doesn't make sense." or "Wha?" was Carters injury and the damage to the Pelican at the start of PoA.

And once again, we have somebody saying Reach contradicts the Halo Bible, which was written by Bungie <_<. I mean, that probably has info we don't even know about yet. It had Halsey being Miranda's mother in it since Halo 2 no doubt.

  • 02.22.2011 9:36 PM PDT

Posted By: Cmdr DaeFaron
The ONLY thing that made me go slightly "This doesn't make sense." or "Wha?" was Carters injury and the damage to the Pelican at the start of PoA.


Yeah, like I said, very little that doesn't make sense, that's the only one that I really wonder about, and how exactly the Super Carrier got their undetected, but I won't lose any sleep over it, because I KNOW there is a plausible reason for it, I won't go screaming "HURR, Bungie r broked canon, u r suck Bungie!" because there's something I don't know the answer to.

And once again, we have somebody saying Reach contradicts the Halo Bible, which was written by Bungie <_<. I mean, that probably has info we don't even know about yet. It had Halsey being Miranda's mother in it since Halo 2 no doubt.

It would seem so -.- That argument is getting old and really makes me want to hit something xD
A lot of the old information has probably been added to and expanded or changed to make more sense, take for instance TFoR stating that Elites hadn't been seen until Reach, that got thrown out pretty quick. I'm inclined to believe that TFoR was written when there wasn't as much information in the Halo Bible and it now conflicts with some things because Microsoft pushed to have a Halo book written to go with CE.

  • 02.22.2011 9:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag: An0nz
  • user homepage:

CoD is a good game, even if the Halo series are better in some aspects. Anyone who insults either is just bad in that game. Grow up.


Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted By: Beowolfe
-SNIP-


Fun as this debate is, I'm going to stop the argument with you on this subject, neither of us is getting anywhere, and we're just wasting energy, I've spoken my piece, and now we're kinda arguing in circles, so I am dropping this debate. You do not win, but this argument is no longer productive, so I'm done, for now.


Yeah, once you have nothing more to say you pull out this card. Arguing in circles? More like your logical faults have finally become far too large to cover, as I continue to hold the upper hand in my assertion. On the other hand, your replies became more and more scattered and more akin to nit-picking at the edges of my points. The debate remains productive as long as there is still a valid point in question, it's whether or not you can respond to it.

  • 02.22.2011 10:08 PM PDT


Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted By: Beowolfe
-SNIP-


Fun as this debate is, I'm going to stop the argument with you on this subject, neither of us is getting anywhere, and we're just wasting energy, I've spoken my piece, and now we're kinda arguing in circles, so I am dropping this debate. You do not win, but this argument is no longer productive, so I'm done, for now.


Yeah, once you have nothing more to say you pull out this card. Arguing in circles? More like your logical faults have finally become far too large to cover, as I continue to hold the upper hand in my assertion. On the other hand, your replies became more and more scattered and more akin to nit-picking at the edges of my points. The debate remains productive as long as there is still a valid point in question, it's whether or not you can respond to it.


Heh, you can think what you want, but I think we've just been arguing in circles, I might come back to it later, but for now I'm done. Haha, my logic was no more faulty than yours was, my friend. I haven't pulled this "card" at all, every other time I've argued with you, you have abandoned the argument.
I agree with your last sentence completely, I however do not think that either of us was introducing any more valid points, as I said, we had gotten to where both of us were saying the same things each post and were merely repeating ourselves, thus arguing in circles.

  • 02.22.2011 10:19 PM PDT


Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted By: Juan Teran
I mean, how hard can it be to make a game based in the fall of Reach? Deploying a group of Spartan III to the battlefield the same day Reach fell, kill lots of Covenant, destroy a base, I don't know, something relevant to the plot that is written in the Halo Story Bible AND the novel. Also, there was a lot of Covenant activity AFTER they glassed Reach, why not add Noble Team trying to survive?


Are you saying that Halo: Reach contradicts the Halo Story Bible here? Cause if you are, you are way wrong, and unless Bungie/343 publish the Halo Bible, none of us know what it contains. It is certain however that whatever material is put out for Halo, whether it be a novel, a game, a comic book, etc. it's in the HSB.

Most of Reach makes perfect sense, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that doesn't. Sure if you hyper-analyze stuff in Reach more of it won't make perfect sense, but that works for all the other games too, if I wanted to (which I never would) I'm sure I could probably find just as much stuff "wrong" with the Halo Trilogy, ODST, and Halo Wars.

Posted By: Juan Teran
Posted By: Ender Ghost
just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they are there...

What the hell does that even mean?


I think he meant "just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they aren't there".
Aka, you don't have to see something to know it's there.
Eric Nylund was given for a short time the Halo Story Bible in order to write "Halo: The Fall of Reach", "Halo: First Strike", "Halo: Ghost of Onyx", etc.

In other words, he used the Halo Story Bible to write the novels, he didn't create the backstory out of nowhere. So yes, Halo: Reach contradicts all the story written in the Halo Story Bible.

It's even more annoying that the employees of Bungie wrote the damn thing, and yet, out of nowhere, they decide to contradict the whole backstory for no reason at all. We will never know what made them choose this over a well written and logical novel, which is sad :(

  • 02.22.2011 10:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: An0nz
  • user homepage:

CoD is a good game, even if the Halo series are better in some aspects. Anyone who insults either is just bad in that game. Grow up.


Posted by: OrderedComa

Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted By: Beowolfe
-SNIP-


Fun as this debate is, I'm going to stop the argument with you on this subject, neither of us is getting anywhere, and we're just wasting energy, I've spoken my piece, and now we're kinda arguing in circles, so I am dropping this debate. You do not win, but this argument is no longer productive, so I'm done, for now.


Yeah, once you have nothing more to say you pull out this card. Arguing in circles? More like your logical faults have finally become far too large to cover, as I continue to hold the upper hand in my assertion. On the other hand, your replies became more and more scattered and more akin to nit-picking at the edges of my points. The debate remains productive as long as there is still a valid point in question, it's whether or not you can respond to it.


Heh, you can think what you want, but I think we've just been arguing in circles, I might come back to it later, but for now I'm done. Haha, my logic was no more faulty than yours was, my friend. I haven't pulled this "card" at all, every other time I've argued with you, you have abandoned the argument.
I agree with your last sentence completely, I however do not think that either of us was introducing any more valid points, as I said, we had gotten to where both of us were saying the same things each post and were merely repeating ourselves, thus arguing in circles.

Every other time? Like in that thread about the 28 pages review? I answered to your last post in that, just so you know, and you were the one who never replied. The only other argument I didn't make a reply to was your thread on how Reach did not destroy Canon, we were going into speculation and where you basically made a post saying "I don't know". Nothing really for me to respond to, is there?

2nd edit: I brought in new points to rebut your counter-arguments, so how is that going around in circles?

[Edited on 02.22.2011 10:31 PM PST]

  • 02.22.2011 10:23 PM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: OrderedComa

Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted By: Beowolfe
-SNIP-


Fun as this debate is, I'm going to stop the argument with you on this subject, neither of us is getting anywhere, and we're just wasting energy, I've spoken my piece, and now we're kinda arguing in circles, so I am dropping this debate. You do not win, but this argument is no longer productive, so I'm done, for now.


Yeah, once you have nothing more to say you pull out this card. Arguing in circles? More like your logical faults have finally become far too large to cover, as I continue to hold the upper hand in my assertion. On the other hand, your replies became more and more scattered and more akin to nit-picking at the edges of my points. The debate remains productive as long as there is still a valid point in question, it's whether or not you can respond to it.


Heh, you can think what you want, but I think we've just been arguing in circles, I might come back to it later, but for now I'm done. Haha, my logic was no more faulty than yours was, my friend. I haven't pulled this "card" at all, every other time I've argued with you, you have abandoned the argument.
I agree with your last sentence completely, I however do not think that either of us was introducing any more valid points, as I said, we had gotten to where both of us were saying the same things each post and were merely repeating ourselves, thus arguing in circles.

That's because Bewolfe already has his counters ready for you when you repeat yourself.

  • 02.22.2011 11:46 PM PDT


Posted by: Juan Teran
Eric Nylund was given for a short time the Halo Story Bible in order to write "Halo: The Fall of Reach", "Halo: First Strike", "Halo: Ghost of Onyx", etc.

In other words, he used the Halo Story Bible to write the novels, he didn't create the backstory out of nowhere. So yes, Halo: Reach contradicts all the story written in the Halo Story Bible.

It's even more annoying that the employees of Bungie wrote the damn thing, and yet, out of nowhere, they decide to contradict the whole backstory for no reason at all. We will never know what made them choose this over a well written and logical novel, which is sad :(


How does it contradict ALL the Halo Bible? How do you know what is in there? Those statements seem more like mindless hate then backed up knowledge. Nylund wrote the Journal, which tied the game and book together. As coma said, then techincally most of the books should be thrown out as "conflicting with the original halo bible." since it was changed to have Elites show up in ground battles much earlier.

So, yep, I'm not seeing where you get this "Bungie tossed TFOR out the window and it is all null and void because of a few small details in Halo Reach." If anything, the space battle portion is simply changed... and that's the most changes I can think of.

Even then, you could say it is all a matter of perspective. The space battle in TFOR is from Keyes's viewpoint. The battle in Halo Reach is from Six's. What's to say Keyes wasn't on his way out-system and just returned a few days before the 30th, thus only seeing the massive Covenant fleet appear and descend toward the planet? If you want, I'll go dig up the 343 video which talks about the Space battle directly from waypoint.

Edit: Again I shall point this fun little detail out. Miranda came in during Halo 2. So Bungie (IMO) made the details of her parentage back then. We just learned the Halsey is the mother. The legends episode with human-style ruins (babysitter), just now we learn ancient humanity had a massive empire. I don't doubt the halo bible has all these details seamlessly flowing together, we just don't have the entire picture.

[Edited on 02.23.2011 3:01 AM PST]

  • 02.23.2011 2:53 AM PDT


Posted by: Juan Teran

Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted By: Juan Teran
I mean, how hard can it be to make a game based in the fall of Reach? Deploying a group of Spartan III to the battlefield the same day Reach fell, kill lots of Covenant, destroy a base, I don't know, something relevant to the plot that is written in the Halo Story Bible AND the novel. Also, there was a lot of Covenant activity AFTER they glassed Reach, why not add Noble Team trying to survive?


Are you saying that Halo: Reach contradicts the Halo Story Bible here? Cause if you are, you are way wrong, and unless Bungie/343 publish the Halo Bible, none of us know what it contains. It is certain however that whatever material is put out for Halo, whether it be a novel, a game, a comic book, etc. it's in the HSB.

Most of Reach makes perfect sense, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that doesn't. Sure if you hyper-analyze stuff in Reach more of it won't make perfect sense, but that works for all the other games too, if I wanted to (which I never would) I'm sure I could probably find just as much stuff "wrong" with the Halo Trilogy, ODST, and Halo Wars.

Posted By: Juan Teran
Posted By: Ender Ghost
just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they are there...

What the hell does that even mean?


I think he meant "just because you didn't see the orbital stations doesn't mean they aren't there".
Aka, you don't have to see something to know it's there.
Eric Nylund was given for a short time the Halo Story Bible in order to write "Halo: The Fall of Reach", "Halo: First Strike", "Halo: Ghost of Onyx", etc.

In other words, he used the Halo Story Bible to write the novels, he didn't create the backstory out of nowhere. So yes, Halo: Reach contradicts all the story written in the Halo Story Bible.

It's even more annoying that the employees of Bungie wrote the damn thing, and yet, out of nowhere, they decide to contradict the whole backstory for no reason at all. We will never know what made them choose this over a well written and logical novel, which is sad :(


Every author gets a piece of the Halo Bible when writing their book, but it's only a piece, no one has ever gotten the whole thing, except maybe Nylund when he was writing TFoR, 'cause I doubt there was much in it at that point. I don't know where the quote is, but I have seen one from Nylund that says he had to stretch and change some things to make TFoR make sense.

The Halo Story Bible is essentially the author's notes of the Halo story, it's constantly evolving, changing, having content added and removed. It is certainly nowhere near the same as it was 10 or so years ago. And the games are written from the Halo Bible too, anything published that has to do with Halo canon has its basis within the Halo Bible.

That is so arrogant claiming that you know for a definite fact that Reach contradicts the Halo Bible, none of us have ever seen it, in fact very few at Bungie have either, we cannot know what it contains unless Bungie releases it to the public.

  • 02.23.2011 9:58 AM PDT


Posted by: OrderedComa
That is so arrogant claiming that you know for a definite fact that Reach contradicts the Halo Bible, none of us have ever seen it, in fact very few at Bungie have either, we cannot know what it contains unless Bungie releases it to the public.


I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but that fact is kinda why I'm viewing those guys as trying to decide what is or is not officially canon based on what they like/dislike or what THEY view contradicts something else.

Going "It's against the halo bible." as an excuse isn't that solid <_<.

  • 02.23.2011 10:14 AM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: OrderedComa
That is so arrogant claiming that you know for a definite fact that Reach contradicts the Halo Bible, none of us have ever seen it, in fact very few at Bungie have either, we cannot know what it contains unless Bungie releases it to the public.


I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but that fact is kinda why I'm viewing those guys as trying to decide what is or is not officially canon based on what they like/dislike or what THEY view contradicts something else.

Going "It's against the halo bible." as an excuse isn't that solid <_<.

Established canon.

  • 02.23.2011 11:27 AM PDT


Posted by: TheGreenAlloy

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: OrderedComa
That is so arrogant claiming that you know for a definite fact that Reach contradicts the Halo Bible, none of us have ever seen it, in fact very few at Bungie have either, we cannot know what it contains unless Bungie releases it to the public.


I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but that fact is kinda why I'm viewing those guys as trying to decide what is or is not officially canon based on what they like/dislike or what THEY view contradicts something else.

Going "It's against the halo bible." as an excuse isn't that solid <_<.

Established canon.


And how do you know the events of Halo Reach weren't already in the Halo bible? You don't. Using the Bible as a "Iwin" button won't work here.

[Edited on 02.23.2011 11:32 AM PST]

  • 02.23.2011 11:31 AM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: TheGreenAlloy

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: OrderedComa
That is so arrogant claiming that you know for a definite fact that Reach contradicts the Halo Bible, none of us have ever seen it, in fact very few at Bungie have either, we cannot know what it contains unless Bungie releases it to the public.


I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but that fact is kinda why I'm viewing those guys as trying to decide what is or is not officially canon based on what they like/dislike or what THEY view contradicts something else.

Going "It's against the halo bible." as an excuse isn't that solid <_<.

Established canon.


And how do you know the events of Halo Reach weren't already in the Halo bible? You don't. Using the Bible as a "Iwin" button won't work here.

TFoR was established canon. I'm not saying anything about the current HST.

  • 02.23.2011 11:47 AM PDT


Posted by: TheGreenAlloy

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: TheGreenAlloy

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: OrderedComa
That is so arrogant claiming that you know for a definite fact that Reach contradicts the Halo Bible, none of us have ever seen it, in fact very few at Bungie have either, we cannot know what it contains unless Bungie releases it to the public.


I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but that fact is kinda why I'm viewing those guys as trying to decide what is or is not officially canon based on what they like/dislike or what THEY view contradicts something else.

Going "It's against the halo bible." as an excuse isn't that solid <_<.

Established canon.


And how do you know the events of Halo Reach weren't already in the Halo bible? You don't. Using the Bible as a "Iwin" button won't work here.

TFoR was established canon. I'm not saying anything about the current HST.


And the only thing Halo Reach truly changes is the fact Reach didn't fall in a matter of hours.

  • 02.23.2011 12:02 PM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
And the only thing Halo Reach truly changes is the fact Reach didn't fall in a matter of hours.

Oh my, I thought Caboose already told you the biggest contradictions.

  • 02.23.2011 12:06 PM PDT


Posted by: TheGreenAlloy

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
And the only thing Halo Reach truly changes is the fact Reach didn't fall in a matter of hours.

Oh my, I thought Caboose already told you the biggest contradictions.


He most likely did. However I don't remember them at the moment. I remember that a few were nit-picking tiny details, others seemed to be over-exaggerations.

*Shrug* I just get this feeling that you are trying to make it sound like Reach ruins the entire canon.

  • 02.23.2011 12:12 PM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: TheGreenAlloy

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
And the only thing Halo Reach truly changes is the fact Reach didn't fall in a matter of hours.

Oh my, I thought Caboose already told you the biggest contradictions.


He most likely did. However I don't remember them at the moment. I remember that a few were nit-picking tiny details, others seemed to be over-exaggerations.

*Shrug* I just get this feeling that you are trying to make it sound like Reach ruins the entire canon.

It could quite easily Rube Goldberg some of the reasons for mankind to live.

  • 02.23.2011 12:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

And the only thing Halo Reach truly changes is the fact Reach didn't fall in a matter of hours.


Even then, it's only an addition from the previous established canon.

  • 02.23.2011 1:43 PM PDT

We are soldiers without borders, our purpose defined by the era we live in. This is our Heaven, and our Hell.

Seriously I never read the books and all but what the hell was the point of contradicting all previous Halo titles and books? It doesn't make sense.

  • 02.23.2011 3:15 PM PDT

Raaaaaawwwwrrrr!!!

Quick question... who actually is concerned? Anyone? No, well then. I guess we're done here.

Regardless of these errors, did you still find the game enjoyable?
Or do you just look for all the flaws and inconsistencies in games.

The game was Bungie's last Ooh-rah for the series, so maybe you shouldn't critize it so much. Just enjoy the game for what it is.

Grenade Chief:
Go Bungie!

  • 02.23.2011 5:33 PM PDT


Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: OrderedComa

Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: OrderedComa
Posted By: Beowolfe
-SNIP-


Fun as this debate is, I'm going to stop the argument with you on this subject, neither of us is getting anywhere, and we're just wasting energy, I've spoken my piece, and now we're kinda arguing in circles, so I am dropping this debate. You do not win, but this argument is no longer productive, so I'm done, for now.


Yeah, once you have nothing more to say you pull out this card. Arguing in circles? More like your logical faults have finally become far too large to cover, as I continue to hold the upper hand in my assertion. On the other hand, your replies became more and more scattered and more akin to nit-picking at the edges of my points. The debate remains productive as long as there is still a valid point in question, it's whether or not you can respond to it.


Heh, you can think what you want, but I think we've just been arguing in circles, I might come back to it later, but for now I'm done. Haha, my logic was no more faulty than yours was, my friend. I haven't pulled this "card" at all, every other time I've argued with you, you have abandoned the argument.
I agree with your last sentence completely, I however do not think that either of us was introducing any more valid points, as I said, we had gotten to where both of us were saying the same things each post and were merely repeating ourselves, thus arguing in circles.

Every other time? Like in that thread about the 28 pages review? I answered to your last post in that, just so you know, and you were the one who never replied. The only other argument I didn't make a reply to was your thread on how Reach did not destroy Canon, we were going into speculation and where you basically made a post saying "I don't know". Nothing really for me to respond to, is there?

2nd edit: I brought in new points to rebut your counter-arguments, so how is that going around in circles?


Brought in new points where? In this thread or in one of the others?

  • 02.23.2011 6:10 PM PDT