Talk:A Scanner Darkly (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the A Scanner Darkly (film) article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Article	This article is a Article.

Contents 1 Striver 2 A Blue Flower 3 Spoiler 4 Trivia 5 Alex Jones 6 Graham Reynolds 7 !!!??? 8 Plot needs re-working 9 Issue with Main Page Plot 10 Differences between the movie and book section? 11 End Credits 12 Unknowingly? 13 Release Date 14 Philip K. Dick references in the movie 15 500 hours / min animation 16 A Second Alex Jones Cameo 17 Donna=Hank?

[edit] Striver

Something has to be done about this guy. I am not going to get into an edit war, or risk violating the 3RR policy, but his continuing campaign to put these irrelevant Alex Jones links in the article has grown tiresome. ---Charles 05:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a source, sourcing is not irrelevant.--Striver 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a source considered relevant only by you. You have set yourself up as the unofficial representative for Alex Jones on Wikipedia, pushing his ideas every chance you get. He has a small role in the film, beyond that, his opinions about the movie are no more relevant than any other self-appointed critic. His ideas and opinions do not have wide currency or acceptance, and his interpretation of the movie is no more important than any random blogger. We had a long discussion on this very issue on this talk page, as you well know, and you were outvoted by a considerable margin. Yet, you go on, inserting this information. Enough already. ---Charles 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

when the producer Tommy Pallotta screened segments of A Scanner Darkly at Jones's L.A. 9/11 Truth Conference, the director, Richard Linklater, has been interviewed by Jones regarding how he associates real life with the movie, and how he was inspired by some of Jones's core ideologies, and how "wining over" Bruce Willis to the Truth Movement and the music composer Graham Reynolds helped Jones in his movie TerrorStorm, then i see strong arguements for not saying that he is only "relevant to me" in the context of this movie.--Striver 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sick of arguing about this with you. Clearly it is your intention to use every opportunity you can to act as a representative for Jones and his ideas on Wikipedia, and to push that POV at every turn. I happen to think that it is inappropriate. This movie has little or nothing to do with Jones---even if Linklater and the producer are influenced by Jones, the movie is based on a book by Philip K. Dick, not a book by Alex Jones. And, to be quite frank, Bruce Willis has nothing to do with anything. ---Charles 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed pretty sad. "Trivia" is being used as an excuse for spamming Jones' crackpottery. "Prisonplanet.com" being used as an encyclopedia source, how blatant can policy violations get? Weregerbil 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be against Striver's edits. I have reverted his latest changes. Please keep an eye on the talk page as well as the main article. —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The movies director showing it before release in Jones syposium, while Jones showed his film, Jones being in this film, and the music maker of this film doing the music in Jones film is not relevant to this article? --Striver 13:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really, no. Weregerbil 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not, WereGerbil? It's just as relevant if not even more so than the poster of June of 44 in the background of one scene and the song "Teen Angst" being in the trailer, both of which are in this article without dispute. --208.127.64.127 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Blue Flower

i watched that 24 min. part on IGn and was appauled at the mentioning of the flower. Wasn't one of the big mysteries throughout the book how they kept looking for it as a synthetic drug? I remember the book ending being ecspecially suprising since you learn it was actually that flower all along and not a cooked up drug. What's up with that? it should be listed in the list of novel and film differences...then again, if i'm wrong plz quote the book. (Skeletonman36 21:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Spoiler

Who in the world put the spoiler on the main page? You can read something that short if you just look at it. By the time your SPOILER ALARM goes off, you've already gathered all the information that spoils the movie. Maybe something should be done about this, like spoilers being put on separate pages. ~Eric: A Guy Fed Up With SPOILERS All Over The Place —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.52.181 (talk • contribs) .

I tend to agree, but when we look up about a movie or book, we should expect to see something that we may not want to. Wikipedia isn't out to protect the innocent you know :p M@$+@ Ju ~ ♠ 00:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that pretty much sucked. I believe somebody probably wrote it like that just to spoil everything for people. Anyways, I didn't even notice the spoiler warning until I'd already read it. How about if it actually introduced the plot and the world before giving away the ending to a movie that's not even out yet. I came here to learn about the animation technique they used... 220.10.60.165 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe somebody who has read the book can fill in the plot summary better. As it is, I simply moved the spoiler tag down one sentence, but I had trouble deciding which sentence is really a spoiler. Is the fact of Fred's profession common knowledge? Xaxafrad 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cast: Winona Ryder Donna / Hank IMHO This is spoiler!

[edit] Trivia

Trivia should be clarified. A French film based upon the relatively obscure (non-SF) Dick novel Confessions of a Crap Artist was released in the early 90s, if I recall correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beckettwatt (talk • contribs) .

I think the trivia section on short vs long stories should be removed (or moved elsewhere): of the 7 films made, 4 based on shorts (screamers; minority report; total recall; paycheck) vs 3 based on full-length novels (bladerunner; scanner darkly, confessions) is not a significant majority, and not of direct relevance to this film. -- Jon Dowland 16:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed "*World premiere on Sunday, April 30 at Brandeis University followed by a special screening with producer Erwin Stoff" from trivia -- this page indicates the film was shown as a "sneak peak" at SXSW 2006, and event organizers at Brandeis also called that showing a "sneak peak." If Scott Feinberg (whose IP performed the original edit) disagrees, he can perhaps offer evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.64.212.108 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

I second this and I'm removing it again. Rick had several 'sneak previews' of the film before and after this date. Official 'world premieres' are typically held red-carpet style in Hollywood or New York and segway in to the upcoming release of the film (for marketing purposes). On Tommy's blog he refers to the official 'world premiere' as the screening at Cannes [1]. Either way this info is fairly irrelevant to the film and it's actual release date in July.

Some inaccuracies in this section: 1. The scanner operator appears to be wearing a pair of Philips headphones, not Philco. This can be demonstrated easily by artfully effacing part of the Philips logo to remove the second I, S, and lower part of the P. The design of the headphones is clearly a Philips product. A similar logo appears on Barris's (Cochrane's) calculator watch, reading "Philip" 2. Donna Hawthorne (Ryder) mentions a theft from her place of business as a direct parallel to her statement in the book: "...this customer, this old guy, gray hair, who bilked us out of ten bucks- [my boss] said it was my fault..." The parallel with Ryder's own history may or may not be as relevant as stated.

Also, does anyone see a connection between the American flag hung from the ceiling in this film with the one in Donnie Darko?

[edit] Alex Jones

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Somebody is removing Alex Jones from the list of actors. He is extra-notable for the very reason the person is removing him: he is such a controversial character. It is imposible for film makers to have known his controversial nature, and still have employed him: in the contrary: the fact that he has such a rightues anti-conspiratorial role in the movie proves that the movie makers knew of hin controversial nature, and aproved of it, if not even agreed with him. The web-link is to Alex Jones privat conspiracy-web page where it expreses how the film is a "slap in the face" of a actual real conspiracy.¨

Dont remova that as non-notable, your fearce determination of removing him proves how notable, and in fact: controversial he is. --Striver 20:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is also notable that Charlie Sheen went to Alex Jones to declare "questions" regarding the events of 9/11, something that became very controversial. --Striver 20:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, this is becoming another Alex Jones page :-( Now we have a bit player misrepresented as a star, his loony opinions as "trivia" about the movie, and his self-published web site (in violation of reliable source policy) as a source.

And my removing him is because he is not a notable actor in this movie. If you added the name of the guy who washed the windows of the building where this movie was made I would remove that.

Conspiracypedia, the crufty soapbox anyone can vandalize. Weregerbil 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that Alex Jones also appears in Linklater's other rotoscope film Waking Life makes him more or less relevant to the film: especially with regards to this being an interpolationon the director's part which distinguishes it from the novel. The film A Scanner Darkly is an example of Linklater's art as much as it's a film version of Dick's novel, and Linklater's influences, especially in a film with these sorts of themes, are important to note, I think.203.206.249.161 13:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Weregerbil, Alex Jones is not some stand-by looser waiting to catch any movie side-roll that is thrown at him, he is working 24/7 on his views and his radio show. He is a extremly controversial person, and subscribing to his views will cause you to becom labeled a "conspiracy-nut-bag" by Hanity and Colmes and others (like you?), just as it happened to Charlie. It is no small mater and no conincidence that the people making this film made the concious decision to add him to this movie. It is at least "trivia" to add that. I would prefer much more, but that would be adding undue weight. You maybe view that prison planet is not a reliable source for world events, but it is a reliable source for a Alex's view of a movie that he was a part of. Dont pretend that the movie makers dont endorse his views, when deciding to give him a part, doing exactly the same thing he does in real life, exposing the criminal government. That merits one or two external links sections, it is nothing more than normal to expect people to be intrested of the views of such a controversial character, and his views of this movie in particular, and the links put that one click away withtout giving undue weith to the article.

Im not going to write anything about the movies makers views of Alex views, but Alex views are for sure more notable than "A long-running rumor suggested that Radiohead was composing the score for this film. This is untrue" As for your "If you added the name of the guy who washed the windows of the building where this movie was made I would remove that", is that an insult towards me and my work? --Striver 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question: no, that is not an insult (please see WP:AGF) (it's odd how some people seem to get insulted so easily. There is absolutely nothing you could ever say to insult me.) It is an answer to your reasoning "removing Jones proves he is controversial and therefore notable and must remain." By that reasoning anyone in the world is notable: mention a window washer, someone removes him, that "proves" he is controversial and must remain! Removal of a non-notable bit part player is not proof that he is controversial. (By the way, controversial does not equal notable.) Weregerbil 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as the content is about the film and reliably sourced, I don't see a problem. I am concerned about the external links section, however, and following the lead of several editors (such as Rory096) I suggest that any link not referencing content directly be removed from the article. The only thing that should appear in the external links section is the IMDB entry and possibly an official site. —Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the external link, may i ask why only limit it to those two mentioned and not include other links directly concerned with this movie? --Striver 07:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any other links, other than those two. The rest should reference content in the article and link in the references section. This will encourage people to use reliable citations and avoid linkfarming. —Viriditas | Talk 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So, dont you agree that the view of one of the actors regarding this movie is notable enough to warant a external link? Not even if the view is controversial? --Striver 08:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the external links section is subject to abuse, and the best way to keep it under control, is to use the notes/references section, so that every external link must reference actual content, as well as be reliable. That's all I'm saying. I have no interest in arguing about content. If the link is used as a cite, and it meets the requirements for WP:RS, there isn't a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 08:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So what was the consensus here? Currently, the article mentions the political views of one of the minor characters (Jones) in the trivia section, and includes 2 links to Jones' self-published (WP:RS??) website about the film. To me, these links add little value to the article other than promoting Jones himself. --mtz206 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the bit about him in the trivia section should stay, but the two links should go. They add nothing to an understanding of the film, and if we are going to have two articles on the perceived "political implications" of this film, it opens the door to posting other links to other people's opinions on the issue. Where would it end? ---Charles 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a reliable soure of what Jones belives. And a character in that role would not be notable in many cases, but Jones "special" views make him notable, and having him in a mainstream movie, in a role so close to his real life role, makes it notable and thus relevant to the movie article. It is just impossible for the movie makers to have missed who Jones is and what message it gives having him in the movie--Striver 14:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That might justify his mention in the trivia, but why two links to his website? Seems very much outside the WP:EL guidelines. If the makeup artist has "special" views (whatever that means), should we provide links to his/her blog as well? Don't think these links are appropriate, let alone necessary. --mtz206 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I argue that if those views are very peculiar, to the point of being called a lunatic, and if the guy spents all his time working on those views, making it more than a side time activity, and the "blog" entries deal specificly with this single movie and its conection to those views, then i argue that two links is not to much, specialy considering that the "blog" entries are on a very well visited site. --Striver 08:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So, did we not agree that the two links to Alex Jones webpage should go? 'Cause I see that they are still here, and I am trying to figure out why. Can I delete them already? ---Charles 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead. This is an article about a movie, not a soapbox link farm of someone who voices a bit part in it. The Jones spam is best trimmed down. Weregerbil 15:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Reynolds

In the music section, there's a biographic section on Graham Reynolds. Though it does have its place in the Wikipedia, this article is not it. I suggest (and therefore have added a split tag) that it is split into its own article; if there is no argument against, I'll do so. –Dvandersluis 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Big thumbs up for volunteering to originate Graham Reynolds. But when the tag said "split," I began thinking somebody wanted the Music section moved out (deleted? not when it's on-article). I'd prefer the term "fork," it feels more accurate. (Sorry for nitpicking, don't take it too seriously.) Xaxafrad 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I specifically reworked that section so that the tag was in front of only the paragraph on Reynolds – I assumed that was the correct way to do it? I didn't see a tag for 'forking', so I'm sorry if I used the wrong one. And don't worry, no offense taken ;) –Dvandersluis 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be it's own artcle, as long as we're willing to live w/ a stub. the cheat 23:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a stub is better than a misplaced section... ;) –Dvandersluis 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Stub is fine by me, not on the Article. --67.162.4.91 23:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been more than 2 days, the movie has now been released, and there's been no response against the idea. I'm splitting off the section. –Dvandersluis 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the split; it seems the new article has been established, so the old para can be removed. -- Jon Dowland 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  !!!???

That is f***ing confusing! He is going to 'catch himself'? Why not just turn himself in!? Tinlv7 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I feel so stupid. The whole split personality thing meant that he was only 'himself' half the time Tinlv7 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot needs re-working

Yea...the plot there is somewhat correct, but I thought it was deeper than that, granted I've only seen the movie once. I thought that for some reason, Fred/Bob Arctor was made (as in forced. they kept on saying "he didn't volunteer...") to become this undercover cop with the hopes of catching drug dealers and their sources( ie Barris). The thing about this undercover job is that while at work, he dons a "person-shifting" suit. In other words, the police do not know who this person in the suit really is, they only know his codename, Fred. Meanwhile, Bob, the non-cop, becomes addicted to substance D and befriends of Barris. The police become aware of the two's activities and have no idea that Bob is one of there own men (Fred in the suit). So essentially, yes, Fred is setup to catch Bob, AKA himself. Notice the difference though. Fred is the cop at work with the suit assigned to catch criminals, and Bob is the real drug-addicted acquaintence of Barris. However, they are the SAME person.

Barris is arrested at the end. Fred/Bod Arctor was taken in to the rehabilitation on more friendly terms. Donna, who is also undercover, brought him there because she knew how bad substance D (and its withdrawl symptomes) could be. She wanted him to get better, and return to how he saw things before substance D. Until then, he must work on a type of plantation, sponsored by the rehab. I got the impression that this was prison-like work (cells, warden, labor-intensive work). While there, he also finds the substance D flowers being grown on the ground in between the corn rows. The rehab place is producing the same drug that its patients are trying to quit.

well thats all ive got to say about that. Sorry its choppy, but if you've seen the movie, you'd know what I mean. Please reply for additions (for which im sure there are many) and corrections. Then maybe someone will re-write the plot section. Teimu.tm 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The authorities were never after Arctor. To some extent they were after Baris. But the main point was that they wanted to get Arctor to take so much Substance D that he would have brain damage, and be accepted to work on a New Path farm. That's what Arctor didn't vollunteer for. --58.107.196.244 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with Main Page Plot

I have something to add RE: the plot summary on the main page. At the end it says that Bruce realizes that the flower is being used to make Substance D, and therefore saves one for his friends. I got the impression that he was conditioned, through those verses he was reciting, to be facinated by blue flowers, and to keep one for his friends. So therefore he might not have made the connection between the flower and the drug, he was merely executing his programming. Also, the issue with his left and right brain seemed to me to be the reason he was able to go through the New Hope conditioning but still have a chance to have that conditioning about the blue flowers remain lodged in his subconscious. They had to plant the conditioning in a non-normal mind in order to have a chance at discovering the Farm's secrets. THX... - k2 11:41 PM 07/23/06

I agree. I think that his conditioning to buy blue flowers for his friends was what triggered it, which was the point of the conditioning. They knew that he was going to be drug addled and unlikely to make a connection in any other way. Aristoi 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between the movie and book section?

It would be great if there was a small section for this. I haven't read the book in a long time, so I couldn't write it. The book and movie articles have some of the exact same text, which is actually pretty informative, but the movie and book aren't exactly the same. I think the tone was different and obviously the movie was shortened, simplified and updated. Foday 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The section's beed added. I've read the novel and seen the movie, and I don't understand how you could think the tone was different. Unless you're talking about the novel's 1970s hippie slang that wasn't in the movie; other than that, the tone seemed identical to me in both. The novel's themes of drug abuse, paranoia, police surveillance, the blurred line between the drug world and police agencies, the questioning of reality, and human behavior in extreme situations all made it into the film. DT29 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This statement doesn't make sense: The novel, published in 1977, takes place in 1994. The film takes place in 2013, assuming the "seven years from now" setting is in relation to the film's 2006 release date.

To make it more clear, I've changed it to: The novel, published in 1977, takes place in 1994. The film opens with a "seven years from now" text, placing it in 2013, assuming the setting is in relation to the film's 2006 release date. DT29 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End Credits

Are the names of the people from the novel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AzzAz (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

Your question can be interpreted in different ways. The names are found in the afterword ("Author's Note") of the novel. If you are asking if the names in the afterword (end credits in the film) correspond with the names of the characters, there is very little information. They were certainly real people that PKD knew, but it is just as likely that the characters in the novel and film are nothing more than an amalgamation of the real people, including PKD himself. There are a few instances where we have information about people in Dick's life and characters in the book, but my best guess (and I could be wrong) is that the names were changed to protect their privacy. —Viriditas | Talk 08:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknowingly?

"Unknowingly, Arctor had been selected to carry out the sting." Unknown to whom?? (or is it who). --Gbleem 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unknowingly to his superiors. They do not know who is in the suit, only that he/she has integrated themselves into Arctor's circle of friends, and that he has access to the house. Of course, we know that Fred is in fact Bob, but nobody else could. So unknowingly to his superiors, Fred is selected to carry out the survailence on Bob, on himself.Colossus 86 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date

I take it the release dates given are for the US. Anyone know: (When) is it coming to the UK? Ben davison 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Google, UK limited release is set for August 18. —Viriditas | Talk 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip K. Dick references in the movie

The trivia section mentioning Phil D. on headphones and the Blade Runner script could be part of a new section if other Philip K. Dick references in the movie are found.--Undertow87 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 500 hours / min animation

I think this, regardless of it's citation, is bogus.

At an approximate 90 min run time, that's 90 min * 500hours/min = 45,000 (min) hours/min = 45,000 hours

Now, 45,000 is reasonably close to 48,000 hours, which is exactly 2000 days.

This indicates that the movie was in production for over six years.

As it was originally played in 2004, this dictates the original filming must have taken place in 1998

The movie itself was filmed with the [The Panasonic AG-DVX100], and from its page: The AG-DVX100, introduced in late 2002...

As such, this information is drastically faulty.

The only reasonble way to draw the number back to cause a 2 year difference, 2:6 = 1/3, or a 66.7% decrease in the initial claim to make it fit within a forced timeline.

I request this information be double checked and upon the findings either deleted or elaborated upon.

>Aren't they talking about 'man hours', ie. 1 person does it it takes as long as you say, if two people work on it it takes half as long, etc. They would have had a wholeteam working on the animation.

[edit] A Second Alex Jones Cameo

I'm not getting involved in your anti-Alex Jones squabbles, but I just wanted to note that I added this to the trivia. If you don't believe me you can look at the movie, yourself. The only thing is that I'm not sure if I got the magazine's quote down correctly:

• Also, at one point towards the beginning of the film, the screen 'fast forwards' as Jim Barris and Freck enter a gas station shop. Very briefly a police officer can be seen reading a magazine that quotes "Alex Jones Runs for Office" on the cover.

--208.127.64.150 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A SCANNER DARKLY WOW WHAT A NAME --200.94.141.3 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donna=Hank?

In the film, "Hank" is revealed to be Donna. In the novel, Hank's identity is never explicity revealed, only hinted at.

What are the hints? FilipeS 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

When Bob (in disguise as Fred) says he has two kids, Hank says "I don't think you do. You're not supposed to." This implies that Hank is someone Bob knows personally, and that Bob has lied to his friends, telling them he has no kids. Later on we find out Donna is a narcotics agent, and Donna knows Bob, so put two and two together. DT29 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)