Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Learn more Shop now Learn more

on 25 September 2007
This is a small book, printed on thick paper with big margins - which sounds like a criticism, but, since it makes its case succintly, stylishly and, for the most part, carefully, really functions as a dig at Richard Dawkins' big book, The God Delusion, which brims with ideas apparently cribbed from stage 1 philosophy notes - the implication being that a more careful and detailed exposition would be lost on the sort of reader who was impressed with Richard Dawkins' original arguments.

Cornwell's book strikes just the right tone - faintly amused and rather derisive of Dawkins' great foray into religious studies: treating a dogmatic zoologist as a serious entrant in the philophy of religion would be to afford him too much respect: a courtesy Dawkins himself wouldn't extend for a moment if confronted with a dogmatic religious fundamentalist wishing to discuss biology (famously, Dawkins refuses to even debate such people).

Cornwell is also wise not to get dragged too far into the merits of the issue (i.e., whether there actually is a God) and instead spends his few pages more profitably remarking that, whatever ones position on that question, Dawkins' arguments simply can't carry the day, unless you really want them to.

That's important because Cornwell can therefore carry along skeptics like me, who don't personally subscribe to religious belief, but still find Dawkins' dogmatic essentialism a crashing bore.

Along the way Cornwell makes some thumping scores and while, as other reviewers have noted, he may misconstrue Dawkins' arguments in a couple of places, they don't really make a difference and, in any case, for a Dawkinite to make that protest really is to call the kettle black. The scores he does make are doozies, and one in particular stood out: Dawkins' support for Martin Rees' rebuttal of the Anthropic Principal by means of the "multiverse" - the suggestion that there are many universes, co-existing like bubbles of foam, in a "multiverse", and only one of these universes needs to have the right "bye-laws" to sustain evolved life. Of course, that's a moronic idea, and Cornwell shows admirable restraint in his derision: "there are no more observable data for this "suggestion" than the positing of [Bertrand Russell's hypothetical] miniature teapot circumnavigating the earth". Quite.

In other words, Richard Dawkins is prepared to resort to unfalsifiable, non-causal explanations when it suits him, along with the best of the theists he decries.

I still think there is room for a book taking an expressly non-religious (and therefore non-defensive) line - that the scientific realism that Dawkins insists on is indefensible; that there is room on the planet for religious, literary, scientific and moral stories to sit alongside each other - that they need not (and given their different applications, cannot) get in each others way: the late Stephen Jay Gould got closest to that with his appeal for religious-scientific detente in "Rocks of Ages", and the late Richard Rorty, especially in "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" and "Philosophy and Social Hope" had a thing or two to say about it, too.

Nonetheless, this volume (perhaps once in paperback) has much to recommend it.

Olly Buxton
77 Comments| 87 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 26 November 2008
A main point of this book - which i did enjoy and gain from - is simply asking the question why should we take Richard Dawkins so seriously on religion? I believe that he has a great mind and is an admirable scholar who has written quite a lousy book which we are treating as if it mattered!
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 19 June 2013
When I found The God Delusion in a local charity shop I dimly remembered the furore surrounding its publication so I bought it. Having read it thoroughly I can say that I found Richard Dawkins arguments against religion to be well-constructed and compelling but, seeking an alternative viewpoint from the other side, I bought Darwin's Angel. I read this book with growing misgivings and a burgeoning suspicion that it was a gross misrepresentation of Dawkins arguments. Instead of an intelligent counterpoint to Dawkins views I was treated to a tissue of half-truths, semantic nit-picking, contextual abstractions and facile humour posing as intelligent discussion.

What is particularly sad about this slight but attractive (at least on the surface) book is that it appears to have been written in haste by an obviously erudite and intelligent man who has used his considerable skills of eloquent prose and his obvious mental acumen to mount a snide and egregious attack on Dawkins book instead of an intelligent and considered response to it.

Other reviewers have catalogued and criticised the claptrap to be found within the covers of this book but these are some of my objections:

a. Cornwell feels the need to explain the exact meanings of the words 'fundamentalism' and 'supernatural' to us poor ignorant souls who can't quite grasp these concepts but falls foul of his own smugness when he states that Dawkins has 'earned his repution' (rather than gained it - there is a difference.) This is particularly relevant when Cornwell, who offers scant references of his own, criticises Dawkins for quoting extensively from his own work. By his own powers of semantic precision Cornwell has already claimed that Dawkins is an expert witness. Dawkins is, therefore, writing with some authority when he draws from his own work to illustrate his points. In point of fact, Dawkins quotes extensively from the works of others and these are all correctly referenced at the end of the book;

b. 'What kind of book do you think you have written?' asks Cornwell of Dawkins, the answer to which is fairly obvious; a book for a general, non-scientific readership. If Dawkins had wanted to write a book for scientists (or those with a scientific bent) I'm sure he could have easily done so but the point would have been lost as this book might have been impenetrable to the general public. Cornwell also criticises a reference source used in Dawkins Book and offers a whole list of alternative sources that Dawkins might have used instead. Cornwell, however, does not explain the relevance of these sources leaving one with the impression that he is engaging in blatant name dropping to make his point (has he even read the books he is citing?);

c. Cornwell criticises the eulogisers on the back cover of The God Delusion and highlights the fact that they are non-scientists. However, are they any less intelligent for that? Is intelligence the sole preserve of scientists and religious adherents? As stated this is a popular book for a general readership and the individuals praising The God Delusion are, therefore, not inappropriate. On the back cover of Cornwells book is a sole encomium from Rabbi Julia Neuberger (a religious 'gun-for-hire' and well known personality from radio and television) who makes the absurd claim that Cornwells book 'is an elegant riposte to Richard Dawkins and others' and that 'it punctures the air of certainty professed by Dawkins and his friends'. I can imagine 'Dawkins and his friends' having a huge belly laugh at that one as only they can truly say that their 'certainty' has been 'punctured';

d. Finally, and in my view the nastiest aspect of Cornwells book, he has deliberately misrepresented Dawkins by taking his words out of context. After being variously described as 'angry' and 'impatient' in early chapters and after it is suggested that Dawkins might be a 'fundamentalist scientist' (with a covert intention of substituting science for religion) Cornwell imputes God-like pretensions to Dawkins by quoting two words Dawkins uses out of context 'my way'. Do I detect an echo of Christ's words 'I am the way, the truth and the light' Cornwell asks. Cornwell has wilfully ignored the words that preceded 'my way' which simply stated what people would be free to do in a world without religion if they so choose. 'My way would be a good dose of science' Dawkins writes (which, of course, is his personal choice). But, of course, if Cornwell had quoted Dawkins accurately and in full he would not have been able to achieve the same effect and his insinuations would have failed miserably leaving his coup - de - gras rather flat. Taking words out of their wider context to illustrate or prove a point is one of the shoddiest academic tricks imaginable.

The flaws in Cornwells book are legion and obvious to anyone who has read both books objectively and used the time - honoured academic discipline of 'contrast and compare'. Cornwell's book is the first book I have deliberately defaced by writing such words as 'fudge', 'tosh', 'claptrap' and 'gross misrepresentation' in its wide margins. Cornwell, I consider, has done the cause of religion a disservice by producing such a book because if these are the sort of tricks religionists utilise to support their cause then Dawkins is quite right to criticise them.

This book now sits comfortably on the shelf in my toilet between such illustrious tomes as 'Busty, Slag and Nob End' (a book of strange and unusual names) and Bog Standard Britain ( a diatribe on how standards in Britain have eroded over time and the reasons why.)

I recently watched the brilliant, but harrowing, account of 'The Relief of Belsen' in which actual newsreel footage was shown of a British soldier bulldozing hundreds of human bodies into a large trench. I thought afterwards that if there was any tangible evidence against the existence of a benevolent God then it could not get any stronger than this. This, and Dawkin's book, certainly turned me away from religion but I will still seek logical counter-arguments from religionists who don't rely on the 'Immortal, invisible, God only wise, in light inaccessible hid from our eyes' William Blake form of argument to prop up their cause as Cornwell appears to be doing.

Cornwell should be aware that if he wants to make a 'riposte' he should marshal his facts with more care and not use a rubber sword; the results of such an action would be laughable.
33 Comments| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 25 July 2012
There is much wrong with this book in terms of tenor, argument, thrust and integrity and to list all it's faults would be tedious; so I'll confine myself to the more obvious howlers.

First the style. You can't read Darwin's Angel without feeling patronised and queasy at its mawkish tone. Cornwell's central conceit of the caring angel is condescending, disingenuous and grating the final dedication: "with affection from Darwin's Angel and Yours." sounding frankly creepy. The conversational style palls quickly with lines such as: "I want to explore with you..." reading as if he were an awkward uncle talking down to a child; the combination of professed compassion for Dawkins in constant conjunction with blatant ad hominem attack seem like the ramblings of an incompetent passive aggressive.

But what of substance, this book is subtitled as a riposte to TGD so you expect to enjoy meaty argument but to follow the thread of his thought is problematic. Cornwell enjoys rambling from one thing to another often losing us (and himself) in pointless tangential peregrinations. For example chapter 18, ostensibly about a Darwinian account of religion, dissolves into a long digression on the uses of church buildings which adds nothing but tedium. In another chapter he picks up on a quote from Dostoyevsky which Dawkins employs to illustrate a certain point in an argument- but instead of engaging with the actual argument Cornwell chides Dawkins for misunderstanding Dostoyevsky's overall theme which cues a completely irrelevant précis of The Brothers Karamazov. This obsession with splitting hairs and arguing the toss when it comes to quotes again surfaces on page 114: Dawkins uses a line from Yeats, Cornwell again ignores the main point Dawkins is trying to make and argues that the poem has a different theme- well, who cares- these quotes are illustrative of points, window-dressing, not arguments themselves!

His eagerness to engage only with the petty and trivial is demonstrated further as he gets lost in discussions about whether atheists are really cleverer than theists (chapter 16)- the lacklustre conclusion (sans argument natch) is that there are different kinds of intelligence; but really who cares? Or when he takes Dawkins to task for employing purpose-laden words in evolution discussions: "Your addiction to teleological explanations of natural functions is patently unscientific" (page 133)- this simply betrays an ignorance of Dawkins' assertions repeatedly stated that such phrasing is just an accident of language- metaphors which would be awkward to avoid and imply nothing about purpose.

Cornwell prefers insinuation to argument, there are multiple ad hominem attacks on Dawkins with allegations of egoism, self-delusion even messiah-complex. But when he does engage he often misunderstands what Dawkins is driving at. On page 54 he brands Russell's Teapot as `arbitrary' and pulls out one of Aquinas' prime mover arguments as a riposte. But the whole point of the teapot story is that it IS arbitrary, it is a device to show that the theists claim that atheists can't disprove God is a hollow one- Cornwell's choice of counter argument (with one of the ineffectual Five ways of Aquinas) just shows how little he has understood the point made. In fact Cornwell seems confused on even basic points of terminology as when he conflates Theism and Deism on page 12 and again on page 158.

Much in Darwin's Angel is simply asserted rather than argued as when later in the same chapter he characterises Mutiverse theory as "hardly a compelling scientific argument"- try telling that to the hundreds of scientists currently theorising just such a thing. He counters Dawkins Ultimate 747 with the line that God is simple and can therefore be a legitimate candidate for ultimate cause, but does he reinforce with robust evidence; do we hear reasoned argument- of course not, why bother with such tedious frippery when you can just assert (page 60) that: "theologians deny that God is made up of parts... they insist on his simplicity". You might question how a god without parts could design, build and maintain a universe not to mention listen to the prayers of billions and intervene on a day to day basis (not only on this planet but throughout creation) but it will do you no good against the ruthless assertion that god is SIMPLE. Theologians say so! That does for Cornwell's Angelic alter ego, and it should do for you!

Some things are expected in this type of book- so it comes as no surprise that we get the usual Hitler and Stalin were atheists therefore... Try telling him that atheism is not a positive doctrine that it entails nothing; engenders no belief, no dogma rather it is a LACK of belief- he won't hear you though. No, instead he will in a breath-taking calumny (chapter 19) infer that Dawkins' meme theory of religious induction would ultimately lead to Nazi-esque `solutions' for religious believers if ever power was given to those of Dawkins' persuasion- what an Angelic accusation!

The central challenge for the apologist is to layout the case for God, we await Cornwell's attempt with bated breath and when it finally comes (chapter 20) we cannot fail to be impressed by it's simplicity. "Why is there something rather than nothing", no need for argument of course, just the assertion that science can't address the issue but somehow theologians can. Somehow without the use of, logic, objective reason, and evidence based common sense (all of which are the province of science) theologians can ascertain this great truth of the cosmos.

So there you have it- a typical piece of theological claptrap, a vainglorious attempt to dismiss in the crudest possible way the New Atheist agenda and disingenuous, dissembling devil in the guise of a wheedling, mawkish angel.
Angels are a man-made fiction, and this book is similarly a disappointment, as a riposte to Dawkins it has no substance.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 26 May 2008
I thought John Cornwell would do so much better than this. Often sly and rarely convincing. He is playing out of his league in taking on Dawkins although this is much better than most of the boring, extended Christian tracts which, delivered ex cathedra, merely repeat, "I know best and Richard Dawkins is ignorant."

To any Dawkins haters reading this all I would say is, "Keep on practising but success in undermining Dawkins with any fair minded readers is a long way off. I suppose you could try prayer except that it is Dawkins who seems to be on the side of the angels."
22 Comments| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon 11 June 2008
This was an enjoyable book because it addressed specific aspects of the God Delusion succinctly and without unecessary embellishment. One can only wonder how Dawkins would respond to these points. There again, someone (Dawkins) who gets his wife to read out loud his own book - twice - is hardly likely to take kindly to criticism of it. Dawkins's myopic views seem mirrored by the reviews of some of his supporters. Dr V Stewart [Real Name, apparently] finds Cornwell's 'patronising tone repellent'. You couldn't make it up! Has Dr Stewart ever read anything Dawkins has written? If he had he'd easily recognize patronising words. S Page [Real name, apparently] accuses Cornwell as "deliberately misrepresenting Dawkins' argument". Anyone who had actually read the book could hardly make this claim with any objectivity. If anyone wants a precis of the book they could do worse than read Chapter 2 'Your Sources' to evaluate the background to Dawkins' views and Chapter 9 'Theories of Everything' for a robust and, arguably, unanswerable challenge to Dawkins' firmly held belief that science will one day provide an answer to everything.
1313 Comments| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 19 January 2009
Oh dear.

One has to wonder why Cornwell has chosen not to attack Dawkins' genuine arguments but wilful misrepresentations of them. Did he not understand the arguments in The God Delusion, or could he not disprove them?

Cornwell succeeds only in slaughtering a regiment of straw men.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 13 June 2009
I bought Darwin's Angel because, not wishing to be considered fixed in my views, I wanted something to offset The God Delusion, which I found pretty well unarguable. But then the book just confirms my views on the existence of a deity anyway; I haven't been able to understand the meaning of such belief since I was ten.
Cornwell's is only a small book, but I haven't finished it yet. I find it very confusing. The arguements he uses may or may not carry weight. I just don't really understand most of them. Nothing he says makes me want to believe where I don't currently. This may be because I am indeed too fixed in my views. I feel that many of the points put are so convoluted that they are designed to make the reader uneasy because he doesn't understand them. Does Mr Cornwell really understand them either?
I'll go on with the book to the end, hoping for enlightenment. I have serious doubts about the likelihood of this.
I've seen some enthusiastic reviews of the book, of the 'this is one in the eye for Dawkins' variety. Maybe the writers of these are already believers as I'm already a non-believer. For me Richard Dawkins The God Delusion speaks the truth, even if he does so with a certain level of self-satisfaction, and even though I feel he over-eggs the pudding about the barriers to progress posed by faith. Mr Cornwell's book has done nothing to alter my opinions - yet.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 8 April 2012
Before I get started critiquing the book I think that it would be best that I let the reader know where I'm coming from. I'm an unbeliever and have been for a good decade or so. Whilst I am critical of religion and the claims made by theists, I try not to be unfair or dismissive. If you were to look at the bookshelves in my bedroom then you would find hundreds of books on the subject of God and faith with titles like "Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology" and "Faith and Praxis in a Postmodern Age". So, that's me then. Faithless, but not without some sympathy for the theists' side.

So on to the book. If you are looking for a sensible and well-grounded response to Dawkins and the New Atheists then this book definitely isn't for you (instead you might want to try Keith Ward's "Why there Almost Certainly is a God", which is at least fair and clear-sighted). The main problem with "Darwin's Angel" is that it continually misses the point, and wastes time fishing for red herrings. For instance, there is a chapter which begins by correcting a common misunderstanding of Dostoyevsky's book "The Brothers Karamazov" - a misunderstanding that Dawkins had made in passing in one line of "The God Delusion". I can't help but feel that this is beside the point. Dawkins makes one very brief reference to the book, and doesn't even use it as evidence or as a way to buttress his argument. What's the big deal? Anyway, the real purpose of the chapter is soon revealed: to unfavourably compare Dawkins to the character of Alyosha, who espouses a form of spirituality which is not amenable to rational discussion. So, the take-home message of this chapter is that religion is great, that it protects us from nihilism and suffering, and that it is not open to rational debate. Oh, and if you disagree then you're a simple-minded philistine. This questionable line of fideistic reasoning might be taken to encapsulate the overall thesis of the book: "religion can't be debated, so there!"

At one point the author poses this rhetorical question:

"For what is religion if not a product of the imagination straining to connect everyday life with the transcendent incarnate, the mystical?" (hardback edition, P11)

That's fine, as far as it goes. However, the author ends the discussion prematurely by not inspecting or following up on this idea. Can we not debate the likelihood that there is such an ontologically/metaphysically transcendent dimension, or that it has the characteristics attributed to it by believers (they say that God is a self-aware, and feels love for his creation, for example)? Can we not legitimately question whether this transcendence is the source of our "mystical" experiences in the first place (as opposed to some other natural cause)? Is it not possible to point to incoherencies and contradictions in theology as suggestive of their factual falsehood?

Cornwell and his fans apparently find such questions to be unworthy of consideration. That is, of course, their prerogative. Still, it's a shame that they insist that nobody else can ask them either.

As if to pre-empt such sensible talk Cornwell elsewhere writes:

"It is interesting that one of the great sociologists of religion, Emile Durkheim, stated boldly in his book The Elementary Forms of Religious Life that "in reality there are no religions which are false. All are true in their own fashion: all answer, albeit in different ways, to the given conditions of human existence." Much the same could be said, of course, of art. Religious rituals and symbols, from the dawning of human history, marked and celebrated birth, growth, age, death and burial, the making of families and communities, the coming together for feasts, husbandry, hunting, journeys, the life cycles of plants, animals, and human beings, the changing seasons, the diuranal, lunar, and annual rounds, the mystery of existence. The great world religions, tried and tested, as sources of flourishing over three millennia, continue to enact and celebrate those cyclical experiences and underlying mysteries." (P45)

Ah, so we're now being told that religion is about everything EXCEPT God and dogma. Also, what's this about there being no "false" religions? Perhaps if we interpret religions in a strictly non-realist fashion, or in a consciously utilitarian manner then that might be the case. Unfortunately, that's not how the Abrahamic faiths are generally practiced or understood - least of all by their practitioners. Cornwell focuses on celebration and ritual as being emblematic of what religion is "about", and yet he completely ignores the doxastic and political aspects of religion. What are we to make of the fact that many (if not most) Islamic scholars today still suggest the death penalty for apostates, as well as for homosexuals? Perhaps Cornwell will say that they have misunderstood what religion "really" is, but how then is he to justify his own definition? Surely if most people use the word in a certain sense then that should be the sense that we define it by. It's called a semantic shift. In any case, why bother with the word "religion" at all, when we can just as readily fall back on (admittedly clumsy) phrases like "theism-driven actions"?

Staying with the above quote for a while more, please also note the lack of any mention of the eschatological aspect of the Christian faith. For 2000 long years we've been told that we must be "redeemed" or face eternal torment in the afterlife; this was supposed to be the whole point of Jesus' life and death. And yet, here we have a follower of Christ who talks as though there is no afterlife, no eternal fate to consider, no miracles, no God... All we find here is an insistence that religious traditions are useful to people as "sources of flourishing". Is it me, or is there something disingenuous (not to mention reductive) about all of this?

Throughout his book Cornwell tries valiantly to slander Dawkins one way or another. He boldly claims -without any reason or evidence- that Dawkins would "applaud" the nineteenth century vogue for Social Darwinism ( p71). Anyone who's actually read Dawkins' work will know that he has vociferously denied that Darwinism should be used as an excuse for ruthlessness in society (he reads and writes for The Guardian, for pity's sake!). Likewise, on page 34 Cornwell reaches a crescendo of self-satisfied smugness:

"You are also disturbed by the dimension of imagination, aren't you? It's so close to art, music, poetry - stuff that's made up rather than facts that can be reducible to physics, chemistry, and biology." (P34)

Oh, please! There's an ENTIRE CHAPTER in "The God Delusion" which deals with the value of the Bible as literature. Incidentally, I wonder if Cornwell knows (or cares) that Dawkins is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He's also written at least one book which deals with the compatibility of Darwinism with a sense of awe and wonder at the universe ("Unweaving the Rainbow"), as well as another book which was inspired by "The Canterbury Tales". More recently he's written a piece which was modelled on the style of "Jeeves and Wooster". I could go on. Another straw man bites the dust.

On and on it goes, with Cornwell consistently missing the point, fudging the issue or -on the few occasions when he's at his best- just leaving us with some inconclusive and underdeveloped musings. To be fair, Cornwell's quasi-fideism comes and goes. There are some points where he appears to be on the verge of thinking clearly (such as his chapter "Does God Exist?"), but he always stops short of admitting the vulnerability of traditional theism to criticism. He frames religious beliefs in the most minimalist sense possible, so as to avoid defending any specific doctrines.

In short, here's the basic gist of the book's arguments, with the relevant responses:

*Dawkins misunderstood Dostoyevsky!
So what? You misunderstood Dawkins.

*The meaning of the word "religion" is contested!
So long as we are clear on what Dawkins is attacking - (1) an unfounded and irrational propositional belief in the existence of a deity who wants his followers to do his will on earth, and (2) a willingness on the part of the believers to act upon this perceived masterplan- then the signifier that we attach to this phenomenon is irrelevant.

*You can't use Darwinism to explain everything that people do!
Dawkins never said that we could. If you had gotten to the end of "The Selfish Gene" then you would know this already. Do your research.

*You can't have a theory that explains everything!
So what? That doesn't justify fideistic faith in Yahweh.

*Belief in God doesn't need to be defended, because it's a spiritual experience!
Religious people often make factual claims about miracles, providence and all manner of other things. Can we not discuss the reasonableness of such claims, or of their cultural and political implications, without being dismissed as simple-minded fools?

There's also some irrelevant stuff about memes and atheistic regimes. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I found very little to like about this book. If you're looking for a decent defence of theism then try either "The Existence of God" by Richard Swinburne, or his more accessible "Is there a God?"; alternatively, you could try "The Agnostic Inquirer" by Sandra Menssen and Thomas D. Sullivan, which is another fair and sensible work that deserves respect and consideration. For a decent stab at rebutting Dawkins head-on then I'd recommend Keith Ward's "Why there Almost Certainly is a God". I may disagree with Ward on many points, but he at least grapples with the issues fairly and clearly, which is more than can be said for Cornwell.
44 Comments| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERon 3 July 2009
This book is written as reply to Richard Dawkins' excellent, if heavy-going book "The God Delusion". Darwin's Angel relies on the good old: "Ah yes, but God is mysterious and unknowable which is why you are wrong and I am right!" arguement which carries as much weight as ever it did.

If you believe in God, you'll enjoy the illusory sense of superiority it engenders over Atheists. If you're more skeptical and have read and understood "The God Delusion", you probably won't and may wince at some of the misinformation about "The God Delusion" presented in Darwin's Angel. I wasn't impressed with Darwin's Angel.
0Comment| 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)