Talk:Abby and Brittany Hensel

• Archive 1

two backbones, one pelvis?

How does that work? Is the pelvis extra-wide? Do the "2" backbones merge at some point? 24.110.144.116 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems relatively minor to me, compared to the three questions I immediately thought up:

• How do two esophaguses and two stomachs connect to a single intestinal and excretory tract? (I would guess that their duodenums are conjoined.)
• How do they balance in order to walk, since they have four inner ears? (My guess for this one is that one of the twins is somehow dominant in balance; or else they pick up subtle cues based on minute movements of their twin?)
• If they ever become mothers, will they face bureaucratic difficulties in terms of legal status? (I would think the only appropriate and decent way to behave in that case would be to declare them both mothers of any child they have, but that would be difficult to handle with typical forms.)

But this is really pointless. A more important question I have is: why doesn't the article mention which twin is on which side? I have only two clues to go by:

• The caption "Abigail and Brittany" under a facing photo, would tend to imply that they are being listed from left to right from the viewer's point of view, indicating that Abigail is on their right.

Comment: when dealing with such problems, perhaps they would just agree to use one name, maybe Britty's to counterbalance Abby's dominance in other areas. They tend to come up with pragmatic solutions to get by in a non-conjoined world and tend to see such issues as other people's petty problems. Face it: its not like one or the other can have sole custody of their children and they are much more mentally practiced in accommodating each other on a moment-to-moment basis. If they ever did disagree about an important long-term matter, they would probably just ask for some time alone to come to a decision that they will promise each other to accept and not re-hash later on in life.--Ttimespan (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to remember: as you face them, they are in alphabetical order: Abby is on the left. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TechnoFaye">TechnoFaye Kane</a> 00:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoFaye (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source we can use in the article so we can indicate which one is on which side? Kasreyn 01:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The statement that Brittany controls the turn signal; on most (ie., right hand drive) autos, the turn signal control is on the right side of the steering column. However, they do make left hand drive cars where the stick is on the opposite side. So this is more of a statistical thing: it's more likely that this clue argues for Brittany being on their right, and the opposite situation requires that they have a left hand drive car (which isn't impossible; maybe one of their parents is left-handed, or maybe they specifically got a left hand drive car because Brittany really wanted to be in charge of signalling turns.)

So I'm stuck; the two clues argue for different conditions. So which is on which side; does anyone know? Please take care to mention which POV you are using when you say "right" or "left" - whether it is the twins' right/left, or the viewer's right/left when looking at the twins face-on. Cheers, Kasreyn 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• They live in the USA, so it will be a left-side-drive car. Abigail is on their right, a face-on onlookers's left. Likely the doctors called them "Twin A" and "Twin B", as usual with conjoined twins, so their parents chose names starting A and B. Anthony Appleyard 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  Well, you can order a right-side drive car and drive it in the USA. Also, if Abigail is on the right, how does Brittany control the turn signal, which in a typical US-made car is on the right side of the steering column? Logic would seem to dictate that Abigail is on the same side of the car as the driver's seat. Kasreyn 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Turn signal's on the left. Wipers and tranny shifter are on the right.

What's more disconcerting is that two distinct individuals controlling one vehicle are inherently dangerous, no matter what percentage of their lives they've known each other and what empathy they've achieved. 128.195.186.100 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu

One could argue that one individual controlling a car is inherently dangerous. Ospinad 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Abigail is on the left as you face them, Brittany on the right. I'm sure they learned to walk just like the rest of us, it has a lot more to do with trial and error and seeing what works than with the fluid in your ears. Check out this video, it will answer a lot of your questions:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranatoro (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

since I'm here

Is protection for this article still necessary? As far as I can tell, it was protected over nine months ago after a spate of vandalism. I assume it's safe to unprotect it by now? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Road Safety/Licensing

Treating two distinct individuals as individuals and recognizing their rights is good and proper. Wouldn't have it any other way. But driving?! It's dangerous. For lots of reasons. 1) Having two mature and individual minds does not yet guarantee having the physical abilities of one healthy person, much less two people. Certain disabilities restrict driving for the safety of the person and others on the road. 2) Two people in one driver's seat is bound to draw attention. Already. If someone realizes the situation fully and starts pondering whether, for the purpose of driving an automobile, they are two or one... Well, I can say from personal experience that two seconds of inattention can get you totalled against some concrete wall (or, worse, ramming another car). 3) How do you fine/punish/sue two drivers LEGALLY allowed in one driver's seat? Who's responsible if something happens? 4) If two people, each of whom individually is unable to operate a motor vehicle, received licenses to drive together, dividing function between them, then doesn't it create a legal precedent?! [law cannot make exceptions, no matter how exceptional the case; it would turn the entire system upside down]128.195.186.100 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu

It is not the job of Wikipedia to criticize. Wikipedia may describe criticism, but I think even then, it should represent common viewpoints instead of single person's opinions. --Bisqwit 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To 128.195.186.100 >> LOL, Who are you to judge that?! ;) Elmao 07:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For your #2, they can get tinted windows! #3, they are lucky because they can split any fines. But most likely they would have to share the same job so it wouldn't make much of a difference in that situation. #4, I think is an exaggeration. There is no reason for the whole system to be turned upside down, any new laws made to compensate for them would (should) only affect them.

However, I'm concerned about their decision making. What if they can't agree on where to go? There's a turn coming up and one of them wants to go that way and the other one doesn't, they'll be fighting over the steering wheel. Having a back seat driver is annoying enough, I don't want to think about what they are going to be going through. Ospinad 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Howewe if you watch the documentary you can see that they know what the "other" is/will do... It's not like I put glue on you or your sister :) .. Elmao 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Likely their central nervous systems can talk to each other via the autonomous nervous system, which would be connected to both spinal cords: see the image in page Ganglia of sympathetic trunk. Anthony Appleyard 08:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if they can drive a manual transmission car? It seems like it would be quite a challenge, as Brittany would have to operate the clutch and Abby would have to shift gears and operate the gas and brake. Dusso Janladde (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page

I've archived a bunch of old discussions since this was getting pretty huge. I don't think I removed any that had been active in the last month or two; if I did, then they may be retrieved from the archive.

I want to remind everyone that the purpose of this page is to discuss the attached article--discussion about what facts to include, what sources to use, how to state information on the article, and many other things is appropriate. However, discussions about the twins themselves, and their particular situation, is not appropriate for this page. Please don't start discussions that aren't related to the development of the article; please don't respond to and continue any such discussions started by others.

Thanks to everyone who reads this for taking the time. --Sopoforic 00:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Elmao 03:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's who?

Which twin is Abby and which is Britty? --  Denelson83  07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Easiest way to remember is that when you face them, they're in alphabetical order. A is on the left, followed by B. Also, I remember which personality is which by: Abby is the assertive one who does most of the talking so she comes first (i.e. on the left as you face them). TechnoFaye Kane 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Abby controls the right side and Brittany controls the left. Ospinad 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

do they hear each other's thoughts?

do they? -- 69.181.210.30 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would seriously doubt it -- but their nervous systems are connected... AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No. For that to be remotely possible, they would have to share brain tissue. But even twins with connected brain tissue haven't reported anything like that. Nairebis (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If they did, it won't be because they are conjoined. Rather, it'll be a "twin sense" that certain sets of identical twins have (Usually when one senses the other in a crisis miles away). But that is a "blue moon" type of ability. Fractyl (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a student of the same school which they attend(ed - they have successfully graduated) and in conversation, they often had a habit of speaking phrases simultaneously, together. What this means, I know not, but I would lobby that they have a closer mental connection than any other set of twins their age. --Formina Sage (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The term is extrasensory perception.--Ttimespan (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You spend you life with your head always 2 inches away from another persons head and you'd be able to finish their sentences for them after 18 years. EchetusXe (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

another image

There are some images out there like this one that show their inner organs. Would it be acceptable according to WP:FU to add it to this article? For An Angel (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded that image last year. It's from a magazine long out-of-print. The assholes who run wikipedia let a goofball delete it because, in theory, you could hire a medical illustrator draw your own, similar picture instead. No, I'm not joking. TechnoFaye Kane 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the best you are going to do; it is a Spanish-language page. The TLC Here is a simpler rendering that is probably based on the former image; they do not get the lungs correct, in my opinion. Here is an Xray of the pelvis, but it is not a very good one. The TLC vid has a nice, well-colored 3-D model, but ripping it is a cv, of course.--Ttimespan (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spastic?

"Y-shaped small intestine which experiences a slightly spastic double peristalsis at the juncture" - what does the "spastic" mean in this context? --KnightMove (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The same thing it means in English, I would expect: "prone to spasm".80.168.239.204 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Which, in this case, probably means that the swallow action happens on both sides when they swallow and that it's not as smooth as in normal cases. Although, I will admit, I'm not speaking from any real authority here. -Fuzzy (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your intestine doesn't swallow. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Could anyone explain to me exactly what's happening? It looks like there's a series of layout changes going back and forth and, reading talk pages, I get the impression that there's something brewing under the background involving banned editers, sock puppets, and politics. But really, I don't quite understand. -Fuzzy (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what the problem is. Major reverts with almost no explanation. It's my opinion that the initial revert made by Alison on March 18 that undid 146 edits was wrong. She wasn't reverting vandalism, she was removing sourced material, and although she claimed she was undoing the actions of a single banned editor she didn't just revert the edits of one editor (one person did not make all of those 146 edits). When I asked her on her talk page for her reasons she just erased my question. Still, I think the edits that were done mostly by the person who was banned were valid, and improved the article, and to undo all of that work would hurt the article. Who cares who made the edits? For An Angel (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but Alison's hands were tied by an ArbCom decision (furthermore, she's been through a lot, so we should all cut her some slack). I'd suggest going back through the diffs and selectively re-adding important content, maybe doing some cleanup. I realize that probably seems like a hassle, but that's how we need to proceed. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What decision was made? I've already gone through the article and feel that everything that was in it before Alison made her major revert is important enough to stay in there, and other people such as Bisqwit and Majorly apparently feel the same way. For An Angel (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion on Majorly's talk page here. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading that discussion I don't feel anymore enlightened. It seems like Alison was acting in a revenge-like way because someone was harassing her in real life? I still don't think what she did was justified. I think Dan T. said it best when he said:

Is it really true that if some edit of an "extremely-banned" user happens to fix an erroneous statement somewhere that the earth is flat or that 2+2=5, it would then be forever forbidden to say that the earth is round or 2+2=4 because that would be "proxying for a banned user"? *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And as an example he used this which showed her reverting a perfectly valid and benign edit simply because of who the first person was to make the edits. InkSplotch also put it well:

...it distresses me to see the project turned into a battleground to fight real-world battles. Rather, if one user is causing real-world harm to another, there's no action on-wiki that could rectify the situation and this isn't the place for it. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we got an admin lock on the page... And it's Alison's version that remains there. --Bisqwit (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this for a few days and held back from posting, but I can't take it anymore. This is utterly ridiculous. The point of editing Wikipedia is to improve articles. Was this article improved or wasn't it? That's should be the *SOLE* criteria for reverting edits. I don't care about some behind-the-scenes cabal playing politics by punishing some other editor for some other behind-the-scenes behavior. I'm sure the editor in question was banned for good reasons. Fine, ban him. Find a way to block him from further edits. But don't punish the editors of this article and punish the readers of Wikipedia for the sake of punishing one rogue editor.

Does Wikipedia *really* need another Slashdot / Digg article about how the editors are out of control? Please do some soul searching, remove the lock, and restore the article to its previous good version, rather than the current inferior version. Just the fact that you are refusing to put back a generally-agreed better version of the article should tell you that you are in the wrong.

Or to put it another way, once this silliness blows over and the article is unlocked, if I go through and manually put back all the edits without regard to who originally made them, are you going to reject the changes? Is that *information* permanently banned from this article? Nairebis (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely and whole-heartedly agree, Nairebis. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I couldn't care less about what this one rogue editor did offline. I care about the article and only want to improve it. I hate to see it ruined just because someone said some nasty words to someone else. For An Angel (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For future situations, whenever something like this happens and you really just want to make everything right and put in all the proper information, put together a "good" version of the page in your own sandbox. Then, link to that. Everyone else will look it over and say, "yeah, that is better" and (with consensus) might even get put in as the new real page before the lock comes off. Words about how you want to do something don't really allow you to show how you're going to do it, especially when you can already do it. Ok, so it's not the regular page, but you can still get a better version together, make other people aware of it and get that put in as the new version. Banaticus (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Banaticus -- read the full context of the discussion. The issue wasn't that not everyone agreed with the edits (the general consensus agreed with the edits), the issue was that a rogue editor decided to revert the edits of another editor he/she didn't like in order to punish that editor, and then unilaterally locked the page. It was clumsy backroom political nonsense.

Additions to filmography (continued)

Unanswered comment copied from archive:

For a start, they have appeared on at least one documentary on UK terrestrial television. I can't remember the details, but have a feeling the programme was called Network First. It was shortly before the birth of Chloe and Nicole Astbury on 14 September 1995, who were hailed as the first conjoined twins born in the UK for a decade, but I'm told this was pure coincidence.

If anybody knows or can find out enough about this to add it to the list, please do so. Moreover, I would imagine that they have appeared on other, similar documentaries in other parts of the world. -- Smjg 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk page discussion between me and For An Angel:

rv: For An Angel, just because you didn't watch the other programmes doesn't mean they don't exist

I understand what you're saying, in fact I haven't even seen all the ones that are listed and yet I still believe they exist. But I have done research and haven't been able to find any proof that there are others. However, if you know of any others then why don't you just add them? For An Angel (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the archived talk that was referred to in my edit not already answer your question? It seems to to me. -- Smjg (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that. Have you considered the possibility that maybe you are confusing them with someone else? From what you said I've tried looking for anything about it and couldn't find anything. There is also the chance that whatever documentary you saw them on wasn't notable enough to be added. Can you remember anything else about it? For An Angel (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion here. The {{incomplete list}} tag has been lost in a recent revert before the article was protected. And to answer some points in FAA's last comment:

• The programme to which I am referring definitely talked of conjoined twins called Abigail and Brittany. I doubt there are many pairs of conjoined twins with the same names, let alone also with the same rare form of conjoinment and equally able to walk, ride a bike, etc.
• We're talking of a one-off programme here. From what I can make out, the instances already listed are equally either one-off programmes or one-off appearances within a series. What criteria are there on which we can assess the notability of such one-off appearances?
• As for whether I can remember anything else about the programme, I suppose not much really, but I recall that it was about conjoined twins in general, rather than this specific pair, but this pair did get more than just a passing mention.

Comments please! -- Smjg (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

inconsistency

I quote the article: Each of the twins manages one side of their conjoined body and they are uncannily ambidextrous and coordinated in both their arms and legs...By coordinating their efforts, they are able to walk, run... but then: They both successfully passed their driver's license exam, both the written and driving tests....Abby controls the pedals... I think the former is incorrect. If you watch this youtube video their doctor states "above the waist they seem to function independently", implying only one of the twins has control of their legs. -- xlynx (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a doctor nor am I an expert on their particular situation, but if they're driving an automatic, only the right foot is generally used, so it would work even if they each got a leg. And the way I understood the doctor's comment is that, above the waist, they function independently and below the waist, they have that queer coordination of effort that has everyone so excited. -Fuzzy (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't review the quote, but I don't think the doctor intended to imply one twin controlled both legs. All previous sources indicate each one independently controls half of the body, including the legs. No magic "queer coordination" is required for their walking ability. Imagine yourself tied to another person with your inner legs tied up so you're both balancing as one body and two legs. How long would it take you to figure out that you each take a turn moving a foot forward while getting the proper sway motion? A few weeks? And they've had their entire life to practice.

As the twins themselves note, they're just two people stuck together. Nairebis (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

^_^ The phrase "queer coordination" was probably chosen badly. It's the alliterative appeal that made me write it down. But I was under the impression that they have shown an unusual amount of coordination without explicit conversation, indicating either that there's something to the shared spinal cord or that they're dealing with subtle cues of shifting weight, etc. Yes, it is probably something which could be learned by others in such a situation, but it is something which tells us something about human kinesthetics. -Fuzzy (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the "unusual amount of coordination" is in comparison to other conjoined twins, but I think that's mostly related to the fact that they have a relatively high amount of symmetry to their body. Much easier to walk, run and swim when both of them are facing the same direction. :) A lot of news stories play up the "OMG No one knows how they do it!!" angle, but that's media sensationalism. There's nothing they do (physically, speaking) that isn't explained by simple practice.

Now, on the other hand, their shared physiology has a considerable amount of mystery to it, such as the shared circulatory system, shared lung (I think it's shared, not totally sure), dual stomachs merging into a single intestine, etc. But there's no real mystery to their coordination, at least from what's made public. Nairebis (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I suspect that their central nervous systems can communicate via the autonomous nervous system. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's no evidence for it in their physicals (that we know of), and there is no evidence of it based on their abilities. Occam's Razor would warn us that it's less likely than the simpler explanations. Nairebis (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludicrous POV

They are two well-adjusted, vigorous and even athletic people whose complicated but high-functioning anatomy precludes separation. They show a remarkable degree of overall proprioception and they have a strong sense of selfhood, with a balanced blend of individualism and teamwork.

It has been removed. If anyone sees a good reason to add this back in, please explain why before doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.34.249 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The Life cover image used in this article is currently being considered for deletion here. For An Angel (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the old image has already been deleted. That's appropriate, as the photo is of the girls when they were very young. Why not replace it with a more recent photo? For example, the one from February 2007 featured in the One North production "Extrsordinary People - The Twins who share a Body". I tried to do this, but was unsuccessful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpylesley (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Either photo is not a "free" photo. Under the Wikipedia rules regarding pictures of people who are still alive, only truly free (free as in beer, not free as in speach, to use the Linux/GNU analogy) photos can be used on their biography page. If someone wants to take a picture themselves then upload the photo and release all rights to the photo then they can. If the Hensels want to post their own picture up and release it into the public domain, they can. Otherwise, none of us can "borrow" a photo from any non free source, as least on biography pages for people who are still alive. Banaticus (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

When they marry

• how do they deal with charges of bigamy? Just curious, given that when one cohabits with a husband, the other is necessarily along for the ride. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• The law would have to accept it. I read about a similar opposite case, with a pair of ischiopagus tripus conjoined twin men with one set of male genitalia between them: they married one wife. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think their of you understand what the word bigamy means. It's only applicable where a person marries two other people at the same time. Legally, they're two seperate people, no matter what their physical status might be. Unless both of them married a single person, there's no possibility of bigamy. Given that they are two different people with different likes, dislikes, talents, the possibility that they might both fall in love with the exact same person seems remote, to say the least. Since, even in US states that allow common law marriage, the two people involved in the common law marriage must speak of themselves as married, I don't think this could ever be a problem. Banaticus (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do both have sensation below the waist? Who would feel an orgasm (would it be a threesome?) or labor pains? Who's child would it be? How would they handle a pregnancy? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually talked to them a few times 3 years ago. Their parents are real religous nuts, they went to a "christian" high school, and I can tell you that their answer is:"everybody asks that but we don't talk about it". I interpret that to mean "we don't want to think about it." They're 18 now. They told me then they're going to college but haven't picked one yet (they did pick one). One reason they did the documentaries was to pay for college. (Two tuitions, I guess. I hope they're in a co-ed dorm!

I'm pretty sure what will happen soon if it hasn't already is, as with all republicans, the default result when you don't plan to have sex: you and a guy do it anyway one night. In order to get the pussy, he'll have to kiss them both, back and forth. That will probablu set the pattern for marriage, etc. If he's smart, he'll cut a hole in the condom tip to get them pregnant. Then, being religious nuts, they'll have to marry the guy. If that happens, I hope he talks them into making a fuck movie with fgour guys at once. It'd pay millions of dollars. I'd sure as hell do it! TechnoFaye Kane 06:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

...

WTF?

75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Request

Can we make this article consistent with the rest of wikipedia by including a "No free image" line-art that encourages anyone who might own such an image to upload and publish it here? Surely there must be someone out there who has photographed the two headed girl and would like to share that photo in the public domain, I mean, if I saw her you can bet that I'd be reaching for my cam right away, this has gotta be a common reaction, there must be scores of photos out there that people would be willing to share! Msuvula (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Can someone please put a nice photo of the girls on the page? However, Msuvula, the Hensels are conjoined twins, not a 'two-headed girl', and its 'them', not 'her'. Grumpylesley. 58.170.177.11 (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if someone knows them at college, they could ask them nicely for a picture they like. While the twins dislike other people taking their picture in public ("Look at the freak!" kind of pictures), they don't seem to mind pictures taken by themselves or their friends appearing on the Internet, at least based on all the pictures they used to rotate through on their MySpace page. [and I shamefully LOL'd at the "two-headed-girl" comment] Nairebis (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)