Helmet Wankers

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Tom Kunich, Feb 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Q.

    Q. Guest

    "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Q. <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
    > : http://tinyurl.com/25mqd (way too big to post)
    >
    > ohh, come on .. i'm old enuf to remember the BBS days. you could have at least given me one of the
    > nudie ones.

    LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking of when I looked that one up. But this is a public forum,
    and I'm not Janet Jackson (doh!).

    However, since you asked ...

    http://tinyurl.com/3glgs

    And ASCII art is even preserved in a museum:

    http://tinyurl.com/ypz44

    Ahhhh ... the good ol' days of Commodore 64's and daisy wheel printers *sniff*

    C.Q.C.
     


  2. Q. <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
    : Ahhhh ... the good ol' days of Commodore 64's and daisy wheel printers *sniff*

    for me it was imsais & apple2's .. novation applecats, catfur, ascii express, blue boxing bell
    south, CP/M, g-files, gbbs, fidonet, LoD, pdp11s, RSTS/E, VMS, unix, the 414 gang and busts by the
    secret service.

    ahhhhh, youth!

    & those graphics were beautiful. picture #6 is in the style i remember.

    somewhere around here i've got a mess of floppies full of g-files and BBS sessions. pity i don't
    have an 8" drive anywhere.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  3. Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:45:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >As is always the case at this time of the year, some wanker has to bring up helmets in a way that
    > >shows helmet wankers as what they are - stupid ass blowhards:
    >
    > As is always the case when some jerkoff wants a MHL, somebody trolls to start another usenet
    > helmet war.
    >
    > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3451325.stm
    >
    > That is pretty dumb.

    Indeed. I would say the health benefits from a wide brimmed hat outweight the slight chance of
    a head injury from falling in that environment. The case in point was from 2001? It's hardly
    an epidemic.

    >
    > >You can take the cowboy out of the country but you can't take the hat off of the cowboy.
    >
    > Don't confuse country cowboys with Australian bushmen a la Crocodile Dundee.

    WTF? Bushmen live in the Kalahari, and I'm sure even they don't call themselves that. The correct
    term is jackaroo. For the record, 'Crocodile' Dundee, in the fictional universe created in the
    movie, was neither a bushman nor a jackaroo. The correct term for what he was is 'poacher'.

    HTH ;)

    Allister
     
  4. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On 3 Feb 2004 19:04:37 -0800, [email protected] (Allister
    McLaren) wrote:
    >> >You can take the cowboy out of the country but you can't take the hat off of the cowboy.
    >>
    >> Don't confuse country cowboys with Australian bushmen a la Crocodile Dundee.
    >
    >WTF? Bushmen live in the Kalahari, and I'm sure even they don't call themselves that. The correct
    >term is jackaroo.

    ...and cowboys live everywhere, and don't call themselves that. The correct term is farmer. I was
    saying "get your stereotypes right", not "stop stereotyping". "Stop stereotyping" is a whole
    other argument.

    >For the record, 'Crocodile' Dundee, in the fictional universe created in the movie, was neither a
    >bushman nor a jackaroo. The correct term for what he was is 'poacher'.

    He claimed to be a bushman, just as characters in western movies call themselves cowboys when they
    never touch a cow...the correct term is 'outlaw' or sometimes 'vigilante'.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  5. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    "CSB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:45:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    <snip>
    >
    > >You can take the cowboy out of the country but you can't take the hat off
    of
    > >the cowboy.
    > >

    as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall. It is a tradition for these guys
    to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not anymore say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was
    negligent for not making these guys wear helmets.

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/02/1075570335910.html
     
  6. Peter Keller

    Peter Keller Guest

    On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:52:02 +0000, Tom Kunich wrote:

    > "Peter Keller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:p[email protected]...
    >
    >> > Christopher Reeves fell from a horse and landed *helmet first* ... fat
    > lotta
    >> > good it did him.
    >> >
    >> > C.Q.C.
    >>
    >> You wouldn't expect it to. I don't see any way a helmet can protect against neck injury.
    >>
    >> --
    >> This transmission is certified free of viruses as no Microsoft products were used in its
    >> preparation or propagation.
    >
    >
    > Of course you can't relive an old injury but some people believe that if he wasn't wearing the
    > helmet he would have sustained a fractured skull that would have given him a better chance of
    > complete recovery.
    >
    > But "what if's" aren't worth a damn.

    I agree. I can think of advantages and disadvantages, reasons to wear a helmet and reasons not to
    wear. The statistics are, to say the least, inconsistent and randomly confusing; unlike the
    statistics for wearing seatbelts which show in general a good positive effect. In this situation I
    don't think a mandatory law is helpful at all; intelligent people should be able to make up their
    own minds considering their personal circumstances. Peter

    --
    This transmission is certified free of viruses as no Microsoft products were used in its preparation
    or propagation.
     
  7. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall. It is
    a
    > tradition for these guys to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not
    anymore
    > say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was negligent for not making these guys wear helmets.

    So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century?

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  8. > So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century?

    About 15 a year apparently.

    Of course, inevitably, they are going to have to apply the same standard to all those people driving
    company cars and force them to wear helmets.
     
  9. Fred Nieman

    Fred Nieman Guest

    Terry Collins wrote:
    >
    > > So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century?
    >
    > About 15 a year apparently.
    >
    > Of course, inevitably, they are going to have to apply the same standard to all those people
    > driving company cars and force them to wear helmets.

    Car helmets - bad idea, obviously. If it wasn't, racing drivers would wear them. Oops, they do.

    Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed
    scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be strapped
    in by seatbelts.

    ----
    If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and take a
    bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b) a fool.

    Collar-bones heal. Scafoids (most times) heal. Broken arms, dislocated shoulders, skin over ankles,
    knees, hips, back, arms and hands all heal. Acquired brain injuries don't heal. Of course, people
    with ABIs can and do sometimes regain abilities. But it's not like waiting six weeks for the cast to
    come off then simply doing what you did before the fall - ask someone with an ABI.

    A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and ripped
    up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did mean I can
    still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.

    And same goes for all the many less major falls before and after - any a hit to my bare head, on
    pavement, car, trail or whatever, might have meant a concussion, a subdural haemorrhage, or worse. I
    haven't had to find this out, though. Because... well, you know why.

    I could go on, but time to stop sermonising. And sorry for the crosspost to u.r.c, but, ummm, you
    started it? (joke!)

    p
     
  10. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Fred Nieman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed
    > scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be
    > strapped in by seatbelts.

    Remember there were once people who compared the fatality rates in countries with and without sealt
    belt laws and found them to be the same. Obviously that couldn't be right, so that data was buried.
    Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver fatalities stayed the same! But
    there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities.

    > If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and take a
    > bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b) a fool.

    There is no inevitability about it.

    > Collar-bones heal. Scafoids (most times) heal. Broken arms, dislocated shoulders, skin over
    > ankles, knees, hips, back, arms and hands all heal. Acquired brain injuries don't heal.

    And acquired brain injuries - amazingly - are mostly caused by crashes well outside the design
    envelope of hlemets, and by mechanisms which helmets do nothing to mitigate.

    > A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and
    > ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did
    > mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.

    Or not. Maybe it was your Mk. 1 Skull which did the job. That would be a reasonable assumption,
    given that people not wearing helmets also often survive without significant injury. That's the
    problem with helmet-saved-my-life anecdotes, they always attribute the outcome solely to helmets.
    Why? Lids are designed for straight impacts at speeds up to about 12mph. Why should we assume that
    they work in glancing or rotational impacts at higher speeds? And what about the people who die when
    wearing helmets? And the people who don't die when not wearing helmets?

    At the population level it's not possible to proive that helmets have any effect on brain injury.
    And even then, most cyclists who die of head injury turn out to have other mortal injuries as well.

    The case for helmets really is not half as cut-and-dried as the Liddites would like us to believe.

    The only absolutely repeatable effect of helmet legislation is a substantial drop in cycling. And
    the major determinant of risk for cyclists appears to be the number of cyclists - the more people
    cycle, the safer it gets.

    > And same goes for all the many less major falls before and after - any a hit to my bare head, on
    > pavement, car, trail or whatever, might have meant a concussion, a subdural haemorrhage, or worse.
    > I haven't had to find this out, though. Because... well, you know why.

    Why? I have had several crashes with and without helmets and there was no noticeable difference in
    outcomes. The most serious head injury I ever had was going through a low doorway. Should we have
    compulsory helmets in old buildings? Or only for tall people?

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  11. > Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed
    > scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be
    > strapped in by seatbelts.

    I love statements like this - wonder if it's true. Prize for whoever can point out why this
    statement, if true, is still a load of balls

    > If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and take a
    > bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b) a fool.

    With you so far.

    > Collar-bones heal. Scafoids (most times) heal. Broken arms, dislocated shoulders, skin over
    > ankles, knees, hips, back, arms and hands all heal. Acquired brain injuries don't heal. Of course,
    > people with ABIs can and do sometimes regain abilities. But it's not like waiting six weeks for
    > the cast to come off then simply doing what you did before the fall - ask someone with an ABI.

    Go on...

    > A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and
    > ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph.

    yep...

    > But it did mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.

    Cycle helmets don't protect very well against the sort of impacts that cause brain damage. See
    Curnow[1] for a lengthier description of why not. I think it's online somewhere, though you will
    certainly be able to get the abstract from the journals website, or do a search on google (I've
    posted it here before).

    See also this letter [2]. Unfortunately the git who wrote it didn't provide references :-(

    It's not all bad though - ages ago someone was designing a helmet that would do better[3] but they
    haven't turned up on the market yet.

    > And same goes for all the many less major falls before and after - any a hit to my bare head, on
    > pavement, car, trail or whatever, might have meant a concussion, a subdural haemorrhage, or worse.
    > I haven't had to find this out, though. Because... well, you know why.

    Yes, headbutting things is dangerous. But No, cycling is not dangerous. I know that if you hit your
    head it could be serious, but the same applies to walking - and walking appears to be more dangerous
    than cycling![4] Yes at some point we are going to fall off our bikes, and sometimes we'll hit our
    heads and sometimes it'll be serious and a lot of the time a helmet'll help. But it doesn't change
    the fact that cycling is so safe that we needn't feel compelled to wear a helmet. The extreme
    unliklihood of suffering brain damage or dying, coupled with the relatively small protective benefit
    of the helmet in serious crashes makes it more understandable when others do not wear a helmet.

    > I could go on, but time to stop sermonising.

    B'ah, at least you're setting two good examples for us u.r.c. reprobates :)

    [1] Curnow W.J., 'The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury' Accident Analysis and
    Prevention: 2003; 5.2.03 (You can probably get it via JSTOR)
    [2] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1054.html
    [3] http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999418
    [4] http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6536.xls
     
  12. Mark Thompson wrote:

    >> Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed
    >> scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be
    >> strapped in by seatbelts.
    >
    > I love statements like this - wonder if it's true. Prize for whoever can point out why this
    > statement, if true, is still a load of balls

    It was certainly the feeling among racing drivers in the 1950's and given that the cars were usually
    made from cheese and tended to douse the driver in burning fuel when they hit solid objects, it
    /may/ even have been correct. However, there were a fair few who were thrown out and and were still
    killed, as well as those who stayed aboard and survived.

    The late Masten Gregory certainly believed it, though, since he jumped out of sports-racing cars
    shortly before they hit the scenery at three-figure speeds at least twice, and survived to die of a
    heart attack in 1985.

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>,
    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
    |> "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    |> server.bigpond.net.au...
    |>
    |> > as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall. It is
    |> a
    |> > tradition for these guys to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not
    |> anymore
    |> > say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was negligent for not making these guys wear
    |> > helmets.
    |>
    |> So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century?

    Several a year, I would expect. He would have been on either a horse or a motorbike.

    Regards, Nick Maclaren.
     
  14. S. Anderson

    S. Anderson Guest

    "Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)>
    wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed
    > > scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be
    > > strapped in by seatbelts.
    >
    > I love statements like this - wonder if it's true. Prize for whoever can
    point
    > out why this statement, if true, is still a load of balls

    It's quite true. But perhaps not for the reason it's being touted. Back in the days of Fangio,
    Nuvolari etc., the common logic was that it was better to be thrown clear of The Wreck rather than
    risk being trapped in the car and crushed in a rollover, or worse, burned to death. Those early race
    cars were death traps, and not just because they didn't have seatbelts! At that time, race car
    driver fatalities ran at about 50% of the drivers. And of course, there is the macho factor. It
    wasn't until the wee Scot, Jackie Stewart, came along tht driver safety became a priority. After his
    somewhat brief and highly successful career, driver fatality rates came down pretty quickly, thanks
    to technology as well no doubt. He campaigned hard for safety improvements. Today, I'm sure no
    driver would think of racing without a full 5-point harness and helmet and fire suit, but there was
    a time when they raced at 180mph in an open-cockpit with a polo shirt and khakis on. Doesn't make it
    right, but it was the common logic of the day..

    Cheers,

    Scott..
     
  15. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Only a few guys in the world of Usenet could state the case against helmets with such clarity. And
    since I know you ain't me (And since I also don't believe that I could state the case so eloquently
    even then) I can guess who you am.

    Tom

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Fred Nieman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed
    > > scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be
    > > strapped in by seatbelts.
    >
    > Remember there were once people who compared the fatality rates in
    countries
    > with and without sealt belt laws and found them to be the same. Obviously that couldn't be right,
    > so that data was buried. Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver
    > fatalities stayed the same!
    But
    > there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat
    passenger
    > fatalities.
    >
    > > If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and
    > > take a bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b)
    > > a fool.
    >
    > There is no inevitability about it.
    >
    > > Collar-bones heal. Scafoids (most times) heal. Broken arms, dislocated shoulders, skin over
    > > ankles, knees, hips, back, arms and hands all heal. Acquired brain injuries don't heal.
    >
    > And acquired brain injuries - amazingly - are mostly caused by crashes
    well
    > outside the design envelope of hlemets, and by mechanisms which helmets do nothing to mitigate.
    >
    > > A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and
    > > ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did
    > > mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.
    >
    > Or not. Maybe it was your Mk. 1 Skull which did the job. That would be a reasonable assumption,
    > given that people not wearing helmets also often survive without significant injury. That's the
    > problem with helmet-saved-my-life anecdotes, they always attribute the outcome solely
    to
    > helmets. Why? Lids are designed for straight impacts at speeds up to
    about
    > 12mph. Why should we assume that they work in glancing or rotational impacts at higher speeds? And
    > what about the people who die when wearing helmets? And the people who don't die when not wearing
    > helmets?
    >
    > At the population level it's not possible to proive that helmets have any effect on brain injury.
    > And even then, most cyclists who die of head
    injury
    > turn out to have other mortal injuries as well.
    >
    > The case for helmets really is not half as cut-and-dried as the Liddites would like us to believe.
    >
    > The only absolutely repeatable effect of helmet legislation is a
    substantial
    > drop in cycling. And the major determinant of risk for cyclists appears
    to
    > be the number of cyclists - the more people cycle, the safer it gets.
    >
    > > And same goes for all the many less major falls before and after - any a hit to my bare head, on
    > > pavement, car, trail or whatever, might have meant a concussion, a subdural haemorrhage, or
    > > worse. I haven't had to find this out, though. Because... well, you know why.
    >
    >
    > Why? I have had several crashes with and without helmets and there was no noticeable difference in
    > outcomes. The most serious head injury I ever
    had
    > was going through a low doorway. Should we have compulsory helmets in old buildings? Or only for
    > tall people?
    >
    > --
    > Guy
    > ===
    >
    > WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  16. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "S. Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > It wasn't until the wee Scot, Jackie Stewart, came along tht driver safety became a priority.
    > After his
    somewhat
    > brief and highly successful career, driver fatality rates came down pretty quickly, thanks to
    > technology as well no doubt. He campaigned hard for safety improvements. Today, I'm sure no driver
    > would think of racing without a full 5-point harness and helmet and fire suit, but there was a
    > time when they raced at 180mph in an open-cockpit with a polo shirt and khakis on. Doesn't make it
    > right, but it was the common logic of the
    day..

    Let's be sure to note that I for one have been at the scene of several of what looked to be rather
    minor car racing accidents in which the occupant/driver died despite seat belts, helmets and
    whatever else.
     
  17. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > server.bigpond.net.au...
    >
    > > as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall. It
    is
    > a
    > > tradition for these guys to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not
    > anymore
    > > say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was negligent for not
    making
    > > these guys wear helmets.
    >
    > So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century?
    >
    > --
    > Guy
    > ===
    >
    > WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
    >
    >

    If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you placing
    on looking cool?

    In this country it is also law to wear hard hats in mining operations and in any industrial areas.
    Not to mention steel capped boots and the like. I have to wear these things in sometimes what most
    would think was a rediculous place but I dont mind because it saves lives and I work a lot in
    industrial areas. Workers who have long hair are required to wear nets when using lathes or other
    machinery where it could get caught.

    Recently a young apprentice (on his first day) was killed falling off the roof of a small building
    (only from 1st floor) and was killed. The employer was charged because the worker was not tied to
    the roof. That is also law.

    It is compulsory in this country for employers to look after their workers. That is a fact and that
    is what I was saying. It is a work situation. Nothing to do with what you do on the weekend.

    BTW not wearing a bicycle helmet is an offence work or not. The fine is measly and not really
    policed. (Well obvious in my city anyway).
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>,
    John Doe <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you placing
    >on looking cool?

    And if the cost of saving that one life is two people who died because they were wearing helmets
    (and wouldn't have done if they weren't), then is it still a good idea to make them mandatory?

    The point is that we really don't know whether they increase or reduce injury, and the evidence
    points in both directions. Why do you claim Divine Enlightenment to know what the truth is?

    Regards, Nick Maclaren.
     
  19. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    "Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    > <[email protected]> writes:
    > |> "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > |> server.bigpond.net.au...
    > |>
    > |> > as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall.
    It is
    > |> a
    > |> > tradition for these guys to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not
    > |> anymore
    > |> > say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was negligent for not
    making
    > |> > these guys wear helmets.
    > |>
    > |> So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century?
    >
    > Several a year, I would expect. He would have been on either a horse or a motorbike.
    >
    >
    > Regards, Nick Maclaren.

    True, Motorbikes are common for mustering.
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:33:56 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I can guess who you am.

    Heh! I can do better than that - I *know* who I am :)

    To be fair, I've been practicing - some twonk wants to make it a criminal offence to allow a child
    to ride a tricycle in a public park without a polystyrene foam deflector beanie; some of us are Less
    Than Enthused by the prospect.

    <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Martlew_Bill>

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...