|
tomcat
Feb 25, 2009, 4:04 PM
Post #26 of 76
(4800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
An aspect of this discussion is which side of you the leader falls to.If they fall to your left,and you are braking with your right hand,even if you are turned 180,it's still functional.If they fall to your right,you may have difficulty keeping the "bend back" sufficient to maintain control.
|
|
|
|
|
Sin
Feb 25, 2009, 4:38 PM
Post #27 of 76
(4790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 236
|
USnavy wrote: Sin wrote: USnavy wrote: May god be with you if your climber takes a factor two fall right onto the belay device because no one else will be. Extreme rope slippage is absolutely without a doubt guaranteed if your leader takes a factor two fall right onto the belay device. The only chance he will have is if you are wearing gloves. If I'm correct aren't you barely getting in to multi pitch? Even if the belay device is on the anchor, the device is still catching the fall, rope slipage there too? We are talking about trad, right?? I don’t have to have taken a factor two fall to understand them. Furthermore, experience climbing multi-pitch does not automatically translate into automatic knowledge of the workings of a factor two fall solely from the act of climbing multi-pitch. Only experience catching or taking factor two falls is valid for that class. That's a load of shit! First you say undestand how ff2 work, than you go off and say that taking or catching ff2 falls is the only way to understand them. Dude, being on a multi pitch shows you the danger of what could happen and why you need to put on that first piece. I really haven't seen any one in my area belay of off the anchor, it is not common practice! If you want to climb multi trad, I would climb with that buddy of yours that has decades of experience. Tell him to teach you about anchors.....
|
|
|
|
|
Sin
Feb 25, 2009, 5:05 PM
Post #28 of 76
(4783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 236
|
By the way, is your statment an assumption, or have you seen someone take a ff2 on their device and have major slippage? You seem to state that shit as fact!
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Feb 25, 2009, 5:23 PM
Post #29 of 76
(4774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
theclaw wrote: To respond to your first question of belay from you harness or directly from the anchor in a lead belay situation belaying directly from the anchor can be very dangerous. If the leader successfully prevented a FF2 by placing one single piece capable of holding falls above the anchor the direction the rope will pull your belay device is up. If you anchor is not designed for an upward direction of pull in addition to a downward one the force of just about any lead fall will rip your anchor straight out of the wall and both of you will plummet to the ground. Of course, it is fairly easy to build an anchor to withstand upward pulls but if you are new I'd say better be safe than sorry and always lead belay of your harness. In terms of this whole changing brake position for FF2, I don't have any experience catching them, but it sounds reasonable. However, some things about FF2: 1. don't take them 2. they are easy to prevent; fall factor is reduced by climbing high and placing protection (FF=distance fallen/amount of rope between climber and belayer). even clipping a piece of your anchor before leaving it will reduce you fall factor and prevent any need to change your brake position. clipping this anchor piece does not mean you should then run out the climb for the first 30 feet, place another piece ASAP. the difference between FF1.9 and FF2 barely exists. 3. just because a leader falls below the belay it is not necessarily a FF2. the leader must fall directly onto the belayer, no protection what-so-ever 4. just don't take them. the force generated has the ability to rip some of the most bomb-proof anchors straight out of the wall. once again sending both of you plummeting towards the ground I think some of your information is a little off here. According to this study done by Yates. It reports that the impact forces of a high factor falls to the anchor- and goes on to state that a FF1 fall has the impact force of 11KN and a FF2 only 9KN and a 1.99 FF has the impact force of 15KN. I double checked this with the hard copy I have with my gear thinking my self it to be a type-o. Also: this statement is on the hardcopy and was not shown on their website. “true FF 2 falls do not allow any mechanical advantage effect to protection and result in only allowing “maximum impact force of the specific rope” to the anchor which must be under 10 KN . Fall Factor 2 falls result in falls directly on to the belay.” http://www.yatesgear.com/...ing/screamer/use.htm
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 25, 2009, 6:36 PM
Post #30 of 76
(4749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
rgold wrote: As for the hand position, consider first of all what happens during the catch (based on thousands of trials, filmed in high-speed video, by the CAI). Do you know if these videos are available somewhere. I would like to see a few.
rgold wrote: On the other hand, if the belayer belays palm up until the rope is clipped through a bombproof anchor point and brakes by bringing the palm up to the chest, then they get the benefit of the longest possible inertial stage under the circumstances and, with the hand arriving at the device from above rather than from the side or below, benefit from all the friction the device is designed to provide. I do want to make it clear that the CAI did not test factor-2 falls and all of this is supposition. In the absence of actual tests, which will probably never be done with human belayers, wearing gloves, belaying palm up, and braking at chest level until the first piece is clipped seems to me to be the most rational approach Good observation on the impact of hand orientation on the dynamics of catching a fall directly on to the harness or power point. A nice trick of the trade to have. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Feb 25, 2009, 6:49 PM
Post #31 of 76
(4752 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
The trickiest situation would be if the first piece blows and the anticipated direction of pull is no longer the correct one. I think in that case that the hands at the hip approach would be best. The range given by the belay loop allows the device to go sufficiently above or below that level to ensure braking.
|
|
|
|
|
theclaw
Feb 25, 2009, 7:23 PM
Post #32 of 76
(4731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2008
Posts: 10
|
The website link you posted is forces exerted while using a screamer. And yes, it is true that using a screamer between the belay and anchor will significantly reduce the force on everything in the system; it's what they are designed for. However I'm talking the most-simple three-piece anchor, no screamer. FF2 generates the most possible force on a fall. This is physics. When a FF2 takes place the fall is directly on to the harness of the belayer, true, but without a screamer no ripping or dynamic belaying occurs and all that force is then transferred directly to the anchor. I don't want to explain the physics behind forces in fall factors, I'm a climber not a physicist, and honestly they are way over my head. Maybe sometime I'll find them online.
(This post was edited by theclaw on Feb 25, 2009, 7:25 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Feb 25, 2009, 7:24 PM
Post #33 of 76
(4729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
NA, some videos were shown, I think, at a presentation made at an Alpine Club of Canada meeting. I think I might have a link on my other computer, but that is only to a transcript of the commentary. If you read Italian, you might be able to get a lot more information from the CCMT site http://www.caimateriali.org/
|
|
|
|
|
Tipton
Feb 25, 2009, 7:27 PM
Post #34 of 76
(4728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2007
Posts: 272
|
clintcummins wrote: If there is a high risk of a fall before getting the first gear in the next pitch, or if the gear is not good, the belayer can hang say 20' below the belay anchor, tethered by their rope. Then the leader clips the belay anchor as their first protection (they can use a "screamer" type load-absorbing runner when they clip the anchor also). This avoids the problems of a factor 2 fall. This is a brilliant idea and I'm shocked that I've never heard of it before. It has two benefits, first it allows more rope into the system meaning that it is effectively no longer a factor two fall, second it provides more room for the belayer to get lifted upwards effectively limiting the force. This isn't something I'd do every time, or ever for that matter, but in the event of a sketchy belay without gear over it this could definitely make a huge difference. Edit: After reviewing the Super Topo thread, it appears that this is not a valid solution due to the pulley effect neutralizing the gain of the extra rope out after a short distance.
(This post was edited by Tipton on Feb 25, 2009, 9:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 25, 2009, 7:34 PM
Post #35 of 76
(4724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
rgold wrote: NA, some videos were shown, I think, at a presentation made at an Alpine Club of Canada meeting. I think I might have a link on my other computer, but that is only to a transcript of the commentary. If you read Italian, you might be able to get a lot more information from the CCMT site http://www.caimateriali.org/ Unfortunately I don't read Italian. It's too bad the videos aren't available, I'd be curious to see the close up movements of the hands, belay device and body under that kind of force.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Feb 25, 2009, 7:41 PM
Post #36 of 76
(4715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
NA, I did see some stills somewhere...I'll try to figure out where. It is possible the link needed is on rc.com...
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 25, 2009, 7:44 PM
Post #37 of 76
(4715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Tipton wrote: clintcummins wrote: If there is a high risk of a fall before getting the first gear in the next pitch, or if the gear is not good, the belayer can hang say 20' below the belay anchor, tethered by their rope. Then the leader clips the belay anchor as their first protection (they can use a "screamer" type load-absorbing runner when they clip the anchor also). This avoids the problems of a factor 2 fall. This is a brilliant idea and I'm shocked that I've never heard of it before. It has two benefits, first it allows more rope into the system meaning that it is effectively no longer a factor two fall, second it provides more room for the belayer to get lifted upwards effectively limiting the force. This isn't something I'd do every time, or ever for that matter, but in the event of a sketchy belay without gear over it this could definitely make a huge difference. I suggested exactly this (among other important solutions) the last time this thread happened. As a general rule, I find that having the anchor as high above you as is feasible improves a lot of things. GO
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Feb 25, 2009, 8:04 PM
Post #38 of 76
(4703 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
theclaw wrote: The website link you posted is forces exerted while using a screamer. And yes, it is true that using a screamer between the belay and anchor will significantly reduce the force on everything in the system; it's what they are designed for. However I'm talking the most-simple three-piece anchor, no screamer. FF2 generates the most possible force on a fall. This is physics. When a FF2 takes place the fall is directly on to the harness of the belayer, true, but without a screamer no ripping or dynamic belaying occurs and all that force is then transferred directly to the anchor. I don't want to explain the physics behind forces in fall factors, I'm a climber not a physicist, and honestly they are way over my head. Maybe sometime I'll find them online. I specifically quoted results from the table, section - Labeled “ IMPACT FORCE TO ANCHOR W/OUT SCREAMER”
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 25, 2009, 8:21 PM
Post #39 of 76
(4692 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ladyscarlett wrote: So I was poking around for information on the pros and cons of lead belaying off the anchor (with the belay device on the anchor, not the belayer's harness, if I'm using the wrong terminology, please let me know.) It is called a direct belay.
In reply to: In practice, I have asked my leaders what they want me to do, and every time, they tell me to have the belay device from my harness, and me into the anchor so that my body will help absorb the force (?) in the event they fall. This makes sense, and it's what they want, so no problems. However, upon trawling the interweb, I found this in regards to falling before the first "jesus nut" (just finished The Book!) is placed... In reply to: TradIsGood: The alternative of belaying directly off the belayer's harness carries its own risk that perhaps is not well understood by those who most commonly set up the pulley. If the factor 2 onto the belayer occurs, the belayer must immediately (before the load) alter the position of his brake hand from below the waist to above the waist at which point he will then be absorbing a downward load. - from supertopo I think... I read that thread on Supertopo, and the context of the post was not belaying with the device on the harness vs a direct belay; it was belaying directly off the harness vs clipping the lead rope through the anchor, sometimes referred to as a redirect belay. The redirect belay reduces the impact force that the belayer feels and keeps the direction of pull in the familiar upward position, but it increases the force on the anchor, due to pulley effect. So, in principle, there are three options: direct belay, belay direct from the harness, and redirected belay. With an ATC-style belay device it would be nearly impossible to hold a factor-2 fall with the device attached to the anchor: the braking direction would be upward, but the belayer would normally be below the anchor, and hence below the device, making it impossible to achieve the braking position. With a grigri directly on the anchor, you wouldn't have the braking position problem, but you'd risk exposing the anchor to a nearly complete static catch of a factor-2 fall without the benefit of the belayer's body and tie-in to absorb some of the energy. That might be acceptable if the anchor consists of three unquestionably bomber bolts; otherwise, no way IMNSHO. That narrows the choices down to two: belaying directly off the harness and redirecting the belay through the anchor. That's a much less cut-and-dried decision. You should read through this thread on Supertopo to see why. In addition, if you redirect the belay, you face the (supposed) choice of redirecting through one piece of the anchor or the master point. Many climbers redirect through a single anchor point, for some reason. But it's a practice that I consider patently wrong. At a minimum it is inconsistent with the practice of building an equalized anchor (since it negates the equalization); at worst, it is catastrophically dangerous, exposing a single point of the belay anchor to a higher impact force than a direct factor-2 fall would have produced (due to pulley effect). Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ladyscarlett
Feb 25, 2009, 8:22 PM
Post #40 of 76
(4690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 376
|
yes, reading that discussion prompted this post. There was a lot of info and not really distilled for the beginner, so I posted in the beginner section in hopes of some perspectives that stupid ol me could grasp.
USnavy wrote: N_Oo_B wrote: belaying suprasses superficial pains such as rope burns, etc. Thats very dangerous thinking. Tell that to every new belayer that has dropped a climber using an auto-locking belay device. Most commonly, when a climber is dropped from an auto-locking belay device the belayer follows this process: 1. Climber gets to the top of the climb and is ready to be lowered. 2. Belayer opens the brake and the rope starts to slide through the belay device. 3. The rope starts slideing through the belay device too fast. 4. The belayer gets minor rope burn and starts to panic. 5. The belayer pulls on open the handle as hard as she / he can forgetting that the harder he / she pull on it, the less friction the device produces. 6. The feed speed of the rope becomes dangerously excessive and the friction produced by the belay device becomes increasingly smaller. 7. The belayer tries to control the feed speed by squeezing the rope harder. 8. The belayer instantly sustains rope burn and lightens up their grip on the rope to eliminate the pain. 9. The climber hits the ground. It’s always the same. I have seen it many times and had it happen to myself once. The only thing that saved me was yelling “LET GO OF THE HANDLE!!!!!!!!!!!”. Fortunately my belayer was not a complete moron and did what I said which stopped my 35 foot free fall instantly pulling the belayer 10 feet into the air. When I got to the ground I asked her what happened. She said "the rope burned my hand and I couldent hold on". The problem comes in when a belayer grips a rope that is moving at high speed. Squeezing any rope that is moving at high speed will cause instantaneously severe pain and to think your belayer will “just ignore it” is very dangerous thinking. Sounds like a Bad Situation there. I see where your advice is coming from. Luckily enough, except for the fall itself, the situation you describe is not really applicable to my hypothetical of falling on a multipitch trad before the first piece is placed. I do recognize the dangers of rope burn and though I haven't needed them yet, always carry at least one glove in my pack - just in case. I guess I was trying to get a better idea of the way I as the belayer interact with the forces involved in taking a high factor trad lead fall, from what my belay device (not a gri gri) will do, how the forces will affect me as a part of the system, and be clear on what I need to do to be an effective part of the system - with rope burn being a factor. It sounds like what I described happens only in a FF2, not just high factor, situation. I can only hope to avoid FF2 altogether, but in understanding the FF2 situation, I hope to understand what I need to do for high FF falls, which may be more likely especially since most of my partners outweigh me. Thanks for the insight... ls
|
|
|
|
|
Sin
Feb 25, 2009, 8:45 PM
Post #41 of 76
(4675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 236
|
What book have you finished scarlett? In Climbing Anchors, it states that a belay anchor is not yet completed until the jesus nut is put in. If there is any doubt in your climbing ability, above the belay anchor, or you don't see a spot right off the belay to place gear, then you should consider letting your, hopefully more experienced, partner take the sharp end. As a last resort rap off.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Feb 25, 2009, 8:58 PM
Post #42 of 76
(4669 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
Just look at http://en.petzl.com/petzl/SportConseils?Conseil=24&Activite=15 which is the opinion of one of the worlds major manufacturers. You can compare it with the posts on this thread if you want a laugh!
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Feb 25, 2009, 9:02 PM
Post #43 of 76
(4668 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
Just like many others I do not recommend belaying directly from an anchor. I use to run the line through a directional (one or two points depending on the placements, completely separate from the anchor ) so that would be 2 to 3 points to me and the belay device, and 1 or 2 points for the directional . Now depending on the climb I use the same system with a sortie screamer on the directional. If I am on a climb with good protection I don’t bother with the screamers and chances of blowing out all my good gear placements is minimal however doing R rated climbs where pro is marginal at best I use the screamers. I have yet to call upon one but it seems to me a good idea. hope that helps
|
|
|
|
|
ladyscarlett
Feb 25, 2009, 9:38 PM
Post #44 of 76
(4632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 376
|
Sin wrote: What book have you finished scarlett? In Climbing Anchors, it states that a belay anchor is not yet completed until the jesus nut is put in. If there is any doubt in your climbing ability, above the belay anchor, or you don't see a spot right off the belay to place gear, then you should consider letting your, hopefully more experienced, partner take the sharp end. As a last resort rap off. Climbing Anchors by John Long and someone else - I think. Don't have the book in front of me.... and yes I remember that the jesus nut is a part of the anchor - I vividly remember the "bad" picture. I'm just aiming for my first trad this season, very very beginner, so if I didn't see a spot for placing, probably pass the sharp end to my more experienced partners... At this point in my climbing I have this theory that if I can't do the first few moves, am I really ready to do the whole climb? But learning to belay people who outwiegh me by at least 40lbs is a learning experience as well. I don't expect to be in a situation where I will be catching a FF2 fall before the jesus nut is in place any time soon, but I also want to understand how to deal with it when it or something similar occurs. One more thing...If I'm belaying with my right hand, my leader is climbing to the right of me, falls below the anchor to the right of me, my hand comes up to lock, because the direction of pulls is reversed so to speak, would the device twist the belay loop? I thought that a twist in the belay loop is Bad. Thanks for humoring the newbie. ls
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Feb 25, 2009, 9:42 PM
Post #45 of 76
(4627 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
No because ,the load will pull you towards the direction of the directional
(This post was edited by jaablink on Feb 25, 2009, 9:47 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ladyscarlett
Feb 25, 2009, 9:53 PM
Post #46 of 76
(4619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 376
|
sorry to be dense, but the directional? Is this the redirect off the anchor? once again, having difficulty visualizing... ls
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Feb 25, 2009, 10:30 PM
Post #47 of 76
(4602 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
jt512 wrote: ladyscarlett wrote: So I was poking around for information on the pros and cons of lead belaying off the anchor (with the belay device on the anchor, not the belayer's harness, if I'm using the wrong terminology, please let me know.) It is called a direct belay. In reply to: In practice, I have asked my leaders what they want me to do, and every time, they tell me to have the belay device from my harness, and me into the anchor so that my body will help absorb the force (?) in the event they fall. This makes sense, and it's what they want, so no problems. However, upon trawling the interweb, I found this in regards to falling before the first "jesus nut" (just finished The Book!) is placed... In reply to: TradIsGood: The alternative of belaying directly off the belayer's harness carries its own risk that perhaps is not well understood by those who most commonly set up the pulley. If the factor 2 onto the belayer occurs, the belayer must immediately (before the load) alter the position of his brake hand from below the waist to above the waist at which point he will then be absorbing a downward load. - from supertopo I think... With a grigri directly on the anchor, you wouldn't have the braking position problem, but you'd risk exposing the anchor to a nearly complete static catch of a factor-2 fall Jay Actually, with a 10.5 mm rope the GriGri will slip on a factor one fall when belayed off the anchors. The GriGri will slip enough on any fall with a 10.5 mm rope to limit the force to around 5 kN as shown in the user manual of the device. So if you took a factor two fall right onto a GriGri that was mounted to the anchors with a 10.5 mm rope the device would slip when the peek force hit around 5 kN. If you were using a thinner rope, the device would slip sooner. Although that’s not as dynamic as a plate belay device, its more dynamic the relying solely on rope stretch to stop you. Although thats not as dynamic as a plate belay device, its more dynamic the relieing soly on rope strech to stop you.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 25, 2009, 10:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
michael_lassen
Feb 25, 2009, 10:37 PM
Post #48 of 76
(4596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2007
Posts: 10
|
rgold wrote: NA, some videos were shown, I think, at a presentation made at an Alpine Club of Canada meeting. I think I might have a link on my other computer, but that is only to a transcript of the commentary. If you read Italian, you might be able to get a lot more information from the CCMT site http://www.caimateriali.org/ A preliminary description of the experiments done by the CAI can be found at the UIAA's website: http://www.theuiaa.org/act_safety.html The document is titled "Analysis of belyaing techniques" and is written by Carlo Zanantoni . There is no real conclusion to be found in the document, and no official document has emerged from the UIAA since. At the website of the Alpine Club of Canada a document was written after a presentation of the videos: http://www.alpineclubofcanada.ca/...safety/articles.html In the document there is an interesting comment by Carlo Zanantino: The comment is to the sentence: "In this film it was shown that the harness belay which, as we know, has unquestionable convenience at sports crags, can pose more than minor problems, and we advised against its use, except in particular situations, for example when there are enough sufficiently angled quickdraws" To this Carlo Zanantion writes: "This statement does not give full account of our position, which is softer. I realize that such a sentence will raise hard reactions amongst anglophone climbers. We say that even in mountaineering, if the stance anchors are not reliable, the body belay may be the best method [even without a first runner at the stance (“French” system), if the stance anchor points are very bad. But it must be realized that until the leader has placed the first runner, placing a runner at the stance is strongly advisable, since otherwise the fall of the leader may not be stopped and possibly pull the belayer down]. However, in mountaineering, if the stance is such that a strong pull on the belayer may throw him against the rock in a dangerous way and, if the anchors are good, belaying “on the rock” may be better. With a very good stance [say bolts, a set of good pitons or a good Sanduhr ] and very few runners in the pitch (i.e. little friction), the old HMS connected to the stance may be the safest belay. It also would allow the belayer to act freely in case the partner has to be rescued. In addition, I should like to stress that a well placed HMS can be managed by an experienced operator in such a way as to obtain a smooth braking action, thus the load on the last runner may be not significantly higher than the one obtainable with body belay. Finally, we fully agree that, particularly in a Klettergarten , when there is no danger for the belayer, the modern climbers are right in saying that body belay may be favoured on account of easier handling of the rope in critical circumstances" Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Tipton
Feb 25, 2009, 10:44 PM
Post #49 of 76
(4593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 12, 2007
Posts: 272
|
USnavy wrote: Actually, with a 10.5 mm rope the GriGri will slip on a factor one fall when belayed off the anchors. The GriGri will slip enough on any fall with a 10.5 mm rope to limit the force to around 5 kN as shown in the user manual of the device. So if you took a factor two fall right onto a GriGri that was mounted to the anchors with a 10.5 mm rope the device would slip when the peek force hit around 5 kN. If you were using a thinner rope, the device would slip sooner. Although that’s not as dynamic as a plate belay device, its more dynamic the relying solely on rope stretch to stop you. Although thats not as dynamic as a plate belay device, its more dynamic the relieing soly on rope strech to stop you. I don't believe this at all. I have under no circumstances ever seen a grigri slip on a +10mm rope. While rope soloing with my grigri I whipped and it didn't slip at all and gave me the hardest catch I've ever experienced. I simply do not believe that the mechanism of the grigri will allow for enough slippage to peak at 5kn, especially with a 10.5. Edit: This might be true with a well worn Grigri.
(This post was edited by Tipton on Feb 25, 2009, 10:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|