|
|
|
|
darkside
Apr 7, 2003, 2:34 AM
Post #1 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
EDIT: Changed title to reflect a new direction in the thread. Please see the lower post from me especially.
An access issue has arisen in Quebec. I understand the FQME has lost it's liability coverage and as a result many climbing areas now have to be considered closed. I saw a link to the story posted on the FQME site but didn't see any translation to English. As I work on access issues in Ontario, it would benefit me to understand more of the story details. Unfortunately my french is little more than schoolboy french so while I can get the gist of parts, I cannot understand the whole article. Could someone tranlate the following, in whole or part :?:
In reply to: C'est avec regret que la FQME doit cesser immédiatement toutes ces activités d'escalade et ce jusqu'à nouvel ordre. Toutes les activités d'escalade libre sur les sites assurées par la FQME sont donc interdites immédiatement pour tous les grimpeurs. Cette décision est rendue nécessaire en raison de précisions que nous avons reçu de notre courtier en regard de la couverture d'assurance responsabilité civile. Ce dernier nous a informé que notre police actuelle ne couvre uniquement que les activités sanctionnées par la FQME. Selon son interprétation, la pratique libre de l'escalade sur les sites opérés en partenariat avec la FQME ne constitue pas une activité sanctionné et donc est exclue des activités couvertes. Il va s'en dire que cette interprétation va à l'encontre des directives que nous lui avions transmises lors du renouvellement et nous sommes à étudier des différents recours qui s'offrent à nous. Soyez assurés que tous les efforts seront faits pour rétablir une couverture d'assurance dans les plus brefs délais. Entre temps nous demandons à tous les grimpeurs de bien vouloir s'abstenir de fréquenter les sites parrainnés par la FQME et ce jusqu'à nouvel ordre. Nous vous demandons également de transmettre cette information à toute la communauté des grimpeurs. |
|
|
|
|
kungfuclimber
Apr 7, 2003, 2:57 AM
Post #2 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 162
|
This is not a literal translation but enough for you to get the idea:
It is with regret that the FQME must immediatly cease all climbing activities until further notice. All climbing activities on all sites insured by the FQME are now forbiden to all climbers.
This descision is necessary due to some information we've just received from our insurance providers. They have told us that our current policy only covers activities sanctionned by the FQME. According to their interpretation, the free practice of climbing on sites run in partnership with the FQME does not constitute a sanctioned activity and is therefore excluded from coverage.
It goes without saying that this interpretation goes against the information we provided them at the last renewal and we are looking at what methods of recourse are available to us. Be certain that all efforts are being made to restore access as soon as possible. For the meantime we ask that all climbers please refrain from using sites managed by the FQME until further notice. As well we ask that this information be transmitted to the whole climbing community.
Now for my comments. This is in relation to all climbing areas on privately owned land. In Quebec you can be sued if someone is injured on your property, regardless if you knew they were there or if they were tresspassing. Because of this the FQME made a deal with the owners and an insurance company to provide owners full protection from litigation if they allow climbers onto their lands. They of course pass the cost onto climbers, making people pay for yearly membership or $5 cdn a day to climb (the cliffs are patroled by ticket agents). This is by far the reason for existance of the FQME since they provide little other service. They are a climbing bureaucracy. Without them providing this access there is no reason to pay them a yearly fee. I should add that this group does not make its accounting public so it is, for all intents, a for profit organisation. I would like to add that, to me, they stink of Quebec politics big time. They control most the crags in the province, impose their rules and costs and they send out a big "don't come here" vibe to non Quebecers. The simple fact that this news was not released in english as well shows how little they care about out of province people (those most likely to do the long drive and show up to a closed crag).
FYI: I am a quebecer, english is my second language.
|
|
|
|
|
traide
Apr 7, 2003, 3:03 AM
Post #3 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 13, 2001
Posts: 95
|
Dude - that really bites about your crags being closed. If it were me, I would be looking for someone to maim.
A suggestion, though, if you don't mind: To translate a page, use www.google.com (it's a search engine) to search for the exact page that the posting is on, and usually just below each individual search result there is a "translate this page" button. REALLY useful if you ask me. Sometimes the grammar isn't the greatest, but you can get the general gist of things.
Of course, it's always best when you can have someone who speaks french tanslate it for you .
Kudos kungfuclimber
|
|
|
|
|
bigbouda
Apr 7, 2003, 3:16 PM
Post #4 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2002
Posts: 130
|
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
this FCKN FQME is royally pissing me off....pompous wannabe bureaucracy....first they have everyone buy theuir stupid year passes or day passes because they supposedly negociated access to the cliffs with the landownersand now they ask us politely not to climb anymore cause they fucked up ...
screw them, lets see them haul my ass off the rock you stupid sons o bitches...
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Apr 7, 2003, 4:05 PM
Post #5 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
Kungfuclimber: Thanks for both the translation and the insight into the FQME.
Traide: I certainly don't mind, thanks for the suggestion regarding future translations.
I have been wondering if a system similar to the FQME might help in Ontario where it is a liability issue that has either closed an area or threatens closure. A blanket system as it were. One current remedy we can resort to is a waiver/permit system. We do this if other options fail but the obvious drawback to me is that eventually there will be so many waivers and permits that it will become a pain in the-you-know. From what kungfuclimber says there may be some reservations with the way the FQME runs but what about if the accounting was open, with any profits being used only for funding access projects. I can see bigbouda is unhappy but need that be the way?
Access in Ontario is facing an onslaught of issues and there are too few volunteers with the ACCess Committee to keep up. Climbing in Ontario is going to become more and more restrictive unless we start to think on a larger scale. I want this to be done with the understanding and approval of the climbing community
My question then is do you think a blanket policy requiring an annual or daily membership to maintain access to certain crags would be of benefit in Ontario. How would you feel if this was a requirement to climb at most crags in Ontario?
Please give me your opinions and feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
bigbouda
Apr 7, 2003, 4:12 PM
Post #6 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2002
Posts: 130
|
darn right I'm unhappy, :evil: :evil: :evil:
I've climbed in Finland, France , Spain, Switzerland, British Columbia, Alberta, New York , New Hampshire, Maine, AND QUEBEC.
Guess where I have met the dumbest bureaucracy and restrictions. Thats right, QUEBEC> This place is unbelievable....
Two things really piss me off...cd's that skip and the FQME, so please pardon my rant. I just cant take inefficiancy and the ridiculous front for a wannabe "canadian alpine club". AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Apr 7, 2003, 5:09 PM
Post #7 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
Grant,
I would not be in favour of a permit being required for climbing. Is there a permit in place for hiking? Just a thought, how is it that the Bruce Trail Association has managed to maintain access to the trails despite the hundreds of individual private landowners and multiple levels of public lands from regional conservation authorities, provincial nature reserves and even national parks with all their red tape? It seems that the likelihood for injury is just as high when you are hiking on cliff edges and scrambling up and down gullies.
|
|
|
|
|
billybuttwad
Apr 7, 2003, 5:14 PM
Post #8 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 21
|
I hate to say it but I have never heard anything good about the FQME. This does not mean that it does not do any good, but it certainly does not have many fans. I personally am not a fan of paying to climb, I avoid it at all costs, then again I am a cheap bastard.
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Apr 7, 2003, 5:25 PM
Post #9 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
ecocliffchick: a good point that maybe could be investigated as an alternative.
billybuttwad: neither do I like to pay if unneccessary but if the alternative is increased closures would you prefer that? How about permits for each area with an administration fee for each. Would not a single membership fee for all areas be a cheaper alternative?
Please keep the points of view coming all.
|
|
|
|
|
downshift
Apr 7, 2003, 11:07 PM
Post #10 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 589
|
Now I've heard the permit idea before. I'm split on the issue. On one hand it is a great way to raise money for access costs such as top anchors. Also, it would hopefully, take away some liability to the land owners. (now I'm not sure if that would work or not). But, then again I agree with Ecocliffchick in why should climbing be the only activity centred out for permits. In the end I wouldn't be happy with the idea of a permit but I would reluctantly get one anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
geezergecko
Apr 8, 2003, 2:18 AM
Post #11 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
|
If permits can result in a reduction in environmental stress and, more importantly, significantly reduce legal liability issues then that is the way to go. However, I suspect many climbers will not go along with this. How many climbers have tried to sneak into Baldy without a permit? Quite a few. It's the non-climber bureaucrats who are going to call the shots on this and it doesn't look promising. A strong lobby like the Bruce Trail Association could do wonders but we climbers being of an independant nature (and pretty broke) are far less likely to organize.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Apr 8, 2003, 2:54 AM
Post #12 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
geezergecko makes a good point. The likelihood that climbers would purchase the permits is pretty slim when there is no one policing them. Due to government cut-backs, the majority of the conservation areas don't have money to be spent on officials patrolling the cliff tops or hiking through the talus.
Also, how would you peanalize those who climbed without permits? It's all well and good to say "they'll be fined" but how would you actually go about ensuring collection of the fine?
The idea of permits just seems like a big legislative hassle and solidifies the ideal to the government and private landowners that climbers need to be monitored and controlled. Isn't this sport supposed to be about freedom?
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Apr 8, 2003, 6:27 AM
Post #13 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
Reality check: access problems are getting worse and more widespread.
Reality check: the choice may well be A)crag closures, B)paying for multiple permits for multiple crags, or C)paying for a blanket insurance policy to allow access to multiple crags.
downshift: if it didn't solve the liability issues then there would be no point pursuing the idea. Raising money for access projects was a secondary benefit.
geezergecko: I think it is unfair to call the ACCess Committee "non-climber bureaucrats". We all climb and if we were simply calling the shots then why should I bother asking climbers for feedback?
ecocliffchick: at this stage I have made no mention of enforcement, I'm talking about an insurance policy to cover third party liability. There is no government involvement in that. Why can it not be up to the landowner to check if people have the required insurance? In case you are unaware, nothing is free in this world, "freedom" itself has a price. People may not like having to pay for insurance to drive a car but few would argue that it is a "bad" thing so why is blanket insurance for climbing so "bad"?
all: or no one in particular!! :evil:
I am trying to explore options here to maintain access to the crags. What help do the majority of climbers give to the ACCess Committee? Who even bothers to check the access web pages? Am I wasting my time here because I am getting severely frustrated? Please tell me if I'm out of line for trying a new direction, for trying to make a difference, for losing climbing time attending meetings, for spending hours on access matters, for exchanging hundreds of e-mails on access. Tell me because you can have my resignation from this unpaid, volunteer position.... right friggen now.
I don't want thanks for any of this, I want to climb, that is my motivation. If you want to show appreciation, how about more people joining the ACCess Committee?
RANT OVER: It was not my intention to have a go at people here. My apologies for the attitude. I'm tired and I'm going to bed so I can go ice climbing tomorrow. Got to work off the frustration on something. Happy place Grant 8)
|
|
|
|
|
kungfuclimber
Apr 8, 2003, 7:49 AM
Post #14 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 162
|
Lets start with a few what ifs:
-If someone trespasses onto a private property that has a body of water on it (like a lake) and then has a swim and drowns, is the owner of the land responsible? Should people now pay to have access to bodies of water?
-If I walk onto someones land and slip on a log and break my leg should we now regulate access to non-paved land?
I am not a lawyer. I do not know the details of the so called litigation risks that are forcing these closures. I do think that there should be some way to wave one's right to such legal action. If I get hurt mountain biking on a trail I wouldn't expect the right to sue whoever's land its on.
How's this for a solution. Create an association where the members of said association sign a legaly binding document stating that they wave all rights to sue for injuries or losses sustained on explicitly stated private (or even public) lands. No yearly membership, perhaps a one time processing fee. This way the risk of litigation is removed and climbers keep climbing.
I get the strong feeling that this route was not taken before because it does not generate income for anyone. There HAS to be a legal way to say "I agree not to sue you". Something like the kingston mills and old baldy documents. Incidentally, you might shed some light on why these things have to be constantly renewed.
Frankly part of why I enjoy climbing is that, once equipment is purchased, its free. No membership fees, no access pass, no lift ticket.. free. I can climb a full day or one hour.. same price: free. Don't get me wrong, I'm part of the ACC but thats because I like what they do and support them. The fact that membership is optional make me like them more.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Apr 8, 2003, 1:54 PM
Post #15 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
You say access problems are getting worse and are becoming widespread. Are these access issues a result of landowner liability? I thought the situation in Quebec was unique and that's why Quebec climbers were required to buy these permits in the first place. I didn't realize that insurance was required for climbing. Perhaps I'm way off, but I thought the access issues were more due to pressure to protect the sensitive cliff face environment within a biosphere reserve, rather than issues of liability. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not at these ACCess meetings, so I don't know what the issues are.
|
|
|
|
|
guiliboy
Apr 8, 2003, 2:13 PM
Post #16 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2003
Posts: 6
|
I'd like to hear somebody say someting nice about the FQME :!: (Fédération Québécoise de la Montagne et de l'Escalade). I'm asking myself some question about the validity of their actions and their autocratic attitude.
Every experience I had with the federation was bitter (and it's not cause of the French/English bullshit, beeing Froggy myself). When I go climbing at a nice spot in Québec, there's always the little guy in his booth claiming the coins. The frustrating part is that he never could explain to me what my bucks were doing in the federation's pockets.
I've been around climbing at numerous crags in the States and Europe and they all had a local scene that took goog care of the place. Frankly, the Federation is not doing more (sometimes less) efforts the develop than the local cohorts ! And now with this stupid acces bullshit, it tops out stupidity ratings.
How come only Québec needs a "chaperon" for climbing area development and usage ! I don't think Québequers are less responsable than other climbers ! (please spare the easy jokes)
What do you guys think ?
|
|
|
|
|
geezergecko
Apr 8, 2003, 3:35 PM
Post #17 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
|
Clarification. When I mentioned non-climber bureaucrats, I meant land managers and politicians. Similar to what happened to ice climbing in Niagara Region. I fully appreciate the efforts of the ACCess Commitee. My apologies to Grant and others for the misunderstanding.
Consider snowmobiling. Ugh! They certainly have a high fatality rate. Yet they are able to keep their trails open. Why? Because they have a very strong organization with lots of money to support their cause. Permits are also part of that game.
The Bruce Trail Association has a large following. Lots of people hike. Ergo lots of voters. Works for them.
Climbers are a weaker group. The approach may have to be something like SCUBA diving - some sort of certification. This could also have the added benefit of more safer climbers. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
yeti
Apr 8, 2003, 4:08 PM
Post #18 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 57
|
ecocliffchick, guilliboy
You're right. The situation in Québec is unique, and is mainly a liability issue. The legal framework in Québec is based on the french Civil Law system (the rest of North America works according to a tradition of British Common Law). Under Civil Law, landowners can be sued for injuries incurred on their property, irrespective of waivers and warnings. Hence, landowners seek insurances, which are provided via the FQME.
In my opinion, the problem is that the FQME would like to appear as an inclusive federation on climbers (which it used to be), but it has become almost exclusively an access instrument. Maybe these two mandates should be carried by separate bodies: a climber federation providing newsletters, conferences, whatever; and an "access fund" for all insurance purposes. Climbers would then know exactly where their money is being put, and what services to expect in return. This would solve many problems.
yt
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Apr 8, 2003, 4:31 PM
Post #19 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
If the liability issue is unique to Quebec, why then would the ACCess committee in Ontario be looking into a similar system? Grant, maybe you could clarify this.
|
|
|
|
|
vram1974
Apr 8, 2003, 4:39 PM
Post #20 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2003
Posts: 113
|
Screw the INSURANCE companies! They are the number one cause of harm in this universe!! If we have to sign WAIVERS and pay FEES at goddamned tollbooths to climb in the landscape that GOD MADE... then I say stick it to the man! I will not pander to the crooked insurance and government authorities.
If I want to sign waivers and pay day passes I will go to the PLYWOOD TEMPLES OF PAIN...
God I hate the BS concerning climbing in Ontario. "Don't use trees for anchors, they are fragile... don't place bolts, it harms the rock... don't do new route development, the ecosystem will be hurt... don't scrape moss off that boulder... don't do anything remotely adventurous... blah blah frickin blah..."
|
|
|
|
|
kungfuclimber
Apr 8, 2003, 4:50 PM
Post #21 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 162
|
Hey Yeti.
You don't know me but we've met before, love your guidebook ;)
You say:
In my opinion, the problem is that the FQME would like to appear as an inclusive federation on climbers (which it used to be), but it has become almost exclusively an access instrument. Maybe these two mandates should be carried by separate bodies: a climber federation providing newsletters, conferences, whatever; and an "access fund" for all insurance purposes. Climbers would then know exactly where their money is being put, and what services to expect in return. This would solve many problems.
In my view this is already present. For newsletter and conferences we have the excellent ACC. It is true that the ACC is mostly about climbing in Alberta and BC but it is a national group and represents everyone. When there's news to be had about climbing in the east they usually let us know. I've never seen anything from the FQME other than the access fund which it used to provide. Do we really need another climbing organisation in Quebec? Why do we always have to have something different from the rest of the country (true the ACC publishes in english only)?
Another disturbing fact is that the investigation from the fatality at the Cap Trinité last year is still ongoing. There is quiet government action taking place and I find it hard to believe that the insurance company suddenly being not willing to cover the policy (in effect) is a coincidence. I think they are waiting to see what the recomendations will be. If there is interest I can copy several articles about the ongoing matter here.
The fact is that any change towards more control like mandatory certification will not be adopted by the rest of the country. This will in effect further segregate the quebec climbing community from everyone else while, at the same time, keep all but the more dedicated visiting climbers away.
Now to add fuel to the fire:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=29339&forum=25
|
|
|
|
|
iceclimber
Apr 8, 2003, 5:08 PM
Post #22 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 38
|
In reply to: Screw the INSURANCE companies! They are the number one cause of harm in this universe!! If we have to sign WAIVERS and pay FEES at goddamned tollbooths to climb in the landscape that GOD MADE... then I say stick it to the man! I will not pander to the crooked insurance and government authorities. If I want to sign waivers and pay day passes I will go to the PLYWOOD TEMPLES OF PAIN... God I hate the BS concerning climbing in Ontario. "Don't use trees for anchors, they are fragile... don't place bolts, it harms the rock... don't do new route development, the ecosystem will be hurt... don't scrape moss off that boulder... don't do anything remotely adventurous... blah blah frickin blah..."
So much for an intelligent conversation on the issue. Face it, we as climbers in Canada have a serious problem when it comes to climbing anywhere but on Crown Land. We're viewed by the general public as reckless and by land managers and lawyers as a huge liability issue and this kind of spray reinforces that perception. As I see it we've got two options:
1) Attack the situation crag by crag, hammering out dealers with land owners and managers to get access that may require waivers, fees, certification and the like. So much of what I love about climbing runs counter to this approach that I cringe just thinking about it.
2) Enlist the services of the dreaded lawyers to get a clear understanding of what the liability issues are with respect to climbing and land ownership and under what circumstances they apply, then use that information to do one of two things. Placate land owners/managers fears or make changes to civil liability laws
|
|
|
|
|
billybuttwad
Apr 8, 2003, 7:04 PM
Post #23 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 21
|
this forum is way to political for me, I just like to shoot the sheet, I hardly get this serious taking about anything, lets all just take a deep breath and relax, anyone seen any good movies lately?
|
|
|
|
|
creemore
Apr 8, 2003, 7:52 PM
Post #24 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 61
|
My personel opinion on this subject is that the FMQE sucks!!!!
I don't care much about thepolitics surounding all the acces fund shit. I've never payed to climb in Quebec and never will. At the same time, i always clean up at the crags I go. I'm originally from Quebec and I love the rock there. Doesn't beat the long routes from the rockies.
Anyways, if a damm landloard comes running after me with the cops at a crag, he'll have to shoot me of the wall..............or come and get me
Man would I like to see that quebec version of a redneck come after me :wink:
Creemore
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Apr 9, 2003, 5:28 PM
Post #25 of 25
(5085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
Thank goodness for climbing yesterday, I certainly needed it although not sure if you would call it ice climbing. It was more of a mixed climb, ya know, part water and part snow with just enough ice to pretend :? Well now I'm back.
First of all though let's back things up a little here. I started this thread to explore options to help with access issues. The situation in Quebec merely caused me to consider the way it is handled and how a blanket third party liability insurance policy may work.
I'm going to try and make a response to various suggestions and do a little enlightenment on the wonderful world of access.
Access lesson 101: Access issues can usually be divided into one of two catagories A)Liability issues, or B)Environmental issues.
Although I have immense sympathy for climbers in Quebec and hope for a speedy resolution, I cannot solve those problems here. On a personal note I would be interested to read more if you could either post or PM me the links kungfuclimber. Neither am I proposing that a blanket liability insurance policy will remedy any environmental issues. What I want to focus on here is liability issues.
Access lesson 102: The ACCess Committee was established by the Alpine Club of Canada. There is a national network of regional committees that deal with regional issues. Although the committees are in partnership with the ACC, they are also independant. Regional committees may also form other partnerships whith groups of similar interests such as caving groups, schools, or environmental groups. Participation in the ACCess committee and attendance of ACCess Committee meetings are open to all climbers.
To re-iterate, membership of the ACC is not a requirement for working on access issues so if anyone wishes to know more about the various issues we face in southern Ontario or wishes to take a pro-active role in the future of climbing then all you have to do is approach an ACCess committee member. You can provide help on individual issues or you can actually join the committee as a member-at-large.
Back to the blanket insurance idea. It is just that at this stage, an idea but all actions start as an idea. We are indeed facing an ever increasing number of issues of both environmental and liability in nature. I received an e-mail last night on yet another new issue in Elora Gorge, liability it seems. Environmental issues take other solutions so let's consider the many liability situations we have here. This is just my idea and at this stage not something that the ACCess Committee is looking to instigate.
I have seen some good ideas here that I wish the proponents would follow up on as viable alternative approaches to liability issues. I share some of the concerns that have been voiced here. I do not like having to pay; I do not like having to apply for permits; I do not like having climbers singled out for unfair attention; I would also like to see climbers more co-hesive and organised.
It is because the climbing community is small that we cannot lobby with much weight unless we have a good image. It is not sufficient that most of us appreciate the environment we play in but we have to be seen as respecting it. We have to be seen as champions of the trees and rocks rather than destroyers. If you cannot understand this then you need to find another pastime such as demolition derby's.
I will post more on previous ideas later but need to get ready for work now.
Gotta run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
