rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Auto Travel across the USA - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/05db2ce565396666?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 18 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* New Mandate: Filters! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6ca44008ad5d3083?hl=en
* Why EVFs will replace reflex systems - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
* Panasonic Focal length from EXIF - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/43e1ac8b90b22390?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Auto Travel across the USA
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/05db2ce565396666?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:48 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
? <piotrekwas@interia.pl> ?????? ??? ??????
news:790679c0-c628-402f-a237-6c8df5ff37fe@s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Auto Travel across the USA
>
> www.photopio.com
>
> Piotr Was
Very nice compositions, with strong, vibrant colours. Reminds me of very
good slide film, like Velvia, taken with good glass. I also liked another
post, recently, which was as if taken with one of those agfa films, the
triade system, Portrait, Optima and Ultra, they looked like Ultra at 50 ISO,
which produced vibrant colours, too.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 9:58 am
From: Hatunen
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:34:15 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-13 09:16:10 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
>
>> Am I right in saying that "commie" may be used by some as just a
>> general insult?
>> What would "unamerican" currently mean, if anything?
>
>Oh! 1950's "unamerican" would have related to the McCarthy era HUAC or
>House UnAmerican Committee. An ugly time which brought us, among other
>things the addition of "One Nation under God" to the pledge of
>allegiance. Another distasteful test of "patriotism" for Americans.
>For some it might mean not caring who is playing in the Super Bowl or
>following NASCAR.
The House Committee on Un-Amerian Activities. It was originally
formed to root out Nazism in the USA.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:09 am
From: Hatunen
On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:50:40 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-13 01:31:27 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
>
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:47:32 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not confused, I'm asking a question about an American using a
>>>> words that's much more common here.
>>>
>>> The thing is that 'Americans' come from so many diverse places, and
>>> often bring their expressions, and vocabulary with them. When Americans
>>> hear a word they like, they may embrace it with glee, and use it often.
>>> It is how the American version of English evolves.
>>
>> ROFL, that's how *English* evolved for gods sake, only Americans think
>> they are specially diverse or did something special with English while
>> everything in this thread proves in many areas there is an American
>> non diverse view of the world.
>
>One of the strange things about American English, was the local
>influence of English regional accents the different English colonial
>groups brought to the Eastern seaboard, from Boston, through Virginia
>to Georgia.
>
>The oddest are a number of isolated Appalachian communities which had
>16th & 17th century Scots & West country English ties, where the
>vocabulary, grammar, syntax and language in general remains frozen in
>development and recognized as a little changed 16th Century English.
That's largely a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/zanuttir/Appalachian%20project/whatis.html
http://tinyurl.com/qpwqcn
http://tinyurl.com/qcatt6
Etc.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:10 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:42:12 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>> Atheist! Blimey. Thanks for that.
>
>Yup, and you have no idea how amusing that is when you are an atheist,
>and are tempted to use "Lunatic Fringe Christian Right" as an insult
>without insulting people who have a sincere faith.
would the way to go be "creationist right" ?
--
Mike
== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:11 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:58:33 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:
>The House Committee on Un-Amerian Activities. It was originally
>formed to root out Nazism in the USA.
I thought it rooted out a lot of communists?
(I was actually wondering if it was used now)
--
Mike
== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:14 am
From: "Mike"
>among other
>>things the addition of "One Nation under God" to the pledge of
>>allegiance.
hang on, I just took that in, so does that make the Christian god part
of the state? I thought the US separated church and state like France?
(oddly UK has an established church but Blair was probably the only
recent leader to make any references to religion, although Thatch did
quote St Francis famously.)
--
Mike
== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:15 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 18:11:29 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>(I was actually wondering if it was used now)
the word!
--
Mike
== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:17 am
From: Hatunen
On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:50:45 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:42:48 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>I really don't see why discussing politics has to be "rude"?
>>
>>I would say that your own general attitude in this thread has been
>>rude. You find fault with Americans without any indication that you
>>understand that many Europeans have the same faults. Instead of being
>>interested in exchanging information, the points you bring up are all
>>critical. And, often misfounded.
>
>I started talking about getting out of your own countries, it was
>Americans I was talking to, so those Americans started pointing out
>why they didn't need to leave America, no Europeans said they didn't
>need to leave their country............
>
>>That pretty much defines rude to me. You are the type I'd avoid in a
>>pub; the type that says "You do it this way, and that's wrong.".
>>Also, the type that thinks that all Americans come out of the same box
>>like we are Cheerios.
>
>Funny a couple of you keep saying I think all Americans are the same!
>To the extent it took an age to get the point across that the lack of
>an argument about guns was in Europe, not US, I don't think some of
>you are really listening, (and you're getting angry).
A great many Americans go to other countries. In some cases they
were sent by the armed forces. But they also leave for recreation
or to visit relatives. I live in a metro area of about one
million the vast majority of whom have been to at least one other
country, and may have relatives there.
Passport statistics in the past have been rather misleading since
the vast majority of American international travelers have not
needed a passport for their travels (a situation which will
change next month). I daresay that most Tucsonans know more about
Mexico than almost any European.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:22 am
From: Hatunen
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:47:30 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:04:07 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>>> we would need to travel outside our culture to somewhere that did anti
>>> Mexican jokes to understand it.......
>>
>>So when can we expect a postcard from San Diego?
>
>some time after the pandemic!
The pandemic is turning out to be something of a myth.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:23 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:17:56 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:
>A great many Americans go to other countries. In some cases they
>were sent by the armed forces.
now Iraq is a place you don't discuss politics in a pub! :-)
> I daresay that most Tucsonans know more about
>Mexico than almost any European.
quite probably, I don't think I commented on numbers, just that its a
good thing.
--
Mike
== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:24 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:22:16 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:
>>some time after the pandemic!
>
>The pandemic is turning out to be something of a myth.
hold your breath, in the past these things did not kick in till
winter.
--
Mike
== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:32 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 10:09:31 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> said:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:50:40 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-13 01:31:27 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:47:32 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm not confused, I'm asking a question about an American using a
>>>>> words that's much more common here.
>>>>
>>>> The thing is that 'Americans' come from so many diverse places, and
>>>> often bring their expressions, and vocabulary with them. When Americans
>>>> hear a word they like, they may embrace it with glee, and use it often.
>>>> It is how the American version of English evolves.
>>>
>>> ROFL, that's how *English* evolved for gods sake, only Americans think
>>> they are specially diverse or did something special with English while
>>> everything in this thread proves in many areas there is an American
>>> non diverse view of the world.
>>
>> One of the strange things about American English, was the local
>> influence of English regional accents the different English colonial
>> groups brought to the Eastern seaboard, from Boston, through Virginia
>> to Georgia.
>>
>> The oddest are a number of isolated Appalachian communities which had
>> 16th & 17th century Scots & West country English ties, where the
>> vocabulary, grammar, syntax and language in general remains frozen in
>> development and recognized as a little changed 16th Century English.
>
> That's largely a myth.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English
> http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/zanuttir/Appalachian%20project/whatis.html
> http://tinyurl.com/qpwqcn
> http://tinyurl.com/qcatt6
>
> Etc.
I stand, (actually sit) educated.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:39 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:32:21 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English
>> http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/zanuttir/Appalachian%20project/whatis.html
>> http://tinyurl.com/qpwqcn
>> http://tinyurl.com/qcatt6
>>
>> Etc.
>
>I stand, (actually sit) educated.
Me too!
Speakers of Appalachian English have no trouble understanding standard
English, but even native speakers of other dialects can find it
somewhat impenetrable (compare the similar situation of Glasgow
English and London English)
If its as "bad" as Glasgow it might as well be Shakespearian! (Londun
is ov corse cristall cleer)
--
Mike
== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:42 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 10:14:27 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
>
>> among other
>>> things the addition of "One Nation under God" to the pledge of
>>> allegiance.
>
> hang on, I just took that in, so does that make the Christian god part
> of the state? I thought the US separated church and state like France?
> (oddly UK has an established church but Blair was probably the only
> recent leader to make any references to religion, although Thatch did
> quote St Francis famously.)
...and therein lies the problem for those of us who object to the
inclusion of that phrase.
I also find having to pledge allegiance publicly, to prove you are
"patriotic" objectionable.
Just as I find the politically de rigueur "God bless America." objectionable.
Why would god if he/she/it existed care about America at all?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:44 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 10:22:16 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> said:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:47:30 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009 01:04:07 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> we would need to travel outside our culture to somewhere that did anti
>>>> Mexican jokes to understand it.......
>>>
>>> So when can we expect a postcard from San Diego?
>>
>> some time after the pandemic!
>
> The pandemic is turning out to be something of a myth.
With the flu season looming in the Southern hemisphere it might be a
little early to dismiss it entirely.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:46 am
From: "Mike"
On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:42:00 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>I also find having to pledge allegiance publicly, to prove you are
>"patriotic" objectionable.
I find patriotism objectionable, actually, better to just like your
country than to love it blindly.
>Just as I find the politically de rigueur "God bless America." objectionable.
>Why would god if he/she/it existed care about America at all?
It really jars to me. The idea of a state having god on its side is
all wrong to me, being an atheist and being non patriotic.
I do not suppose "I quite like America" would catch on.
--
Mike
== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:53 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-05-13 10:46:21 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:42:00 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> I also find having to pledge allegiance publicly, to prove you are
>> "patriotic" objectionable.
>
> I find patriotism objectionable, actually, better to just like your
> country than to love it blindly.
>
>> Just as I find the politically de rigueur "God bless America." objectionable.
>> Why would god if he/she/it existed care about America at all?
>
> It really jars to me. The idea of a state having god on its side is
> all wrong to me, being an atheist and being non patriotic.
>
> I do not suppose "I quite like America" would catch on.
I think something such as, "Hey! it's not too bad here, and it would be
nice if it could be better" would be just fine.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 11:43 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Mike wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:58:33 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> The House Committee on Un-Amerian Activities. It was originally
>> formed to root out Nazism in the USA.
>
> I thought it rooted out a lot of communists?
> (I was actually wondering if it was used now)
It rooted out a lot of actors and screenwriters and the like, and a few
physicists, like Oppenheimer. It was when they decided that General of the
Army George Marshall was a commie that people finally twigged that the whole
thing was a bunch of bullies throwing their weight around.
The really sad part is that when the Russians opened up their files after
the fall of communism, it turned out that the vice chairman of the committee
was working for the NKVD.
== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 11:45 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-13 10:14:27 -0700, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> said:
>
>>
>>> among other
>>>> things the addition of "One Nation under God" to the pledge of
>>>> allegiance.
>>
>> hang on, I just took that in, so does that make the Christian god
>> part of the state? I thought the US separated church and state like
>> France? (oddly UK has an established church but Blair was probably
>> the only recent leader to make any references to religion, although
>> Thatch did quote St Francis famously.)
>
> ...and therein lies the problem for those of us who object to the
> inclusion of that phrase.
>
> I also find having to pledge allegiance publicly, to prove you are
> "patriotic" objectionable.
>
> Just as I find the politically de rigueur "God bless America."
> objectionable. Why would god if he/she/it existed care about America
> at all?
Whether He cares or not where's the harm in asking Him to? I doubt that He
cares when anyone sneezes either but it's nonetheless polite to say the
words.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Filters!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6ca44008ad5d3083?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 10:53 am
From: Peter Chant
Bowser wrote:
> Courtesy of Prince Annika of Bug Tussel, the new mandate is Filters. Shoot
> a picture with a traditional filter for effect, or apply filter effects in
> your favorite editing program. Any subject matter is OK, but for God's
> sakes, try to avoid submitting a photo and saying that you used the
> "sharpening" filter, or something else that does not really add to the
> image.
Ah ha, all those years buying wierd and whacky filteres from the Jessops
clearance bin, the ones that I have never used will pay off! Victory is
mine!
(Well it might be if I do something!)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 11:19 am
From: Bowser
Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 13, 12:07 pm, Bowser <o...@the.rainbow> wrote:
>> At least us regular morons could figure out how to shot a pic that met
>> the mandate.
>
> Really? Which entries would you consider Puns?
>
> Now, in the spirit of the game I shall Filter any further comments
> from you.
>
>
>
Walking the plank, holding the bag, assualt and battery, etc.
Best to use a soft-focus filter on me.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 11:20 am
From: ray
On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:20:26 -0500, HEMI-Powered wrote:
> David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>>> OK - so you figure 4x is 'prodigious' and I don't - I can live with
>>> that. Problem is, figures quoted above by David J Taylor indicate the
>>> difference is no more than 3.4x. Significantly short of your
>>> threshold.
>>
>> Ray,
>>
>> I only took some figures off the review pages, and they were /not/ for
>> the cameras which Jerry was comparing.
>>
>> The key difference is that for the sort of number of photos some of us
>> can take in a day, with the DSLR battery life isn't an issue, whereas
>> with the EVF-class of cameras it's something you need to take into
>> consideration when planning your trip. Whether that's a precise factor
>> of 3, 4, or 5 doesn't really come into it.
>>
> David, don't waste your breath on ray. As to my stats, they are hardly
> scientific, as I'm sure you're aware. I do recall one day at the
> Plymouth Road Office Complex Wild Wheels at Work Day car show with my
> now broken Nikon 5700. It was outdoors and I used no flash, yet I still
> burned through 3 of my 4 batteries and the 4th was pretty well dead. I
> took a total of about 630 images that day.
630 images - how many of them were any good? 5,6?
>
> I think the point is, certainly the one I made, is that an EVF will
> drain batteries much faster than a DSLR because it essentially has an
> LCD display on at all times, albeit a smaller one. But, this argument is
> like so many in this NG, someone makes a comment then the various
> factions get involved in a futile debate. Isn't it far more worthwhile
> to talk about the relative advantages and disadvantages of a given
> digital camera type in terms of a user's specific needs and wants than
> this?
>
> Have a great Hump Day, David!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 11:31 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-13 08:11:23 -0700, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> said:
>
>> Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>>> Few people are foolish enough to think the future of
>>>> photography is anything at all mechanical. But, the "future" is
>>>> a long time, and mirrorless is still science fiction for most
>>>> of us.
>>>
>>> It'll go the way of the solid rear axel.
>>>
>> What's an "axel"? Do you mean "axle"? Last time I looked, Hotchkiss
>> drive had hardly gone away. It is still alive and well and still
>> used today in trucks. Independent rear suspension has replaced it
>> in cars and largely in SUVs, but if we're going to use cars as an
>> analogy or metaphor, I think that far more progress has been made
>> since, say, the end of WWII than has been made on the basics of SLR
>> technology.
>
> I didn't notice that typo before, maybe he meant a variation of the
> figure skating jump?
I was trying to work out a good pun involving Tonya Harding's well developed
backside but couldn't come up with anything that anybody was likely to get.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic Focal length from EXIF
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/43e1ac8b90b22390?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 11:45 am
From: Graham C
On Sat, 9 May 2009 16:19:52 +0100, "boris spydar"
<borisspydar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Graham C" <grahamcrisp@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:klc60515b11i4l475khtksa5sc9gpsklrf@4ax.com...
>> Two friends of mine possess recent Panasonic 'wide-angle' compact
>> digital cameras.
>>
>> Spec for both is: Optical 5k zoom, fl4.4 mm to 22 mm (35 mm film
>> camera equivalent: 25 mm to 125 mm) /F2.8 to F5.9
>>
>> The DMC-FX37 when set to full wide angle reports 4.4mm = 25mm (35mm
>> format). Zooming in a notch reports 4.7mm = 27mm. This is what I
>> would expect
>>
>> The DMX-FX500 however, on full wide, reports 4.4mm = 27mm (35mm
>> equivalent). Now 27mm is very different from 25mm which is what they
>> paid for.
>>
>> Any ideas / comments. Does it matter?
>>
>> GrahamC
>
>Both models offer 3 different image ratios 4:3, 3:2, 16:9
>
>Were both shots taken using the same the image ratio ?
>
>As the equivalent focal length is presumably calculated
>using the image area rather than the sensor area as
>compared with 35mm.
>
>
>boris
>
>I
I think you're on the right track here Boris, as Panasonic have just
sent me a similar reply. Unfortunately one camera is just two miles
from me and the other is 200 miles away. The 'problem' camera was an
ex demo camera for which my friend had to pay full price (Take it or
leave it Madam. It's the only one we have). The camera was found to
have many of the defaults altered on inspection after purchase (e.g.
Exposure compensation set to +2).
Graham
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, May 13 2009 11:57 am
From: me@mine.net
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:45:08 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Graham C
<grahamcrisp@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>I think you're on the right track here Boris, as Panasonic have just
>sent me a similar reply. Unfortunately one camera is just two miles
>from me and the other is 200 miles away. The 'problem' camera was an
>ex demo camera for which my friend had to pay full price (Take it or
>leave it Madam. It's the only one we have). The camera was found to
>have many of the defaults altered on inspection after purchase (e.g.
>Exposure compensation set to +2).
The every menu system I've seen has some way to reset things to the factory
defaults in a single step. Have your friend RTFM.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment