Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?

Voters
1579. You may not vote on this poll
  • I've never worn a bike helmet

    164 10.39%
  • I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped

    88 5.57%
  • I've always worn a helmet

    613 38.82%
  • I didn't wear a helmet, but now do

    392 24.83%
  • I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions

    322 20.39%
Page 217 of 332 FirstFirst ... 117167207215216217218219227267317 ... LastLast
Results 5,401 to 5,425 of 8282
  1. #5401
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada, PG BC
    My Bikes
    27 speed oryx
    Posts
    835
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by robble View Post
    what a load of crap.

    let try a test.. you wear a helmet and let me hit you on the head with a hammer. then lets repeat the test without you wearing a helmet and lets see which one causes the most damage.

    despite the name of that website you listed it is clearly a completely anti-hlemet biased site.. such as Monsantos website declaring how safe GMO foods are.

    IF you don't want to wear a helmet then don't but don't insult anyone with any common sense by saying it won't help you when you slam your head into the pavement.
    Careful now, you are going to get bent over like I got in post 3884 http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-thread/page62 for such simplistic ideas...
    Last edited by 350htrr; 05-29-13 at 08:42 AM.
    He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination. I do like my beer, so sometimes I do end up leaning on the lamp-post...

  2. #5402
    BF Avatar Zombie Hunter Jseis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    SW Washington state on the ocean!
    My Bikes
    1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, '03 Colnago Dream Lux, several older family Treks
    Posts
    1,012
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    Actually according to most reputable studies, current helmets have about zero benefit for children... Or worse:
    This org is the high water mark in helmet tech & research?

    BICYCLE HELMET RESEARCH.

    Hilarious. Where's Larry Penberthy when we need him. At least Sheldon put it down.

    I'd hang with NEJM before BHR.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...le&maxtoshow=&
    Amerika, Land of the Very Brief.

  3. #5403
    Senior Member robble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jseis View Post
    Hope he will check out ok. .
    His wife just called. Mild concussion and a broken hip. I hope his hip recovers better than my father in laws.. my FiL never did really recover. This guy is 70 years old but competes(ed) in triathlons regularly.
    Trek 7.4FX

  4. #5404
    BF Avatar Zombie Hunter Jseis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    SW Washington state on the ocean!
    My Bikes
    1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, '03 Colnago Dream Lux, several older family Treks
    Posts
    1,012
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The helmet thread

    After my crack up I got X-rayed. Doc does ribs (badly bruised...but not broken), then pelvis..... I asked why? He smiles...oh. Being in shape...hope it helps your buddy.
    Amerika, Land of the Very Brief.

  5. #5405
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
    I understand... My thinking is, it's better to have and not need, than not have and need. Why is that so Goddamned hard for you to understand?
    You totally and utterly missed the point. The point is your logic can be applied literally to any activity evar.

    Quote Originally Posted by robble
    let try a test.. you wear a helmet and let me hit you on the head with a hammer. then lets repeat the test without you wearing a helmet and lets see which one causes the most damage.
    Let's try a test. You wear a cup and let me kick you in the nuts. Then remove the cup and let's repeat the test and see which causes the most damage.

    Let's try a test. You wear body armor and let me hit you with a baseball bat. Then remove the armor and let's repeat the test and see which causes the most damage.

    Let's try a test. You wear shin guards and let me kick you in the shins. Then remove the shin guards and let's repeat the test and see which causes the most damage.

    Let's try a test. You wear a bullet proof vest and let me shoot you in the chest. Then remove the vest and let's repeat the test and see which causes the most damage.

    So I presume you're going to start suiting up in a bullet proof vest with body armor on top, while wearing shin guards and a cup before every ride because it's better to "have it and not need it"? If yes, great! Your logic works! If not, it should be clear to you where the flaw in your thinking is.
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  6. #5406
    Senior Member robble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post

    Let's try a test.
    it sounds to me that you just admitted that helmets ARE EFFECTIVE.

    game over. You lose.

    edit: Or perhaps I should say 'meanwhile' loses since my statement that you replied to was refuting his "damage would have been the same" if my friend had not been wearing a helmet when he slammed his head on the ground.

    Had my friend been wearinga suit of body armor he wouldn't have gotten a ton of road rash either but you didn't hear me saying that would have been feasible. road rash seldom kills. Head injuries do.
    Last edited by robble; 05-29-13 at 12:11 AM.
    Trek 7.4FX

  7. #5407
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    660
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by robble View Post
    it sounds to me that you just admitted that helmets ARE EFFECTIVE.

    game over. You lose.

    edit: Or perhaps I should say 'meanwhile' loses since my statement that you replied to was refuting his "damage would have been the same" if my friend had not been wearing a helmet when he slammed his head on the ground.

    Had my friend been wearinga suit of body armor he wouldn't have gotten a ton of road rash either but you didn't hear me saying that would have been feasible. road rash seldom kills. Head injuries do.
    You actually are comparing apples and oranges when talking about hammers and stuff.
    Why is it a good idea to wear a helmet while riding a MTB in my neck of the woods. Because of all sizes of triangular sharp rocks jutting up from the ground everywhere. Hit your head on one of those buggers without a helmet and blood is quaranteed. Hit hard enough and further damage might appear. The same thing happens with a hammer which while normally considered a blunt object is actually fairly sharp in terms of impact. Sharp stony objects is one thing I think a BMX helmet excels, because the hard outer shell and the styrofoam will at least slow the penetration of the object down. A road or mtb specific helmet might still be useless because of all the large vents and the tendency to crack on impact.

    To make your comparison fair let's try a different experiment.
    Run against a wall head first without a helmet. You might suffer pain, a cut and additionally with adequate force a concussion and a broken neck.

    Now put a helmet on and repeat. You might suffer pain, and additionally with adequate force a concussion and a broken neck.
    See where this is going?

    And as a disclaimer, bmx helmets seem like the only ones that really give any kind of protection, because of the smooth hard outer shell which is supposedly better at staying intact in a crash, and somewhat thicker foam than all those super thin road helmets.

  8. #5408
    Senior Member robble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post

    To make your comparison fair let's try a different experiment.
    Run against a wall head first without a helmet. You might suffer pain, a cut and additionally with adequate force a concussion and a broken neck.

    Now put a helmet on and repeat. You might suffer pain, and additionally with adequate force a concussion and a broken neck.
    See where this is going?
    Are you really saying the helmet isn't going to make a difference in the amount of injury you'd receive from banging your head into a wall?

    wow...

    I think it's time for me to exit the thread. I can't argue against insanity.
    Trek 7.4FX

  9. #5409
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada, PG BC
    My Bikes
    27 speed oryx
    Posts
    835
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
    You totally and utterly missed the point. The point is your logic can be applied literally to any activity evar.
    And you guys are missing my point. I don't think doing any of those things is as dangerous as cycling thus I don't wear helmets doing them, but I think bicycling is just dangerous enough, to wear a helmet... You guys don't really think any of those things are really dangerous including bicycling, thus you don't wear helmets doing any of those things...
    He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination. I do like my beer, so sometimes I do end up leaning on the lamp-post...

  10. #5410
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by robble View Post
    MEanwhile - That website you posted has this link to the "results" of a study under the sentence "UK law would lead to 253 more deaths according to assessment using WHO HEAT tool, while Government research finds no reliable evidence of helmet benefit."
    Yet, if you track down the actual study it says "The project concludes that in the event of an on-road accident, cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of real-world accident conditions, particularly the most common accidents that do not involve a collision with another vehicle and are often believed to consist of simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars"
    I'm struggling to understand what is beyond your comprehension. It's pretty simple:

    - Helmets are NOT effective in those accidents where loss of life takes place; these are almost entirely collisions with cars

    - They are effective (if worn correctly and of reasonable quality) in preventing minor injuries of the type referred to - but these are things like cuts and bruises, not even concussions

    ...So I have no idea where you got lost. Unless you think that a major cause of death among cyclists is "I fell off my bicycle." Which I suppose you must do, once again reminding me that people would rather make silly posts rather than spend a few seconds doing a net search.

  11. #5411
    Senior Member rekmeyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post

    - Helmets are NOT effective in those accidents where loss of life takes place; these are almost entirely collisions with cars

    .
    I love this comment, this makes all the sense in the world! LOL!! LOL!!

  12. #5412
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
    And you guys are missing my point. I don't think doing any of those things is as dangerous as cycling thus I don't wear helmets doing them, but I think bicycling is just dangerous enough, to wear a helmet... You guys don't really think any of those things are really dangerous including bicycling, thus you don't wear helmets doing any of those things...
    The problem here is that you're not smart enough to understand the argument you are trying is silly and counterfactual. No one is missing your point, it's just that we can several stages beyond it and can't understand why you do not.

    Firstly, walking is just as dangerous as cycling in risk per mile. So, yes, you should wear a helmet by your logic! You won't, because other people don't - and this is the biggest influence on you. Helmets are in-group for cycling, so they must work!

    Secondly, all the evidence is that no helmet light enough to wear cycling can reduce your risk of death. Regardless of how dangerous cycling is or is not, isn't it rather stupid and inconsistent to wear a cycling helment that doesn't make you safer for cycling, but not to wear a helmet for driving? Yes, driving is safer - but you could actually wear a helmet that would work - a motorcycling one. Yes, cycling is more dangerous than driving - but safety measures should be selected not for the danger of the associated activity but for their potential benefit: keeping a sheet of tinfoil handy to block bullets is, sanely, less useful than wearing sunscreen - but your "logic" reverses this.

  13. #5413
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    Originally Posted by meanwhile


    - Helmets are NOT effective in those accidents where loss of life takes place; these are almost entirely collisions with cars
    I love this comment, this makes all the sense in the world! LOL!! LOL!!
    It's what is called "a fact." Whether it makes sense to you or not is a property of your brain: insufficiently intelligent people often reject facts they don't like, or fail to use them correctly. But this is not anyone's problem but yours...

  14. #5414
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by robble View Post
    Are you really saying the helmet isn't going to make a difference in the amount of injury you'd receive from banging your head into a wall?

    wow...

    I think it's time for me to exit the thread. I can't argue against insanity.
    You don't seem able to argue your way out of a paper bag: whether a helmet will help or not in hitting a wall surely, to anyone not an idiot or insane, depends on the speed of impact? No one would argue a foam hat would help at, say, 500mph???

    The post you are answering specified that the impact takes place at a speed that will lead to concussion or break a neck: this is much faster than the 12mph helmets are designed for (and that is cushioning the head only, not the weight of the body.) After that helmets fail without liner compression and provide no benefit.

  15. #5415
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by robble View Post
    what a load of crap.

    let try a test.. you wear a helmet and let me hit you on the head with a hammer. then lets repeat the test without you wearing a helmet and lets see which one causes the most damage.
    This is true but astoundingly silly: virtually all cyclist deaths come from car collisions at +25mph, and such a collision will have about 10,000 the kinetic energy of a hammer blow - it's like saying "You don't believe that suncream will protect you from an atomic blast, just because nuclear scientists and dermatologists and the army guys who tested nuclear weapons say it won't? Go outside on a sunny day for an hour and see what happens!" No. This is the logic of a lunatic.
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-29-13 at 01:42 PM.

  16. #5416
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMACH 5 View Post
    You can say that, yes. However you would be wrong. Not in the sense of "I disagree with your opinion and think that you are wrong" but "You are talking provable bloody rubbish in contradiction of accepted, lab-tested science":

    1. Helmets do NOT absorb energy by cracking! They absorb energy by liner compression, WHICH REQUIRES AN UNCRACKED SHELL. If you are getting to set yourself up as a forensic witness, at least do some research:

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k

    ..The amount of energy taken to crack a shell is trivial. This is one of the things that lazy people who don't do research don't get: when a helmet is overloaded, it no longer subtracts the energy it is designed to absorb from a crash - instead the shell fails with about 5-10% of the energy taken for liner compression, the liner splits instead of compressing, and you get about zero benefit.

    2. The idea that because something absorbed SOME energy it absorbed MOST of it is just a failure of basic logic and arithmetic
    I should have been more clear. The first helmet I mentioned maintained its outer shell integrity. The inner foam cracked (and was compressed). I'm still maintaining my belief, however irrational you may see it, that it helped me escape more serious injury.
    No, you are lying. You said the helmet cracked. No one says "The helmet cracked" when they mean "the liner compressed BUT THE HELMET DID NOT CRACK." You're changing your story to save face.

  17. #5417
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=robble;15678957]
    [quote]
    Let's try a test.

    it sounds to me that you just admitted that helmets ARE EFFECTIVE.
    This is past some sort of Stupidity Barrier beyond which my comrephension won't.

    Had my friend been wearinga suit of body armor he wouldn't have gotten a ton of road rash either but you didn't hear me saying that would have been feasible. road rash seldom kills. Head injuries do.
    Yes, but HEAD INJURIES THAT KILL CYCLISTS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS FROM +25MPH HITS FROM CARS! Really: a few grams of foam will not aborb the kinetic energy of an SUV. Helmets are designed to absorb the kinetic energy of the head only in a 12mph impact; a typical cyclist killing accident has about 10,000 this energy. You are being very, VERY silly!

    Also: about 75% of fatal head injuries to cyclists are accompanied by fatal torso injuries. (Front of car made of metal, yes???) This shouldn't surprise anyone intelligent, but there you go...

  18. #5418
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jseis View Post
    This org is the high water mark in helmet tech & research?
    A smarter person would have checked the credentials of the people running the site: eg the helmet engineer runs the main helmet testing lab for Europe and is the main UK forensic witness on helmets...

  19. #5419
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think this better than anything shows the fundamental stupidity of the "Helmets save lives!" brigade:

    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

    Most fatalities involve multiple injuries and head injury is not the sole cause of death. The experience of a solicitor specialising in cyclist injuries (BHRF, 1173) supports the view that deaths solely due to head injury are unusual. Furthermore, fatal head injuries typically involve rotational forces, which cycle helmets do not mitigate and may even make more likely (BHRF, 1039). Cyclist deaths were also investigated in Auckland, New Zealand (Sage, Cairns, Koelmeyer and Smeeton, 1985). 16 of 19 non-helmeted cyclists died from mulitple injuries, so helmets would not have changed the outcome. Only one cyclist died of head injuries in a bike-only crash, the most likely situation for a helmet to help. That cyclist died despite wearing a helmet and a fall at moderate speed. The researchers concluded: "This study indicates that the compulsory wearing of suitable safety helmets by cyclists is unlikely to lead to a great reduction in fatal injuries, despite their enthusiastic advocacy".

    A study of cyclist crashes in Brisbane, Australia concluded that helmets would prevent very few fatalities (Corner, Whitney, O'Rourke and Morgan, 1987). All deaths were caused through collisions between a bicycle and a motor vehicle. For 13 of the 14 cyclists who died, there was no indication that a helmet might have made any difference.
    Understand what this means: even if you had a helmet that would work perfectly and would protect your head at any speed, there is virtually no chance that thus helmet would save your life. Fatal cycling accident almost always involve a cyclist being smashed against a large piece of metal at high speed, and the odds (about 13 to 1!) say that such an accident will turn the contents of your torso into jam.

    If you want to wear a helmet because you think it will reduce the chances of minor injury from a "I fell of my bicycle" accident, then do so. But if you think that a helmet will significant reduce your chances of dying, then you are lying to yourself.

  20. #5420
    Cycle Dallas MMACH 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Land of Gar, TX
    My Bikes
    Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
    Posts
    3,327
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    No, you are lying. You said the helmet cracked. No one says "The helmet cracked" when they mean "the liner compressed BUT THE HELMET DID NOT CRACK." You're changing your story to save face.
    I have the helmet in my garage. I will find it and post a picture of it. In my first mention of this helmet I did say the helmet cracked and yes, I did mean the foam cracked and mentioned that this is how a helmet is designed to absorb energy (meaning the foam, not the shell). In my mention of the other helmet, I did say it shattered. That involved the liner and the shell.

    I have neither the need nor desire to save face with someone who clearly is not here to debate any points, but rather to insult anyone who disagrees with him.
    That's gonna leave a mark.

  21. #5421
    Senior Member rekmeyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    It's what is called "a fact." Whether it makes sense to you or not is a property of your brain: insufficiently intelligent people often reject facts they don't like, or fail to use them correctly. But this is not anyone's problem but yours...
    Fact? it's like you're Mr Obvious! Obviously a helmet is not effective in accidents where someone dies, this is true for motorcycle helmets, true with seat belts, true about a lot of different things designed to protect you but fail and you die. That's why it was so funny.

  22. #5422
    Mister Bleak! mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,030
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    Wrong.
    I'm sure you posted these before, but do you happen to have links to the studies that show rotational injury is increased by helmets, and the studies regarding liner compression vs. shell cracking?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus regarding mconlonx View Post
    You, I don't generally think of you as clueless. You're kind of ok.
    I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.

  23. #5423
    Senior Member rekmeyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,678
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    I'm sure you posted these before, but do you happen to have links to the studies that show rotational injury is increased by helmets, and the studies regarding liner compression vs. shell cracking?
    That's odd, because I know heads rotate without helmets and when they don't it's because the head was smashed flat preventing rotation! But no, helmets do not increase head rotation, in fact a lot of the tear drop shaped helmets are worse for you then the round ones because the tear drop shape and other odd shaped helmets don't allow the head to rotate and instead snaps the neck. This why time and time again round helmets fair better in consumer studies...of course no one likes to wear round helmets and they are a bit a of pain to find.

  24. #5424
    Cycle Dallas MMACH 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Land of Gar, TX
    My Bikes
    Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
    Posts
    3,327
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    That's odd, because I know heads rotate without helmets and when they don't it's because the head was smashed flat preventing rotation! But no, helmets do not increase head rotation, in fact a lot of the tear drop shaped helmets are worse for you then the round ones because the tear drop shape and other odd shaped helmets don't allow the head to rotate and instead snaps the neck. This why time and time again round helmets fair better in consumer studies...of course no one likes to wear round helmets and they are a bit a of pain to find.
    I think you are equating rotational injury with head rotation. These aren't the same thing. Rotational injury has to do with parts of the brain and their differing densities accelerating and decelerating at different rates, causing nerve axons to tear and damage. Someone feel free to interject, if I'm explaining this incorrectly.
    That's gonna leave a mark.

  25. #5425
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,747
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    I'm sure you posted these before, but do you happen to have links to the studies that show rotational injury is increased by helmets, and the studies regarding liner compression vs. shell cracking?
    I've posted such a link in the 24 hours, so no. Search for the name "Curnow" on the last 3 pages. Yes, I AM THAT LAZY!

    You should also do some googling: the scalp actually works as anti-rotational device and you lose this effect if you use a helmet.
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-29-13 at 03:35 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •