Does Far East forum represent life in Singapore?

[Gladiator]

I have posted and will continue to post court documents in a legal case which is of interest to certain people.

This has created a war of words, wits, insults, you name it.

Does this represent life in Singapore and or working for Singapore Airlines?

Are all the anti-Singaporean PPRuNers wackos?

Or is it because ....

For all those who wish to continue to make a fool out of themselves, knock yourself out.

The world is watching.

[Whiskery]

Gladiator, nothing that you post or say is representative of life in Singapore or working for Singapore Airlines. You are a "bond jumper" and that is all there is to it. You cannot accept any responsibility for dishonouring a legal agreement and now you blame the Singapore Government,Singapore Airlines,Dudley Leicester,RJT,The Jandakot Flying school, Kaptin M and anyone else within a bull's roar of this forum.

Your posts do not create "...a war of words,wits,insults..." they just portray the sheer cussedness and spite of a bitter man who refuses to accept the consequences of his own actions.

[BAE146]

Yeah, I guess that sums it up really.

[Damsel]

Dear Gladiator, all this hatred, ranting and raving will never change the true facts, we all know what you did and didn't do.
Please let it go! Just agree to disagree and get on with life!

"Silence is foolish if we are wise, but wise if we are foolish"

[Gladiator]

Gladiator a bond jumber or Singapore Airlines an illegal commercial Air Carrier, that is the question.

The latter may be the truth. You have all blown a gasket because you cannot handle the truth.

You have all blown a gasket because what Gladiator stands for is against all you have been taught and led to believe.

If you have a problem with me jumping my bond, take me to court. I will kick your rear (again).

The court documents are forever and forever permanent public record.

You cannot rest at ease because I am and I will always be the GLADIATOR.

Do not worry, what you are experiencing is the denial stage. It will pass.

[Kaptin M]

Glad, you ARE one very sick little puppy.

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

[Slasher]

Gladiator

Slasher is not one of those telling you to go away, because Slasher feels you have every right as everyone else to post what you feel you must, but.......

The Slasher asks will you please stop refering to yourself in the 3rd person? It sounds absolutley silly, and very arrogant considering the company your in.

examples:

"You have all blown a gasket because what Gladiator stands for is against all you have been taught and led to believe."

"You cannot rest at ease because I am and I will always be the GLADIATOR."

The Slasher reckons that last one really reeks of ego!

Whenever you write like that, the Slasher conjures up in his head that hunter in the King Leonardo Show: "You will never escape because I am....THE HUNTER!"

So Slasher kindley asks lets not have anymore "I AM...THE GLADIATOR!" huh? Please? Thanks.

--------------------------------------------
Slasher. Abuses all, shags all, and knows f*ck all.

[flashdance]

Gladiator - no one cares. Move on.

[Gladiator]

OK Slasher, you got it.

Must admit though not a bad line.

[I'd rather]

Is Gladiator still flying? If so, which airline?

...because I'd think twice about being flown anywhere by someone who appears to have delusions that he's a cartoon superhero

[Gladiator]

Cartoon superhero, that is also a good line. It is OK to have a bit of humor is it not?

[Singapore Girl]

Detractors: irrespective of his motive, what Gladiator has so far posted in this forum in terms of legal/court documents is a real eye-opener. Are you angry about the fact that he has exposed such malpractice? Ever heard of shooting the messenger?

[Bomber Harris]

Singapore gal, I've just stumbled accross the Far East forum and have had a read through the threads. Your right what you say....but you must admit, Gladys does come across as a bit of a wacko. It seems like some sort of a Fatal Attraction thing. I don't think I could be bothered getting into a thread like that. Maybe you should rewrite some of his stuff with a bit more of an intelligent presentation if you feel it's valid.....I'm sure your up to it(serious.....not a smart remark)

[Gladiator]

Bomber Harris inputs are always welcome. May May I suggest the content instead of presentation. It was suggested to me by Slasher that the delivery is too strong. I feel the delivery is parallel to the seriousness of the subject.

As for the court documents, they are verbatim. may be you would like hard copies. E-mail address.

Welcome to far East Forum.

[titan]

KAPTIN M, I TOTALLY AGREE!!
yes, "a fool and his money are soon parted". So, just in case you missed it the first and second time, I'll repeat this again....

SIA's legal bill against Gladiator in the USA would have been at least US$50,000. The man hours spent internally on the case at SIA would have to be another US$50,000. Gladiator's original offer was probably in the region of US$50,000 as well.........US$150,000, or roughly S$320,000 which was the amount of the original contract. Judging from Gladiator's exuberance, he probably paid a tenth of that. As Gladiator said, he is bound by a lengthy non-disclosure document.
As I see it, the score is roughly Gladiator 10:SIA 1.

So, who's the fool? I'll leave you with another wisdom about fools:
"fools rush in where angels fear to tread"
I can't say I can recall any other of the other hundreds of airlines around the world that have made a religion out of chasing pilots. I would have thought that if you had suckered someone into signing such an unjust contract you would be inclined to want to keep it quiet, just in case you need to recruit some more suckers.

[titan]

Bomber Harris, you have just stumbled across this forum and yet call Gladiator "Gladys".
hmmmm, can only think of a couple people on such an informal footing.

[Gladiator]

Titan great observation. "Gladys".

Probably an imposter. Could this be coming out of the, was it the 3rd or was it the 4th floor? I Forget.

I just cannot help to come back, hit edit, and add:

It really has come to be a battle of wits, words and dis-crediting the opposition.

Now, the original heading of this thread:

"Does Far East forum represent life in Singapore?"

Think about it 3rd and 4th floor occupants.




[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 27 June 2000).]

[I'd rather]

Gladiator, just one question which I think people have asked a few times over these various threads, but I've not seen an answer to. This is a genuine question, I'm not being smart, and it would help us to understand where you're coming from on this.

Q: Why did you sign the contract?

Did you
(a) not read it (it happens)
(b) not understand it (easy to be baffled by all the jargon)
(c) not take advice on it (from your lawyer, maybe, or someone in the industry)
(d) sign it thinking "well they'll never hold me to it anyway"

I'm asking because understanding that point is important in understanding your fight against SIA - look forward to hearing from you.

[Gladiator]

I'd rather a very good question.

When I signed the contract I was 30 years old. I signed it (I speak for myself only) because the intention was to stay with SIA for the next 30 years until retirement.

During my interview I was asked the question, "how long do you want to work for us?", I replied, "until retirement".

I quit a good job to go and work for the ALLEGED "best airline in the world", I was not new to the game taking whatever I could.

Little did I know that it was a boot leg outfit in the cockpit. If an airline wants you to sign a contract, there is a good chance there is something wrong.

[titan]

Id Rather:
Almost word for word what KaptinM posted as a new subject. Hmmmmm
Please don't waste our time with repetitive questions that have been dealt with many times before over the last year or so. Search out Singapore and spend a day reading.
Gladiator has moved this forum up to the next higher level by publishing the court documents. Its time the postings followed suite. The law is only interested in FACT. If you have been to court you would know that. If you are not permitted due to your county's law system, then public access to court documents are normally available, post case, in your locale. They are always enlightning and a good place to start.

[Damsel]

They are repetitive because you never answer the questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VelvetStrokes]

Gladiator this may be the only time I ever agree with you, so make the most of it.
Quote:
You have all blown a gasket because what Gladiator stands for is against all you have been taught and led to believe.

You are quite right. I and the others who find you so reprehensible, stand for and believe in integrity, honour, honesty and standing by one's given word whether in writing or verbally.

You stand for just the opposite.

As for words, wit and insults - well I guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad, since you are incapable of wit, try words and insults.

[I'd rather]

Titan, I asked a simple (fundamental) question and Gladiator answered it. What's your problem?

"Search out Singapore and spend a day reading" - this thread is interesting, but not THAT interesting.

[Bomber Harris]

ha ha....good one titan!!!! :)

unfortunately your looking for intrigue and conspiracy where it doesn't lye. If you read this very thread that is the name (gladys)used in it. I read it from start to finish in one go before I posted my reply and I was obviously paying attention (sir). It just seemed a natural thing to use the same name somebody else did.

Honestly, I'm just a distant observer (maybe not too distant geographically!!!). I genuinely wish you the best in your endeavors and I hope you blaze a few trails for the rest of us.

I better prove my non SIA connections by disappearing now......so g'bye to all.

PS Gladiator....have you heard what you call the Roman who goes down.......actually I'll save that one for Jet Blast

[titan]

Hey Bomber - no offence taken I hope. Where I come from we tend to treat everyone as a friend first. It was our downfalling in Singapore. Anyway, I am happily back in the land of integrity, and am sorry if some of those foreign habits are hard to shake :)

Thanks for taking the interest.

Regards...........Titan

[ironbutt57]

i don't work in sin, but have signed contracts that had a habit of changing mid-stream...folks here accuse gladiator of bond jumping, but hey a contract is a two-way street folks,both sides are bound by it(hey maybe that's why both parties sign it!) So i would think that maybe some of you other expats on this forum would feel a little beholden to somebody who had the backbone to stand up his rights when the other signatory to his contract did not hold up thier end of the agreement, and/or required him to accept/complete assignments that were not legal/or contractual. What do the rest of you do..grin and bear it?

[fugitive]

As someone who has worked as a capt. for SQ,I can sympathise with Gladiator.I had never seen so much S#$% dumped on people as I saw put on expat f/o`s.
As a capt. you got the usual anti Western bias from all and sundry,but I have to say that it must have been unbearable as an f/o.
I chose to leave as I had never experienced this racial hatred before.
Unfortunately,the f/o`s were bonded;I would have done what they did,as everything about SQ was a lie,unless of course you were a local.
As for the backside kissers,you wont gain any points as you are not Singaporeon.
As for those people who are after a job with them,I hope you get one;then you can also enjoy the treatment.
Before anyone jumps in,why is it that there is so much malice directed towards SQ from their ex employee`s.It is the only airline that is in this position??Why
if you treat your staff properly,you get loyalty in return.What went wrong in SQ.
To end,I have never regretted resigning,the only mistake I made was to go there in the first place.

[jetwash]

I've followed your postings for a long time gladiator. I also contemplated a job at SQ but it doesn't sound like a friendly place. To Kaptin M I have this to say, you seem like a case of sour grapes. Gladiator's case sounds like common sense.

[Capt Pax]

Gladiator,

I think you need to review your audience. You are obviously burning up a ton of time cutting and pasting all of that legaleze onto this board. Does all of this activity really get the right message out to the people you want? It seems to me you would be better of cutting your losses and posting that stuff on your web-site so interested parties would find it when they do a search. As it is, half a dozen regulars use your own actions to wind you tighter than a drum.

I am glad you were able to take at least one action that would make a large corporation step back and say, "Oh yeah, I am a signatory to a legally binding contract also." I love it when "Mob Mentality" meets the law. But you are doing noone any good posting all of this stuff here...other than Kaptain M, Whiskery, Titan, et al, who are just using it to blaze away at you.

Being a good strategist requires good tactics as well.

[Kaptin M]

The question has got to be asked: If Gladdie thought/knew that SQ was using him for duties outside those agreed to in the contract, why did it take him soooo long to terminate it?

Was he gathering evidence - how much did he need......more likely, gaining experience!!

Based on Glad's interpretation of ICAO regs, each and every time the Captain of a two crew aircraft leaves the flight deck [which we all occasionally need to do, to allow the physiological needs an out], EVERY company that permits a pilot who doesn't hold a command rating on that aircraft type, to be left alone on the flight deck, is guilty of the charges he makes against Singapore Airlines.

Therefore, IF Glad is correct, EVERY Company must employ two captains, on every flight deck, at all times.

So following through with his same logic, IF he ever is employed in aviation again, it MUST be as a qualified captain, whether single, or two pilot operations.

If some company were to employ **** ** *****, alias Gladiator, and he was not command endorsed on the aircraft on which he was flying, there's an extremely high probability that a few years down the track, he would once again indulge in court action againt his employer, to try to justify his own shortcomings.

[titan]

the Far East Forum IS Gladiator's website. He started it. Why waste money with another?

As Mr Hearst would say....Publish and be damned.

I think a central data bank where any other pilot who wants to take on a grossly unfair employer is a great idea. Maybe there will be a step by step guide soon on how to get out of the bond; a template so to speak.

[addinfurnightem]

Dream on Titan, 'tis us who are out here in the real world. We have worked in Europe, the Middle East, S.E Asia and the Central Pacific, but to name a few!
Unwittingly, perhaps, you have become verty subjective and give the impression that only SQ fall below your base-line.
Suggest you get out a bit, work for a few other employers who take expats. then you realise that nothing is perfect and what you had here beats a whole lot of others who fill your airspace every day.

[addinfurnightem]

Finger trouble!

[This message has been edited by addinfurnightem (edited 06 July 2000).]

[Capt Pax]

Help me out here. I have several questions regarding civilian aviation.

1. How long can the AC (Aircraft Commander or "Captain") be in the seat without relief?

2. Assuming the flight duration exceeds the answer to #1, what is the makeup of the "augmented crew?"

3. Assuming the "augmented crew" is only FO's or SO's who don't have a command rating, how is it that the AC ever gets to bunk?

4. I confess, I didn't read much of Gladiator's legaleze posting. Was the crux of his lawsuit over this issue of the AC bunking?

5. If the answer to #4 is no, Gladiator was being petty, 'cause I be even he has to take a whiz once in a while. If yes, then it must be the beancounters who are having a problem with this whole thing, 'cause even us trash-baggers have to have a command rating to fly in the driver's seat.

OK, this horse is dead, beaten, checked for life, beaten again, then beaten for good measure. Let's find something new to talk about, like loading all the British Footie fans onto a BA jet fitted with IFR capabilities. ;)

PS. Titan, from a target-your-audience standpoint, PPRUNE is not the best. Have you ever changed another pilot's mind with even your best argument?

PS2. Kaptin M, You are beginning to sound like one of those bean-counters I mentioned. SOF?

[This message has been edited by Capt Pax (edited 07 July 2000).]

[Gladiator]

Capt Pax good suggestion. Titan is correct the Far East was actually created by Capt. PPRuNe because of these long legal postings.

Methusalah did not like that and did not want to be a part of Far East forum but could not help himself.

Kaptin M for the first time you have indicated a desire to discuss technical information and ICAO material. I have no problem discussing it with you. I hope this time you are going to take a mature attitude and not only ask questions but also answer them (last time you asked but did not answer).

The issue of the Captain leaving the flight deck is very clear.

ICAO Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, Part 1, International Commercial Air Transport - Aeroplanes.

4.4.4 Flight crew members at duty stations

4.4.4.2 En route. All flight crew members required to be on flight deck duty shall remain at their stations except when their absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aeroplane or for physiological needs.

Discussion - In only two situations can the Captain leave his duty station, 1) Toilet; 2) An action which is related to the performance of the aircraft, i.e. check a C/B, ice check on the wing, etc.

A three hour absence from duty station in the bunkroom does not qualify as physiological needs or performance of the aircraft. If the carrier wishes to give relief or rest to the Captain (pilot-in-command) then the person taking over the Captain's station and duties must be qualified as pilot-in-command. Do not mix the rank of Captain with a pilot that is qualified as pilot-in-command.

Additional information B747-400 - If the Captain is in the bunkroom and neither pilots behind the controls hold an ATPL (necessary to be qualified as Pilot-in-command), then who is in charge. Why not just have the Captain dead head all the time. The issue is that one of the pilots behind the controls has to be qualified as pilot-in-command. What are you offering to the passengers, minimum safety? Optimum level of safety? Or see how it goes?

What happens if a B747-400 meets the fate of the SIA A-310 (inverted dive), are you going to call a cabin crew to wake the Captain up? Are you then going to switch seats with the Captain while in a however many 'G' inverted dive.

What happens if the aircraft malfunctions and is only operating on the standby bus (no autopilot and only the Captain's instruments are alive)? Let the pilot in the left hand seat hand fly and may be have to recover from an unusual attitude from a station in which he has never received training.

Has the Captain in the bunkroom access to the proper kind of oxygen in the event of rapid decompression? Answer is no.

Let us look at Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) rules regarding 'flight crew members at duty stations'. Let us compare to what extent the CAAS rules meet ICAO rules.

Singapore Air Navigation Order

Pilots to remain at controls

33 (1) The commander of a Singapore aircraft, being a flying machine or glider, shall cause one pilot to remain at the controls at all times while the aircraft is in flight. If the aircraft is required by or under this Order to carry two pilots, the commander shall cause both pilots to remain at the controls during take-off and landing. If the aircraft carries two or more pilots (whether or not it is required to do so) and is engaged on a flight for the purpose of the public transport of passengers the commander shall remain at the controls during take-off and landing. End

According to CAAS rules the commander/Captain/pilot-in-command is only required to be behind the controls for take-off and landing. Is this minimum level of safety or optimum level of safety?

Other Aviation Authorities - As an example FAA's FAR 121.543 meets ICAO's rules/safety standards, so does Canada Transport's. (I will post them if you wish).

Why does SIA do it the way they do? Save money and increase profits.

Apart from the safety issues, I signed a contract to be a co-pilot, the minute I am assigned to take over the Captain's duties that contract is out of the window. Adios.

Singapore law says so. SIA breached the contract, I walked. Why did I walk when I did? That is not relevant. To say that I stayed to get more experience I am afraid does not fly. This was tried by SIA lawyers. I p1ssed on their parade when it was proved that I was qualified for my present employment before I was employed by SIA. Sorry good try.

Singapore employment law CAP 122

11 - (2) Either party to a contract of service may terminate such contract of service without notice in the event of any wilful breach by the other party of a condition of the contract of service.

Kaptin M come to terms with reality. SIA even lost in litigation regarding employment contract in their own turf (Steve Ahlmark vs. Singapore Airlines), in the Singapore court system. Would you like a posting on that?

SIA/Singapore's strength lies only in the power of 'NO INFORMATION' or 'DISTORTED INFORMATION'. This was proved in Singapore Airlines vs. DeMarco.

You and your gang can call me all kinds of names but all in black and white will remain the same.

Now if you wish to discuss technical matters I will discuss them with you. Otherwise remember other people can also read.

Are you a pilot? The reason I ask is because the last time you asked to be spoon fed with the information in hand.



[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 07 July 2000).]

[titan]

Gladiator:
I would appreciate a quick rundown on the Steve Ahlmark vs. Singapore Airlines case.
Thanks

[Gladiator]

It is not quick. In short SIA terminated a Captain and held his $60,000 Singapore dollar bankers guarantee.

He took legal action against SIA in Singapore court and won. An appeal by SIA was turned down. SIA had to fork out some cash. SIA's lead lawyer got the boot.

I will sometime post the judge's grounds of decision. The Singaporean judge thought SIA's employment contracts are tortuous.

[Whiskery]

Get Real Gladys - the Far East forum was not created by Capt Pprune because of your legal regurgitations. It is a forum that was created to deal with information relevant to the region. No different to Dunnunda & Godzone,Jet Blast etc,. It also permits you and your mate Fred to post your anti SQ literature without boring the professional pilots on the Rumours & News forum, which is where you always try to post it.

When you two get your pilot's licences or want to indulge in some intelligent and credible aviation talk, you are welcome to join us all in R & N.

[titan]

Johnny, please note that you are always free to join Gladiator and myself here in the Far East Forum.; in fact you can even join us across in Rumours and News. We look forward to it. Without you and your colleagues our topics would be limited to a half dozen or so replies, but instead they have become very popular, with upwards of a hundred or so postings sometimes!!!
On behalf of us both, I thank you sincerely.
Regards.........Titan :)

[Gladiator]

Whiskery you are just not able to absorb anything that is not your way.

By now Far east Forum readers know what you and your gang are about. I post facts as they appeared in court, I did not write the ICAO Annexes, Singapore ANO, or the Singapore Employment laws. Not once have you or your gang tried to reason with facts.

All you do is tell others that we are maladjusted, cannot cut it, and have shortcomings.

But keep it coming because it keeps the threads alive longer for the public to read.

[Gladiator]

Capt Pax here are the answers to your questions (to the best of my knowledge).

Q: 1. How long can the AC (Aircraft Commander or "Captain") be in the seat without relief?

A: That depends on many factors such as the length of the flight, time of departure (day or night), etc.

Q: Assuming the flight duration exceeds the answer to #1, what is the makeup of the "augmented crew"?

A: At SIA it is done in 3 ways:

a) "Double crew", 2 Captains, 2 co-pilots, in this configuration there is no problem since a Captain is relieved by another Captain.

b) "Augmented crew", 2 Captains, 1 co-pilot, this configuration still caters for a Captain to be relieved by another Captain. The co-pilot is relieved by a Captain.

c) "3-pilot crew", 1 Captain, 2 co-pilots, this configuration is the one with the safety and legal problems. The Captain is relieved by a co-pilot. The co-pilot that relieves the Captain may or may not hold an ATPL (required to act as pilot-in-command, in any case ICAO requires all crewmembers of aircraft certificated for operation with 2 pilots to hold an ATPL). In either case the co-pilot that relieves the Captain and occupies the pilot-in-command's duty station has not been provided with any kind of training in that seat. Zero.

In fact it is common to have two brand new co-pilots at the controls (while the pilot-in-command is in the bunk) with each having less than 1000 hrs of experience. (OOppsss)

Q: 3. Assuming the "augmented crew" is only FO's or SO's who don't have command rating, how is it that the AC ever gets to bunk?

A: Excellent question. That is the core of this whole safety issue.

SIA and CAAS (Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore) have come up with this plan in order to reduce the cost of training and hiring more pilots.

An earlier post indicated the CAAS rules regarding "CREWMEMBER AT DUTY STATIONS". Those rules do not meet ICAO safety minimums as it only requires the AC (Captain/pilot-in-command) to be behind the controls for take-off and landing. (Egypt Air lesson).

Next is SIA's Flight Administration Manual (Operations Manual) in this regard.

FAM page 3.39.1 March 15, 1998

In a 3-pilot crew operation, the third pilot (another co-pilot) may, at the Commanders's discretion, occupy either the left hand seat or the first observer's seat during cruise, when the Commander is taking inflight relief. When the third pilot (a co-pilot) is in the left hand seat, the designated first officer must be in the right hand seat. In the event of an emergency, the third pilot, if he is in the left hand seat, shall be the pilot not flying. End

SIA and CAAS's next cost cutting plan was to as ambiguous as possible say that the Captain is actually not allowed to go to the bunk. He is to take relief in the observer's seat (junmpseat). But this is not written anywhere, it can only be discussed verbally.

Unfortunately in court SIA could only run but not hide. In another page of SIA's Flight Administration Manual it says,

FAM page 3.40.1 December 15, 1995

First Officer Route Flying

After taking all factors (such as airplane technical status, airport and environmental conditions, pilot experience, etc.) into consideration, a commander may at his absolute discretion permit First Officers to carry out route flying (so called fly a sector or leg) under his supervision, provided that the commander:-

1. occupies the left-hand seat during all phases of flight; (Ooopppsss)

2. complies with the operations manual policy on the delegation of pilot-flying duties to the First Officer.

The Commander and First Officer must ensure that the route flying is properly recorded in the Voyage record, utilising the appropriate codes, and in the flying log book. End.

Now the section explaining the appropriate codes.

FAM page 2.19.4 March 1, 1990

Logging of Hours/Sectors

2. First Officers

P1(U/S) - when operating a sector under supervision.

P2 - when operating as a co-pilot in the right-hand seat or when operating as a Supervisory First Officer or when assisting the Training Captain who is in the right-hand seat checking or training a Captain in the left-hand seat. End

However, in the reality of line operations 97% of Captains take relief in the bunk. SIA/CAAS relies for this to be kept secret amongst the crews (so called code of silence), knowing that the Singapore system is engraved in the crews, (conform, do not ask questions) and if you tell you will be a marked man and your career is finished.

Q: 4. I confess, I didn't read much of Gladiator's legalize posting. Was the crux of this lawsuit over this issue of the AC bunking.

A: Bunking was only part of it. Other parts include breach of contract as well as other safety issues such as passengers in cockpit during flight after consumption of alcohol.

Q: 5. If the answer to #4 is no, Gladiator was being petty, 'cause I be even he has to take a whiz once in a while. If yes, then it must be the beancounters who are having a problem with this whole thing 'cause even us trash-baggers have to have a command rating to fly in the driver's seat.

A: Taking a whiz is not a problem. As mentioned in an earlier post, ICAO Annex 6, Part 1 caters for leaving one's duty station for physiological needs, whiz or greater but not a three hour session in the cabin or the bunk.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 07 July 2000).]

[Whiskery]

Fred (as we are now on a first name basis),

Why are you always just one post behind me? Start getting original Mate and use some of your own material for a change or I might just have to start charging you for breach of copyright.

Your topics become interesting with our (me & my colleagues) input because we keep you and Gladys under control. Goodness knows what you would get away with if we were not your Watchdog!

No need to thank us Freddy - we would do the same for any children!

Keep the Faith:]

[Gladiator]

Whiskery when you say Freddy, are you refering to Gladiator or Titan? I am confused. Is Titan's name also Fred or Freddy?