View Full Version : Ex AN pilots now in QF - the cancer within??
Kaptin M
15th Jul 2003, 15:48
Having had some time to sit down and read "The secret Qantas", it would appear that similar strategies to those used some 14 years ago - and immediately preceding - against the pilots of Ansett, Australian, IPEC and East-West, are again being brought into play in QANTAS.
Which leads one to ask where the PRIMARY cancer is located?
Reading through the QANTAS article, and then flicking through past documents, one or two names resurface time and again....from "The secret Qantas":The planning for the FAAA strike illustrates Qantas's aggressive stance on union issues. Unionists attribute the strategy variously to Kevin Brown, the executive general manager of operations, David Forsyth; and a consultant, Ian Oldmeadow, who runs an industrial relations consultancy called Oldmeadow Consulting. Oldmeadow was industrial relations manager for Ansett during the 1989 pilots' dispute, which is credited with breaking the pilot union's negotiating power.
It's no secret that a company's worst fear is a strike - especially a prolonged (in excess of 10 - 14 days) one. However, companies have now also turned the tables, such that workers today are afraid to go on strike for fear of being replaced - permanently. Hence the threat of having workers being immediately ready to step in - vs losing serious non-income revenue earning periods, due strike action - appears to dilute organised labours' threat of action even further.
Avoid an all out strike at ALL costs, is the primary objective of I.R. managers - and no cost is spared....least of all the ENORMOUS salary packages awarded to the Oldmeadows, etc.
The QANTAS I.R. people need to justify their non-revenue productive role within the company by producing some visible evidence that they are producing a return.
Australian Airlines and Jet Connect are 2 such examples, although goodness only knows the REAL COST in setting these companies up. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars!
Again, the appointment of The Lawn Mower Man, is Oldmeadow & Co. feeling around - and occasionally penetrating - the edges of the pilot body.
Why the pilots and the Flight Attendants? Because they are "high profile", considered by other staff as probably being about the hardest to replace in a toe-to-toe with the company, and the most unionised.
Again, another name familiar to ex-Ansett staff appears in "The secret Qantas":Qantas also called in casual flight attendants from the labor-hire company Maurice Alexander Management (MAM) to help break the strike. Maurice Alexander, a former FAAA union official, has about 120 casual flight attendants on his books. He runs his business from a residential address in Hawthorn East, Melbourne. The business is not listed in the telephone book.
The recent Cathay fiasco is something that Mr Oldmeadow will be trying to avoid. QANTAS would suffer severely (as did CX) with a prolonged action that would see Virgin Blue rapidly gain ground, AND facilitate the entry of another major player - however I would also imagine that the castle and rooks of Australian and Jet Connect would be quickly brought into play faster than they are currently being utilised.
The cancer is well within, I suspect!
elektra
15th Jul 2003, 16:44
And remember that Mr. Oldmeadow is a former senior ACTU Industrial Officer who learned his trade at the feet of Crean, Kelty and Hawke. Lets also remember that Ansett had hired another former union official Mr. Coysh from the AFAP as part of their "poacher turned gamekeeper" strategy. In the end they felt that they knew more about the AFAP than the members did. They were wrong of course and they, (together with the picket line crossers) cost them the airline and cost the shareholders zillions.
For other Qantas staff there's a little take home lesson in all of this....many, many thousands of non-pilot jobs were lost at Australian, Ansett, EWA and IPEC and many of those people stood back during 1989 mouthing the silent prayer "this will never happen to me".
Stubborn, blinkered intransigience on the part of management and silence by the other employees is a recipe for disaster. Solidarity amongst pilots is all you have to counter those twin threats.
And, what with, a group of 89 heros in the QF domestic ranks, this whole thing could get REAL interesting.
fartsock
15th Jul 2003, 17:52
Kap,
The reality is that to justify the additional setup and ongoing duplicated administrative costs associated with AO and Jet Connect, QF must expnad both route structures at the expense of current mainline flying.
The support this are scum like oldmeadow and alexander abely abetted (when the time is right) by the 'super heros' still in QF shorthaul.
Kaptin M
15th Jul 2003, 18:47
From the same article, comes this extract from sub-article, titled "Diary of a strike-breaker":'When the strike came along, I had a call from someone at Qantas HR indicating who I should report to. [Interstate flights to Sydney and hotel accommodation had been pre-arranged]. They tried not to get local staff to report in local areas. Then you just go and gather in the conference room for a briefing. [We were told] we might be abused, to walk straight, say absolutely nothing, and if anybody was getting abusive or getting close or physical, just call security....
'Then everybody got allocated their task. On our site, fortunately, there weren't any incidents. They sold us in the manner of 'you help us and we will help you'. At that stage, I thought it was something I could help them with. Things have changed since then; there's a lot of restructuring and a lot of redundancies. None of the loyalty is shown back. Now they have turned around, retrenching right across [the company], which also affects the people who supported Qantas. It was actually during the strike period [we] realised how we had been used.'
The scabs are merely (willing) tools (or fools), used as a convenient means to an endgame, and like pawns will be sacrificed at the appropriate time, if necessary.
Many of the large airlines are (and have been) imo, rorted by management excesses of incredulous salaries and "performance bonuses".
Those at the coal face are being dispensed with in the name of "productivity", but in REALITY it is to support the lifestyles of what really amounts to non-accountable management.
amos2
15th Jul 2003, 19:41
...ah,yes!...Oldmeadows, a true scumbag of the highest order!...and let's not forget his wife... for those who know their history!!
And Alexander eh!...why am I not surprised!...taking a leaf out of Coyshs' book obviously!
Oh boy!...if you didn't think aviation was stuffed in this country...think again!!
Hugh Jarse
15th Jul 2003, 19:52
Kaptin M and Amos:
I never thought I would write this, but for once I see myself in agreeance with you...:\
Indeed. I.O's wife has 2 ar&#holes...One of them she's married to. :yuk:
Kaptin M
15th Jul 2003, 20:37
Get to know them.
From Sky Pirates:-
Oldmeadow's new union job (with CAGEO) gave him his first taste of power. He worked in the ACTU.....came to know Bill Kelty fairly well, and later Bob Hawke.
In 1982 he married Justine Saville, an official with the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union. It was a second marriage for both of them........shortly after (the 1989 dispute, and the birth of their third child) Justine was appointed a deputy president of the Industrial Relations Commission.
In 1989, Oldmeadow was thriving in his career at Ansett and effectively ran the pilots' dispute on a day-to-day basis from the airline's Melbourne headquarters.
Perhaps a match made in ....... Jarse!!
Until the 1989 dispute, Ian Oldmeadow had always been the bridesmaid, but never the bride, with his appointments in the ACTU, and as 2 ic to McMahon in Ansett.
It's quite likely that because of his wife's influence, he was able to have the "wins" that he did, in the IRC at that time, which then allowed him to "sell" himself as something of an IR maestro.
Nonetheless, ALL of the QANTAS employees now need to see themselves as one unified group, imo.
QF management must have a hard time keeping a straight face – make that ‘not laughing out loud’! – at the thought that, as hostilities with their workforce commence, they’ve got a couple of hundred ‘Trojan Horses’ with proven track records already on their books.
On top of that, they have a few new hires who, whilst not ‘heroic’ themselves, have worked in close enough proximity to another lot of heroes for long enough for some of them to have possibly picked up a few fleas…
Interesting times indeed ahead...
When push comes to shove, as it appears it soon will, the non-hero QF pilots would do well to remember the story about leopards and their spots…
:) Could not agree more, Spad
Wizofoz
17th Jul 2003, 01:13
Kap M,
Yes, Qantas seems to be involved in the same sort of practices that the Japanese engaged in setting up JEX, Air Japan, JALWAYS etc. Undercutting their mainline pilots by employing blow-ins from else where. Obviously no self-respecting, union loving pilot would involve himeself in such activities (unless he was the type who had already shown these tendencies by applying for a job during the '89 employment ban.)
As to the title of this thread, how does the employment of Oldmeadows, strike planning by Qantas etc. have ANYTHING to do with the fact that ex AN pilots are now working for them?
Kaptin M
17th Jul 2003, 06:21
Wiz, you`d be better suited to the building industry than flying - you`re as thick as two short planks, if you need an interpretation of what has been written in the preceding postings! :confused:
As to your analogies of the Japanese subsidiary airlines - the foreign pilots who work for them are on vastly different (better) conditions to the Japanese to the best of my knowledge, eg. monthly commuting, free housing, free/subsidised gas, electricity, telephone, transport to & from home,etc...plus a USD salary. None of which the Japanese get, but can aspire to. :ok:
You are just God's gift to aviation aren't you Kaptin M? No trouble guessing what you do for a living, im sure you tell everybody you can.
Im getting sick of continually skipping over huge posts by you that are so obviously biased and untrue.
Hopefully you will get a life soon and stop invading the majority of the posts on here with dribble.
Sub-Sonic MB
17th Jul 2003, 07:37
It is hard not to laugh at the pitiful state the industry is in, given the (still unheard by heroes) warnings given by those who could see beyond the quick buck and the rapid command given to scabs and the like.
The AIPA is hopeless, it was established by a bunch of self-serving dissidents on the OS Branch, who believed that the bodily waste of a QF pilot did not effuse an offensive aroma. With odd exceptions, that is a view generally still held by them, and of course with the influx of scabs from AN, any industrial confrontation started by QF management will be a walk in the park for the company.
Got it yet, Wiz et al?
Jetconnect IS on the way..just the start I think of some interesting times ahead!!!
Kaptin M
17th Jul 2003, 19:08
Not at all, GT-R. The current contract was available to everyone - not everyone wanted, or applied, for it. I had no part in setting the conditions, that was between the contractor and the companies, and is (pretty much) the same for every other foreign pilot here in this company.
If YOU'RE envious of the conditions, then apply - like the other guys did!
"Im getting sick of continually skipping over huge posts by you that are so obviously biased and untrue." Well here's a clue, put my name in the "Click ignore".
Biased? What contributor here isn't?
Untrue? That's YOUR opinion, however I never deliberately set out to post untruths, and if you feel that you can prove me wrong, please go ahead. It helps make for intelligent debate, rather than just slagging the poster.
I have a life (that's a pretty well-worn out phrase now, btw), thanks GT-R.......and the word is "drivel".
longjohn
17th Jul 2003, 19:57
Isn't it terrible how Qantas are attempting to lower pilot salaries to a level comparable with their domestic competitor.
I do not understand what most of the posters here are seeking to achieve?
Do they expect QF pilots to strike in order to keep their wages uncompetitive?
Maybe instead of expecting a commercially suicidal response from Qanas pilots to 'uphold professional wages' they should pressure their pre-89' buddies at the 'other' red camp to bring up their pay to the QF standard.
As for the scabs and their flea bitten former comrades in Qantas, I think you will have to wind harder on this one, so far none of the troops are biting.
sancho
17th Jul 2003, 20:22
GET A F...Ken LIFE YOU WAN....ERS!... 89 was a looooooong time ago and these politics are sooo boring to normal people.
I am sick of these bull**** posts. If you hate your job/boss coworkers..... then leave.... if you hate the industry....leave otherwise shut the f...ck up and do your job.!!! Other people are grateful to have a job in this industry doing what they love FLYING and your (collective) ratings do nothing to enhance the industry or the standing of those within. Be professional, take it on the chin and GET ON WITH LIFE!!!!!!
END OF SERMON :mad: :* :yuk: :bored: :zzz:
Winstun
17th Jul 2003, 20:36
and if you feel that you can prove me wrong, please go ahead. It helps make for intelligent debate, rather than just slagging the poster. ..............Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:hmm:
hoodooguru
18th Jul 2003, 00:37
Who's the loser who posted this thread? My mates who fly with the ex AN guys at QF have nothing but praise for them. They've all said they're good guys who operate well, fit in and are very greatful to have a job; end of story. Very few had anything to do with 89. As for LMM he bombed on the psyche twice and his mate back doored him into a non flying job which is about to become a flying job. NICE! If you want something genuine to complain about there it is. Also the feed back from OS is the same re the ex AN guys. The fact is that a number of companies have employed them because they were very well trained, experienced and fit in well with others. All this other rubbish is a load of crap. As for salaries it's VB pilots that should be trying to lift their salary and conditions to that of QF! The pressure should be coming from those pilots not the other way around. The QF guys must be amazed at how weak the VB guys are re salaries. Anyone on here who thinks otherwise deserve to get paid peanuts and has obvously been bluffed by the VB marketing hype. Ok let me have it.
DutchRoll
18th Jul 2003, 08:01
Funny, but in the many years of my previous aviation life we tended to whinge & moan about things a bit. Sure, there was plenty of room for improvement, & the heirarchy were a bit silly at times, but I had a good salary.
Then I joined a major airline. I get paid a bucket more. I get a crap-load of time off (had to acquire some extra hobbies). But I now realise just how weak and amateurish my bleating & moaning was. Now I'm being taught by the professionals. I mean to say, they're bloody good. Real good. They even give me extra opportunities to learn 'the ropes' by posting their cr@p on PPRUNE.
Sancho, you forgot to add:
'And if you really really don't like the aviation industry in Australia and can't be bothered doing anything about it except moaning like a BSE infected cow, then P155 OFF out of the country and fly for Air Botswana. I hear they're hiring!!'
permFO
18th Jul 2003, 16:12
Here is a question to Kaptin M and all the other '89ers from a junior S/O in the Qantas ranks. When we embark on this industrial action to protect our wages and conditions and our union comes to us and says"Sign this letter of resignation, we won't be using them its just a tactic to get them to talk to us." what would you recommend we as individuals do?
Kaptin M
18th Jul 2003, 16:37
Not ever having been asked the question that you pose, permFO - ""Sign this letter of resignation, we won't be using them its just a tactic to get them to talk to us."" - I feel it is something that will be encumbant upon you to think about, IF that situation ever arose.
Personally, I'm not aware of this so called "tactic" that you discuss EVER having been used as such.
What does surprise me (but not too much), is the apparent inability of some of the latter posters to interpret the subject matter.
Some have obviously posted a response based on the thread TITLE only, without bothering to read the individual posts.
"Quick draw McGraws"?? Or just a short attention span?
Now let me ask you a hypothetical question, permFO - possibly one that might be more relevant to your situation.
On Monday morning every QF pilot is hand delivered a letter from management telling them that the company needs to take sudden, drastic measures if it is to survive. The letter might read something like.
Dear Employee, As you are aware the past several months have been considerably punishing for our company, and it is with considerable regret that despite our continued efforts, QF needs to take immediate drastic measures if it is to survive in today's competitive market, which has seen a number of other large carriers enter Chapter 11, or cease to exist entirely.
Therefore I call upon each of us to make a personal sacrifice, for the benefit of the group. I understand that this may involve making some adjustment to your personal life in the short term, however it is the longer term that will see the benefit.
If each employee - myself included - were to forego a salary trimming in the order of 29.47%, then it could be almost assured that there would be no need for retrenchments across the board.
This salary adjustment would be effective immediately forthwith, if you were to agree to it. For those who are willing to take this option, it would necessitate that you return the accompanying consent letter, signed and witnessed by no later than midday Wednesday - 2 days hence - and would ensure your ongoing employment.
Should the company receive nothing from you in respect of this matter, it would then be assumed that your employment future under the current terms and conditions would be seen as unsustainable.
Sincerely.......
And now your union calls you (and every other pilot) and tells you to NOT return the letter, whilst they try to negotiate with the company.
What are YOU going to do, pFO? :O
Kapt M. Is this your own personal website. Do you have a life away from here in the land of the sushi. Everyone is getting pretty sick of you treating this site as your very own political platform, prune is loosing punters by the droves because of your spleen venting, get over it or get off and do something meaningfull with what is left of your miserable life.
ur2......whether one agrees or not with Kaptin, he has just as much right to post here as anyone else and as often as he likes.
Other cotributors don't have to read his offerings!
permFO
19th Jul 2003, 11:31
Are you saying Kaptin M that you were not required to sign a letter of resignation? You also seem to be suggesting that the 29.47% payrise you were after was in fact a paycut required by your employer. The format of your hypothetical letter would in fact be illegal under current industrial law (re: the wharfies dispute with Patrick) so in answer to your question, no I would not sign it, however if my Union said look sign this letter instead and it looked ,smelt and tasted like a letter of resignation to be used as an industrial tactic I would not sign that letter either.
Kaptin M
19th Jul 2003, 17:57
For those who find it hard to read past the title of this topic, here's a clue:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=96595
permFO
19th Jul 2003, 19:20
Very interesting thread Kaptin but whats your point? Someone with a greater understanding of IR law could correct me but that sort of wildcat strike would actually be illegal in Australia. Back to my point, could you clarify your statement about not being required to sign a letter of resignation during the dispute.
[quote]Not ever having been asked the question that you pose, permFO - ""Sign this letter of resignation, we won't be using them its just a tactic to get them to talk to us."" - I feel it is something that will be encumbant upon you to think about, IF that situation ever arose.
Personally, I'm not aware of this so called "tactic" that you discuss EVER having been used as such.[quote]
It would seem that you may have gone to the David Irving school of modern history. If not the AFAP then who did encourage you to resign your position with Ansett.
Kaptin M
20th Jul 2003, 00:33
"not being required to sign a letter of resignation ....no-one was required to sign a letter of resignation."
Required by whom, or what??
"If not the AFAP then who did encourage you to resign your position with Ansett."
The companies - by their issuing INDIVIDUAL writs on personal assets - and the best LEGAL advice available in Australia.
permFO, you are but another who is either totally ignorant of the FACTS, or another attempting to re-write history to justify the actions of a MINORITY....22% in fact....of pilots involved in what is probably the testing ground for many employees not just in Oz, but in an area that is rapidly about to become endemic.
For those who thought that 1989 in Australia was "irrelevant", look at what's happening in B.A.
......but then of course, we're all just TOO smart to make the same mistakes as everyone else.
Aren't we!! :rolleyes:
Turns out it was not the best legal advise at all, eh sushi.
Wizofoz
20th Jul 2003, 12:29
ACTUALLY,
At one of the subsequent hearings on award respondancy, when the issue of the resignation was raised, one of the AFAP Lawyers said, through gritted teeth and obviously pi55ed off, "Tha AFAP were given a range of options!"
Resignation was by no means the only option. It was taken out of malice because the AFAP committee thought it would do maximum damage to the companies (such was there concern about their members future!)
Had they agreed to drop the 9 to 5 campaign and return to normal work, no doubt the writs would have been lifted (They were for all that DID go back to work!)
Kaptin M
20th Jul 2003, 13:09
It would appear that being a pathological liar must be ONE of the pre-requisites to qualify as a scab. Both Wizofoz and phnompenhkid - now Miyazaki-based - do admirably in that area.
From "Sky Pirates" p58 & p60,McCarthy had received legal advice that morning from the union's lawyers, including Neil McPhee, QC, and Tony North, that a mass resignation by the pilots was the only way to avoid further liability during industrial action if the airlines issued writs for damages.......O'Connell thought the resignations were a bad tactic industrially and had advised against them on this basis.
Also from "Sky pirates" -
Legal advice showed that the airlines had a good case to sue pilots fo damages due to their industrial action. Even if legal moves were not pursued to their conclusion, Ansett's object at this stage was to add as much as possible to the almost unbearable pressure on pilots. The threat of exhausting the funds of pilots and their union might force them to crack. More writs were served on individual pilots after the resignations..
Blows your bs right out of the water AGAIN, Wizofoz. The LIES you guys come up with all the time are incredible!!!!
Repro
20th Jul 2003, 13:28
I have no dictionary with me, what does pirate mean.
elektra
20th Jul 2003, 18:37
Haven't got my dictionary handy either. Fortunately I was given the opportunity to attend school and learned the lesson that history repeats itself. But I digress....
Lacking the Oxford definition just for the moment I'd guess that "Piracy" might be well described by at least some (maybe all of the following:
1. Acts by management involving stealing or destroying several zillion dollars of shareholders money by refusing to negotiate with employees, rather preferring to see four airlines disappear down the gurgler.
2. Acts by individuals who, having voted to stick together in secret ballots, "stole" seniority way, way ahead of their years of service by crossing picket lines.
3. Acts by a group of line crossers to blacklist all former colleagues whose main crime was to stick by their pledges of solidarity.
4. Acts by a government who coerced pilots, tried to destroy a union, sued its leaders and members, destroyed a tourism industry, gave all terminals to its mates, gave visas to imported pilots, lied about the progress of rebuilding and rented RAAF planes at well below cost to "mates"
5. Acts by individuals to enrich themselves at the expense of their colleagues by, for example, looting super funds and taking highly paid jobs as consultants" to the receivers when their airline was in its death throes
6. Acts by a government and ACTU ( despite the constitution giving the Commonwealth NO power to set wages) to reduce real wages by nearly 30% just because they could
Anyway, when I get my dictionary back I'll get it right but it seems to me that this is a good start. If you haven't caught the flavour of piracy in all this then maybe you too will be doomed to learn from history........
Sub-Sonic MB
20th Jul 2003, 19:03
Wizo thinks he or she comes up with valid criticisms.
Nothinh could be further from the truth, adequately pointed out by KM and Elektra.
Statements such as that quoted by Wizo could not possibly be known by such an individual, yet tossed into this forum as fact.
The fact is, Wizo is quoting garbage.
Then again, what does one expect from a scab.
It is a part of the justification they all need to reconcile their appalling and immoral behaviour.
Repro
20th Jul 2003, 19:19
You blokes must have high blood pressure, or is it just that time of month.
Wizofoz
21st Jul 2003, 04:32
Must have struck a nerve!
Not surprising that Da Boyz need to believe that resignation was their "only option", or else they would have to live with the fact that the misery caused to themselves and so many others was avoidable.
Kap, funny that Sky Pirates (or at least selected passages quoted outside the complete context) has suddenly become the authoritative work on the dispute. I've read many of your ilk criticize it as it portrays the AFAP as arrogant and out of touch with reality, while tabling instances of flat out intimidation (the Perth Pub incident) and deception by the AFAP (quotes from the newsletter regarding the companies inability to find recruits, whilst these recruits were actually on courses).
That being said, you actually make my point:-
Ansett's object at this stage was to add as much as possible to the almost unbearable pressure on pilots.
Pressure to do what? Join weight watchers? The companies objective at that stage was to have the pilots drop the 9 to 5 campaign, return to work as per their contract, and work within the industrial relations system as it stood.
mass resignation by the pilots was the only way to avoid further liability during industrial action
Note During industrial action. In other words, drop the industrial action, and the writs would have likewise been dropped.
Legal advice showed that the airlines had a good case to sue pilots for damages due to their industrial action.
In other words, the AFAP had put its members in the firing line by and ill conceived, poorly instigated action and they paid the price
permFO
21st Jul 2003, 09:18
...O'Connell thought the resignations were a bad tactic industrially and advised against them on this basis.
So there appears to be a different point of view as to why you resigned Kaptin but the end result is that it was a wrong decision. If you resigned because of the writs then you are saying you resigned because of the money.
You thought that by resigning that it would force the Companies into negotiating with you and any other spin you put on it is rationalisation in its purest form.
.......but then of course, we're all just TOO smart to make the same mistakes as everyone else.Aren't we !!
Well as a matter of fact Kaptin we are
Kaptin M
21st Jul 2003, 10:02
"If you resigned because of the writs then you are saying you resigned because of the money." :confused:
The resignations were considered necessary from a LEGAL point of view, to limit the actions (suing) the companies could take against us individually. The writs issued were for unspecified damages.
"You thought that by resigning that it would force the Companies into negotiating with you.."
That is absolute and utter bull:mad:
Read my lips, permFO, I'll say it once again just for your benefit as you're obviously a slow learner....The resignations were considered necessary from a LEGAL point of view, to limit the actions (suing) the companies could take against us individually. The writs issued were for unspecified damages.
......but then of course, we're all just TOO smart to make the same mistakes as everyone else.Aren't we !!
Well as a matter of fact Kaptin we are
Strange how ALL of the domestic pilots at that time were naieve, and duped by their union, and that some of the present lot consider themselves on a higher plateau than the 89 pilots.
I don't think we'll be waiting too much longer to see YOU having YOUR mettle tested, permFO.
Aviating was once a profession that one could look at as a lifelong career - not any more.
What else are you qualified to do, permFO?
Wizofoz, your feet must be full of holes - from where you keep shooting yourself! The companies objective at that stage was to have the pilots drop the 9 to 5 campaign, return to work as per their contract, and work within the industrial relations system as it stood.The offer to return to work "work as per their contract" was made in September. A return to work under the then current contract and pay conditions to allow a cooling off period.
The companies REJECTED it!!
Try citing FACTS instead of your personal theories...but then the FACTS wouldn't fit in neatly with the LIES you try to propogate.
Charlie, you always were a little man with little man syndrome. Keep munchin that sushi.:E
Woomera
21st Jul 2003, 13:22
Yet another thread tainted by 1989...
*click*