Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Page 3 of 5 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >

1. but why rusty? Why, if your version s the true versionof events, why did they do it?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 11:59 AM

2. You quote only what suits you. Brendan Duddy was interviewed in theBelfast telegraph last week and he said that “Nothing was ever communicated on paper to the IRA.” He also said that he agreed with what Sile Darragh had said in a letter to the Irish News. For those of you who didn’t know it, Sile Darragh was OC of the prisoners in Armagh in 1981. In her letter to the Irish News, which Duddy said “Sile Darragh got it spot on,” , Sile said, “Richard didn’t speak to the hunger strikers, didn’t visit the prison hospital or meet with the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace. This whole matter will be put to rest when he grasps the difference between an offer and a deal (which the British refused to stand over).”
   That’s what Duddy says, in black and white, he agrees with so go argue with him.
   I would like to know Rusty nail how you explain the hunger strikers continuing to hunger strike, as if none of them asked whatever happened to the offer??? Well?
   You quote Gerard Clarke as a primary source overhearing the conversation with Bik and Rickie. Rickie in his book says the conversation was in Irish. Gerard Clarke can’t speak Irish. Go asked him! If he can he must have learnt it last week.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 12:36 PM

3. circles,

   Perhaps i’m missing something here, you claim you don’t like Adams but you won’t hear anyone ask questions of him or the S/F leadership during one of the most emotional periods of the troubles.

   Surely if information comes into the public domain then people interested in that information have a right to question it, rubbish it, or confirm it’s truth or inaccuracy, would you not agree?

   O’Rawe from what I remenber made a serious accusation, which Danny Morrison, Bik McFarland and the S/F run A/Town News group rubbished completely.
   Subsequent revelations have proved O’Rawe truthful, Danny Morrison and Bik McFarland to be bare faced liars and the A/Town news just a propaganda spread-sheet.

   Now circles your question why would Adams and a selective few do it, is not for Rusty to answer or Clarke or O’Rawe but for those involved in the decision in the first place, surely you should be asking if Adams didn’t know about the offer why is he afraid to face the public on the issue? why circles WHY????? or perhaps your dislike of the man is equally matched by a dislike of anyone questioning him eh?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 12:43 PM

4. @circles: You wrote:

   And to top it all off - there has yet to be a convincing explnation of what Adams motive would have been letting men he knew well die - and without the motive, these are pretty heavy, slanderous accusations for ex-comrades to make.

   The only person who can give a convincing explanation of what Adams’ motive was is Adams himself. To date he has lied about his involvement, claiming on RTE he only found out about the Mountain Climber after the hunger strike ended, and, as shown in the above email, he arrogantly refused to attend a public debate in a manner that showed complete contempt for the people he claims to represent, and who he has been the leader of for almost 3 decades.

   I wouldn’t be holding my breath if I were you, waiting on that explanation from him.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 01:29 PM

5. @blanketmanH3:

   Brian Rowan’s article, already discussed here on Slugger when it was published, about Brendan Duddy of last week was totally eclipsed and rendered irrelevant by what Duddy himself had to say to a room full of former blanketmen, ex-prisoners, relatives and other republicans activists of all stripes on Saturday evening in Derry. Did you attend the meeting yourself? It was a very powerful night. What Brendan Duddy had to say that night was so important it completely blew the Rowan piece out of the water and rendered it a mere footnote, if not an irrelevance of little substance.

   You suggest I go argue with him myself. Well, given that I attended Saturday’s meeting and heard what he had to say for himself directly, and heard him forthrightly answer very difficult questions put to him, does that count? In fact, the man rather to his credit bravely faced a lot of misdirected anger cast his way because of the absence of the people who should have been there to answer questions about exactly what they did during the hunger strike and why. He took the anger and hurt that has been pent up over years and meant for others who had not the stones to face up to the consequences of their actions.

   But that is neither here nor there. The Rowan article is lightweight, fluff in comparison to Duddy’s own testimony on Saturday. I don’t need to go argue with him, I went to hear him speak when the opportunity presented itself. I made the effort because it was important to do so.

   As for Gerard Clarke. You sign yourself as a blanketman from H3 yet you don’t remember the amount of Irish you would have absorbed just from being there. A silly point. Listen to the man himself explain what he heard - watch the video. And while you watch it, and think you can win this by sneering at him, keep in mind, he is not the only prisoner on the wing who heard the conversation. Go back to this thread on Slugger and read the transcript of Willie Gallagher’s speech, where he quotes from a recording the IRSP has heard. And then tell yourself, if there’s two people, there will be more. Because if you tell yourself that doesn’t prove anything, you will be sadly mistaken as others come forward.

   It is time for people to stop the lies. Throw the hands up. If it was an honest mistake, which is completely understandable, for heaven’s sake, admit to it!

   Circles is right. It is time now for honest answers as to why. It is absolutely nonsensical and only doing more damage to people’s reputations to keep continuing the absurd denials. Acknowledge the truth, and explain what really happened.

   Is it as simple as what the anonymous source in the same Rowan piece you are enamoured of says? That the Adams committee looked down on the prisoners, saw them as naive, inexperienced, incapable of making a decision and so made it for them? Were they so full of some egotistical sense of their own importance that they didn’t even care? They just assumed they knew better than the prisoners what they could live with?

   People are human, they come with a lot of frailties and faults. It is more forgivable to say, “I was young and full of myself, it was an intense, pressure filled time, I lost the run of things, and the people around me had other intentions I wasn’t then fully aware of, I am sorry. I meant no harm, I truly believed then I was doing the right thing” than to cling onto a lie that gets shredded more and more with each passing day, and expect people to continue to believe it, and continue to have any respect for you for doing so. Your frailties begin to seem monstrous instead of human in that light, and become more impossible to forgive.

   Great hurt, suffering and betrayals have been perpetrated on the Republican community - nevermind the wider community - by their leaders during the troubles. By honestly taking responsibility for their actions and sincerely acknowledging the damage that they have done to their people and their cause, there is a chance to mitigate some of the disaster history will bestow on them as time moves on and more of the truth about who did what when to whom comes to light. And it will.

   Depressingly, however, going on past form from those leaders, I do not expect that to happen. We will continue to be treated with more and more contempt and history will later look upon those men as pure evil.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 01:36 PM

6. Rusty

   There wouldnt be an election soon would there?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 02:40 PM

7. Circles,
   I’m not convinced that as you suggest the leadership outside (they themselves after all were still relatively young and relatively inexperienced men) saw that all the benefit had been derived that could have been just eight weeks after Bobby Sands’s died.

   Posted by latcheeco on May 27, 2009 @ 02:58 PM

8. Oracle - I’m not getting into a meaningless discussion with you about how its possible to not support somebody and still not automatically expect the worst of them. If you can’t imagine that its possible to not be enamored with Adams while at the same time not joining those looking to vilify him then I won’t be able to help you.

   It just gets worse though - we now have a situation where Duddy himself has lied giving 2 completely different versions of events. Which one to believe? Is his evidence still credible?
   Oracle you maybe ready to believe Rickie O’Rawe’s version - maybe even with a touch of schadenfreude - but there are as many questions against what he said as there is of the SF version of events.

   Additionally, the one-sided nature of this “truth commission”, evident already from the poster advertising the event, does not particulary inspire confidence that anybody involved in the organisation was really after the truth of what happened.

   But you’ve already made up your mind on the existing and inconclusive evidence - just don’t try and bully those who haven’t into adopting your position.

   I would also disagree with both you and Rusty - there is certainly an agenda behind this raking over the past. I think it only fair of those with an agenda to be honest enough to admit to it and not hide behind a completely false pretense of a simple interest in the truth and “the good of the families” (this applies to both the Network for Unity and SF). If that were really the case then an evening of diatribe is completely inappropriate. Its a blatant cop out to say “well I couldn’t possbly imagine a motive, you should ask Adams” - when in fact I think both yourself and Rusty have your own ideas why.
   Without having the guts to provide a motive as to why somebody would let 6 men die needlessly, I think this all makes for a piss poor case.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 03:08 PM

9. latcheeco - i wasn’t trying to convince you, but I don’t think the leadership outside were as naive as you seem to think.
   And even if they were, and even if they did seek to maximise propaganda (which had clearly peaked and risked going into reverse), I doubt they would have been so naive as to let another 6 men die needlessly before realising things had gone a little wrong.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 03:21 PM

10. Rusy Nail you didn’t answer my question. I would like you to explain the hunger strikers continuing to hunger strike, as if none of them asked whatever happened to the offer??? Well?
    The INLA has said that Bangers Morrison didn’t tell Micky Devine and Kevin Lynch about the offer. What is your position onwho is telling lies there, giventhat Bangers has a Freeodom of Information document showing that he met ALL of the hunger strikers on 5th July?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 04:26 PM

11. If only Pennies had come to the meeting he could have told us what, if anything, he told the hunger strikers.
    You don’t happen to know him, do you?

    Posted by Manny Dorrison on May 27, 2009 @ 05:04 PM

12. 10.’‘Rusy Nail you didn’t answer my question. I would like you to explain the hunger strikers continuing to hunger strike, as if none of them asked whatever happened to the offer??? Well?
    The INLA has said that Bangers Morrison didn’t tell Micky Devine and Kevin Lynch about the offer. What is your position onwho is telling lies there, giventhat Bangers has a Freeodom of Information document showing that he met ALL of the hunger strikers on 5th July?’‘

    That doesn’t mean he told the hunger strikers about the offer as big Laurny refered to ‘‘vague prison regime changes.’’ Looks to me that Danny lied to the hunger strikers. I too have been following this debate very closely and attended the debate and before it I was hugely sceptical now I am convinced after hearing all that disturbing evidence that Danny and Gerry have some very serious questions to answer. Danny and Bik first claimed whem Rickys book came out that there were no offers and no proposals of substance, how can they now maintain this, the evidence is there and it’s no wonder they are hiding. Lets hear the truth.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 05:08 PM

13. @blanketmanH3:

    Let us turn again to primary sources. First of all, to say that “none of them asked whatever happened to the offer” is patently untrue and a very misleading question. It smacks of a desperate grasping at straws. Surely a blanketman wouldn’t have to ask this sort of question? Never you worry; I am happy to answer.

    In the first place, as shown in Biting at the Grave on page 96, which has been quoted on Slugger before in reference to Danny Morrison’s claims:

    “According to Jake Jackson, the only people he could say knew for sure about the Mountain Climber initiative at that point were himself, McFarlane, block OCs Pat McGeown and Sid Walsh, and the PRO Richard O’Rawe and the hunger striker Joe McDonnell. As for the rest, he says, it would have been on “a need-to-know basis”: the closer a hunger striker was to dying the more likely he was to know. Mickey Devine and Kevin Lynch, the INLA members, wouldn’t have been informed, one way or the other, nor would the hunger strikers who were still on the blocks.”

    Just because Morrison met all the hunger strikers on the 5th of the July does not mean he told them anything, in terms of the information being discussed here. No one is questioning that Morrison was in to see the hunger strikers on the day. So the faux outrage you are expressing is for naught.

    O’Malley, again in Biting at the Grave, page 96, says: “...Danny Morrison was allowed to go into the Maze/Long Kesh to see the hunger strikers on the morning of 5 July…to apprise them of what was going on, although he did not go into detail. Morrison says that he relayed information about the contact and impressed upon them the fact the ICJP could “make a mess of it, that they could be settling for less than what they had the potential for achieving.”

    So, it is not in dispute that Morrison went into the prison and spoke with the hunger strikers. Judging from O’Malley’s account, he did not go into any detail - which would lead one to conclude he said there was contact with the British and not to trust the ICJP, given the quote from Morrison himself. Put together with all the other accounts, Morrison told the hunger strikers nothing of substance, only enough to keep them in line with the agenda being pursued by Adams. This would also be in keeping with the Provos doing everything they could to scupper the ICJP deal, as detailed earlier in this discussion.

    O’Malley’s account of Morrison’s discussion with the hunger strikers is also corroborated in Holland & McDonald’s INLA: Deadly Divisions, page 179:

    “The Provisionals not only lacked the will to co-operate on a united front basis but the IRSP suspected them of being engaged in secret negotiations with the British. Shortly before Joe McDonnell’s death, Councillor Flynn received a telephone call from a man in the Northern Ireland Office, who told him to go to Long Kesh. “There are developments,” was all he said. Even though it was late at night, Flynn went, accompanied by Seamus Ruddy. The NIO official, who refused to give his name, met him, and revealed that there had been discussions between Sinn Fein and the government and that it looked like they might settle. Flynn was given permission to go into the jail and speak to Lynch and Devine, who corroborated the NIO man’s assertion but said that the five demands were not being met, so whatever the Provisionals did, the INLA hunger strikers would not budge. Flynn could not get the official to reveal what was being offered. Later, when he confronted the Provisionals, they denied that they were engaged in any secret talks with the NIO.”

    We also have the suggestion from Morrison on Radio Foyle that he told Kevin McQuillan about the deal, which was immediately denied by McQuillian, who said: “This did not happen. If he had of appraised me of such a serious development, my first point of reference would have been to contact the National leadership of the Republican Socialist Movement, in particular those delegated with the struggle within the Blocks. At no point had I cause to. Clearly put…it did not happen.”

    In addition, Tommy McCourt at the Saturday meeting heartbreakingly related his last visits with Mickey Devine, and lamented that if he had only knew of the offer, nevermind the prison leadership’s acceptance of such, Mickey would not have died on hunger strike.

    Continues…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 05:58 PM

14. As you see, the weight of evidence against Danny Morrison is stacked against him. Other hunger strikers have said they too knew nothing of the offer nor acceptance, which supports what Jake Jackson said, not what Morrison implies. It makes more sense that Morrison went in to put pressure on the hunger strikers to not succumb to the ICJP offer, to let the Army Council, as represented by the Adams committee, handle the ‘contact’ with the British, which was still veiled in secrecy in presentation.

    Given Danny Morrison’s track record with the truth, which admittedly is not as terrible as Gerry Adams’, but is still not without its blots, and the weight of primary and contemporary sources not supporting Morrison’s propaganda, if I were to have to state a “position onwho is telling lies there”, the INLA or Bangers? The choice seems to me to be obvious. Sorry, Bangers.

    You ask me to explain “the hunger strikers continuing to hunger strike, as if none of them asked whatever happened to the offer???”

    Again let us look to a primary source to explain that, in this case, O’Rawe’s Blanketmen.

    On page 181, he describes the agreement between himself and McFarlane - “Well, Rick?” he asked. “I think there’s enough there, Bikso.” “I agree. I’ll write to the outside an’ let them know our thinkin’.”

    “I was euphoric: it seemed to me that Bobby, Frank, Raymond and Patsy’s huge sacrifice had broken the British government - something I hadn’t thought possible. No more hunger strikers would have to die for their beliefs. All that was left was for the Army Council to rubber-stamp our acceptance of the deal - a matter that Bik and I both considered would be a formality, given that we appeared to have won four of our five demands.”

    If it were correct that the prisoners were always in control, this would be true, wouldn’t it? Bik would have sent the acceptance of the deal out, and the Army Council, as represented by the Adams committee, would then move things forward from there in accordance with the acceptance. This clearly did not happen.

    On page 184:

    “If we thought the response from the Army Council would be a formality, and that, like us, its members would accept the British offer, we were to be sadly mistaken. On the afternoon of 6 July, a comm came in from the Army Council saying it did not think that the Mountain Climber’s proposals provided the basis for a resolution and that more was needed…The Council was hopeful, though, that the Mountain Climber could be pushed into making further concessions. As usual, the comm had come from Gerry Adams, who had taken on the unenviable role of transmitting the Army Council’s views to the prison leadership.

    Bik and I were shattered. The possibility that the Council might reject the proposals never entered into our calculations.”

    So there we have the moment when the power shifted from the prison leadership to the Adams committee. Comparing the attitude of the anonymous source in the Brian Rowan piece you like, in which the prisoners are naive, inexperienced and incapable of making a decision, which is why the Adams committee over-ruled their acceptance of the offer, with O’Rawe’s description of the way the prisoners viewed the Army Council, we see a convergence:

    “It needs to be understood that Bik and I attributed almost godlike status to the IRA leadership….we believed that their analysis of our opinion was justified because we thought that, tactically, they were far superior to us.

    As the situation moved beyond our control, it became evident that the real power in the republican movement was asserting its authority.” (page 185)

    It is not true that none of the prison leadership asked the Adams committee about the rejection, the comms were flying from Bik about it; page 187 details some of them. And then Joe McDonnell died, and it became too late to do anything about it: the prisoners, having learned bascially that things were out of their control, kept on with the hunger strike - and would have likely kept going until who knew when - until the families were able to intervene and end it for them.

    So between the secrets and lies, half truths and witheld information, is it any wonder the hunger strikers continued on their hunger strike? The majority of them had no knowledge of the offer or acceptance. The prison leadership was following orders they believed had the full weight of the Army Council behind them. And how were they to know otherwise, until now, some 28 years later, when the truth of it all is finally being forced to the surface?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 06:02 PM

15. The standard republican version is in complete tatters. The evidence produced over this past two months has demolished Adams/Morrison’s version. Why is Danny and Gerry hiding from this or are they hoping it all goes away?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 06:31 PM

16. another blanketman

    Just cause you say its so doesn’t meant it is so

    The only evidence for either narrative is peoples opinions, opinions change over time as do memmories

    So far the Adams narative has stood up very well except for a few axe grinders and those predisposed to believe them

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 06:44 PM

17. I think we may end up with more blanketmen here than were ever blankets in the kesh.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 07:11 PM

18. Rusty, its evident that you’ve researched this subject, can I add this quote

    “The British document claims that the IRA had accepted the substance of an offer to end the hunger strike but objected to the tone. However, Mr Duddy said he was not aware of the IRA being prepared to accept the offer. “I never heard or saw anything which said the substance would be enough to end the hunger strike.

    “The offer most probably came in and to the best of my knowledge the answer was that more had to be done. I believe that the fear was there would be another con job,” he said.”

    http://www.derryjournal.com/journal/IRSP-anger-at-hunger-strike.5300231.jp

    If this is the case I don’t understand the debate

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 07:26 PM

19. fin, listen to the recordings in full rather than cherrypick a quote that suits.

    paul, we’ll just have to agree to disagree as it certainly looks and sounds to me and anyone else I’ve been talking to that Danny and Gerry, at best, have serious questions to answer about their earlier public positions which have indeed been demolished.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 08:02 PM

20. @fin:

    Brendan Duddy could only answer to what he was privy to. He, like many others who should have been informed, was never told of the prison leadership’s acceptance of the offer.

    This was confirmed at the Derry debate:

    “Brendan Duddy confirmed that the offer in the documents was that which he conveyed in his role as messenger to the Adams/Morrison committee. He had no knowledge that the prisoners had accepted the offer; he confirmed that the response from the representative of the IRA he was in contact with was to reject the offer.”

    Page 184, Blanketmen (2005), describes what happened after the prison leadership had sent word to the Adams committee that they would accept the offer:

    On the afternoon of 6 July, a comm came in from the Army Council saying that it did not think that the Mountain Climber’s proposals provided the basis for a resolution and that more was needed.

    From a letter, publicly released in February 2009 and dated 8 July 1981, from Downing Street to the NIO, which shows that the Adams committee rejection was delivered to the British:

    Your Secretary of State said the message which the Prime Minister had approved the previous evening had been communicated to the PIRA. Their response indicated that they did not regard it as satisfactory and that they wanted a good deal more.

    So the quote from Brendan Duddy you reference is quite in keeping with his role as the link between the Adams committee and the British. The Adams committee did not tell him the prisoners had accepted the deal, and the message he brought back to the British was the same as what the Adams committee sent into the prison, overriding the prisoners’ acceptance: ‘More was needed’.

    I hope this clarifies the point for you.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 08:03 PM

21. He, like many others who should have been informed, was never told of the prison leadership’s acceptance of the offer.

    And where’s the evidence of that - beyond O’Rawe’s word?

    Independent veriable evidence that will withstand scrutiny - as this is really the nub of the matter.

    Let’s hear it…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 09:27 PM

22. interesting thread this.  it looks to me as if gerry adams utilised the hunger strikes to build sinn fein’s political base.
    though why he continued it for so long is only for him to say.  does anybody think he will ever speak on the subject?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 09:36 PM

23. ADDS:

    This really is a case of one word against another and really it seems that the O’Rawe claims have only succeeded in muddying waters rather than providing clairty.

    Rusty Nail, you come across as sinister and biased on a blog which prides itself on being impartial.

    You hector and disparage personalities and contributors while offering only one-sided evidence - usually from O’Rawe’s book and heavily spun passages from others - in defence of your clearly overly passionate and disjointed argument.

    It doesn’t matter, I suppose, given that those who believe in this are a tiny minority of recalcitrants who will go on - each May - having their meetings (or ‘truth commissions’) during which they’ll slap themselves on the back, scream for God almighty, and prepare the scaffold for their bete noires: Adams, Hartley, McGuinness, Gibney, Morrison et al.

    And just - for those with a brain and self-respect reading this thread - where does that lead us?

    To the same group of malcontents who’ve detested Sinn Fein since 1994 and have identified said group as the root of all evil.

    This conspiracy theory is all too convenient at slamming them - but somehow, in some way - exonerating O Bradiagh and the others in key leadership position of the republican movement at this time who were in a position - if they wished - to end the Hunger Strike.

    Colm Scullion was cited by Eamon McCann as someone who would verify it all - he was the man to label Bik et al as LIARS.

    Sadly, he became a claymore under all of this.

    No matter, let’s ignore him and move on to the next.

    Brendan Duddy - he gave an interview to the Bel Tel which again bolstered Sile Daragh’s contribution…

    And what is the response of creepy, agenda orientated Rusty Nail: oh, you shoulda heard what he said at the meeting, it was completely contradictory and blew away what he said in that interview.

    Let me remind you: if this was a court of law and that was established he would no longer be regarded as a credible witness.

    And you, pal, are not to be regarded as a credible blogger.

    Of all the ridiculous blogs on here by your not really good self, the one that Gerard Clarke - who could not speak Irish - understood - at a considerable distance - what was being discussed is an embarrassment to you and all associated with this.

    I understand your response to this will take time as you seek advicde - but really, this is all really rather sad.

    And I do think that we’re only a few FOI requests aways from this being firmly put to bed.

    It’s not wonder you use the cloak of anonymity when posting - maybe you’re not so sure yourself.

    And to anticipate your one of your next posts: I am just an ordinary contributor, not a blog master.

    If you’d balls and were so sure of your case you’d put your name to it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 09:50 PM

24. This conspiracy theory is all too convenient at slamming them - but somehow, in some way - exonerating O Bradiagh and the others in key leadership position of the republican movement at this time who were in a position - if they wished - to end the Hunger Strike

    people like….........martin mc guinness (COS)?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 10:07 PM

25. AOJ
    Of all the ridiculous blogs on here by your not really good self, the one that Gerard Clarke - who could not speak Irish - understood - at a considerable distance - what was being discussed is an embarrassment to you and all associated with this.

    was he not next door?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2009 @ 10:15 PM
Page 3 of 5 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.