|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:02:25 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2015 15:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:39:12 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business, looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for dangerous driving? No. You won't be able to do anything at all. Very funny. Now could a nearby cop do you for dangerous driving? What? Sitting at this computer in the spare bedroom? What are you on? You have to use your imagination and picture yourself driving in the above situation. -- If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business, looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for dangerous driving? Irrelevant. That's not what happened in this case. Nice diversionary tactic. The cyclists should have been aware that dogs sometimes do silly things and made allowances. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that was it. Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front? -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. Doesn't matter, the dog was the stupid one and the dog was at fault. People should not have to correct others' ****ups. Typical cyclist, blame everybody else. --------------------------------------- Mr Goldsmith, 49, told the Mail: ‘The dogs were a few feet away from her when a cyclist, wearing headphones, just came out of nowhere. He was going far too fast and didn’t slow down. ‘Suddenly he went over Cheech with both wheels. Cheech yelped and did a parachute roll before lying down on his side. He looked dead.’ Although both his wife and a witness challenged the man, he merely abused them before riding off. -------------------------------------------- The dogs were a few feet away. The cyclist was wearing headphones. He was going too fast & didn't slow down. The cyclist abused them & rode off. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:27:20 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that was it. Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front? I take it you had some new age namby pamby driving test? -- "I can't find a cause for your illness," the doctor said. "Frankly, I think it's due to drinking." "In that case," replied his blonde patient, "I'll come back when you're sober." |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:26:32 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business, looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for dangerous driving? Irrelevant. That's not what happened in this case. Nice diversionary tactic. The cyclists should have been aware that dogs sometimes do silly things and made allowances. No the owner of the dog should have made allowance and had it on a lead. -- Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:26:32 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business, looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for dangerous driving? Irrelevant. That's not what happened in this case. Nice diversionary tactic. The cyclists should have been aware that dogs sometimes do silly things and made allowances. No the owner of the dog should have made allowance and had it on a lead. -- Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:30:40 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it.. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. Doesn't matter, the dog was the stupid one and the dog was at fault. People should not have to correct others' ****ups. Typical cyclist, blame everybody else. --------------------------------------- Mr Goldsmith, 49, told the Mail: ‘The dogs were a few feet away from her when a cyclist, wearing headphones, just came out of nowhere. He was going far too fast and didn’t slow down. ‘Suddenly he went over Cheech with both wheels. Cheech yelped and did a parachute roll before lying down on his side. He looked dead.’ Although both his wife and a witness challenged the man, he merely abused them before riding off. -------------------------------------------- The dogs were a few feet away. The cyclist was wearing headphones. He was going too fast & didn't slow down. The cyclist abused them & rode off. The dog was in front of a bicycle. The dog was too thick to recognise a thing moving faster than itself on wheels presented a danger. The dog had it coming. -- Mr Churchill is reputed to have once said "It will be long, it will be hard, and there'll be no withdrawal" |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On 26/04/2015 16:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:27:20 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that was it. Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front? I take it you had some new age namby pamby driving test? If you mean an advanced drivers course, then yes. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling code of conduct
On 26/04/2015 16:45, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:30:40 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap wrote: Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns." I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not. Typical cyclist response. Which one was the vehicle? I'll give you a clue. a) the one with the wheels. b) the one with the paws. Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies, it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it could stop. Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still managed to run over a small dog. He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike. Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and anticipation skills. It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame cyclists don't have to pass a test. Doesn't matter, the dog was the stupid one and the dog was at fault. People should not have to correct others' ****ups. Typical cyclist, blame everybody else. --------------------------------------- Mr Goldsmith, 49, told the Mail: ‘The dogs were a few feet away from her when a cyclist, wearing headphones, just came out of nowhere. He was going far too fast and didn’t slow down. ‘Suddenly he went over Cheech with both wheels. Cheech yelped and did a parachute roll before lying down on his side. He looked dead.’ Although both his wife and a witness challenged the man, he merely abused them before riding off. -------------------------------------------- The dogs were a few feet away. The cyclist was wearing headphones. He was going too fast & didn't slow down. The cyclist abused them & rode off. The dog was in front of a bicycle. The dog was too thick to recognise a thing moving faster than itself on wheels presented a danger. The dog had it coming. You appear to be saying that the dog was more intelligent than the cyclist. In which case I agree. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Petition New Highway Code shows contempt for cycling and safety | Alan Braggins | UK | 41 | June 11th 07 07:15 PM |
Petition [was New Highway Code shows contempt for cycling and safety] | Nick Maclaren | UK | 16 | April 17th 07 04:44 PM |
Cycling-specific coupon code and deal site | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | October 6th 05 06:01 PM |
BV's "Self regulated code of conduct" | Jorgen | Australia | 2 | October 7th 03 04:21 AM |