Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70189 > unrolled thread

Bloody football!

Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast

Contents

  Bloody football! NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-17 22:42 +0100
    Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-17 23:14 +0100
      Re: Bloody football! Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 06:10 +0000
        Re: Bloody football! liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-06-18 09:46 +0100
          Re: Bloody football! Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-18 18:54 +0100
            Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-18 20:36 +0100
              Re: Bloody football! Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-19 09:18 +0100
    Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-18 08:03 +0100
    Re: Bloody football! jon <reading.mostly@crap.org> - 2026-06-25 01:24 +0000
      Re: Bloody football! NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-25 14:12 +0100
        Re: Bloody football! Old John <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-06-25 15:31 +0000
        Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-25 20:45 +0100
          Re: Bloody football! Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-26 08:12 +0100
            Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-26 12:11 +0100
              Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-26 19:21 +0100
                Re: Bloody football! Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-27 09:49 +0100
                  Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-27 20:50 +0100
              Re: Bloody football! Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-06-27 12:07 +0100
                Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-27 15:34 +0100
                  Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-27 20:58 +0100
                    Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-27 23:37 +0100
                      Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 01:26 +0100
                        Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-28 11:20 +0100
                          Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 12:50 +0100
                            Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-28 13:41 +0100
                              Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 14:13 +0100
                                Re: Bloody football! Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 13:26 +0000
                    Re: Bloody football! NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-29 13:22 +0100
                      Re: Bloody football! Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 12:34 +0000
                      Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-29 14:41 +0100
                        Re: Bloody football! NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-06-29 18:48 +0100
          Re: Bloody football! Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> - 2026-06-28 10:55 +0000
            Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 12:56 +0100
              Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-28 14:00 +0100
                Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 14:20 +0100
                  Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-28 15:59 +0100
                    Re: Bloody football! "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-28 18:36 +0100
                      Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-28 21:46 +0100
                Re: Bloody football! JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-06-28 16:10 +0100
                  Re: Bloody football! John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-28 16:17 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#70225

On 27/06/2026 20:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
> similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
> disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.



Like it or not, the sport often gets far larger audiences that the stuff 
that you probably want to watch and it is, of course, normally live.

Whatever they put on, there will be someone who is not happy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70226

On 2026/6/27 23:37:32, JMB99 wrote:
> On 27/06/2026 20:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
>> similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
>> disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the sport often gets far larger audiences that the stuff 
> that you probably want to watch and it is, of course, normally live.

So I don't matter?

It was ever thus, right back to when we only had three (or two, or one,
but that's before my time!) channel(s): sport usurps everything else,
partly for the reason - audience size - you mention.

But now we _do_ have all these channels, it is no longer _necessary_ to
disrupt things to show the sport. Especially as those who like their
prog.s when and where they expect them might well include those less
tech-savvy.
> 
> Whatever they put on, there will be someone who is not happy.
> 
Indeed! Somewhere in the last few decades, Tadio Rimes reprinted a
letter about intrusive background music. It was from the 1920s :-) .
> 
> 
> 
> 
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There I was, sitting in a glum mood - 'Cheer up, things could be
worse', he said, so I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70230

On 28/06/2026 01:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> But now we_do_ have all these channels, it is no longer_necessary_ to
> disrupt things to show the sport. Especially as those who like their
> prog.s when and where they expect them might well include those less
> tech-savvy.



Also no longer necessary complain, just tune to one of the hundreds of 
channel or watch the programme online.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70233

On 2026/6/28 11:20:11, JMB99 wrote:
> On 28/06/2026 01:26, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> But now we_do_ have all these channels, it is no longer_necessary_ to
>> disrupt things to show the sport. Especially as those who like their
>> prog.s when and where they expect them might well include those less
>> tech-savvy.
> 
> 
> 
> Also no longer necessary complain, just tune to one of the hundreds of 
> channel or watch the programme online.
> 
> 
You obviously have no regard for "those less tech-savvy" who may find
"tun[ing] to one of the hundreds of channel or ... online" not as
intuitive as you do.
> 
> 
As for complaining, it's a lot less effective than it ever was, and now
a lot more difficult.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70235

On 28/06/2026 12:50, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> You obviously have no regard for "those less tech-savvy" who may find
> "tun[ing] to one of the hundreds of channel or ... online" not as
> intuitive as you do.


They will probably not want to watch the stuff on those channels. Many 
only watch one or two channels.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70237

On 2026/6/28 13:41:13, JMB99 wrote:
> On 28/06/2026 12:50, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> You obviously have no regard for "those less tech-savvy" who may find
>> "tun[ing] to one of the hundreds of channel or ... online" not as
>> intuitive as you do.
> 
> 
> They will probably not want to watch the stuff on those channels. Many 
> only watch one or two channels.

Exactly! But if what they _want_ to watch has been _moved_ to one of
those channels (let alone to online-only) ...
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I don't see the requirement to upset people. ... There's enough to make
fun of without offending.
- Ronnie Corbett, in Radio Times 6-12 August 2011.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70239

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/6/28 13:41:13, JMB99 wrote:
>> On 28/06/2026 12:50, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> You obviously have no regard for "those less tech-savvy" who may find
>>> "tun[ing] to one of the hundreds of channel or ... online" not as
>>> intuitive as you do.
>> 
>> 
>> They will probably not want to watch the stuff on those channels. Many 
>> only watch one or two channels.
> 
> Exactly! But if what they _want_ to watch has been _moved_ to one of
> those channels (let alone to online-only) ...

Read a book, go for a walk, etc. There’s more to life than the telly,
especially the normally thin summer offerings. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70261

On 27/06/2026 20:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> JMB99 and I don't want to watch "obscure and niche channels" - at least,
> if we do, we're willing to hunt for them. It's the tendency to disrupt
> regular scheduling on common/popular channels that we are objecting to -
> and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
> similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
> disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.

Part of the problem with the "you can always find the programme on 
iPlayer" argument is that often you *can't* because in many cases a 
programme only becomes available there once it has had its showing on 
linear TV. If the linear showing is delayed by live sport etc, the 
online version should be made available as a substitute for those people 
who can access it, even if some people will need to wait until the 
delayed linear showing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70262

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 27/06/2026 20:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> JMB99 and I don't want to watch "obscure and niche channels" - at least,
>> if we do, we're willing to hunt for them. It's the tendency to disrupt
>> regular scheduling on common/popular channels that we are objecting to -
>> and the use of "oh, you can find your normal prog. on iPlayer" or
>> similar to justify the disruption. Why not put the cause of the
>> disruption (often sport!) on iPlayer and/or the "obscure" channel.
> 
> Part of the problem with the "you can always find the programme on 
> iPlayer" argument is that often you *can't* because in many cases a 
> programme only becomes available there once it has had its showing on 
> linear TV. If the linear showing is delayed by live sport etc, the 
> online version should be made available as a substitute for those people 
> who can access it, even if some people will need to wait until the 
> delayed linear showing.
> 

Increasingly iPlayer is making programmes available before broadcast
transmission. For example, all of Michael Portillo’s Japanese Railway
series. And programmes remain on iPlayer for longer. I think it’s probably
partly down to the timescales of sorting out the rights issues. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70263

On 29/06/2026 13:22, NY wrote:
> Part of the problem with the "you can always find the programme on 
> iPlayer" argument is that often you *can't* because in many cases a 
> programme only becomes available there once it has had its showing on 
> linear TV. If the linear showing is delayed by live sport etc, the 
> online version should be made available as a substitute for those people 
> who can access it, even if some people will need to wait until the 
> delayed linear showing.



I thought many programmes are shown on iPlayer before broadcast TV and 
some never get shown on broadcast TV.






.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70267

On 29/06/2026 14:41, JMB99 wrote:
> On 29/06/2026 13:22, NY wrote:
>> Part of the problem with the "you can always find the programme on 
>> iPlayer" argument is that often you *can't* because in many cases a 
>> programme only becomes available there once it has had its showing on 
>> linear TV. If the linear showing is delayed by live sport etc, the 
>> online version should be made available as a substitute for those 
>> people who can access it, even if some people will need to wait until 
>> the delayed linear showing.
> 
> I thought many programmes are shown on iPlayer before broadcast TV and 
> some never get shown on broadcast TV.
On the fairly rare occasions that I've used iPlayer because I've missed 
the start of the linear broadcast, I've found that the episode is not 
visible on iPlayer (or else is listed but not playable) until the end of 
the broadcast. Sometimes it can take minutes or hours before the 
programme is playable.

But I also know that recently some dramas, maybe more so on ITV and CH4 
than BBC, are made available for the whole series when the first episode 
is broadcast.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70231

On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:45:56 +0100, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> I agree, there should be dedicated sports channels - or, a different way
> of looking at it, dedicated sports-free channels, for as NY said
> "scheduled same-time-every-week programming".

This is just same-time-every-year programming. Stop bloody whinging.

>> And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and 
>> other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.[]

These are regular schedule programmes. The schedule is just different to what
you seem to want.

> I don't follow much sport, but when I do, I'm happy to go to another
> channel for it.

Why does the channel matter? Why shouldn't the things most people want to
watch be put on the prime channels?

> But the entire concept of regular scheduled programming is probably
> considered hideously old-fashioned by the latest generation (or two),

See above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70234

On 2026/6/28 11:55:4, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:45:56 +0100, J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I agree, there should be dedicated sports channels - or, a different way
>> of looking at it, dedicated sports-free channels, for as NY said
>> "scheduled same-time-every-week programming".
> 
> This is just same-time-every-year programming. Stop bloody whinging.

:-) Good point.
> 
>>> And I'm sure somewhere in the country/world there will be athletics and 
>>> other sport which "has" to take precedence over regular schedule programmes.[]
> 
> These are regular schedule programmes. The schedule is just different to what
> you seem to want.

Perhaps the sport could get its own slot on "the prime channels" so the
_weekly_ schedule didn't/doesn't get disrupted. I'm sure there is plenty
of sport that could fill that "slot" when the same-time-every-year
events aren't on. (It used to be, for example, normal that Saturday
afternoons on the "prime channels" - and a slot that evening, with a
distinctive theme tune - was sport.)
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70236

On 28/06/2026 12:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Perhaps the sport could get its own slot on "the prime channels" so the
> _weekly_ schedule didn't/doesn't get disrupted. I'm sure there is plenty
> of sport that could fill that "slot" when the same-time-every-year
> events aren't on. (It used to be, for example, normal that Saturday
> afternoons on the "prime channels" - and a slot that evening, with a
> distinctive theme tune - was sport.)
> []
>
The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a 
field" games are not set by our broadcasters, but by those running the 
tournament. The times are set to maximise the audiences and so the 
advertising revenue in the USA.

As for filling the (normally) empty slots on a 24 hour channel with 
other sports, even the popular ones now are struggling to get an 
audience outside peak hours.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70238

On 2026/6/28 14:0:37, John Williamson wrote:
> On 28/06/2026 12:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps the sport could get its own slot on "the prime channels" so the
>> _weekly_ schedule didn't/doesn't get disrupted. I'm sure there is plenty
>> of sport that could fill that "slot" when the same-time-every-year
>> events aren't on. (It used to be, for example, normal that Saturday
>> afternoons on the "prime channels" - and a slot that evening, with a
>> distinctive theme tune - was sport.)
>> []
>>
> The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a 
> field" games are not set by our broadcasters, but by those running the 
> tournament. The times are set to maximise the audiences and so the 
> advertising revenue in the USA.

Ah yes, "must broadcast at the exact minute it happens" (same applies to
news, though there it's "must discuss _before_ it happens"). Whatever
happened to "look away now"?
> 
> As for filling the (normally) empty slots on a 24 hour channel with 
> other sports, even the popular ones now are struggling to get an 
> audience outside peak hours.
> 
No, I was suggesting a "sports" slot on what you call the "prime"
channels, so those who like an ordered life know to avoid that time, and
those who _do_ want it also can have it at an ordered time. My reference
to other sports was to forestall anyone saying "but the world cup [or
whatever] is only on at times - what will you fill that slot with
otherwise?".
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I don't see the requirement to upset people. ... There's enough to make
fun of without offending.
- Ronnie Corbett, in Radio Times 6-12 August 2011.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70242

On 28/06/2026 14:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/6/28 14:0:37, John Williamson wrote:

>> The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a
>> field" games are not set by our broadcasters, but by those running the
>> tournament. The times are set to maximise the audiences and so the
>> advertising revenue in the USA.
>
> Ah yes, "must broadcast at the exact minute it happens" (same applies to
> news, though there it's "must discuss _before_ it happens"). Whatever
> happened to "look away now"?

The broadcasters grew the ability to screen all sorts of stuff as it 
happened, rather than having to carry a videotape on a motorbike.
>>
>> As for filling the (normally) empty slots on a 24 hour channel with
>> other sports, even the popular ones now are struggling to get an
>> audience outside peak hours.
>>
> No, I was suggesting a "sports" slot on what you call the "prime"
> channels, so those who like an ordered life know to avoid that time, and
> those who _do_ want it also can have it at an ordered time. My reference
> to other sports was to forestall anyone saying "but the world cup [or
> whatever] is only on at times - what will you fill that slot with
> otherwise?".
>
Not gonna happen unless you can persuade the organisers to hold their 
matches at a convenient time for you.

But... WhenIwerealad, football used to happen on every ground in the 
country at the same time on a Saturday afternoon, all the results were 
in for the pools countdown on the news barring the occasional late kick 
off, and just about everybody was sitting in Front of the Telly, or 
listening to the radio, checking their coupons. There was the occasional 
lower league match on a Wednesday evening, but they didn't matter as 
they weren't on the coupon. You also got "Match Of the Day" on the BBC, 
and that was all you could watch unless you actually went to the match.

Now, everybody who has an OB team and a van wants to broadcast *every* 
match that they've paid the FA a fortune to show *live* as it happens, 
if not before, and to avoid splitting the advertising revenue, they all 
need to be played at different times. There are also a lot more matches 
per week now than there were then.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70247

On 2026/6/28 15:59:24, John Williamson wrote:
> On 28/06/2026 14:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> On 2026/6/28 14:0:37, John Williamson wrote:
> 
>>> The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a
>>> field" games are not set by our broadcasters, but by those running the
>>> tournament. The times are set to maximise the audiences and so the
>>> advertising revenue in the USA.
>>
>> Ah yes, "must broadcast at the exact minute it happens" (same applies to
>> news, though there it's "must discuss _before_ it happens"). Whatever
>> happened to "look away now"?
> 
> The broadcasters grew the ability to screen all sorts of stuff as it 
> happened, rather than having to carry a videotape on a motorbike.

They also have the ability to broadcast it _not_ when it happens. No
motorbike involved.
>>>
>>> As for filling the (normally) empty slots on a 24 hour channel with
>>> other sports, even the popular ones now are struggling to get an
>>> audience outside peak hours.
>>>
>> No, I was suggesting a "sports" slot on what you call the "prime"
>> channels, so those who like an ordered life know to avoid that time, and
>> those who _do_ want it also can have it at an ordered time. My reference
>> to other sports was to forestall anyone saying "but the world cup [or
>> whatever] is only on at times - what will you fill that slot with
>> otherwise?".
>>
> Not gonna happen unless you can persuade the organisers to hold their 
> matches at a convenient time for you.

Again, I question why it has to be live.
> 
> But... WhenIwerealad, football used to happen on every ground in the 
> country at the same time on a Saturday afternoon, all the results were 
> in for the pools countdown on the news barring the occasional late kick 
> off, and just about everybody was sitting in Front of the Telly, or 
> listening to the radio, checking their coupons. There was the occasional 

And I remember when it actually showed a real teletype printhead!

> lower league match on a Wednesday evening, but they didn't matter as 
> they weren't on the coupon. You also got "Match Of the Day" on the BBC, 
> and that was all you could watch unless you actually went to the match.
> 
> Now, everybody who has an OB team and a van wants to broadcast *every* 
> match that they've paid the FA a fortune to show *live* as it happens, 
> if not before, and to avoid splitting the advertising revenue, they all 

I like the "if not before"!

> need to be played at different times. There are also a lot more matches 
> per week now than there were then.
> 
Yup - so a dedicated sports channel would suit everybody, nonne?
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70251

On 28/06/2026 18:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/6/28 15:59:24, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 28/06/2026 14:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Whatever happened to "look away now"?
>>
>> The broadcasters grew the ability to screen all sorts of stuff as it
>> happened, rather than having to carry a videotape on a motorbike.
>
> They also have the ability to broadcast it _not_ when it happens. No
> motorbike involved.

The breaking point seems to have been when a member of the public used a 
video call to a news programme to broadcast a flood destroying a village 
in the South West as it happened.

>> Not gonna happen unless you can persuade the organisers to hold their
>> matches at a convenient time for you.
>
> Again, I question why it has to be live.

Because that's what the Great Unwashed now demand and expect.
>>
>> But... WhenIwerealad, football used to happen on every ground in the
>> country at the same time on a Saturday afternoon, all the results were
>> in for the pools countdown on the news barring the occasional late kick
>> off, and just about everybody was sitting in Front of the Telly, or
>> listening to the radio, checking their coupons. There was the occasional
>
> And I remember when it actually showed a real teletype printhead!
>
I have used that gimmick when titling a video....
>
>> need to be played at different times. There are also a lot more matches
>> per week now than there were then.
>>
> Yup - so a dedicated sports channel would suit everybody, nonne?
>
Except that it would be commercially unviable.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70243

On 28/06/2026 14:00, John Williamson wrote:
>
> The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a 
> field" games are not set by our broadcasters,


Is that Two Tiers?

Would pay good money to see him being kicked around a field!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70245

On 28/06/2026 16:10, JMB99 wrote:
> On 28/06/2026 14:00, John Williamson wrote:
>>
>> The timeslots for the current batch of "kicking a bag of wind round a
>> field" games are not set by our broadcasters,
>
>
> Is that Two Tiers?
>
> Would pay good money to see him being kicked around a field!
>
>
>
>
LOL!

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast

csiph-web