ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 841 Pages +
  • « First
  • 839
  • 840
  • 841
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas Allegations of working while incapacitated

#16801 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:12 AM

and this from a thread about Strategy and Tactics.

View PostAlan Thomas, on 15 February 2018 - 07:45 PM, said:

How do you explain that my win versus loss rate is much the same as highly qualified legal professionals when dealing with ACC matters?

When people such as John Miller complained that when they take ACC on ACC responds with an overwhelming legal force and I complained that when I addressed the biggest ACC case in their history which took over six weeks of court time ACC found it necessary to have three of their lawyers and the court room going up against myself and bringing into the court about 12 witnesses, which is you must admit quite unusual,how can you even imagine that the loss/win rate is in any way or form relevant. I think John Millers biggest case took about a week. Why would ACC find it necessary to extend the case out to something in the order of six weeks against a Lay litigant such as myself? Obviously the answer is I had a very robust legal argument otherwise the ACC would have sent along one of the junior staff to deal with me.

You need to focus your attention on the issues rather than attacking the man.



You have a point but no resolution to why ACC has a large number of legal misfits on its books.
0

#16802 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:18 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 February 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Subsequent to the ACC to cancel my claim (cover) the ACC has confirmed in court that they have no legal right to cancel my claim and therefore I still have cover.

None of the medical reports or certificates describe symptoms of my injuries but rather have only described the broken and damaged physical elements which have been observed by way of either high-tech scans and/or the surgeons physical observations after opening me up. As there was no Structure connecting between my hand on my arm there is no capacity to bear any load thus making me totally incapacitated to use my right dominant hand which was necessary forMy preinjury occupation. As my claim was under the 1982 legislation this makes me permanently incapacitated unless surgery are successful. The ACC have been directed by two review is to fund the reconstructive surgery to give me a chance of returning to my preinjury occupation but did note that the surgery would need to be tested after the procedure to determine the actual capacity. I have now had that surgery to make the reconnection by way of artificial joint which I now have only four KG which is still far too low to resume my previous occupation. I have however returned on light duties for limited periods of time throughout the day.

Doppelgänger this information has orally been presented on this site and on this particular thread by posting the medical reports. How is it that you are challenging the medical facts which have been derived that by way of science your speculations. It is commonplace for claimants on this site to be complaining about the ACC doing exactly what you are doing so why are you doing it? Are you being paid by the ACC to make this attack against me? Why are you not supporting me in my never to correct the great wrong is that the ACC had committed against me?


You were right they canceled your claim as they should never have given you such a claim. You continued to be an engineer as the court has shown. Your wrist injury is a totally different claim to you work related claim. I think you even told a reviewer you could not work as an engineer also.
0

#16803 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:22 AM

Quote

I will remind what you are doing is gaslighting people.

Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works much better than you may think. Anyone is susceptible to gaslighting, and it is a common technique of abusers, dictators, narcissists, and cult leaders. It is done slowly, so the victim doesn't realize how much they've been brainwashed. For example, in the movie Gaslight (1944), a man manipulates his wife to the point where she thinks she is losing her mind.

People who gaslight typically use the following techniques:

1. They tell blatant lies.

You know it's an outright lie. Yet they are telling you this lie with a straight face. Why are they so blatant? Because they're setting up a precedent. Once they tell you a huge lie, you're not sure if anything they say is true. Keeping you unsteady and off-kilter is the goal.

2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.


You know they said they would do something; you know you heard it. But they out and out deny it. It makes you start questioning your reality—maybe they never said that thing. And the more they do this, the more you question your reality and start accepting theirs.

3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.

They know how important your kids are to you, and they know how important your identity is to you. So those may be one of the first things they attack. If you have kids, they tell you that you should not have had those children. They will tell you'd be a worthy person if only you didn't have a long list of negative traits. They attack the foundation of your being.

4. They wear you down over time.


This is one of the insidious things about gaslighting—it is done gradually, over time. A lie here, a lie there, a snide comment every so often...and then it starts ramping up. Even the brightest, most self-aware people can be sucked into gaslighting—it is that effective. It's the "frog in the frying pan" analogy: The heat is turned up slowly, so the frog never realizes what's happening to it.

5. Their actions do not match their words.

When dealing with a person or entity that gaslights, look at what they are doing rather than what they are saying. What they are saying means nothing; it is just talk. What they are doing is the issue.

6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.

This person or entity that is cutting you down, telling you that you don't have value, is now praising you for something you did. This adds an additional sense of uneasiness. You think, "Well maybe they aren't so bad." Yes, they are. This is a calculated attempt to keep you off-kilter—and again, to question your reality. Also look at what you were praised for; it is probably something that served the gaslighter.


7. They know confusion weakens people.

Gaslighters know that people like having a sense of stability and normalcy. Their goal is to uproot this and make you constantly question everything. And humans' natural tendency is to look to the person or entity that will help you feel more stable—and that happens to be the gaslighter.

8. They project.

They are a drug user or a cheater, yet they are constantly accusing you of that. This is done so often that you start trying to defend yourself, and are distracted from the gaslighter's own behavior.

9. They try to align people against you.


Gaslighters are masters at manipulating and finding the people they know will stand by them no matter what—and they use these people against you. They will make comments such as, "This person knows that you're not right," or "This person knows you're useless too." Keep in mind it does not mean that these people actually said these things. A gaslighter is a constant liar. When the gaslighter uses this tactic it makes you feel like you don't know who to trust or turn to—and that leads you right back to the gaslighter. And that's exactly what they want: Isolation gives them more control.


10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.

This is one of the most effective tools of the gaslighter, because it's dismissive. The gaslighter knows if they question your sanity, people will not believe you when you tell them the gaslighter is abusive or out-of-control. It's a master technique.

article continues after advertisement

11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

By telling you that everyone else (your family, the media) is a liar, it again makes you question your reality. You've never known someone with the audacity to do this, so they must be telling the truth, right? No. It's a manipulation technique. It makes people turn to the gaslighter for the "correct" information—which isn't correct information at all.

The more you are aware of these techniques, the quicker you can identify them and avoid falling into the gaslighter's trap.


This is a reminder of what you are doing and what ACC is doing.
0

#16804 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:50 AM

View Postdoppelganger, on 16 February 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

This is a reminder of what you are doing and what ACC is doing.


The ACC staff in my case have confessed under oath that they have falsified documents on my file and various decisions to the extent that when they claimed to have information that I was working they actually had no information and when they claimed to have made a decision based on a particular section of the act they had not. The ACC went on to claim to the criminal court that I was not entitled to the ACC legislation because of their power to make a decision and not by the fact that they had actually made a decision in accordance with legislated criteria. In other words they committed perjury not only in matters of fact but also matters of law. The ACC continue to rely upon members of the site such as David Butler, Kenneth Miller, Douglas weal and others who have made themselves available to the ACC as can be seen in the documentation made available for the purposes of gas lighting myself and other members of the site.

Doppelgänger it does seem that the ACC have very successfully socially engineered you without your being aware of the fact. In other words you are the one that has been Gaslighted by the ACC
0

#16805 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 February 2018 - 04:54 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 16 February 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

This is a reminder of what you are doing and what ACC is doing.



This is a true description of Mr Thomas. I have moved it to his thread
so his poison should stay where it belongs.

View PostBrucey, on 16 February 2018 - 07:05 AM, said:

Because you are a time wasting, resource squandering, vexatious litigant.

You take the BS and diatribe to court that you litter this site with.


More lies as nothing has been proven .

With regard to the ACC cancelling my claim on the basis that they stated they had information that I was working when two decades later they then confessed that they never had any information but only after going through two of the biggest ACC court cases in the history how can you possibly be so cheeky as to suggest I am vexatious when it is very obvious they are the ones that are vexatious?
Are you totally and thoroughly corrupt? Is ACC paying you are cash or something else such as a car for attacking me in the way you do?


I will post any more posts Mr Thomas does outside of this thread relating to his
imprisonment and failed legal attempts to clear his name etc.
0

#16806 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 February 2018 - 04:58 PM

View Postgreg, on 16 February 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:

This is a true description of Mr Thomas. I have moved it to his thread
so his poison should stay where it belongs.

View PostBrucey, on 16 February 2018 - 07:05 AM, said:

Because you are a time wasting, resource squandering, vexatious litigant.

You take the BS and diatribe to court that you litter this site with.


More lies as nothing has been proven .

With regard to the ACC cancelling my claim on the basis that they stated they had information that I was working when two decades later they then confessed that they never had any information but only after going through two of the biggest ACC court cases in the history how can you possibly be so cheeky as to suggest I am vexatious when it is very obvious they are the ones that are vexatious?
Are you totally and thoroughly corrupt? Is ACC paying you are cash or something else such as a car for attacking me in the way you do?


I will post any more posts Mr Thomas does outside of this thread relating to his
imprisonment and failed legal attempts to clear his name etc.


How much is the ACC paying you in your attempt to manipulate the thinking of people on the site?

Your post has been reported along with others that followed the same modus operandi
0

#16807 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 February 2018 - 05:20 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 February 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

How much is the ACC paying you in your attempt to manipulate the thinking of people on the site?

Your post has been reported along with others that followed the same modus operandi


That you way when you lose Always attack others no wonder you lose lose rather than just tell the truth .

Yes ACC pay ERC to me because I don't lie or mislead them , so I have not been to jail for 3 years.

You should try telling the truth if you can remember that version.


Lets keep all the lies where they belong in Mr Thomas's personal thread.
0

#16808 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 February 2018 - 05:32 PM

View Postgreg, on 16 February 2018 - 05:20 PM, said:

That you way when you lose Always attack others no wonder you lose lose rather than just tell the truth .

Yes ACC pay ERC to me because I don't lie or mislead them , so I have not been to jail for 3 years.

You should try telling the truth if you can remember that version.


Lets keep all the lies where they belong in Mr Thomas's personal thread.


As the ACC have now confessed that they had no work information how are you imagining that I had misled them?

It's no good you talking about a conviction that is based entirely upon the ACC perjury.

So why are you not standing up against the ACC for this heinous action that is perpetrated by the ACC against myself and many others?

Sounds like that you are an irrational nutcase.
0

#16809 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 February 2018 - 05:52 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 February 2018 - 05:32 PM, said:

As the ACC have now confessed that they had no work information how are you imagining that I had misled them?

It's no good you talking about a conviction that is based entirely upon the ACC perjury.

So why are you not standing up against the ACC for this heinous action that is perpetrated by the ACC against myself and many others?

Sounds like that you are an irrational nutcase.




Insults cost nothing but until you prove any claims I will treat you for what you are ;

Brucie sums you up correctly;.

View PostBrucey, on 16 February 2018 - 07:05 AM, said:

Because you are a time wasting, resource squandering, vexatious litigant.

You take the BS and diatribe to court that you litter this site with.


Hopefully we can now keep this bullshit only in this thread.
0

#16810 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:04 PM

View Postgreg, on 16 February 2018 - 05:52 PM, said:

Insults cost nothing but until you prove any claims I will treat you for what you are ;

Brucie sums you up correctly;.

View PostBrucey, on 16 February 2018 - 07:05 AM, said:

Because you are a time wasting, resource squandering, vexatious litigant.

You take the BS and diatribe to court that you litter this site with.


Hopefully we can now keep this bullshit only in this thread.


You say a lot of empty words.
Brucy hasn't even made a post.
Who could know what you are talking about?
0

#16811 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 February 2018 - 08:08 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 February 2018 - 06:04 PM, said:

You say a lot of empty words.
Brucy hasn't even made a post.
Who could know what you are talking about?


Either you cant read or understand postings, I think more of the failure
to comprehend when you get thing wrong.

Just keep in this thread so others can get honest and true ACC law and Policy that
they will need to know if they also don't want to go to jail following your nonsense
and unlawful advice.
0

#16812 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 February 2018 - 08:39 PM

View Postgreg, on 16 February 2018 - 08:08 PM, said:

Either you cant read or understand postings, I think more of the failure
to comprehend when you get thing wrong.

Just keep in this thread so others can get honest and true ACC law and Policy that
they will need to know if they also don't want to go to jail following your nonsense
and unlawful advice.


So what was this so called work that you claim on behalf of the ACC I was supposed to be doing that forms the total basis of your stand against me?
0

#16813 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1118
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 16 February 2018 - 08:51 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 February 2018 - 08:39 PM, said:

So what was this so called work that you claim on behalf of the ACC I was supposed to be doing that forms the total basis of you stand against me?


Not my Problem ,you need to ask the Judge that sent you to Jail.
But of course they are all easily lead by ACC lies and deceit.
Even your so called injury hand or hernia , which ever
has no??. registered ACC claim number .

Butler ,can put it more correctly into the time frame .
Stop the bullshit , keep it in this thread.
0

#16814 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 18 February 2018 - 03:34 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 February 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

The ACC staff in my case have confessed under oath that they have falsified documents on my file and various decisions to the extent that when they claimed to have information that I was working they actually had no information and when they claimed to have made a decision based on a particular section of the act they had not. The ACC went on to claim to the criminal court that I was not entitled to the ACC legislation because of their power to make a decision and not by the fact that they had actually made a decision in accordance with legislated criteria. In other words they committed perjury not only in matters of fact but also matters of law. The ACC continue to rely upon members of the site such as David Butler, Kenneth Miller, Douglas weal and others who have made themselves available to the ACC as can be seen in the documentation made available for the purposes of gas lighting myself and other members of the site.

Doppelgänger it does seem that the ACC have very successfully socially engineered you without your being aware of the fact. In other words you are the one that has been Gaslighted by the ACC



Then use that in court but remember that the fraud case did not find you did work it found that you were able to work including returning to your pre-injury employment as your letter to customers confirmed. You failed not due to your injury but due to you lack of Business the same reason you were bankrupted.
0

#16815 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 18 February 2018 - 03:40 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 16 February 2018 - 11:29 AM, said:

Okay it seems that you are suffering from structural damage which has been documented by the scientific observations made by inappropriately qualified medical professional who has determined and incapacity for you to return to your work. Unless the ACC come up with a superior science based medical report contradicting that authorised information provider then that information continues to be the foundation to your claim. There is absolutely no need for you to become embroiled in arguments regarding others such as a branch medical adviser. Example if the ACC branch medical adviser is a doctor of occupational physiotherapy they do not have the scientific training to alter your treatment providers declaration of fact. In other words such an opinion is irrelevant.

What the ACC commonly do in this situation is introduce all kinds of other information regardless as to its merit in order for you to become embroiled in arguments about other things and then for review as a district court judges to rule on these subservient matter in order that the ACC may shift attention from the scientific authority to that of someone else such as medical professional that does not meet the required legislated criteria to provide the ACC with information. Whenever ACC do this you need to very firmly and directly go back to the baseline information and don't shift beyond that as you don't need to given these red hearings ACC are introducing are in fact irrelevant. I see thus far they have managed to seduce you into arguing about these irrelevancies that they are introducing. What you need to do is write to the ACC telling them that if they wish to challenge science of the medical authority they need to do so in accordance with the legislation by obtaining a report from an orthopaedic specialists superior to the one that you have presented and that if they persist in the side issues you will initiate a complaint under the code of complaints. Remind them that you are available for further assessments by their superior medical assessor as per the requirements of the legislation.

As for ACC staff questioning the existing medical professional suggested that if they take issue with the competency of the professional they need to take the matter up with the Medical Council as if other issues such as age had any relevance you are confident that your treatment provider would have informed the ACC of that in accordance with his professionalism.

Have you had any report as to the way in which the pain medication affects your cognizance incapacity to perform the tasks in your work. For example the maximum dose of tramadol will reduce the IQ by about two points. That is translated into about 30 points on the IQ scale. ACC's viewpoint with myself was that as I still remained above average that I could still work to getting the fact that my work required above average intelligence. It would be useful if you had that information documented and provided to the ACC as I'm quite sure your computer work does require above average intelligence and if you are in the level of pain that you have described it is highly likely that you are on some significant pain medication. A psychiatrist or psychologist might be asked by the ACC to describe your endurance incapacity to deal with pain in relation to the injury for the purposes of increasing your work hours without the psychiatrist or psychologist having any knowledge of the nature of your work. You see the ACC is attempting to try and find some form of information on the third party which they can claim to rely upon in order to cancel your entitlements. This is the reason why you must be properly armed with relevantly qualified information at every single step because now the ACC are attempting to where you down any defined a avenue by which they can reduce their liability to you or that you become frustrated and simply surrender your entitlements (which is the majority of these cases).

The terminology used in the legislation is referencing"...while having regard for the injuries..." when determining a capacity to earn. With that in mind have you got any medical reference describing the consequences if you continue to attempt to work, while taking medication, such as the level of increase damage that you will do to yourself if you make the attempt. This is normally a showstopper when the medical professional describes an increased level of incapacity as that would not be having regard for the injuries when considering rehabilitation.

I once had a lawyer who was very competent in dealing with ACC matters however he did have an injured back. In order for them to work he had a driver that were taken to and from where he needed to go while he lay on the back seat. Nonetheless we arrive in the courtroom and pain and to cope he had to cheer leaned back in a reclining position. It was readily apparent from me that he was very compromised from this capacity to do his duties on my behalf in the courtroom to the extent that he failed to address the matters that he had planned to address over and over. Quite obviously as past, before his injury, he was far more competent than he is now. I would rate him as being unemployable for purposes of addressing ACC complexities and the court despite the fact that in an office environment in a more relaxed situation very could get up and move about at will he had the intellect to know what it was doing. It was just that because of his injuries he could not be adequately relied upon. Your notes that I received criticism on this site as being a failed ACC claimant because of this person. I think there is a lesson in that.

They will probably suggest a stand-up desk and insist that try this. You need to get in first and ask for your treatment providers opinion regarding this so as to determine any benefits while also having regard for the a medication on another such factors that might still preclude any return to the preinjury occupation.

As a former employer of a significant number of people I certainly would not employ anybody that was compromised by way of their injuries or treat them as an equal to someone who is not injured and incapacitated by the injury. This is the reason why we have the ACC which is to compensate. However we did see that the ACC try to cloud the issues and even make employers feel responsible or even argue that hypothetically someone is employable without even factoring in the other considerations that an employer would regarding the person's health and well-being or lack thereof. The ACC legislation ensures your capacity to earn and makes no accounting of ssimply a capacity to attend work.

There is not even a description of work but rather a description of being employed whereby work is just a mere component of the employment factors. I would suggest that you write down every single task undertaken in the form of a job specification. Then make another list of all of the work environmental factors such as sitting. Then attach a co-relation between these factors and your injury and consider whether or not your GP and/or orthopaedic surgeon is addressed these issues. If not it might be appropriate to cover yourself for every eventuality and produce such a document from a medical professional citing each of these elements of your workplace.

You haven't said whether or not there is any medical treatment plan or whether or not there is no opportunity for any improvement. If there are still medical matters yet to be dealt with then the ACC cannot under any circumstances attempt to rehabilitate you into a different type occupation or even modify the existing.

Under the ACC legislation you have absolutely no obligation to improve your hours of work in your existing occupation as that is not an option available to the ACC as a means of rehabilitation. All the ACC are trying to do is reduce their liability and perhaps close the gap between your capacity to work and the number of hours worked menu of occupation to the point where they can get some third party to make a guess to fill that small And leave it to you to argue otherwise of which you will have about a 30% chance of success in defending. It is best that you don't go down that road so as not to put yourself in any form of risk.



Bloody long post with not legislation quoted because you do not look at the legislation.
0

#16816 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 18 February 2018 - 03:57 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 15 February 2018 - 10:09 AM, said:

Alan Thomas would you trust and ACC adviser to provide anything other than advice from the ACC song book?

Within a few postings I recognised a familiar theme and flavour to this advice that you have observed. I also noted that you became aware of the discrepancies yourself on a significant number of occasions whereby you either question or disagree with the so-called advice.

Mini you need to be aware of the infiltration of the ACC doctrine of belief at all levels and all avenues. This even occurs by those who are not even aware of the fact that they have been indoctrinated or socially engineered.

Any you will note that the membership of the site routinely defends integrity of information and often provide warnings of suspicious looking characters. For example ACC medical assessors, reviewers, various ACC staff members and suchlike often find themselves featured by name on this site is being people that they would need to be wary of. This is particularly important for new members of the site or those who just looked of the site for helpful information. It is not helpful to receive or entertain bias information or opinion.


this would also apply to you when you deliberately mislead persons with disability all because you are banned to be an advocate.
0

#16817 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 February 2018 - 04:13 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 18 February 2018 - 03:40 PM, said:

Bloody long post with not legislation quoted because you do not look at the legislation.


You are both off topic and wrong to transfer and a relevant post to this thread for the purposes of Mischief making
0

#16818 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8254
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 February 2018 - 04:15 PM

View Postdoppelganger, on 18 February 2018 - 03:57 PM, said:

this would also apply to you when you deliberately mislead persons with disability all because you are banned to be an advocate.


That is the second time today you have transferred an irrelevant posting to this thread resulting in you being reported again.
0

#16819 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1606
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:19 PM

But at least one can see a pattern of you postings.
0

Share this topic:


  • 841 Pages +
  • « First
  • 839
  • 840
  • 841
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users