goofy313g at aol.com wrote:
>The term "outlaw", which suggests "law", is a little bit strong
>and inapropriate (btw, I don't think the word "f*cking" is
>apropriate to this list either, Søren)
I am very sorry if anyone feel offended of my use of words,
it can sometimes be difficult to find the exact words to
express one's feelings, specialy when one are not even using
one's mother thounge.
Sigvald :-)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Author
Topic: 200211
(577 messages)
Sigvald
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 31 -
2002-11-04 at 15:49:06
Søren Krarup Olesen
Thieves or...
Message 32 -
2002-11-04 at 16:17:00
Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> Your casual dismissal of theft is appalling. If you are simply unable
> to comprehend why a creator doesn't like it when a no-talent creep
> steals his work by removing it from his control, then there's no
> point in arguing. So let's just stick to legalities.
Sure. If someone actually stole my scans (or other material) and
physically removed them from my harddisk, I certainly would get more
than offended.
> When a person creates something out of his own mind, it is his
> property, not just in a moral sense but also, in every civilized
> country in the world, legally. He DOES NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY his choice
> not to allow others to use it.
My ideas etc. are my own, and they fully belong to me *unless* I offer
them for free in a public forum. Just as it is only natural for you to
copy my text in your mail without asking, because that's the way things
work on a mailing list.
> The fact that it is very easy to steal from the Internet is
> immaterial -- it is also very easy to steal a bicycle left on the
> front lawn. The fact that Internet theft is condoned by people who
> have no proprietary interest in the work is not.
That comparison is not fair. If I steal your bicycle, it will be
unavailalbe to you, out of your hand, which is not the case for
"copying" other people's material on the Internet. Information on the
Internet if free by default, which is something many people cannot
comprehend. If you don't like that you have many choices like: 1) Remove
it from the Internet, 2) Make it shareware so people only have limited
access to it and/or have to pay you for it later, 3) Put a copyright
mark on the material, 4) Make it password protected ...
The idea itself of possessing "soft" material doesn't fit the philosophy
behind the Internet too well. Although you personally may find it
"civilized" that you can claim ownership of this or that, then in this
particular case, it is utter oldfashioned capitalism brought to its
limits. That's perfectly alright to have such an opinion of course, and
it can be implemented on Internet material with a minor effort.
> If you don't own intellectual property that you consider valuable
> enough to protect, that's fine. Just put a "no copyright" notice on
> whatever you do, if anything. But don't go around claiming it's okay
> to steal from those who care about their work.
As I already explained, it's the other way around. Sorry, I thought
everyone knew that.
Gilles used the argument, that since he and Sigvald had spend a lot of
time finding and buying Don Rosa family trees, it wouldn't be okay for
anyone to copy *scans* of the material. Hey, let's say I spend ten years
looking for just that old white Volvo Amazone, you can be pretty sure
that I'll take a picture and scan it and put it online (just for
bragging :-) and I really don't see the problem in anyone copying that
scan...not even had I spent twenty years searching for the old wreck.
S?ren
> Your casual dismissal of theft is appalling. If you are simply unable
> to comprehend why a creator doesn't like it when a no-talent creep
> steals his work by removing it from his control, then there's no
> point in arguing. So let's just stick to legalities.
Sure. If someone actually stole my scans (or other material) and
physically removed them from my harddisk, I certainly would get more
than offended.
> When a person creates something out of his own mind, it is his
> property, not just in a moral sense but also, in every civilized
> country in the world, legally. He DOES NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY his choice
> not to allow others to use it.
My ideas etc. are my own, and they fully belong to me *unless* I offer
them for free in a public forum. Just as it is only natural for you to
copy my text in your mail without asking, because that's the way things
work on a mailing list.
> The fact that it is very easy to steal from the Internet is
> immaterial -- it is also very easy to steal a bicycle left on the
> front lawn. The fact that Internet theft is condoned by people who
> have no proprietary interest in the work is not.
That comparison is not fair. If I steal your bicycle, it will be
unavailalbe to you, out of your hand, which is not the case for
"copying" other people's material on the Internet. Information on the
Internet if free by default, which is something many people cannot
comprehend. If you don't like that you have many choices like: 1) Remove
it from the Internet, 2) Make it shareware so people only have limited
access to it and/or have to pay you for it later, 3) Put a copyright
mark on the material, 4) Make it password protected ...
The idea itself of possessing "soft" material doesn't fit the philosophy
behind the Internet too well. Although you personally may find it
"civilized" that you can claim ownership of this or that, then in this
particular case, it is utter oldfashioned capitalism brought to its
limits. That's perfectly alright to have such an opinion of course, and
it can be implemented on Internet material with a minor effort.
> If you don't own intellectual property that you consider valuable
> enough to protect, that's fine. Just put a "no copyright" notice on
> whatever you do, if anything. But don't go around claiming it's okay
> to steal from those who care about their work.
As I already explained, it's the other way around. Sorry, I thought
everyone knew that.
Gilles used the argument, that since he and Sigvald had spend a lot of
time finding and buying Don Rosa family trees, it wouldn't be okay for
anyone to copy *scans* of the material. Hey, let's say I spend ten years
looking for just that old white Volvo Amazone, you can be pretty sure
that I'll take a picture and scan it and put it online (just for
bragging :-) and I really don't see the problem in anyone copying that
scan...not even had I spent twenty years searching for the old wreck.
S?ren
H.W.Fluks
Another Greek "outlaw"
Message 33 -
2002-11-04 at 16:23:36
Sigvald:
> > PLEASE STOP THIS BULLSHIT!
> > [..]
>
> That's *not* the problem here.
I think that *is* the problem here. Stop discussing viruses on DCML. Please.
--Harry.
> > PLEASE STOP THIS BULLSHIT!
> > [..]
>
> That's *not* the problem here.
I think that *is* the problem here. Stop discussing viruses on DCML. Please.
--Harry.
Olivier
Hachette's e-mail
Message 34 -
2002-11-04 at 16:29:01
Hi everyone!
Rob:
>> Greetings, fellow members. If any of you could provide me with Hachette's
>> (French Disney Comics Publisher's) Editorial Office e-mail address, and also
>> Back Issue Department's e-mail address, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
Sorry for the delay, Rob. I attended a conference last week and couldn't phone Hachette-- and since
some days were off, I figured it was no use trying.
I have just phoned Disney and am sending you an e-mail.
Best wishes to you all!
Olivier
Rob:
>> Greetings, fellow members. If any of you could provide me with Hachette's
>> (French Disney Comics Publisher's) Editorial Office e-mail address, and also
>> Back Issue Department's e-mail address, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
Sorry for the delay, Rob. I attended a conference last week and couldn't phone Hachette-- and since
some days were off, I figured it was no use trying.
I have just phoned Disney and am sending you an e-mail.
Best wishes to you all!
Olivier
H.W.Fluks
Thieves or...
Message 35 -
2002-11-04 at 16:35:26
S?ren:
> Information on the Internet is free by default
This is simply not true. Normal copyright laws are also valid for the
Internet.
> 3) Put a copyright mark on the material
A copyright notice has no legal effect in any way. A copyright is something
you own by default. Adding a notice is just a service to the reader. You
only lose your rights if you explicitly state so.
> > don't go around claiming it's okay
> > to steal from those who care about their work.
>
> As I already explained, it's the other way around. Sorry, I thought
> everyone knew that.
Everyone cannot know that, since it is wrong. *I* thought everyone knew
*that*...
> let's say I spend ten years
> looking for just that old white Volvo Amazone, you can be pretty sure
> that I'll take a picture and scan it and put it online (just for
> bragging :-) and I really don't see the problem in anyone copying that
> scan...not even had I spent twenty years searching for the old wreck.
This is besides the point. In your example, you would have put 20 years of
effort in *making the scan*.
Without copyright laws, no-one would do the trouble to do too much effort to
make anything public.
--Harry.
> Information on the Internet is free by default
This is simply not true. Normal copyright laws are also valid for the
Internet.
> 3) Put a copyright mark on the material
A copyright notice has no legal effect in any way. A copyright is something
you own by default. Adding a notice is just a service to the reader. You
only lose your rights if you explicitly state so.
> > don't go around claiming it's okay
> > to steal from those who care about their work.
>
> As I already explained, it's the other way around. Sorry, I thought
> everyone knew that.
Everyone cannot know that, since it is wrong. *I* thought everyone knew
*that*...
> let's say I spend ten years
> looking for just that old white Volvo Amazone, you can be pretty sure
> that I'll take a picture and scan it and put it online (just for
> bragging :-) and I really don't see the problem in anyone copying that
> scan...not even had I spent twenty years searching for the old wreck.
This is besides the point. In your example, you would have put 20 years of
effort in *making the scan*.
Without copyright laws, no-one would do the trouble to do too much effort to
make anything public.
--Harry.
Klartekst
How about a little Christmas spirit?
Message 36 -
2002-11-04 at 17:01:44
I have only been on the list for a few months, so I don't know if this has
been discussed before:
Every December I read A Christmas for Shacktown and all the other Barks
Christmas classics. It's a tradition. This year I'll read them to my
grandson for the first time (he is four).
I seem to remember another great Christmas story which was very much in the
Barks spirit. Donald is a forest ranger and tries desperateley to get home
for Christmas. I think it was drawn by Vicar. Does anybody know the story code?
And can anyone on the list suggest other good non-Barks Xmas stories
featuring Donlad or $crooge?
I know it's a little early, but ...
Nils from Norway
been discussed before:
Every December I read A Christmas for Shacktown and all the other Barks
Christmas classics. It's a tradition. This year I'll read them to my
grandson for the first time (he is four).
I seem to remember another great Christmas story which was very much in the
Barks spirit. Donald is a forest ranger and tries desperateley to get home
for Christmas. I think it was drawn by Vicar. Does anybody know the story code?
And can anyone on the list suggest other good non-Barks Xmas stories
featuring Donlad or $crooge?
I know it's a little early, but ...
Nils from Norway
Søren Krarup Olesen
Thieves or...
Message 37 -
2002-11-04 at 17:12:37
HARRY:
> A copyright notice has no legal effect in any way. A copyright is
> something you own by default. Adding a notice is just a service to
> the reader. You only lose your rights if you explicitly state so.
But why did we spent so much time formulating the Inducks license then,
if it has no legal effect anyway? Hmmm...well...thinking about it, it's
just to *lose* rights, nothing else...
Ah, well, that's what comes from (in my case) being cocksure, but still,
almost all freeware comes without any license at all, how is that
possible? Hm, nevermind.
I still find copying material a minor crime. And as for scanning in ten
years, it better come out in a good resolution then.
S?ren
> A copyright notice has no legal effect in any way. A copyright is
> something you own by default. Adding a notice is just a service to
> the reader. You only lose your rights if you explicitly state so.
But why did we spent so much time formulating the Inducks license then,
if it has no legal effect anyway? Hmmm...well...thinking about it, it's
just to *lose* rights, nothing else...
Ah, well, that's what comes from (in my case) being cocksure, but still,
almost all freeware comes without any license at all, how is that
possible? Hm, nevermind.
I still find copying material a minor crime. And as for scanning in ten
years, it better come out in a good resolution then.
S?ren
H.W.Fluks
Rich: Of Ducks & Mice
Message 38 -
2002-11-04 at 17:41:19
Rich:
> Of course, this all began when I questioned the DCML, back in the
> beginning of the List (1992???)
Yep, the beginning of the DCML was 10 years ago, last August. There were 3
very active members at that time: you, Per, and me. 8-)
--Harry.
(2002:
50 years of Dutch "Donald Duck" weekly
10 years of DCML
40 years of Harry Fluks
)
> Of course, this all began when I questioned the DCML, back in the
> beginning of the List (1992???)
Yep, the beginning of the DCML was 10 years ago, last August. There were 3
very active members at that time: you, Per, and me. 8-)
--Harry.
(2002:
50 years of Dutch "Donald Duck" weekly
10 years of DCML
40 years of Harry Fluks
)
Claudio Eckert
Copyrights... - again?
Message 39 -
2002-11-04 at 18:02:29
Forget the virus, talk about copyrights...
Please, not again discussions about *that* :-)
I think, Søren is right: the internet was invented for sharing Informations!
But fairness should be expected! It's truly not nice to use someones work
without any references. I guess, that's the whole point.
greetings,
Claudio
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
Please, not again discussions about *that* :-)
I think, Søren is right: the internet was invented for sharing Informations!
But fairness should be expected! It's truly not nice to use someones work
without any references. I guess, that's the whole point.
greetings,
Claudio
_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
H.W.Fluks
Copyrights... - again
Message 40 -
2002-11-04 at 18:10:01
Claudio:
> the internet was invented for sharing Informations!
Exactly. That's why the hyperlink was invented.
This does not mean that the Internet was invented to copy information
without mentioning the source!
> Forget the virus, talk about copyrights...
> Please, not again discussions about *that* :-)
Okay. 8-)
--Harry.
> the internet was invented for sharing Informations!
Exactly. That's why the hyperlink was invented.
This does not mean that the Internet was invented to copy information
without mentioning the source!
> Forget the virus, talk about copyrights...
> Please, not again discussions about *that* :-)
Okay. 8-)
--Harry.
Søren Krarup Olesen
Copyrights... - again
Message 41 -
2002-11-04 at 19:34:39
HARRY:
(no, this is not off topic, many DCML members have their own websites,
so let's get this straightened out once and for all)
>> the internet was invented for sharing Informations!
>
>
> Exactly. That's why the hyperlink was invented. This does not mean
> that the Internet was invented to copy information without mentioning
> the source!
No one ever suggested that, Harry! Just talking about the copying
itself. I am however curious to know what authority defined the
*default* of the Internet. Was it the Dutch government, the Danish, the
EEC, the United Nations, a five man group of judges carefully picked in
"civilized" countries/states? I really don't see any clauses attached to
Internet material, but I might have overlooked something of course.
The (C) mark may not have any "official" value in itself, but at least
you've told the visitor of your site, that this is something you'd like
to keep by yourself or at least something which deserves a reference of
some sort.
If I put something on the Internet, let it be this beautiful scan of my
(imaginary) favourite Volvo and I do not place any copyright mark or
license text anywhere and someone copies it, well, I doubt I will have
any case in terms of a law suit.
Pragmatically,
S?ren
(The Internet is an anarchy that works only because the good guys
eventually kick out the bad guys)
(no, this is not off topic, many DCML members have their own websites,
so let's get this straightened out once and for all)
>> the internet was invented for sharing Informations!
>
>
> Exactly. That's why the hyperlink was invented. This does not mean
> that the Internet was invented to copy information without mentioning
> the source!
No one ever suggested that, Harry! Just talking about the copying
itself. I am however curious to know what authority defined the
*default* of the Internet. Was it the Dutch government, the Danish, the
EEC, the United Nations, a five man group of judges carefully picked in
"civilized" countries/states? I really don't see any clauses attached to
Internet material, but I might have overlooked something of course.
The (C) mark may not have any "official" value in itself, but at least
you've told the visitor of your site, that this is something you'd like
to keep by yourself or at least something which deserves a reference of
some sort.
If I put something on the Internet, let it be this beautiful scan of my
(imaginary) favourite Volvo and I do not place any copyright mark or
license text anywhere and someone copies it, well, I doubt I will have
any case in terms of a law suit.
Pragmatically,
S?ren
(The Internet is an anarchy that works only because the good guys
eventually kick out the bad guys)
Ari Seppi
Thieves or...
Message 42 -
2002-11-04 at 19:34:58
S?ren:
>But why did we spent so much time formulating the Inducks license then,
>if it has no legal effect anyway? Hmmm...well...thinking about it, it's
>just to *lose* rights, nothing else...
Yes, isn't that what all licenses are all about: losing rights. In cases of
commercial software, for example, for money exchanging right to use
the program for individual people/companies and in case of free software/
information giving everybody the rights of use and reproduction (possibly
with some limitations).
And about the copying (since I believe nobody have said it in this
discussion): even copying Disney copyrighted pictures is, of course,
perfectly legal as long as it is done according to the principles
of fair use. (Did somebody really think that, for example, all the
newspaper articles or reviews with some comics panels would
be illegal?)
--
Ari Seppi (ari.seppi at iki.fi)
http://www.iki.fi/mani/
Winnie the Pooh is my great guru.
>But why did we spent so much time formulating the Inducks license then,
>if it has no legal effect anyway? Hmmm...well...thinking about it, it's
>just to *lose* rights, nothing else...
Yes, isn't that what all licenses are all about: losing rights. In cases of
commercial software, for example, for money exchanging right to use
the program for individual people/companies and in case of free software/
information giving everybody the rights of use and reproduction (possibly
with some limitations).
And about the copying (since I believe nobody have said it in this
discussion): even copying Disney copyrighted pictures is, of course,
perfectly legal as long as it is done according to the principles
of fair use. (Did somebody really think that, for example, all the
newspaper articles or reviews with some comics panels would
be illegal?)
--
Ari Seppi (ari.seppi at iki.fi)
http://www.iki.fi/mani/
Winnie the Pooh is my great guru.
Donald D. Markstein
Thieves or...
Message 43 -
2002-11-04 at 19:51:48
> Ah, well, that's what comes from (in my case) being cocksure, but still,
> almost all freeware comes without any license at all, how is that
> possible? Hm, nevermind.
It is possible because the creator of the work chose to release it to the
public domain. Anything can be given away free, if the owner chooses to do
so. (I don't understand why this isn't immediately obvious.)
> Hey, let's say I spend ten years
> looking for just that old white Volvo Amazone, you can be pretty sure
> that I'll take a picture and scan it and put it online (just for
> bragging :-) and I really don't see the problem in anyone copying that
> scan...not even had I spent twenty years searching for the old wreck.
Who cares how little value you place on your own work? You still have no
right to apply your pronouncements to the work of others.
> almost all freeware comes without any license at all, how is that
> possible? Hm, nevermind.
It is possible because the creator of the work chose to release it to the
public domain. Anything can be given away free, if the owner chooses to do
so. (I don't understand why this isn't immediately obvious.)
> Hey, let's say I spend ten years
> looking for just that old white Volvo Amazone, you can be pretty sure
> that I'll take a picture and scan it and put it online (just for
> bragging :-) and I really don't see the problem in anyone copying that
> scan...not even had I spent twenty years searching for the old wreck.
Who cares how little value you place on your own work? You still have no
right to apply your pronouncements to the work of others.
Ari Seppi
Copyrights... - again
Message 44 -
2002-11-04 at 20:07:20
S?ren:
>No one ever suggested that, Harry! Just talking about the copying
>itself. I am however curious to know what authority defined the
>*default* of the Internet. Was it the Dutch government, the Danish, the
>EEC, the United Nations, a five man group of judges carefully picked in
>"civilized" countries/states?
Possibly nobody actually defined that. I assume Internet just isn't
considered as a special case when applying the Berne convention
articles*). (Why should it be?)
*) http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
--
Ari Seppi (ari.seppi at iki.fi)
http://www.iki.fi/mani/
Winnie the Pooh is my great guru.
>No one ever suggested that, Harry! Just talking about the copying
>itself. I am however curious to know what authority defined the
>*default* of the Internet. Was it the Dutch government, the Danish, the
>EEC, the United Nations, a five man group of judges carefully picked in
>"civilized" countries/states?
Possibly nobody actually defined that. I assume Internet just isn't
considered as a special case when applying the Berne convention
articles*). (Why should it be?)
*) http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
--
Ari Seppi (ari.seppi at iki.fi)
http://www.iki.fi/mani/
Winnie the Pooh is my great guru.
Xephyr
Italian names?
Message 45 -
2002-11-04 at 20:18:14
A question primarily geared toward our Italian members.
A long time ago, I believe I discussed some of this with our good friend
Franco (Eta Beta), and now I'm going for some more clarification, and some
correction to my faulty memory. I'm not looking for a complete list and I
am aware of the DCML Translation list. I just think that the DCML list
might be lacking some of the more "historic" information (such as Mickey's
"full" name in Italian which I find interesting). I'm also looking for
more "complete" information, such as if Paperina originally had a first
name or if Clarabella or Orazio had surnames, etc.
Is the following list correct? If you know any early or additional names
attributed to the characters, or have corrections to contribute, please
advise:
English Name = Italian Name
--------------------------------
Mickey Mouse = Michelino Topolino (now just called Topolino)
Minnie Mouse = Minni Topolina (now just called Minni)
Donald Duck = Paolino Paperino (now just called Paperino)
Goofy = Pippo
Pluto = Pluto
Daisy = Paperina (I believe she had a first name too, but I don't know it)
Black Pete = Pietro Gambadilegno (usually just called Gambadilegno now)
Gyro Gearloose = Archemede Pitagorico (usually just called Archemede now,
though formerly known as Giro Rotalibera)
Beagle Boys = Banda Bassoti
Magica DeSpell = Amelia
Gladstone Gander (Donald's lucky cousin) = Gastone Paperone
Uncle Scrooge/Scrooge McDuck = Zio Paperone/Paperon de Paperoni
Huey, Dewey & Louie Duck (Donald's Nephews) = Qui, Quo & Qua
Fethry Duck (Donald's weird cousin) = Paperoga
April, May & June Duck (Daisy's Nieces) = Emy, Ely & Evy
Morty & Ferdie (Mickey's Nephews) = Tip & Tap
Melody (Minnie's Niece) = Melody
Clarabelle Cow = Clarabella
Horace Horsecollar = Orazio
Madame Clara Cluck = Clara
Chief O'Hara (Chief of Police) = Commissario Adam Basettoni
Grandma "Elviry Coot" Duck = Nonna Papera
Duck Avenger/Super Duck (Donald as superhero) = Paperinik
Super Goof (Goofy as superhero) = Super Pippo
Gus Goose (Donald's lazy cousin) = Ciccio
Eega Beeva (Mickey's friend from the future) = Eta Beta
Ellsworth (Goofy's talking minah bird) = Gancio
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
A long time ago, I believe I discussed some of this with our good friend
Franco (Eta Beta), and now I'm going for some more clarification, and some
correction to my faulty memory. I'm not looking for a complete list and I
am aware of the DCML Translation list. I just think that the DCML list
might be lacking some of the more "historic" information (such as Mickey's
"full" name in Italian which I find interesting). I'm also looking for
more "complete" information, such as if Paperina originally had a first
name or if Clarabella or Orazio had surnames, etc.
Is the following list correct? If you know any early or additional names
attributed to the characters, or have corrections to contribute, please
advise:
English Name = Italian Name
--------------------------------
Mickey Mouse = Michelino Topolino (now just called Topolino)
Minnie Mouse = Minni Topolina (now just called Minni)
Donald Duck = Paolino Paperino (now just called Paperino)
Goofy = Pippo
Pluto = Pluto
Daisy = Paperina (I believe she had a first name too, but I don't know it)
Black Pete = Pietro Gambadilegno (usually just called Gambadilegno now)
Gyro Gearloose = Archemede Pitagorico (usually just called Archemede now,
though formerly known as Giro Rotalibera)
Beagle Boys = Banda Bassoti
Magica DeSpell = Amelia
Gladstone Gander (Donald's lucky cousin) = Gastone Paperone
Uncle Scrooge/Scrooge McDuck = Zio Paperone/Paperon de Paperoni
Huey, Dewey & Louie Duck (Donald's Nephews) = Qui, Quo & Qua
Fethry Duck (Donald's weird cousin) = Paperoga
April, May & June Duck (Daisy's Nieces) = Emy, Ely & Evy
Morty & Ferdie (Mickey's Nephews) = Tip & Tap
Melody (Minnie's Niece) = Melody
Clarabelle Cow = Clarabella
Horace Horsecollar = Orazio
Madame Clara Cluck = Clara
Chief O'Hara (Chief of Police) = Commissario Adam Basettoni
Grandma "Elviry Coot" Duck = Nonna Papera
Duck Avenger/Super Duck (Donald as superhero) = Paperinik
Super Goof (Goofy as superhero) = Super Pippo
Gus Goose (Donald's lazy cousin) = Ciccio
Eega Beeva (Mickey's friend from the future) = Eta Beta
Ellsworth (Goofy's talking minah bird) = Gancio
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .