Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard - Linux

This is a discussion on Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard - Linux ; I'm hereby OFFICIALLY calling on all governments who will cast their ballot for the ISO approval procedure of Open XML in August 2007 to REJECT the proposal and to deny Microsoft's Office format the status of a standard. I also ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

  1. Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    I'm hereby OFFICIALLY calling on all governments who will cast their ballot for the ISO approval procedure of Open XML in August 2007 to REJECT the proposal and to deny Microsoft's Office format the status of a standard.

    I also call on citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, the European Union, India, China, Japan, Korea, Africa, Australia, South America and other Asian nations to write to their governments department of economic affairs and to plead for the rejection of the proposal to let Open XML become an ISO standard.

    The reasons are many, but the most important ones are:

    1) there's already an ISO standard called ODF, Open Document Format, which is truly open, not just named as such. Having two standards would be confusing and illogical. There can be only ONE standard!!

    2) Microsoft's so called 'Open' XML is merely a ploy to keep the status quo and it's protected by 'hidden' patents. It can therefore never be used on an equal footing by other vendors. For this fact alone the Open XML standard should be rejected outright!!


  2. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard


    "Mr Hyde" wrote in message
    news:844db24661cc9aa97839878b17207819@hermetix.org ...
    > I'm hereby OFFICIALLY calling on all governments who will cast their
    > ballot for the ISO approval procedure of Open XML in August 2007 to REJECT
    > the proposal and to deny Microsoft's Office format the status of a
    > standard.
    >
    > I also call on citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, the European
    > Union, India, China, Japan, Korea, Africa, Australia, South America and
    > other Asian nations to write to their governments department of economic
    > affairs and to plead for the rejection of the proposal to let Open XML
    > become an ISO standard.
    >
    > The reasons are many, but the most important ones are:
    >
    > 1) there's already an ISO standard called ODF, Open Document Format, which
    > is truly open, not just named as such. Having two standards would be
    > confusing and illogical. There can be only ONE standard!!
    >
    > 2) Microsoft's so called 'Open' XML is merely a ploy to keep the status
    > quo and it's protected by 'hidden' patents. It can therefore never be used
    > on an equal footing by other vendors. For this fact alone the Open XML
    > standard should be rejected outright!!
    >


    I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    number of users. That way, the least number of people would have to make
    any change to match the standard. Majority rules and that is the only fair
    way to handle this.


  3. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard


    "amicus_curious" wrote in message
    news:4708518a$0$24904$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster. com...
    >
    > "Mr Hyde" wrote in message
    > news:844db24661cc9aa97839878b17207819@hermetix.org ...
    >> I'm hereby OFFICIALLY calling on all governments who will cast their
    >> ballot for the ISO approval procedure of Open XML in August 2007 to
    >> REJECT the proposal and to deny Microsoft's Office format the status of a
    >> standard.
    >>
    >> I also call on citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, the
    >> European Union, India, China, Japan, Korea, Africa, Australia, South
    >> America and other Asian nations to write to their governments department
    >> of economic affairs and to plead for the rejection of the proposal to let
    >> Open XML become an ISO standard.
    >>
    >> The reasons are many, but the most important ones are:
    >>
    >> 1) there's already an ISO standard called ODF, Open Document Format,
    >> which is truly open, not just named as such. Having two standards would
    >> be confusing and illogical. There can be only ONE standard!!
    >>
    >> 2) Microsoft's so called 'Open' XML is merely a ploy to keep the status
    >> quo and it's protected by 'hidden' patents. It can therefore never be
    >> used on an equal footing by other vendors. For this fact alone the Open
    >> XML standard should be rejected outright!!
    >>

    >
    > I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    > number of users. That way, the least number of people would have to make
    > any change to match the standard. Majority rules and that is the only
    > fair way to handle this.


    I think there is an even easier way to handle this - Oped Data Format
    legislation. With Open Data Format legislation, the format of the data is
    irrelevant as the format must be published by law. Using Open Data Format
    legislation, companies are free to store user data in any format that they
    desire. They are free to innovate new data storage techniques to speed data
    transmission and storage. And, any other vendor can import the data (or
    export their own data to that format) because all data formats are published
    openly.

    jim



  4. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    amicus_curious wrote:

    > I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater number of users ..


    No, the standard should be a standard that anyone could write to without
    restriction and everyone's implementation should read/write everyone
    elses implementation ..

  5. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:feamvs$re7$2@news.datemas.de...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    >> number of users ..

    >
    > No, the standard should be a standard that anyone could write to without
    > restriction and everyone's implementation should read/write everyone elses
    > implementation .


    I think that is the Microsoft position as well. They are freely offering
    the details of their formats for implementation by anyone skilled in the art
    as far as I know. There are complaints from those who lack the necessary
    skills, I understand, but that is not a valid criticism of Microsoft's
    efforts.


  6. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard


    "jim" wrote in message
    news:sqYNi.1497$fa.1256@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "amicus_curious" wrote in message
    > news:4708518a$0$24904$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster. com...
    >>
    >> "Mr Hyde" wrote in message
    >> news:844db24661cc9aa97839878b17207819@hermetix.org ...
    >>> I'm hereby OFFICIALLY calling on all governments who will cast their
    >>> ballot for the ISO approval procedure of Open XML in August 2007 to
    >>> REJECT the proposal and to deny Microsoft's Office format the status of
    >>> a standard.
    >>>
    >>> I also call on citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, the
    >>> European Union, India, China, Japan, Korea, Africa, Australia, South
    >>> America and other Asian nations to write to their governments department
    >>> of economic affairs and to plead for the rejection of the proposal to
    >>> let Open XML become an ISO standard.
    >>>
    >>> The reasons are many, but the most important ones are:
    >>>
    >>> 1) there's already an ISO standard called ODF, Open Document Format,
    >>> which is truly open, not just named as such. Having two standards would
    >>> be confusing and illogical. There can be only ONE standard!!
    >>>
    >>> 2) Microsoft's so called 'Open' XML is merely a ploy to keep the status
    >>> quo and it's protected by 'hidden' patents. It can therefore never be
    >>> used on an equal footing by other vendors. For this fact alone the Open
    >>> XML standard should be rejected outright!!
    >>>

    >>
    >> I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    >> number of users. That way, the least number of people would have to make
    >> any change to match the standard. Majority rules and that is the only
    >> fair way to handle this.

    >
    > I think there is an even easier way to handle this - Oped Data Format
    > legislation. With Open Data Format legislation, the format of the data is
    > irrelevant as the format must be published by law. Using Open Data Format
    > legislation, companies are free to store user data in any format that they
    > desire. They are free to innovate new data storage techniques to speed
    > data transmission and storage. And, any other vendor can import the data
    > (or export their own data to that format) because all data formats are
    > published openly.
    >

    That seems to be Microsoft's position as well. The details of their new
    format, as has been the case for their previous formats, have been made
    available in specification form for anyone to use. They are quite complex,
    however, due to the inherent complexity of their office automation products
    and the need to convey the attributes of these complex documents.


  7. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    > news:feamvs$re7$2@news.datemas.de...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>> I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    >>> number of users ..

    >>
    >> No, the standard should be a standard that anyone could write to without
    >> restriction and everyone's implementation should read/write everyone
    >> elses implementation .

    >
    > I think that is the Microsoft position as well. They are freely offering
    > the details of their formats for implementation by anyone skilled in the
    > art
    > as far as I know. There are complaints from those who lack the necessary
    > skills, I understand, but that is not a valid criticism of Microsoft's
    > efforts.


    Dishonest swine

    --
    Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
    a trail of destruction behind it.


  8. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:feb04q$13h$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    >> news:feamvs$re7$2@news.datemas.de...
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    >>>> number of users ..
    >>>
    >>> No, the standard should be a standard that anyone could write to without
    >>> restriction and everyone's implementation should read/write everyone
    >>> elses implementation .

    >>
    >> I think that is the Microsoft position as well. They are freely offering
    >> the details of their formats for implementation by anyone skilled in the
    >> art
    >> as far as I know. There are complaints from those who lack the necessary
    >> skills, I understand, but that is not a valid criticism of Microsoft's
    >> efforts.

    >
    > Dishonest swine
    >

    Ignorant dolt with no understanding of the issues
    > --
    > Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
    > a trail of destruction behind it.
    >



  9. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    In article ,
    Doug Mentohl wrote:
    > > I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    > > number of users ..

    >
    > No, the standard should be a standard that anyone could write to without
    > restriction and everyone's implementation should read/write everyone
    > elses implementation ..


    Well, ODF fails that test. What would you suggest as the standard, then?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  10. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    amicus_curious wrote:

    > I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    > number of users. That way, the least number of people would have to
    > make any change to match the standard. Majority rules and that is the
    > only fair way to handle this.


    I think that you're a slimy POS who thinks that we all owe allegiance to
    the monopolizers at Microshaft, just because they got a big head start.

  11. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    Tim Smith did eloquently scribble:
    > In article ,
    > Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >> > I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    >> > number of users ..

    >>
    >> No, the standard should be a standard that anyone could write to without
    >> restriction and everyone's implementation should read/write everyone
    >> elses implementation ..


    > Well, ODF fails that test. What would you suggest as the standard, then?


    Fails?
    Examples please?
    ODF is a freely open format unencumbered by copyright or patent and
    available for anyone to implement. More than can be said for microsoft's
    formats. Even OOXML has patenty bits that've caused a lot of concern.

    If someone can't implement ODF properly, it's not the fault of the format.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
    | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
    | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  12. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    In article , spike1@freenet.co.uk
    wrote:
    > >> No, the standard should be a standard that anyone could write to without
    > >> restriction and everyone's implementation should read/write everyone
    > >> elses implementation ..

    >
    > > Well, ODF fails that test. What would you suggest as the standard, then?

    >
    > Fails?
    > Examples please?


    All major ODF implementations include implemetation-specific extensions
    in their documents. If you want examples, save some documents and look
    at them. You'll find plenty of tags and/or attributes that are not
    specified in the standard, and that you need to understand in order to
    usefully import the document.

    This situation will get better. Version 1.2 of ODF, currently undergoing
    development, adds a large number of new tags and/or attributes, which
    will cover many of these cases. Most of these match tags and/or
    attributes that are in the OOXML specification and are one of the main
    reasons OOXML is so large.

    > ODF is a freely open format unencumbered by copyright or patent and
    > available for anyone to implement. More than can be said for microsoft's


    ODF is not unencumbered. It is covered by Sun patents, which Sun has
    made available under a free license for use in implementing ODF 1.0, and
    any future versions of ODF that Sun participates in the development of.

    However, if you wished to develop your own format for some private
    application, based on ODF, the Sun patent license would not cover you.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    Tim Smith writes:

    > In article , spike1@freenet.co.uk
    > wrote:
    >> >> No, the standard should be a standard that anyone could write to without
    >> >> restriction and everyone's implementation should read/write everyone
    >> >> elses implementation ..

    >>
    >> > Well, ODF fails that test. What would you suggest as the standard, then?

    >>
    >> Fails?
    >> Examples please?

    >
    > All major ODF implementations include implemetation-specific extensions
    > in their documents. If you want examples, save some documents and look
    > at them. You'll find plenty of tags and/or attributes that are not
    > specified in the standard, and that you need to understand in order to
    > usefully import the document.


    I'm not quite sure which degree mill Spike obtained his "CS degree", but
    he demonstrates a total ignorance of ODF time and time again. He appears
    to have no idea what the extensions are for and how they affect the
    "Openness". I think the problem is that he accepts his Masters Voice too
    easily without questioning whether it is right or wrong. The hiding he
    took about WINE was a wonderful example of blind compliance to the COLA
    mantra resulting in getting spanked.


  14. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    Hadron did eloquently scribble:
    > I'm not quite sure which degree mill Spike obtained his "CS degree",


    There you go again. Any opportunity you get to attack me for having the
    audacity of having a degree, you can't resist.

    Now explain to me, in what way does my degree have any impact on my
    need to have allknowing insight into every aspect of ODF?

    You really think comp-sci degrees are capable of covering such things?

    Are the professors suddenly expected to acquire the powers of prescience?
    Just to keep the students ahead of the pack?
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
    | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
    | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  15. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:

    > Hadron did eloquently scribble:
    >> I'm not quite sure which degree mill Spike obtained his "CS degree",

    >
    > There you go again. Any opportunity you get to attack me for having the
    > audacity of having a degree, you can't resist.


    I have a degree. But I don't feel the need to advertise it to all and
    sundry as you do. *shrug*. You advertise yourself as a professional with
    qualifications so one would expect your comments to be valid.

    >
    > Now explain to me, in what way does my degree have any impact on my
    > need to have allknowing insight into every aspect of ODF?


    It should have given you enough "insight" to understand how these things
    work and not blindly accept ODF is perfect with what is obviously no
    personal exposure to it. Thats not being a SW engineer. Its being a
    blind bigot. Maybe you would like to address the points Tim made?

    >
    > You really think comp-sci degrees are capable of covering such things?


    It should teach you how to analyse and think. At the very least.

    >
    > Are the professors suddenly expected to acquire the powers of prescience?
    > Just to keep the students ahead of the pack?


    No. Why? What *are* you talking about? I am expressing surprise that
    someone so keen to advertise his qualifications seems so unable to view
    something as important as ODF dispassionately with professional
    appraisal as opposed to rhetoric and ignorance.

    --
    Harriet's Dining Observation:
    In every restaurant, the hardness of the butter pats
    increases in direct proportion to the softness of the bread.

  16. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    spike1 wrote:

    > Hadron did eloquently scribble:
    >> I'm not quite sure which degree mill Spike obtained his "CS degree",

    >
    > There you go again. Any opportunity you get to attack me for having the
    > audacity of having a degree, you can't resist.


    LOL Is Hadron Quasshole still harping about your degree? How pathetic.

  17. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    chrisv did eloquently scribble:
    > spike1 wrote:


    >> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
    >>> I'm not quite sure which degree mill Spike obtained his "CS degree",

    >>
    >> There you go again. Any opportunity you get to attack me for having the
    >> audacity of having a degree, you can't resist.


    > LOL Is Hadron Quasshole still harping about your degree? How pathetic.


    Indeed.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
    | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
    | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  18. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    chrisv wrote:

    > spike1 wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
    >>> I'm not quite sure which degree mill Spike obtained his "CS degree",

    >>
    >> There you go again. Any opportunity you get to attack me for having the
    >> audacity of having a degree, you can't resist.

    >
    > LOL Is Hadron Quasshole still harping about your degree? How pathetic.


    Sad isn't it. Jealousy is a mental cancer. ~B.C. Forbes

    --
    Operating systems:
    FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4
    Testing: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
    (K)Ubuntu 7.04, Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" beta

  19. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "jim" wrote in message
    > news:sqYNi.1497$fa.1256@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    >>
    >> "amicus_curious" wrote in message
    >> news:4708518a$0$24904$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster. com...
    >>>
    >>> "Mr Hyde" wrote in message
    >>> news:844db24661cc9aa97839878b17207819@hermetix.org ...
    >>>> I'm hereby OFFICIALLY calling on all governments who will cast their
    >>>> ballot for the ISO approval procedure of Open XML in August 2007 to
    >>>> REJECT the proposal and to deny Microsoft's Office format the status of
    >>>> a standard.
    >>>>
    >>>> I also call on citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, the
    >>>> European Union, India, China, Japan, Korea, Africa, Australia, South
    >>>> America and other Asian nations to write to their governments
    >>>> department of economic affairs and to plead for the rejection of the
    >>>> proposal to let Open XML become an ISO standard.
    >>>>
    >>>> The reasons are many, but the most important ones are:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) there's already an ISO standard called ODF, Open Document Format,
    >>>> which is truly open, not just named as such. Having two standards would
    >>>> be confusing and illogical. There can be only ONE standard!!
    >>>>
    >>>> 2) Microsoft's so called 'Open' XML is merely a ploy to keep the status
    >>>> quo and it's protected by 'hidden' patents. It can therefore never be
    >>>> used on an equal footing by other vendors. For this fact alone the Open
    >>>> XML standard should be rejected outright!!
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    >>> number of users. That way, the least number of people would have to
    >>> make
    >>> any change to match the standard. Majority rules and that is the only
    >>> fair way to handle this.

    >>
    >> I think there is an even easier way to handle this - Oped Data Format
    >> legislation. With Open Data Format legislation, the format of the data
    >> is
    >> irrelevant as the format must be published by law. Using Open Data
    >> Format legislation, companies are free to store user data in any format
    >> that they
    >> desire. They are free to innovate new data storage techniques to speed
    >> data transmission and storage. And, any other vendor can import the data
    >> (or export their own data to that format) because all data formats are
    >> published openly.
    >>

    > That seems to be Microsoft's position as well. The details of their new
    > format, as has been the case for their previous formats, have been made
    > available in specification form for anyone to use. They are quite
    > complex, however, due to the inherent complexity of their office
    > automation products and the need to convey the attributes of these complex
    > documents.


    How dishonest can you be? Even in 6000 pages there's no way a developer can
    produce an OOXML file from microsoft formats.

    Complexity? Bull****... utter bull****.

    The problem is microsoft continually changing their file formats in order to
    stymie other office suites trying to be compatible with their "standard".

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  20. Re: Call for rejection of Open XML as an ISO standard


    "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    news:9544203.dx9JA8H1c8@netscape.net...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "jim" wrote in message
    >> news:sqYNi.1497$fa.1256@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    >>>
    >>> "amicus_curious" wrote in message
    >>> news:4708518a$0$24904$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster. com...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Mr Hyde" wrote in message
    >>>> news:844db24661cc9aa97839878b17207819@hermetix.org ...
    >>>>> I'm hereby OFFICIALLY calling on all governments who will cast their
    >>>>> ballot for the ISO approval procedure of Open XML in August 2007 to
    >>>>> REJECT the proposal and to deny Microsoft's Office format the status
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> a standard.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I also call on citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, the
    >>>>> European Union, India, China, Japan, Korea, Africa, Australia, South
    >>>>> America and other Asian nations to write to their governments
    >>>>> department of economic affairs and to plead for the rejection of the
    >>>>> proposal to let Open XML become an ISO standard.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The reasons are many, but the most important ones are:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1) there's already an ISO standard called ODF, Open Document Format,
    >>>>> which is truly open, not just named as such. Having two standards
    >>>>> would
    >>>>> be confusing and illogical. There can be only ONE standard!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2) Microsoft's so called 'Open' XML is merely a ploy to keep the
    >>>>> status
    >>>>> quo and it's protected by 'hidden' patents. It can therefore never be
    >>>>> used on an equal footing by other vendors. For this fact alone the
    >>>>> Open
    >>>>> XML standard should be rejected outright!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I think that the standard should depend on which format has the greater
    >>>> number of users. That way, the least number of people would have to
    >>>> make
    >>>> any change to match the standard. Majority rules and that is the only
    >>>> fair way to handle this.
    >>>
    >>> I think there is an even easier way to handle this - Oped Data Format
    >>> legislation. With Open Data Format legislation, the format of the data
    >>> is
    >>> irrelevant as the format must be published by law. Using Open Data
    >>> Format legislation, companies are free to store user data in any format
    >>> that they
    >>> desire. They are free to innovate new data storage techniques to speed
    >>> data transmission and storage. And, any other vendor can import the
    >>> data
    >>> (or export their own data to that format) because all data formats are
    >>> published openly.
    >>>

    >> That seems to be Microsoft's position as well. The details of their new
    >> format, as has been the case for their previous formats, have been made
    >> available in specification form for anyone to use. They are quite
    >> complex, however, due to the inherent complexity of their office
    >> automation products and the need to convey the attributes of these
    >> complex
    >> documents.

    >
    > How dishonest can you be? Even in 6000 pages there's no way a developer
    > can
    > produce an OOXML file from microsoft formats.
    >

    Well speak for yourself. The developers who are good enough at it to get a
    job seem to be able to do it. There are even some OSSers who seem to be
    able. If you cannot understand, perhaps you should choose another line of
    work.

    > Complexity? Bull****... utter bull****.
    >
    > The problem is microsoft continually changing their file formats in order
    > to
    > stymie other office suites trying to be compatible with their "standard".
    >

    No, silly. The storage file formats change to support new features added to
    the office automation products. How would you add a feature and not have
    any change to your storage formats? XML is the solution to that problem,
    BTW. Now to add a feature and support, you just add some XML to define it.
    If you use an older version of a product without the feature, the XML is
    simply ignored and the document is presented in whatever way the program
    understands.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast