I love 
. Do you? Click here.
Introduction
1: Where are we coming from?
2: Mapping the Territory
3: Water Logic
4: Making Up Our Minds: The Does-it-Fit Machine
5: Being Set in Our Minds: the Rationalisation Machine
6: Changing Our Minds: how we justify our decisions
and beliefs
7: Telling Ourselves the Truth
8: Telling Each Other the Truth
9: Nobody's Perfect
10: The Habits of Highly Effective People: Private
Victory
11: The Habits of Highly Effective People: Public
Victory
12: You Can't Change Human Nature
13: Making a Difference in a Changing World
At the end of the twentieth century, change is inescapable. Even the way things change
is changing - and that's not going to change. We have to live with it, whether we like it
or not.
So, let's learn to like it. Since we don't have any choice about whether things will
change or not, let's learn to cope and adapt and enjoy the new challenges it brings.
Topics we will cover include:
What changes have you recently faced?
What changes are you facing now?
What changes do you expect to face in the near future?
Why are you coming along to a course on change?
How do you usually deal with change at the moment?
What would you like to change about yourself?
What have you found to be successful or unsuccessful ways of bringing about change in
yourself?
A number of people have studied the way people deal with tragic change, and have found that there seem to be several steps:
"I'm all right."
"I can't cope!"
"How could this happen to me?"
"Life goes on."
Can you think of examples of this process in your own life?
Throughout this course, we will be learning to use thinking tools which will help us
understand ourselves and the change process. These tools have been developed by a number
of different people, but most of them come from Dr Edward de Bono, who gave a name to the
concept of 'lateral thinking'.
Although it sounds a bit like a disease, PMI is actually a tool for mapping out a
situation. The initials stand for Plus, Minus, and Interesting.
Doing a PMI is very simple. Take a piece of paper and set up three columns. Head them up
P, M, I.
Now list the points about a situation you are facing under the three columns. Think about
each point. Is it a Plus, a Minus, or neither a plus or minus - just something
Interesting?
How has your thinking about the situation changed because of the exercise?
So far, we've looked at how we can deal with change around us. We've looked at how we
need a place to stand, and we'll continue to build on that. But how can we take control of
change and make it work for us?
There's a saying: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' That's not always true, as we'll see,
but even if it was - how do you know if it's 'broke'?
Before we can make sensible decisions about changing a situation, we need to understand
the situation as it is. Before we go anywhere, we need a map.
'If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if your know the conditions and know the terrain, you may make your victory complete.'
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War (fifth century BC)
"Give me a place to stand, and a lever long enough," said the Greek scientist
Archimedes, "and I will move the earth."
During this course we'll be exploring places to stand. Our 'levers long enough' will be
our mind tools, but our 'place to stand' is not something we can just learn.
What sustains you through difficult times?
What would give you the confidence you need to make changes in yourself?
A map doesn't just show you where you are and where you're going. A map shows you the
shape of the terrain, and that can be very important for deciding how you will get
to where you're going.
Edward de Bono talks about two kinds of logic (two ways of thinking about situations):
Edward de Bono argues that the natural way that the human mind works is as a
self-patterning system, like the water logic system. It has flow and direction, and these
directions become more and more marked over time - the process we call 'learning'.
For technical and pure scientific purposes, rock logic works very well. It is an attempt
to describe the parts of the world that stay put. But for complex, changing situations,
particularly ones with a human dimension, only water logic offers the creativity and
flexibility that we need to resolve them. Its most important function is to give us an
insight into the way we ourselves think.
Edward de Bono has written two entire books on this, I am right, you are wrong
and Water Logic. I won't attempt to summarise both books in one session, but we can
look at the thinking tool he presents in Water Logic: the 'flowscape'.
The flowscape is a tool for understanding our own perceptions. It is useful in underlining
to us what we believe to be really important, really central, about an issue.
If we want to change, we need to know what we are already like, because something in our
present character or beliefs may be preventing us from changing. If we want to go
somewhere, we need a map which shows where we already are - and the most difficult things
we will have to face in trying to get somewhere else.
When Sir Edmund Hillary was being interviewed by a reporter on why he had climbed Mt Everest, he gave her the cliché answer: "Because it was there."
"I would have thought that was a good reason to go around it, Sir Edmund," she said.
A flowscape is another way of looking at the features of a situation that we looked at
last week as Pluses, Minuses and Interesting. This time, though, the list is more of our perceptions
about the situation, and how each of these connects to the others.
List down as many perceptions as you like about a situation you are facing. Label them A,
B, C etc.
Now, for each perception, pick one (and only one) of the others on the list that you feel
it 'flows to' - you see a strong connection between the two. Put the letter of this second
perception after the first. For a simple example:
A I feel afraid B
B There are no guarantees A
Sometimes the perceptions will feed back to each other in a 'loop' like this. Other
times, a lot of different perceptions will feed into one 'gathering point'.
By making a diagram of the letters and how they relate to each other, you can see more
clearly what the 'central issues' are for you.
Try a flowscape of a situation you are concerned about.
There are two 'machines' inside our heads which are involved in first making decisions,
then helping us to stick with decisions in the face of opposition. Without these
'machines', we wouldn't be able to make a decision and then follow through on it in the
face of opposition. Unfortunately, they can also make it difficult to change our minds,
even when we need to.
The two machines are 'black boxes' - we're not really aware of how they work inside. We
just put things into them (inputs) and take other things out of them (outputs) without
knowing how one turns into the other. I call the machines the Does-it-Fit Machine and the
Rationalisation Machine.
The Does-it-fit Machine.
The DIF Machine takes a complex input of facts, feelings, past decisions, mood, etc,
feeds it through our established values, and produces a simple output - a 'yes' or 'no'
answer to the question 'Does it fit?', 'it' being the proposed decision.
Because it's dependent on our values, it can't give an answer that is better than the
values we hold. A study in the USA found that of the most 'mentally healthy' people in the
study, almost all were involved in some group or organisation which offered a
well-worked-out system of values. Part of what made them 'mentally healthy' was that they
were making good life decisions, because they had well-constructed DIF machines to make
sense of life with.
What values are used in your DIF machine?
Do you find that they lead to good decisions?
If not, where might you look for a better set of values?
The R Machine could also be called the Yes, Damn it, It Fits Machine. It is the device
by which we justify our decision, once arrived at, to ourselves and others. At its
simplest it is the reverse of the DIF Machine. It takes the DIF Machine's output as its
input and produces all or many of the factors which were initially fed into the DIF
Machine as reasons for the decision.
Some people dont always allow the R Machine access to the real reasons. Perhaps they have
made their DIF Machines more of black boxes than they might, or perhaps they feel they
have something to hide from the person they are presenting to (themselves or someone
else). The R Machine then has to generate some reasons of its own using a set of values
which may be called the Second Values.
The First Values are the values (and associated motivations) which were actually used in
the decision; the Second Values are the values which are presented as having been used.
The two are not necessarily the same.
Can you think of an example when you've claimed to do something for a particular
reason, knowing that this would be more acceptable than the real reason?
The effect of the R Machine is to reinforce the decision which the DIF Machine
produced, since there is a personal investment in this decision:
What other investments do we make in our decisions, which must be protected?
The Run-it-again Threshold
Circumstances and our own attitudes both change over time, and if there is a
sufficiently large shift the Run-it-again Threshold will be passed. This is the amount of
change in conditions which will overcome the R Machine's justifications, and cause the DIF
Machine to be used on the situation again. At this point the original decision may be
either reversed or reinforced, depending on the outcome of the DIF Machine's working.
Have you ever had cause to seriously reconsider an important decision? What brought you
to this point?
The Hungarian philosopher Michael Polanyi, in an important article published in the
1950s, talked about how systems of belief are set up to be self-reinforcing. He looked at
the magical beliefs of the Azande people of Africa and compared them to his own belief in
science as an explanation for the universe.
He found that the two belief systems had a lot in common. In particular, they used three
important processes to deal with any new information and incorporate it into the existing
beliefs.
Without using Polanyi's technical terms, these were circular explanations, extra
elaborations, and dismissing objections one by one.
1. A circular explanation is used when our belief appears to be justified by
the facts. If someone gets sick among the Azande, they use an oracle to find out who
caused it, and make them stop the witchcraft, and the patient gets better (most people who
get sick do get better). Every time this happens, their belief that the oracles are
effective and that witchcraft is the cause of sickness are reinforced. The pattern goes:
"I did this, and that happened. So doing this makes that happen."
The Natural Law Party contested the 1990 New Zealand parliamentary elections on a platform of government-supported transcendental meditation. They claimed that after several thousand people in Britain had used TM techniques aimed at increasing peace in society at large, the crime rate in Britain had dropped.
Probably the rate of dog registrations in Britain had also gone up in the same period, but nobody connected this either with a drop in crime or with the use of TM.
Polanyi, a scientist, believed that disease was caused by tiny living creatures, too small
to see with the naked eye and in some cases with instruments. When certain drugs believed
to affect these creatures are used, the patient gets better. To the Azande, this
explanation is as incredible as theirs is to us.
2. An extra elaboration is used when our explanation doesn't appear to work, to
show that it really worked after all.
If the patient doesn't get better, the Azande claim that the oracle was used incorrectly,
or that witchcraft interfered with the oracle - they build on their basic belief in
oracles and witchcraft to provide reasons why this explanation doesn't seem to be working.
If a western doctor's patient doesn't respond to antibiotics, it's because the patient
hasn't used them correctly, or the disease has become 'resistant' to this particular
antibiotic, or it's a 'virus'. (A virus doesn't respond to antibiotics. This sickness
hasn't responded to antibiotics. So, this sickness is a virus.)
This pattern goes: "The thing that was supposed to happen didn't happen. This doesn't
mean my belief is wrong, only that there is some other reason - which fits in with my
belief - that it didn't happen."
3. Dismissing objections one by one ensures that nobody else can set up a rival
system of belief. Each time someone tries to explain the germ theory of disease to the
Azande, or the magical theory of disease to a Western doctor, every point that is made can
be dismissed with an explanation from within the existing system.
Because each part of the alternative explanation is rejected, the whole of it is also
rejected. But it is not rejected as a whole; it is rejected a piece at a time.
Only when the exceptions mount up, the difficulties get harder and harder to explain away,
and the Run-it-Again Threshold is reached, do we seriously consider adopting a rival
system, and then we adopt it all at once. It may take us a while, though, to stop
reverting to our old system, and to work out and live out all the implications of our new
belief.
Have you ever had a major change of belief system? What prompted the change?
How long did it take you to fit into the new system?
We've been looking at how our beliefs are formed and defended. Our purpose in doing
this was not to dig away your 'place to stand, from which you can move the world'. Far
from it. What we were attempting to do is reach an understanding of the power of belief,
and raise your awareness of your own belief systems, so you can make necessary
adjustments.
Michael Polanyi wasn't arguing against having beliefs. Both as a scientist and as a
Christian, he held a number of beliefs about how the universe worked. The point of his
article was that we should be aware of these beliefs, and aware that they are
beliefs. We should come to 'own' our own beliefs.
'As a man thinks in his heart, so he is,' said the wisest man of the ancient world
(Proverbs 23:7). Psychologist William Backus and psychotherapist Marie Chapian wrote a
book based around this idea, called Telling Yourself the Truth. Their argument is
that our behaviour and our feelings are both profoundly affected by what we believe, and
tell ourselves, about our past and present circumstances.
Note that they don't point to the circumstances themselves, but to what we believe
about the circumstances. It's been said that the person who believes they can be
successful and the person who believes they can't are both right. To a certain extent, our
beliefs become self-fulfilling prophecies, as we act as if they are true.
For instance, 'business confidence' - the confidence among businesspeople generally that
business is going to go well - means that people spend money on expanding their
businesses. This puts more money in circulation, and business does go well.
Can you think of other examples of 'self-fulfilling prophecy' - in your life, or in the
world at large?
Obviously, some things remain true, or false, whether we believe them or not. No
matter how devoutly I believe that I can fly like Superman, if I jump off a high building
in practice of this belief I will fall to the ground and probably be killed. These are
'rock logic' things that aren't affected by our perceptions.
When it comes to 'water logic', though, often what we believe becomes true. If we perceive
that the issue of 'fear' is the most important in a situation, it really is (for us). If
we believe that we're unhappy, we are. But if we believe that we need not be unhappy, that
we can change, then that can come true, as well.
Do you believe you can change?
Do you believe you can achieve more than you are now?
If belief is often 'watery', how can we be sure of what we believe? How can we know if
what we believe about ourselves is true? How can we discover things about ourselves which
need to change?
This is when we all need the support of a group. This is not to say that truth is
determined by majority vote, or that just because several people believe the same thing,
it is true. Fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong. But having a support and
accountability group gives you access, hopefully, to more wisdom and insight than sitting
by yourself contemplating your own problems from only one perspective. There are things
only you know about yourself. There are also things only other people know about you,
which you're completely unaware of.
Can you think of a habit you have which you were unaware of until someone pointed it
out to you?
When we're giving each other advice and feedback, though, there are ways and ways.
There are ways of giving advice which are counterproductive, because they put people on
the defensive and give them an excuse to focus on your failings at communication, rather
than their own problems which you've tactlessly brought to their attention. William
Backus, co-author of Telling Yourself the Truth, has another book called Telling
Each Other the Truth about just these issues.
First of all, you need to establish that you are not trying to be superior or to make them
look, or feel, inferior. This is not a power game; it's helping.
There are two parts to this. First, you must actually have this motivation. Then, you must
communicate that you have this motivation. The one doesn't automatically lead to
the other.
If you set yourself up as an expert, a know-all, or someone with no problems, people won't
listen. If you whine, or nag, or manipulate, people may listen or they may not, but they
won't be helped by what you are doing.
Do people take your advice? How is it offered?
Would you take advice that was offered like that?
Manipulation - getting people to do things indirectly, by playing on their emotions
such as guilt, anger or fear - may or may not be 'effective'. It is certainly not helpful
in changing people into better, more confident human beings who can take responsibility
for their own change.
Refusing to manipulate, and refusing to be manipulated, is part of a commitment to truth
which comes with a healthy value system.
How do you try to get people to do what you want?
What's wrong with just asking them?
If you think that asking people to do what you want will mean that they won't, this is
sometimes true. Which is better, though: that someone does what you want and resents you
for it, or that someone doesn't do what you want, but respects you?
If they don't respect you, why would they ever help you change?
If manipulation - either practised by you or practised on you - is a problem for you, get
hold of Telling Yourself the Truth (William Backus, Bethany House, 1985) or Getting
to Yes: How to Negotiate Agreement Without Giving In (Roger Fisher and William Ury,
Hutchinson, 1982).
In brief, their advice is:
Which of these ideas is most startling to you? Why?
How often have you pointed out an error to someone, to be told in a hurt manner,
"Nobody's perfect"?
I sometimes want to say, "I didn't ask you to be perfect. I just want you to do
better next time." (Of course, this isn't a tactful way of going about it.)
But nobody is perfect, of course. They're quite right. Why, then, do some of us try
to be?
Does this sound familiar? You take on a task, and work hard at it. Other people commend
you for your work, and you do a good job, much better than a lot of other people. But
you're disappointed and dissatisfied. Your job didn't meet your own performance standards.
It wasn't perfect.
I've found the following motto very helpful in overcoming my own perfectionism:
Perfection is rarely if ever practical.
Improvement is almost always achievable.
Instead of trying to be perfect at something, I concentrate on being better
at it - better this year than I was last year, this month than last month, this week than
last week, today than yesterday, this afternoon than this morning.
Instant perfection is a ridiculous goal; it just doesn't happen. Even over the long term,
if we are always comparing ourselves with perfection, we will always be falling short. But
if we compare ourselves with where we've come from, we will have a constant
positive rather than a constant negative. We will have a constant sense of achievement,
and our self-confidence will rise instead of falling.
Are you a perfectionist?
Have you ever achieved perfection?
Do you ever expect to?
Not all of us are perfectionists. Most people, in fact, have more trouble with low
standards than standards that are too high. They are not as motivated as the
perfectionists and don't achieve as much, but are usually more satisfied with what they do
achieve.
Sometimes, though, these people feel they do want to change, but don't know how - they
'can't get motivated'. They might, for instance, make a New Year's resolution - then break
it almost immediately. If you are one of these people, the same technique - of manageable
improvement - can work for you as well.
Getting started is the hardest part. The job may seem too large, too frightening. But
you don't have to do the whole thing right now. You only have to start.
Decide that you will start, in a small, achievable way - perhaps a trivially small way -
to do the thing that seems too daunting. Then follow through on this decision. After all,
it's not hard to do a little thing.
If you're afraid of heights (I am), try climbing a very small rock. Next time you have the
opportunity, you could climb a larger rock. Ultimately, you may decide to take a
rock-climbing course, which right now is much too frightening to contemplate. You don't
have to contemplate it right now. You're not deciding to do that. You're deciding to climb
a small, harmless, quite safe-feeling rock.
What are you going to do, before next week, that is a manageable start on something
you've never been able to face?
Stephen R. Covey, in his brilliant book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, lists three habits which make for 'private victory' - victory within your own soul. These are 'Be Proactive', 'Begin with the End in Mind', and 'Put First Things First'.
According to the well-known saying, there are people who make things happen, people who
watch things happen, and people who wonder what happened. There are 'thermometer' people,
who respond to what's happening around them, and 'thermostat' people, who notice what's
happening and then do something to change it.
Last week, we looked at the 'manageable start' and the principle of 'improvement, not
perfection'. These are tools for putting into practice the attitude of being proactive.
Imagine that you believe you are a victim of circumstances, with no power to decide, no
power to change. Think about your current situation. How does it look?
Now imagine you are - as you really are - able to make significant decisions, take
responsibility for your life, and make a difference. Think about your situation again. See
the difference?
There is no victory without a plan.
There is no point in having a map of our situation that shows us the obstacles and paths
surrounding us if we don't know where we want to go.
Decide where you want to go. Then look at how you are going to get there. Start from the
goal and work backwards, breaking it down into smaller and smaller steps, until you have a
'manageable start' that you can do right now.
What are some of your goals? Do this exercise for one of your important goals. What is
your 'manageable start?'
Your plan, carefully worked through, will tell you what is important to your goal.
You can only reach your goal if you stay on track with the plan and don't allow other
things to take up the resources you need to reach the goal.
What are some time- and resource-draining things which could interfere with your plan?
How are you going to cope with them?
Besides the three habits of 'private victory', Stephen Covey has three habits of
'public victory' (the seventh is 'renewal', which reinforces and supports the first six).
'Private victory' is about independence, being able to look after yourself in an adult
way. 'Public victory' is about interdependence, healthy interaction with others -
the step beyond independence that a lot of people never really master.
Covey's 'public victory' habits are 'Think Win/Win', 'Seek First to Understand, Then to Be
Understood', and 'Synergize'.
In The Art of Peace, my adaptation of the
ancient Chinese classic The Art of War, I define 'victory' as 'achieving mutual
benefit':
If there is a winner and a loser, then there are two losers.
If I win at your expense, I forfeit your trust and your friendship, and thus, perhaps, your future co-operation. This is the indirect cost of winning.
Winning may also involve great direct cost, as resources are poured into 'victory' by both sides. This is especially so when 'victory' is the result of one side's reluctance or inability to spend any further resources on the conflict. This side has lost as much as, or more than, it believes it can afford. The other side has probably lost nearly the same amount, perhaps more, but it began with more or was prepared to reach a lower level of remaining resources in order to gain 'victory'. Most of these resources have been spent to no productive end. . . .
Mutual benefit is victory. Loss on both sides is defeat for both sides.
Have you ever 'won' an argument only to find that you've lost something more important?
This is also a major part of Fisher and Ury's Getting to Yes. If we can show
people that we understand their position, they will be much more open to listening to ours
- they won't feel they have to keep talking until we understand them.
While they don't know that you understand them, they will not be thinking about
understanding you. They will be thinking about making their own position clear to you.
Everyone likes to be understood. This is a very cheap and easy mutual benefit which you
can offer them, just by listening carefully and asking questions which help you understand
- without giving advice until you're asked.
'Synergy' is combining our efforts so that together we can achieve what none of us
could do individually. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
How can the whole be greater than the sum of its parts? Well, when you put things together
- cogwheels in a machine, for instance - you've added something to the parts which they
can't have as individual items. What you've added is the relationship between the
parts. This becomes an extra 'part' which you have created by putting all the other parts
together. And you can't create it any other way.
What relationships do you have which enable you to do things you couldn't do alone -
which the other people in those relationships couldn't do alone either?
What are some ways you can strengthen this aspect of your life? What are some 'manageable
starts' you can make?
Stephen Covey talks about 'Empathic listening' - listening for the emotion underlying
the words, then reflecting it back without evaluating, probing or advising. Once people
feel emotionally understood, they have a 'place to stand' - they can bring up the
issues that are really bothering them. Because they see that you understand, they will
feel comfortable asking you to help them with these issues. At this point, you can give
advice.
Practice 'empathic listening'. Plan how you can make a 'manageable start' on putting
this technique into practice.
The English humorous songwriters Flanders and Swann have a song about 'The Reluctant
Cannibal', who one day refuses to go on eating people. His father argues with him, calling
him a young idealist whose crazy ideas are bound to make him unpopular:
Going around saying "Don't eat people" -
That's the way to make people hate yer.
We always have eaten people, always will eat people;
You can't change human nature.
It's a bad rhyme, but it's true. You can't reach into anybody else's head and change them
- as much as we might want to sometimes. They may not think they can change, they may not
think they need to change, or they may simply not want to change. They may be so set in
their ways that they are unable to imagine any other way of doing things, or that there's
anything wrong with what they're doing.
The only person you can be guaranteed to bring about change in is yourself. But this may
be enough. Consider:
How have you responded when other people have changed?
How have other people responded when you have changed?
We've looked at change from many angles over the past few months. We've explored the
way that we cope with change. We've thought about having a 'place to stand' so that we can
change without fear. We've learned to use mind tools to map where we are and where we're
going.
We've explored the devices in our minds and the shape of our belief systems which make it
hard for us to change. We've talked about telling ourselves the truth and telling each
other the truth.
We've discovered why perfectionism doesn't work and why we break our good resolutions, and
have learned a technique for getting around this: the 'manageable start'. We've discussed
private victory and public victory and how to achieve them.
Last session, we talked about the problem of not being able to change others. So why are
we talking, this week, about making a difference in a changing world?
Think about a surfer. A wave, a huge mass of water not under his control, sweeps along towards him. But because he has a surfboard, and has positioned himself to catch the wave, he is carried along with it, harnessing its power, enjoying something that might have swept him helplessly away.
The wave is change. The surfboard is your place to stand. And the surfer is you.
Just by being able to deal with change, you've already gained an advantage in a world
where change comes along all the time. You can enjoy what others must struggle with. And
that, by itself, makes you valuable, and will bring people around you who want you to show
them how they, too, can cope with change.
Think about a party of explorers. They are making their way through difficult territory. But one of them is a mapmaker. Who will they turn to when they want to get somewhere?
The mapmaker is you.
Just by being able to figure out where you are, you have gained an advantage in a world
where most people feel lost and confused. You can be confident when others are uncertain.
And that, too, will bring people around you who want to learn from you and follow you.
Think about a group of people in blindfolds, groping their way along. They don't know whether there is a broad road or a cliff edge in front of their feet, because they can't see their feet.
One person has taken off the blindfold and can see. This person strides confidently along the broad road, and skirts the cliff edge safely.
The person without the blindfold is you.
Most people can't look at their own belief systems - the things which are taking them
where they're going. Their feet, if you like.
Just by learning to see your own belief systems, you have gained an advantage in a world
where most people grope along at the mercy of badly-thought-out, unconscious beliefs. You
can harness some of the immense power of your belief system in helping you to change and
grow.
Think about a remote village. The people are in trouble. But they are a long way from any help, and they have no transport.
Someone from the village arrives at the nearest town, many miles away, with the message that they need help.
"How did you get here?" the people in the town ask.
"I walked."
"Walked? But it's such a long way."
"Well, I just took a step, and then another step, and then another step. None of the steps were very long at all."
The person who walked is you.
Just by being able to change and improve, you have gained an advantage in a world where
most people are paralysed by the idea of change.
Think of a huge crowd of people. Hundreds of thousands of people are sitting helpless, deeply concerned at what is going on around them. Each one is thinking, "What can one person do?"
Then one person stands up and tells them that they're not alone, that if they work together, they can overcome the problems that have them individually defeated.
The person standing up is you.
Just by understanding the power of win-win, empathic listening, and synergy, you have
gained an advantage in a world which is spending much of its energy fighting itself.
By making change your servant instead of your master, you have gained power in a changing
world.
What are you going to do with it? And what is your 'manageable start'?
I love |
You are visitor number to this page since
29 November 1997.
This material is copyright 1997 to Mike McMillan. Use for profit is reserved to the author unless otherwise arranged.