Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Federal Law Coming Soon On Cell Phone!  
User currently offlineProPilot83 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 596 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

Yes! I am so happy and damn glad to see the FEDERAL government enforcing new laws making it more tight and strict on using cell phones while driving.    Go LAW! I am so for the law, that I am thinking about becoming a CHP officer and write everyone tickets, "if you break the law, I gotta make the call." Check out the link below on the new cell phone law.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...gets-more-attention.aspx?GT1=33004

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3443 times:

This is awesome! It goes to show that since most states have not passed laws, the Feds had to take the problem in its own hands.

I wonder how many states will now cry foul on this new Federal Law.

Question....now that this a Federal law, if you get a ticket for breaking a Federal law, does this classify one as a felon??



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineProPilot83 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 596 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3432 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
Question....now that this a Federal law, if you get a ticket for breaking a Federal law, does this classify one as a felon??

Good question, I am not exactly sure, but I hope and pray to God that it will be a felony!


User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3407 times:

Finally!

But sadly I guarantee there will be plenty of retards still yapping on the phone regardless.

And they should ban hands-free devices as well while they're at it. So what if you have both hands on the wheel, the real problem is your attention is 75% on a conversation and 25% on driving.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
I wonder how many states will now cry foul on this new Federal Law.

I bet CA will be the first to bitch moan and and whine    


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19505 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3390 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 3):

I bet CA will be the first to bitch moan and and whine

CA has a cell phone law already.

I have no issues with this law. Driving with a phone in your hand puts others at risk.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days ago) and read 3385 times:

You can't legislate morality and personal behavior. Passing a law on things like this are like farting in the wind.

What exactly will any of this do for the average American? Anything at all? I doubt it.


User currently offlinegreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3079 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

My experience with the law is this/. our law came into effect Nov 09. There was a4 month warning period where all you got was a warning and no ticket.

So Jan 31 everyone still talking on cells. Feb 01 Almost no one talking.

Here the fine is up to $500 (normally 155) and 3 demerit points.

gs



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21554 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 3):
And they should ban hands-free devices as well while they're at it. So what if you have both hands on the wheel, the real problem is your attention is 75% on a conversation and 25% on driving.

When I'm on my headset, I know what priority #1 is. I've left the person on the other end hanging for a couple of seconds if I need the extra attention on the road. I don't think I'm alone in that, so let's not generalize.

If talking on a headset causes you to drive dangerously or get into an accident, your ass should be handed to you on a level above that which it would normally be. But I don't really see the justification for making them illegal.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2829 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 5):
What exactly will any of this do for the average American? Anything at all? I doubt it.

For one, it should save some lives.

Driving while talking and holding a mobile phone is dangerous, pretty simple really.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 3):
And they should ban hands-free devices as well while they're at it. So what if you have both hands on the wheel, the real problem is your attention is 75% on a conversation and 25% on driving.

Well you may as well ban all passengers from talking to the driver while the car is on motion because according to you its distracting. So would listening to the radio, or picking your nose or scratching your ass.

That's silly



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

I would presume this proposed law will be done like that for requiring a national standard of a minimum state law of 21 the age to access alcohol products. That will be done by saying states will get a cut of 5% or more in their monies from the Federal Government for highway project funding if they don't have a federal standard law by the state banning cell phone use in cars while driving.

User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5388 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

Quoting ProPilot83 (Thread starter):
Yes! I am so happy and damn glad to see the FEDERAL government enforcing new laws making it more tight and strict on using cell phones while driving.

Did I miss something here? This law makes it illegal for commercial bus drivers and truck drivers from using a handheld while driving...not the average citizen. Arguably, the government has taken aim at those that are probably the safest amongst us, the professional driver (exceptions exist). The federal government can not or should not be able to directly regulate the individual driver. That is the States' function.

In reality, I don't have a major problem with this law, but we should not herald when the federal government takes the place of a state government. We should ask our state governments to get on the ball.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3300 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):


Quote:
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 3):
And they should ban hands-free devices as well while they're at it. So what if you have both hands on the wheel, the real problem is your attention is 75% on a conversation and 25% on driving.

Well you may as well ban all passengers from talking to the driver while the car is on motion because according to you its distracting. So would listening to the radio, or picking your nose or scratching your ass.

We don't often agree on anything, but in this instance ...   

Talking on the phone with a hands-free kit is no different from having a conversation with a passenger. If hands free devices were banned, they may as well ban anyone from having a passenger in the car, as it amounts to the same thing.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2603 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 3):
But sadly I guarantee there will be plenty of retards still yapping on the phone regardless.

  

Quebec and Newfoundland have his law i effect already for some time and I still saw several people yapping on the phone in hand last week. Mind you, I've only spent some 18 hours in Dorval/La Salle, drove on 30 km and yet saw some talkers.
What's annoying though that not every rental car comes with handsfree.

Quoting greasespot (Reply 6):
So Jan 31 everyone still talking on cells. Feb 01 Almost no one talking.

You can still see some around here...it's like people don't know about it (car manufacturers/dealers certainly don't). BTW, I've received a spam e-mail saying that maximum fines doubled in Ontario since the beginning of the year. Is it true?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 11):
Talking on the phone with a hands-free kit is no different from having a conversation with a passenger.

Some traffic specialists argue that the passenger is sitting in the car with you and will shut up in case of emergency.The person on the phone won't.


User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):
Well you may as well ban all passengers from talking to the driver while the car is on motion because according to you its distracting. So would listening to the radio, or picking your nose or scratching your ass.

Yeah true, but I think FLY2HMO has a point. I can definitely say that all of the traffic mishaps I've ever had were not a result of being on the phone, but of being engaged in a conversation with the person next to me. Of course it would be an extremely difficult if not impossible and totally impractical thing to try and enforce, but the power of distraction caused by headsets and conversations with the people in the car next to you shouldn't be unconsidered. I don't know if I'd call for the banning of headsets, but perhaps it should be looked at?


User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3194 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):
Well you may as well ban all passengers from talking to the driver while the car is on motion because according to you its distracting. So would listening to the radio, or picking your nose or scratching your ass.

That's silly

I can't tell you how many times I've seen people swerving on the road due to heated arguments with their significant other, parents yelling at their kids in the back seats going 90 and twisting their necks and LOOKING BACK, people reading newspapers on the highway while driving, women putting make up on, etc etc etc

Yes, there's really no way to enforce those idiotic behaviors. But if you can eliminate one distraction once and for all then so be it.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11574 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3179 times:

Oh, for the love of..... I can not tell you how many times I have driven on the 101 between here and the city and seen drivers reading, applying makeup, texting, talking on their phone, chainging their CD, sipping coffee/tea/soda, pluging in their MP3 player, adjusting their climate controls. All while not paying attention to what is going on around them. Not to mention I never see any CHP or county or any kind of law enforcement for miles and miles. Why limit it to talking on cell phones? Like was said before:

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 5):
Passing a law on things like this are like farting in the wind.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
Why limit it to talking on cell phones?

Because something is better than nothing at all?


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
I have no issues with this law. Driving with a phone in your hand puts others at risk.

I bike to work and can almost guarantee that at some point during my commute I will almost get hit by someone talking on a cell phone. I see it everyday. I'd love if this law is passed and is enforced, but I think the public's habits are already where they are and won't change.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 10):
This law makes it illegal for commercial bus drivers and truck drivers from using a handheld while driving...not the average citizen.

Now the truck drivers are gonna be enraged that they cannot use their CB Radios. Is that included?

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 10):
The federal government can not or should not be able to directly regulate the individual driver. That is the States' function.

If the states are not willing to promote safety on highways, then the Federal government should take action if the states won't. This is only the first step to get the states to wake the hell up.

Trust me, the individual driver "no phone/text" Federal law is coming. Trust me on that one.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11574 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3036 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):
Now the truck drivers are gonna be enraged that they cannot use their CB Radios. Is that included?

That should not be included. I don't even notice many trucks using CBs anymore. The ones that do use them simply key the mike for just a minute. It is nothing like a cell phone. I do see truck drivers talking/texting. It is really dangerous on this 15 mile strech of the 101 between Santa Rosa and Novato. Especially the construction in Rohnert Park!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5388 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):
Trust me, the individual driver "no phone/text" Federal law is coming. Trust me on that one.

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that such a law would be considered un-Constitutional. The Federal government does not have that power, only the States do. The only reason that the Feds can do what they're doing, is that it is arguable and probable that truck drivers and commercial bus drivers are engaging in interstate commerce. The government does have the authority to regulate the commerce and the way it's handled.

Quoting Airport (Reply 16):
Because something is better than nothing at all?

The typical "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" approach to legislation.

Yes, texting/reading emails/facebooking are all dangerous while driving, or walking, for that matter, and this law is laudable. But, it doesn't target the majority of drivers. It targets only those who are, by trade, engaged in interstate comerce. The States need to step up and pass their own laws banning these actions.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26414 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

There was already a thread on this a few months ago. The ban is specifically targeted at those engaged in interstate commerce. The feds have no jurisdiction over regular drivers and can only act through the spending power on that.

Quoting ProPilot83 (Thread starter):
I am so for the law, that I am thinking about becoming a CHP officer and write everyone tickets

You need to rethink becoming a CHP officer then. You need to make sure you are actually writing tickets for people who break the law and not going Rambo on anyone who seems to be looking down for a second.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
Question....now that this a Federal law, if you get a ticket for breaking a Federal law, does this classify one as a felon??

Not at all. Indeed, the feds are likely to delegate enforcement to the States. Also, the thing this is most likely to be focused at is licensing requirements for those engaged in interstate commerce.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 3):

I bet CA will be the first to bitch moan and and whine

CA has the broadest set of cell phone usage restrictions in the US. As usual, the rest of the country is following us.

Quoting greasespot (Reply 6):

Here the fine is up to $500 (normally 155) and 3 demerit points.

See those signs on the QEW all the time. That said, apparently there are no points for cell phone use in Ontario, only in B.C.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/01/phone-ban-ont-bc.html

While I think doing the handheld cell thing while driving is stupid, I would hope that you and your fellow police officers don't pull the old trick of "piling on" charges to enhance fines and points.

Also, under what power are the provinces doing this? Are driving infractions in Canada technically a civil offense, given that the feds promulgate all criminal law in Canada, unlike the States.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
Question....now that this a Federal law, if you get a ticket for breaking a Federal law, does this classify one as a felon??

Just because one breaks a federal law doesn't make it a felony. The US federal court system has misdemeanors too, just like states have misdemeanors, felonies and other types of infractions.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
While I think doing the handheld cell thing while driving is stupid, I would hope that you and your fellow police officers don't pull the old trick of "piling on" charges to enhance fines and points.

I don't think it's stupid, it's dangerous. A professor at W. Washington University did a study on how distracted people really are when they are on a cell phone. For anyone that says it doesn't effect your ability to safely drive, for this study they paid a clown to ride around on a unicycle. Most people who were on a cell phone never noticed he was around.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...e-studying-cell-phone-distraction/



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 23):
I don't think it's stupid, it's dangerous. A professor at W. Washington University did a study on how distracted people really are when they are on a cell phone. For anyone that says it doesn't effect your ability to safely drive, for this study they paid a clown to ride around on a unicycle. Most people who were on a cell phone never noticed he was around.

Actually the studies have concluded that distracted drivers in general had the same statistics regardless of activity, be it cell phones, trying to eat, children in the car misbehaving, futzing with a GPS monitor, having a DVD video/movie playing in the car. How many of these activities are you going to try to pass laws on and effectively enforce? If you can't enforce a law a government should never pass it in the first place. How many parents are cops going to now ticket for misbehaving children?

It's called education. You run ad campaigns and education programs in the schools and beyond teaching about the hazards of distracted driving.


25 AirframeAS : If the States do not begin to clean up their act on making our roads safer, then the only solution is to get the Feds involved. They will only get in
26 AA61Hvy : California banned them, and I've not noticed much of a difference with the way people drive. Not to mention I see at least 15-20 people drive while ta
27 TheCommodore : If they, the police become aware of "other" things wrong with you or the car, why would it be unreasonable to take further action, even if that invol
28 MoltenRock : I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you really are an odd one. On all of the full body scanner threads you are all about them scanning, probing,
29 TheCommodore : Because unlike you, I feel that if I have nothing to hide, then whats the problem. If it impedes a little on my rights then so be it, that's the worl
30 Maverick623 : Wow. Just..... wow. Except they can't, because each state is Constitutionally allowed to have its own traffic code. I'm gonna pull a Wikipedia here,
31 ACDC8 : BC has had this law in effect since January with a 1 month grace period, and its about flippin' time. It still amazes me that self absorbed idiots sti
32 Post contains links aa757first : There was a study that looked at accident data post-cell phone bans recently and they found not much difference: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless
33 Post contains images ACDC8 : Total time less than a minute ... average phone call more than 5 minutes ... big difference. When you're playing with the radio or drinking your coff
34 N1120A : You completely and totally missed the point of what I wrote. Unfortunately, they are legally exempt from the rules of the road when on duty. Its ridi
35 MoltenRock : So you readily accept studies which agree with your preconceived notions on the dangers of cell phone use while driving, but dismiss those same studi
36 Post contains images ACDC8 : The RCMP in BC is also exempt from the law becuase they have "special" training ... wonder if they have "special" training for impaired driving too?
37 ACDC8 : No, I readily accept notions on what I see everyday on the road which is why I said ... ... No where did I say that I accept studies or statistics. I
38 Post contains images N1120A : Such a joke. I think the penalty for doing it on duty should be wearing the dress uniform for a month. There are serious Charter issues with doing it
39 Fr8Mech : So, you're comfortable with the Federal government usurping the States' powers? Just because the States don't do something, doesn't mean the Federal
40 seb146 : Next, they should ban texting/calling while walking. I have nearly run into a light pole while texting and have been run into more than once by people
41 AirframeAS : Yes, if it promotes safety and saves lives, I support that. Make it a felony charge and the usage would drop dramatically. We have so many teenagers
42 Maverick623 : No, the courts would rule it unconstitutional and cruel and unusual punishment. Would you also support stop-and-search without suspicion because it w
43 TheCommodore : "piling on" I think means extra/more fines/charges on top of the initial misdemeanor that you were first stopped for ? Is that hat you mean ?
44 Fr8Mech : Arguably, illegal search and seizure saves lives. How about regulating dissenting speech? That would cut down on conflict, thereby making us all safe
45 canoecarrier : No, I was agreeing with you, you missed the sarcasm. Not hard to do on a discussion forum. The argument where I live is should it be a secondary offe
46 Fr8Mech : Texting while driving should be a primary offense. Talking on the phone, especially via ahandsfree device should not, nor should it be illegal. We do
47 Post contains images FLY2HMO : Which means you'd have to pull over 25% of all drivers out there, very few people seem to be able to go in a straight line. Or to make things easier
48 Post contains images canoecarrier : I'm not sure what the ticket is called here, but you can get a ticket for doing that. When I used to live in MO it was called Careless and Imprudent
49 AirframeAS : It would go against our 4th amendment rights. DenverPost.com I found the article yesterday, but now its gone. However, I speculated that she might ha
50 Fr8Mech : You're right, that would go against the Fourth, just as what you're suggesting would go against the Tenth and against the enumerated powers clause. A
51 seb146 : I was simply pointing out that these are how rights are slowly eroded. I am all for safer driving. Especially transit and truck drivers. When I am di
52 Fr8Mech : I couldn't have said it better myself.
53 AirframeAS : But the discussion at hand is about texting and driving. And I am only talking about that, and nothing else. Since the States has chosen not to do an
54 N1120A : See, I disagree. There is far too much that someone can do that looks like texting, and it is wrong to give the police more BS reasons to pull people
55 Maverick623 : Sorry, bud. You can't go picking and choosing which Constitutional rights are worth enforcing. My point exactly. You have ZERO evidence that she was
56 FLY2HMO : IMO the best (least worse?) drivers in the US are in California and TX, but that isn't saying much honestly...
57 Don81603 : That law is being considered by a few state and provincial governments. As for using a hand held phone, yes it's extremely dangerous, almost to the p
58 Fr8Mech : Yes, this discussion is about the new law, its application, whether it's appropriate and its validity, among other things. When you assert that it's
59 N1120A : What are the statistics on this anyway? I mean, truckers have been using CB for decades. How many accidents has it caused? Too much leeway for interp
60 Post contains links TheCommodore : Actually Texting is VERY dangerous !! The statistics tell it all. Look at this Video. http://tv.popcrunch.com/texting-whil...exting-car-accident-psa-h
61 seb146 : Exactly! My father was a CB fanatic. He never drove a big rig, but we still had CBs. In ranching country, it was the way to communicate, back in the
62 Don81603 : I doubt statistics were ever accurately compiled, but SD DOT once told me it was being considered for inclusion under the hand held communications de
63 Post contains images AirframeAS : I just said I speculated. There was no reason whatsoever for the negative attitude towards me. I have no agenda. You are mistaken. I'll agree to that
64 Fr8Mech : Then we are left with states that are less safe, until the electorate demands change. It is not up to the Feds to nurse-maid the states. One of my fa
65 Maverick623 : Yes, but you were using that false speculation to justify making texting/talking while driving a felony. That's not something to take lightly, nor sh
66 Post contains images AirframeAS : Seruously?! Give me a break, Maverick. Two separate issues: 1) Asking of if this was to be a felony if caught and 2) Speculating that the girl was ya
67 Maverick623 : Um, yea. I know this is merely an internet message board, but it's an important topic and I'm gonna treat it as such. Don't have to, you put them the
68 Post contains images N1120A : Which is stupid for so many reasons, not the least of which because the nature and location of CB radios in a truck cab generally allows the driver t
69 AirframeAS : That is your right. And it doesn't bother me. One was a suggestion. One was an opinion. You should know how to interpret the differences.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
There's A New Dr Pepper Coming Soon posted Wed Jun 19 2002 08:44:15 by B737-112
I Need Help On Buying A New Cell Phone posted Tue Aug 26 2003 04:52:04 by Jgore
Suggestions On New Cell Phone posted Fri Oct 25 2002 10:47:32 by Mika
New Cell Phone - Moto Droid Or HTC Droid Eris? posted Sat Jan 16 2010 17:59:20 by KaiGywer
USN / Federal Law / Women On Ships Question posted Sun Aug 17 2008 22:29:41 by Blackbird
Queso Gets A New Cell Phone posted Tue Jul 31 2007 12:59:13 by N1120A
Cell Phone Died... New Phone Ideas? posted Sat Mar 31 2007 01:45:37 by Bagpiper
A New Cell Phone Tracking Service posted Mon Mar 5 2007 19:51:29 by Jetjack74
New Cell Phone For Me: Motorola Razr? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:42:51 by JasYHZ
Just Got A New Cell-phone Today! :D posted Fri Jul 14 2006 22:39:25 by AirPacific747