[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 99 09:08 GMT0
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
CJM invites us to boggle our imagination.....
Careful, Chris, we are talking here about a man who has been known to wear
leather trousers and a bow tie.......the lower end of the tabloid spectrum
could have a field day if we are too imaginative
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 04:28:23 -0500
Subject: Times
As predicted last night, the letters have materialised. To save wasting
your 30 p I will give an example.
Byways in peril
>From the Chairman of the
Green Lanes Environmental
Action Movement (Gleam)
Sir, Lady Milner-Barry's problem with four-wheel Drive vehicles and trail
bikes turning the Ridgeway into a mudbath (1etter, February 1) is, sadly,
common all over the country.
I would urge her and all like-minded people to join this organisa-tion,
formed four years ago, which seeks to protect ancient green lanes from such
damage by the introduc-tion of new legislation and more effective use of
such legislation as already exists.
We seek legal definition and dif-ferentiation between motorised and
unmotorised vehicles, and between surfaced and unsurfaced roads, fot in law
none at present exists on either of those points.
We also seek legislation to ban motorised vehicles from unsurfaced roads,
except for access, unless the responsible highway authority has made a
specific order permitting such use. (At present any vehicle, motor-ised or
not, can use any byway, surfaced or not, unless it is prevented by a
traffic regulation order.)
Yours faithfully,
DAVID GARDINER,
Chairman,
Green Lahe Environmental
Action Movement (Gleam),
Po Box 5206,
Reading, Berkshire RG7 6YT.
February 2.
>From Professor
Jonathan G.M. Wood
Sir, The Somme-like state of our green roads, highlighted in Lady
Milner-Barry's letter, could be remedied by restricting them to their
original users.
Old bridges have weight limits to preserve them. It would be simple -and
enforceable - to apply a one horse-power-per-wheel limit on green roads.
John Prescott could demonstrate how effectively transport and environ-ment
are now integrated in the DETR by latinching this measure with a ride in a
coach and four.
Yours sincerely,
JONAThAN G.M. WOOD
(Director),
Structural Studies & Design Ltd,
Northbridge House,
Chiddingfold, Surrey GU8 4UU.
February 2.
See how short and effective they are?
One letter against two days ago, then two letters against, none for. Did
any get sent? If so, were they by the Chairman or Director of any
organisation? No, then lets not expect them to be printed, it is the times.
Byways in Peril.
Sir,
Yes, the byways certainly are in peril, but from who? 6 byways out of over
40,000 are in danger, and steps are in hand to combat the problem. An
estimated 25,000 byways are in danger from neglect and under use. 75% of
the byways of rural counties such as Herefordshire are unusable, due to 4x4
tractors, or alternatively fences, locked gates, or neglect. A problem
admitted by the council.
As Jonathan Wood suggests, lets all use coach and fours. Where are they
coming from? How environmentally unfriendly to keep tens of thousands
ready to be used just to keep lanes open.
Return to original use? Excellent idea, Locomotive Act 1896 3 Ton weight
limit, 12 MPH. The roads have not been improved since, so that is what
should still apply.
Independent detailed research by the DETR has proven the fallacies of
widespread damage and Gardiners argument fails to stand up. There is no
general problem with use, it is a concerted last ditch attempt to stir up
public fear in time for the private members bill on 26 March. It will fail
again. The bill is for freedom to Roam not for hi-jacking by the
anti-access Landowner's pressure group Gleam.
Yours
It won't get printed, but if enough people write then submit a PCC
complaint for biassed reporting.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:53:46 +0000
Subject: Re: Railway bridges
In message <bulk.25854.19990203143935@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hi
>Take a butchers at B&B 3 of 1984 and also 6 of 1984.
Save me getting the sods out!
is this 'conflicting inspectas' views on width of arches?
Or is it a total editorial SNAFU?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:49:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
> Careful, Chris, we are talking here about a man who has been known to
wear
> leather trousers and a bow tie.......the lower end of the tabloid
spectrum
> could have a field day if we are too imaginative
Did that despicable document allegedly from bush, showing the 'top-hat'
etc, get circulated at the AWDC AGM?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:42:57 -0000
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
>First I have heard about it. How about a day of vigilante action, supported
by
>friendly plod and MSA, any comp licenses go through the shredder, all
reported
>for illegal motoring, no this, that, tother. With a bit of co-ordination
and
>a few radio equipped vehicles supported by trail bikes it might do some
good.
>Any thoughts?
>Cheers, tim
I agree in theory, and will be there to help if it goes ahead. However, if
no plod available, quite likely as long hours for little return, what
comeback do we have if the riders don't have affiliation to a club. Also,
how do we identify them to the plod if they are reported, we'd have to
follow them back to their vehicles and take those numbers, but that's not
conclusive proof.
I've been fighting a battle about illegal motorbike use in the Park we
adjoin out the back. During the summer, this guy (possibly two different but
not sure) hammers up and down the length of the open space, turns round and
then hammers back again. There is a slight rise in the middle and he's
trying to get a jump off it, but it's too slight a rise, and his speeds are
too low, so he goes faster. We've estimated speeds (against the parallel
road) of about 50+mph in a space used by kids and with much opportunity for
kid to come out of the trees into his path with no hope of him stopping. The
bike has no plates, and he (most times) pushes it back home afterwards. He's
definitely using it for testing, as he went through a serious of
modifications on the bike in the field (friend had tool kit in back of van),
but although I had his address (followed him home) and offered to keep a log
of the times it happened, the police said they were unable to take any
action, they would have to catch him in action twice (first time just a
caution) before anything happened. I contacted the police next time it
happened, they said they were busy and could be there in an hour - his fuel
tank runs out long before that. I tried several times but with no luck. Now
we just put up with motorbike tracks for the summer.
If you can get a policeman to help, then it may well make a difference, at
least make people a bit more cautious and force them onto lesser publicised
byways, where they will do exactly the same thing, but hopefully less in the
public eye.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 22:18:08 +0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme) Glass & RoW
I have been re-reading the TRO notice I posted to list. It isn't a TRO at all
but
a 'Temporary Prohibition of Driving Order'. These have in the past preceded a
TRO
proper in West Berks presumably to give the council time to prepare for a TRO
and
also to quickly ban traffic.
How does a temporary prohibition of driving order (made under Section 14(1) of
the
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) differ from a TRO? When applied to a RoW does
it apply to the landowner as well as the general public? Presumably as it
prohibits driving, bicycles, motor-bikes and mounted horses are exempt.
I also note that not all of the affected RUPP13 is included in the ban. By a
strange coincidence the unaffected bit (along with an adjoining footpath) is
used
as an exit route from the Newbury Show ground overflow car park. Since this car
park (field) is not normally used until the end of September I suspect that a
TRO
will follow the 6 month temp prohibition of driving order.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:56:45 -0000
Subject: RE: Firemans second jobs
Your not suggesting that one could cause a minor affray are you old boy?
But then having read Sue's comments we aren't dealing with a Gent are we....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:56:43 -0000
Subject: RE: Ridgeway TRO PI
I drove a chunk of the Ridgeway last year, some was in great need of a rest.
I for one would support a 'winter months' VR. If supported by a sensible
program of repair it would improve the situation quite markedly.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:56:46 -0000
Subject: RE: Ridgeway Potential TRO
Anyone know where I can get one of those DAFs they used to use on the
Paris-Dakar. Just wait till the drag race starts, and set off in the
opposing direction :-)
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:56:47 -0000
Subject: RE: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.
Damn strong falling down water:-)
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:56:49 -0000
Subject: RE: Ridgeway Potential TRO
Got the 4x4, got the radios, when's the date?
Do we invite Plod?
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:56:40 -0000
Subject: RE: Ridgeway Potential TRO
If, as I suspect is true, the Ridgeway is being used by a number of
'illegal' bikes (and 4x4?), then there is one solution that might be too
obvious for some:
One Sunday the Police descend on the area, ticketing the parked vehicles for
any offence under the 'construction & use', the like. Then when the
'aggrieved parties return, do them for whatever offences they are
committing, eg 'riding a m/c without a helmet', 'driving a car while under
age', 'no tax', 'no insurance', 'no licence'....I think you get the picture.
Once this had been done a couple of times then the message would get home:
You don't ride/drive on a BOAT, or any other Highway without the proper
documents etc.
The Police would of course be acting under the 'belief that a crime was
being committed' bits of the law, and if they can stop you because they
'Think your brake lights aren't working Sir' (Washwood Heath Road, and I was
slowing down using the gears...) they can do it to those who are
deliberately flouting the law every weekend, and in so doing putting my use
of a road in jeopardy.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 22:55:03 +0000
Subject: Was Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO
>but although I had his address (followed him home) and
offered to keep a log
of the times it happened, the police said they were unable to take any
action, they would have to catch him in action twice (first time just a
>caution) before anything happened.
This has got to be a cop-out (if you'll excuse the pun) on the part of the
local station. On this basis, no-one would be prosecuted for any crime
which had not occurred in the presence of a police officer.
You might like to take take along the name and address of a neighbour who
has also witnessed the activity (for corroboration), and see if they will
then act (even if only to caution). If not, make a formal complaint. They
might not consider the offence very serious. But they should at least
consider the reports which you have made.
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 23:08:07 +0000
Subject: Re: Maps in District Councils
Hi All
I was just FAXED this load of woffle from the NYCC, as you can tell it is to a
BHS
member, not a vehicular user.
It seems now not only do we have to prove the route is vehicular but also that
there is a route there at all, it might have been stopped some time over the
last
80 years and we would not want the poor land owner to have to prove there is no
road there.
Yet another ploy by the NYCC to delay action by the user groups, if we talk to
you
will you not put any more S56s on us, I have now reached my decision , go take a
running jump. I will stop when and only when they say these routes are presumed
vehicular unless there is evidence to the contrary!!! sorry Alan.
I would be glad of any comments.
Dear Sir
OBSTRUCTIONS TO UNSURFACED ROADS AT
SUFFIELD-CUM-EVERLEY AND HARWOOD DALE
I refer to your letter dated 11 January 1999. My Memorandum dated 10 March 1998
listed a number of problems with the above unsurfaced unclassified roads
recorded
on the Highways Register. I have requested David Creek, Assistant Divisional
Engineer, Whitby, to inspect the routes presently available to walkers and horse
riders and he reports as follows:-
A) Hardwood Dale Parish
i) The existing WY442G Route through the forest as indicated in red on
the enclosed plan is not obstructed.
ii) The existing WYA436 Route as indicated in blue on the enclosed plan
has a gate off its hinges at the junction with the C76 Road. Mr
Smart has been contacted and he has agreed to arrange for the repair
of the gate within the next few days. A serviceable gate has been
provided at the location recorded under Item a(v) Of my memorandum
dated 10 March 1998.
The gate at point 4 on your plan seems to have been abandoned and
Mr Smart would be required to provide a serviceable gate if he gated
this opening in the future.
B.) Suffield-cum-Everley Parish
i) The Owner has again been Contacted to provide a wider gate at Point I
on the AN255R. He had previously agreed to carry out this work and he
was seeking assistance in the cost from the National Park. I understand
that he is prepared to provide a wider gate and this will hopefully be
resolved within the next two weeks.
ii) The boulder at Point 2 on the AN285R has not been removed. This does
not obstruct the route presently used by horse riders.
iii) The boulder and tree logs at Point 3, on the AN283G have now been
removed.
However David Creek reports the field has recently been ploughed out to
The edge of the field boundary. He is establishing the name of the
tenant of the land so that the width of the unsurfaced road can be
re-established.
iv) The padlock on the gate on the AN285R at Point 4 near Spikers Hill has
been removed.
v) The existing routes of the AN283g coloured green and the AN285R coloured
yellow on the enclosed plan are available for use by horse riders and
walkers and the recent problem of ploughing will be resolved by the
Highway Authority.
C) Status and Alignment of the Routes
i) The outstanding problem is the conflict between the existing routes and
the routes Shown on the old 1920/1930 O/S Survey sleets which have not
been progressed with the landowners. This needs considerable research to
establish whether any Formal Stopping up or Diversion Orders have been
carried out in the last 80 years. In additions the County Council has
recently carried out a wide ranging consultation on the legal Status of
unsurfaced unclassified roads. A report was taken to the Highways and
Transportation Sub-Committee on 11 December l998 which, because of the
complexity of the issues involved and the need for further detailed
consideration, resolved as follows:-
"That the Director of Environmental Services be asked to develop policy
Options on the stains of unclassified County roads and rationae tenurae
roads in Consultation with Group Spokespersons for a report to and
consideration by the Highways and Transportation Sub-Committee".
ii) A fundamental issue of any necessary formal action by the County Council
will be to define the status of the route. Once the legal status issues
have been resolved, it will be possible to have meaningfu1 discussions
with landowners.
iii) The problem with the Highways Register is that there is not a Definitive
Map to legally establish the routes of the public highways like there is
with public rights of way. I am aware of numerous problems of public
highways being on different alignments to that indicated on the Old O/S
Sheets. It is reasonable to assume that the Highway Authority Would have
carried out the appropriate procedures when routes were altered.
However it is very difficult to trace Orders or Agreements that could
heave been completed Over a period of, say, 80 years. I would welcome any
information you may have on when these routes Were altered to help
narrow the search period. It is essential to establish whether any
procedures were carried out by the Highway Authority in resolving these
issues.
D) Summary
I hope you accept that the existing routes are available for horse riders
subject to the problems identified in this letter Which David Creek is
taking action to resolve.
With regard to the issue of the precise alignment of the routes, I have written
to
rile various landowners seeking any information they have of when the routes
were
altered to try and narrow the search period. The County Council will still need
to
agree a policy regarding the legal status of these routes before those matters
can
be brought to a conclusion.
Please contact Reg King (Ext. 2311) if you wish to discuss these matters in
greater detail and to agree a way forward.
Yours faithfully
R King
GROUP Engineer
NYCC
County Hall
Northallerton.
Regards
Brian Lewis
UCR Rep
All Wheel Drive Club
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:00:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Maps in District Councils
> I was just FAXED this load of woffle from the NYCC, as you can tell it is
to a BHS
> member, not a vehicular user.
> I would be glad of any comments.
It is at least a detailed reply, and more substantive than many brush offs
have been.
What research have you done on the 1910 FA map? That should give very clear
guidance as to whether it was a vehicular route, it's width, it's position.
Not infallible, because some Carriageways were shown coloured. It is up
to the L/O or HA to show that there was a diversion or stopping up order,
not for you to show that there is not one, but you can not expect them to
assert when there is dispute as to it's course. What do they say when you
make a formal complaint when they do not expedite without undue delay?
There is obviously a great need for self-help. (Action-Direct, Rebecca
style) And if the actual route now differs, but there is an alternative
that can be used without causing damage then that is a legitimate diversion
IMV. QED
Where does the 's56 won't talk if you do' comment come from, another
document? As I found recently, it is vital to get policies for proper
actions on RoW (incl byways) (UCRs). Find out their policies, try to get
them changed if wrong or complied with if OK. But do let us all know what
they are, good or bad. Without policies, they can do what they like when
they like, if they like. Unless it is so blatantly illegal, that you can
take them to court, there is nothing you can do about it. If they are bad
policies, lobby CoCo (re funding) and perhaps withdraw co-operation. That
could for example entail objecting to every single order that is made.
C(i) obviously indicates they are having great difficulty in getting their
plan of UCR 'roads' as non-vehicular off the ground. Here we go on the
policy again. Get in there and be involved with the drawing up of them.
I wonder what response a potential purchaser of land with a UCR or RT
crossing it would be told, if they asked "before purchasing, please advise
the public rights that exist, and more specifically may I plough?" This
might well give an indication of their 'presumed safe option' It could cost
them big-time bucks if they got it wrong. (Ask Powys)
A systematic search through all the quarter sessions for ALL stopping up
orders would be a sensible step. Done with care, this will often lead to
discoveries of other roads. You may wonder how stopping up can prove rights
still exist? They have to show either it was not needed, may show a plan
and indicate the status of other roads around, or it may say un-necessary
due to the alternative route along xyz. Which may be invaluable to prove
xzy is a highway. Also it is used to divert, so it will give the status of
the old and new roads. Some of the diverted roads will quite probably not
be recorded as any RoW. And if that is not enough, the application may
have been refused. There you are, confirmation of status and that it
remains!!! Are you going to trust an 'anti' HW division to do this? Do
keep in close touch with the RoW dept, they can so often be in sympathy
with what you want, but are governed by the landowning councillors, and the
HA's engineers, brownosing them, for 'personal' reasons. (speaking
generally - of course)
When they have disposed of the 4w then the 2w motorised users, the B.
mountain bikers will be targeted, then they can pick off the horse riders,
where they can not prove the status is higher than footpath. So an ancient
historic road can become a ploughable cross field path. Thats nice 'n easy
'n cheap to maintain.
Of course I could be wrong.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Bill Caloccia <caloccia@senie.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 01:08:49 -0500
Subject: IMPORTANT LIST ADMIN MESSAGE - 'open' posting closing March 1
First note:
First the introduction of international lists for
French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch and German speakers
fr-lro es-lro it-lro nl-lro de-lro
With respect to those lists, I would most appreciate help from
anyone who would like to help translate the list nomenclature
(unsubscribing instructions, list notices, etc.) into the
appropriate language, and also assistance from subscribers
who can assist others (who may not speak my primary language,
English with subscribe and unsubscribe requests.
As you might expect, I don't actually read all the lists or
postings, and pretty much don't understand many words of
Dutch or Danish, and am not fluenent in any of the others,
so if anyone wants to do adds and deletes for the newbies,
or clueless readers who can't figure out how to check out,
drop me a line at wpc@caloccia.net.
(it is really easy - all you need to is send majordomo a line
like 'approve PASSWORD subscribe LIST USER@HOST' to add or
remove someone else)
Second Note:
IF you are sending e-mail from a domain which is not subscribed to
any LRO list, then you should register these alternative 'FROM:'
addresses on the 'nolist' (this would also include folks not subscribed
and responding/reading from the web). All of the new lists are
starting out in this system, the existing lists will be converted on
March 1, 1999
All of the Land Rover Owners lists are going to a 'closed' posting
system, where your 'FROM:' address either needs to be a registered
subscriber of some LRO list OR your 'FROM:' address has to be on this list,
the 'nolist'. This is primarily to stop spam. Luckily most of the
lists have been rather free from spam, the exception being the RRO
list which is a major target - often receiving three to ten spams
per week, and often multiple copies.
The 'nolist' does not accept postings, although, each address registered
to the 'nolist' will receive a weekly mailing similar to those received
by real-time list subscribers. This mailing will contain unsubscription
information, and possibly other information.
There are basically two reasons for for the weekly message, first to keep
list current and to let you know that you are still subscribed.
As far as matching addresses, you may supply the top-level domain at which
you can receive mail - when you send from a host within a host under that
domain, then it will still be approved. For example, if you receive mail
at spam@caloccia.net and register that on the 'nolist' if you go to post
to Land Rover List from any host within that domain boston.caloccia.net
or london.caloccia.net, your from address 'caloccia@london.caloccia.net'
will still be allowed, as the software recognizes that <foo>.caloccia.net
is a host within caloccia.net, and thus OK.
Cheers,
Bill Caloccia wpc@Caloccia.Net
http://www.Caloccia.Net/wpc/
R
http://Land-Rover.Team.Net/
R 1 3 2wd H OD D
+--|--| o | | L 3 Land Rovers First
2 4 4wd L N | 2 because
'63 SII RHD 88" H 1 Land Rovers Last
793-PTA '90 RR County
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 16 lines 986 [forwarded 29 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 739 [content 633 forwarded 29 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990205 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]