It is currently Thu, 28 Mar 2024, 11:15




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 A Family Affair (1975) — Nero Wolfe's Final Case 

A Family Affair.
A worthy ending 75%  75%  [ 3 ]
An anticlimax 25%  25%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 4

 A Family Affair (1975) — Nero Wolfe's Final Case 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Wed, 4 Jul 2007, 16:45
Posts: 101
Location: UK
New post 
peephole wrote:
Hi there, Alex & friends. What fun discussions y'all have been having -- sorry I don't have more time to participate.

Hello! :D Population now 5! :wink: Any time you have free, welcome!

Quote:
Regardless of how long ago he adopted her, she's current and she's right there in front of all of us, so I'd say she very definitely represented a threat to the Brownstone world as we know it. I think Rex Stout also realized that she was a threat and too much for him to handle, which is probably why he lets her in only one more time, and then only to get her outta there.

In the Wolfean world, I didn't regard Carla as a threat, but you're right in that it was only because Stout realised what he had created and responded to her continued presence accordingly. Goodwingrad, another poster here with a hectic schedule, suggested that Stout dispatched both Marko and Carla for the same reason, because they signified his prior life away from the Brownstone. After BM, Wolfe is left with his 'professional' family of Archie, Fritz, and the 'boys', and that is enough for the corpus.

It is a point how Stout 'erased' impostors, isn't it? Even poor old Jet didn't last! Carla was asked to stay on at the Brownstone at the end of OMDB, but the next time we hear of her, she is married, living her own life, and doesn't even get invited to meals often (according to Fritz!) But that fits with my understanding of their characters: Wolfe regarded her as an outstanding obligation, and Carla needed his help for Neya, but didn't seem to be looking for a relationship with him.

_________________
'The discretion of an avalanche'


Wed, 10 Oct 2007, 10:43
Profile
site admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 7 Oct 2006, 18:46
Posts: 198
New post 
AdonisGuilfoyle wrote:
Hello! :D Population now 5!

6, I believe. :) (See Memberlist.) Plus, even utf8test1 is a bona fide person, a Czech computer expert who was merely testing something here. (Of course, dozens of spambots who register in this forum every day need to be removed manually every morning. :evil:)


Wed, 10 Oct 2007, 14:35
Profile E-mail WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 7 Jul 2007, 3:51
Posts: 19
New post 
Hello everyone,

Hoorah for more people! Sorry I just up and left like that but I suddenly was attacked by school work, and I had trouble finding that quote. I suspected it was in LOFM, but I couldn't be sure because...oh yeah...THEY DON"T SELL THAT BOOK FOR A REASONABLE PRICE! Otherwise, I would have had it on my bookshelf by now, hehe. I apologize for the delay once again.

Now, I suppose the quotation can be interpreted in different ways, but I like the idea that Wolfe was married once and his wife tried to murder him. It would fit in with the whole idea of how Wolfe is extremely wary of the female sex. He can't read them correctly, he has Archie do that for him. He doesn't trust them or enjoy being around them. He gets extremely nervous when a woman starts blubbering. Basically, he acts as if he has a severe case of woman-phobia. Why would this be? Maybe someone could just have that sort of phobia because of the personality, but I don't think so. Remember, he adopted a daughter in his youth. I would think it would take serious trauma to get him to this point. And I think your wife trying to murder you would cause some serious trauma. (Already we know the serious trauma of him almost starving to death produced this other extreme in himself! You have to admit there is a great possibility about this being an account of him and his wife.)

The possibility that Wolfe is just talking to talk here is strong, but I don't know. I don't really see the point in going in all the details and then Archie just so happens to interrupt just as Wolfe was going to talk about the woman? It seems fishy to me. It is a strange way for Wolfe to be discussing it, putting himself in third person, but remember...Stout is subtle and Wolfe and Archie have issues about directly stating sensitive things. Look at how uncomfortable they both were in A Christmas Party! No, they stay away as much as they can from such emotional feelings or personal accounts. I think what Adonis brought up about OMDB is a good point too.

Wolfe, obviously, had a very mysterious youth. I'm thinking that in many ways he was a different person than he is now, but those romantic ideals of his youth still are confined in that big chest of his as well as all his secrets.

You know what I would like to know? Why didn't anyone ask Rex Stout these questions while he was alive? It is so annoying...

Oh yes, just to remind everyone...WATCH THIS SPACE...I shall soon have a defense of AFA up. It might take me awhile, though. Hehe!


Wed, 10 Oct 2007, 16:52
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Wed, 4 Jul 2007, 16:45
Posts: 101
Location: UK
New post 
Faterson wrote:
6, I believe.

I was counting 'active' posters, and my own stalking of the forum :wink:

Goodwingrad wrote:
Oh yes, just to remind everyone...WATCH THIS SPACE...I shall soon have a defense of AFA up. It might take me awhile, though. Hehe!

And I've only just recovered, too! :wink:

_________________
'The discretion of an avalanche'


Wed, 10 Oct 2007, 20:16
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 7 Jul 2007, 3:51
Posts: 19
New post 
Finally! I have here my response to the debate about the quality of AFA! Enjoy!

SPOILERS ahead

My Defense of A Family Affair

Complaint 1: Stout is inconsistent with his characters.


Though I agree that Stout, because of his laziness not to double check his work, wrote things that didn't jive with the whole corpus. However, what those actual contradictions seem to be is sometimes up to the reader. Minus Orrie, we will get to him later, Archie, Wolfe, and Co, I believe, were still behaving within the boundaries of their characters. Archie may have not been up to par of his usual wit, but he wasn't as serious as you believe him to be. I remember giggling at a few parts, and he was charming as ever. Besides, I believe the serious tone works for this novel which, as the inference from the title suggests, is a concerning family matter. It isn't as if Archie is going to be able to clown around, no matter how many people say he would clown at his funeral. Archie isn't insenstive, and I thought him believeable under the stress of this mystery. The same goes for Wolfe, who was as immoveable as any rhinocerous in the onslaught of this devestation. I don't recall him breaking many rules, but I'm working solely from memory here since I read this book several months ago. If you would like to remind me what they are, that would be good, but either way, Wolfe's rules, no matter how he believes it, aren't set in stone. Actually, the corpus seems to have more instances where his rules are broken than not which makes it so enjoyable, in my opinion. What I judge to be real inconsistencies in his work is when something happens that has never been done before without explaination. Wolfe has broken his rules before, that isn't inconsistent.


Complaint 2: Stout used AFA for his political mouth piece.

Okay, so I'm biased on this one, just to let you know. Hehe! I don't like people using their works to preach their opinions unless it has some sort of point or flows with the story. Yet, I'm an American and I love my country, I love the freedom I have and I love voting. (My voting card is treasured just like my library card! haha! What more does any girl need?!) So, for Archie or anyone to talk about democracy makes me feel happy because I agree with the veiws expressed. I particularly loved Archie's little rant about the joys of voting, even if I thought it had nothing whatsoever to do with progressing the story. I'm glad to know that he enjoys the freedom. *CoughmaybeAmericansshoulddothesameCough* As for the Watergate Scandel, I told Adonis before that I didn't find it overdone or tedious, but a clever plot device to distract the reader from the real story. It is something Rex Stout hasn't tried before, to divert the reader so directly, then bring that road to a screeching stop and switch gears all of a sudden. I enjoyed it a lot, so I don't mind if he expressed his opinions on the matter.


Complaint 3: The evidence against Orrie is farfetched.

I can only go by what you wrote in your defense of Orrie, because things are a little hazy in the memory. Okay, so you believe that instead of this evidence being taken as a sign for murder it is more believable to take it as a sign of a vain, opportunistic but innocent man? Well, didn't you just state, in the defense of his character, that Orrie knew where he stood with Wolfe and Archie? Didn't you just say he never aggressively sought Archie's job? Why would he now, suddenly, pounce on any opportunity to get favor? And he doesn't strike me as a guy who would do anything out of a friendly gesture either. Ever since I started reading the corpus, I never liked Orrie. I found him to be a distrustful character, even more so than creepy Saul! Haha! He seemed to me to be a dishonest and disloyal person. Yeah, I liked the toungue and cheek friendship he and Archie had, but he just rubbed me the wrong way. Part of my dislike of him was because of his vanity and narcissism, so maybe that could have been the motivation behind his wanting to confront the daughter of Pierre Dacos. But has Orrie ever done something like this before? Has he, anytime in the corpus, gone out of his way to voulenteer for jobs? Not to my knowledge. Anyone can correct me on this if they find evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, though, he always waited until Wolfe told him what to do. Therefore, it is logical that Wolfe and Co. would spot this sudden eagerness on Orrie's part. That makes sense.

The other facts present could be taken either A. flimsy set ups by the author or B. facts that we are just supposed to take at face value because it is in Orrie's character to murder. Which leads into...

Complaint 4: It doesn't make any sense that Orrie should be a murderer and murder for the reasons explained.

I disagree. I totally think it is in Orrie's character to suddenly wig out and pop someone off. He strikes me as very insecure. All his self-confidence seems to me a sign of his insecuriety. He seemed too quick to please others, too forced in his charm. In contrast to Archie who is a natural and it flows off of him without seeming forced at all. Very boyish and carefree. Orrie seemed like some shady salesperson, who looks to all appearances open, honest, friendly, and an all around nice guy, but is going to pull of fast one behind your back. He could be like your best friend, so easy going and hardly gives any trouble at all, but for me there was something always underneath the surface of his behavior.

To me be fair, though, I didn't believe it at first that Orrie was a murderer. When I discovered the aweful secret it was because I was skimming through the first chapter of Murder in E Minor and I spoiled myself. I thought it was the author ruining a perfectly fine series, but no, it was Rex Stout himself who ruined the family, hehe. So there is that factor, but after I realized it was true, it made sense, and probably molded my perspective of Orrie as I read the corpus.

As to why he murderered, it seems like a perfect reason to me. Orrie is a chronic lady's man, yes, and you would think his wife finding out about the affair wouldn't bother him, but I don't know. I got the impression that Orrie was really in love with his wife, that he really cherished her. (Obviously not enough) It would make sense that an insecure man like Orrie would feel horrified about his wife finding out, because he probably didn't want to loose her, so he wigged out and shot Bassett. And once you commit one murder, two more murders don't seem all that bad, especially now he is trying to cover up his first murder.

(On a side note, you mentioned how Orrie wouldn't bite the hand that feeds him, because Archie could have been killed by that bomb, but did Orrie know Ducos was going to go to Wolfe and that it would explode in his Brownstone? Is there any indication in the book?)

Complaint 5: The means by which Orrie murdered was outlandish.

Okay, I would have to say that by the means Orrie murdered Ducos, it was really out there. The only thing I could think of was that Orrie was trying to do something totally off the wall so as not to get caught. He had already taken a risk killing Basset in Wolfe's territory, so he was taking an even bigger one by killed Ducos. That's the only explaination I could think of. However, by the time he gets to the daughter he's in panic mode. He isn't thinking clearly, he's wigging out, he's afraid, he can't believe this is happening, and all the emotions a murderer might have after commiting two crimes. And of course, murders ALWAYS slip up, and so that's what Orrie did.

Probably the only time the outlandishness of the whole thing really struck me was when Orrie committed suicide right outside the front door of the Brownstone. Okay, so it is poetic to have it happen outside the Brownstone, but to explode?! He should have just shot himself. But oh well, like it really bothers me enough to dislike it.

Complaint 6: Wolfe and Co. took the law into their own hands

Okay, so we all know Wolfe is rather arrogant and doesn't have any qualms going around the police sometimes, but I don't think Archie and the gang were going to let a murderer walk free. I don't remember exactly what went on, you will have to refresh my memory, but anyway, I think what Wolfe and the gang felt was betrayal, obviously. Serious betrayal and hurt. Wolfe wasn't embarassed to admit to the court that one his own men was a murderer, he was devestated to admit to the court that one of his own men, who was part of the "family", was a murderer. It is a subtle hint. We all know Wolfe is selfish, but he isn't as insensitive and unsentimental as he sometimes tries to make everyone believe. He has a heart, and he has proven it time and time again through the corpus as he has helped people, despite his rules and/or court phobia. So, isn't it understandable that Wolfe didn't want to go through the process of the trial because he was ashamed and hurt? Makes sense to me! Not that it is good to pressure someone, even a murderer, to commit suicide or to take the law in your own hands, but it isn't out of their character, and they have done it before. Wasn't it in Not Quite Dead Enough, that Wolfe pressured some guy to blow himself up too?
And Orrie conforms to the whole idea because he is a desperate, stupid, and ruined individual so the only way out he sees is to committ suicide. There is a possibility that in some twisted way Orrie felt some remorse for what he did, only because he too was part of the "family". I think it is such a tragic ending. Sniff!

SPOILER! In conclusion, Orrie is a murderer and I loved the book. 8)


Mon, 15 Oct 2007, 16:54
Profile WWW
site admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 7 Oct 2006, 18:46
Posts: 198
New post 
Many thanks for the treatise, Goodwingrad. I hope you don't mind my inserting Spoiler warnings to flank your post; you probably remember Jessie aka Lovin' Babe from the Wolfe mailing lists. Well, she's one of those furious because Robert Goldsborough was clumsy enough to disclose the culprit of A Family Affair in one of his sequels. Lovin' Babe says she could never properly enjoy reading A Family Affair due to Goldsborough's transgression, and that she'll never forgive him as long as she's alive, and I fully understand her. So, it's better to post those Spoiler warnings rather than having someone curse these webpages for the rest of their lives. :)


Thu, 25 Oct 2007, 5:20
Profile E-mail WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 7 Jul 2007, 3:51
Posts: 19
New post 
Hoorah the forum is up again so I can continue to ignore it and be anti-social! :wink:

I don't mind if you put spoilers in my posts. I always forget to do that because it is natural for me to assume that everyone knows everything, or that only us handful of people actually look on this forum. It is really hard to remember, so "spoiler" away!

I laughed about what you said about Jessie. Ahh, the good ol' days of the infamous Nero Wolfe Group. Haha! I don't understand the trauma over discovering that spoiler, but okay whatever floats your boat. The only time I would consider trauma with spoilers is if it is something really life altering, like I would have hated it if someone had told me the ending to the seventh Harry Potter book before it came out, or if I lived during the days Lord of the Rings was being released and someone revealed the ending of Lord of the Rings. But this spoiler of all spoilers? Nope...not that important to me! Maybe if it was something like Archie and Lily get married! Dun dun dun! Or something of that nature, haha! :lol:

Well, I'm off to be nonexistant!


Thu, 25 Oct 2007, 7:20
Profile WWW
site admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 7 Oct 2006, 18:46
Posts: 198
New post 
Goodwingrad wrote:
Well, I'm off to be nonexistant!

Please feel free to re-emerge from time to time. I confess I have very little time myself for this site right now. :(

(I think I've now managed to rescue your and Adonis Guilfoyle's earliest avatars from an older site backup I had made. Not your most recent avatars, unfortunately, or Starfish's exquisite orchid, etc. I feel a lot like Wolfe at the time when his rooftop greenhouse was blown to pieces – oops, was that a spoiler now? If it was, rest assured, innocent reader, that this does not occur in A Family Affair. Oops, now was that an anti-spoiler for a change? You can perhaps spoil a reader's enjoyment just as much by denying that something happened as by revealing that it did happen. Aaaargh... :twisted:)

SPOILERS ALL AROUND on this webpage! :P (Both before & after this post.)


Last edited by Faterson on Thu, 25 Oct 2007, 22:34, edited 2 times in total.

Thu, 25 Oct 2007, 7:31
Profile E-mail WWW
User avatar

Joined: Wed, 4 Jul 2007, 16:45
Posts: 101
Location: UK
New post 
Goodwingrad wrote:
Finally! I have here my response to the debate about the quality of AFA! Enjoy!

SPOILERS ahead

My Defense of A Family Affair

Complaint 2: Stout used AFA for his political mouth piece.

So, for Archie or anyone to talk about democracy makes me feel happy because I agree with the veiws expressed. I particularly loved Archie's little rant about the joys of voting, even if I thought it had nothing whatsoever to do with progressing the story.


I happen to find America's preoccupation with democracy rather ironic - Civil Rights? - and Stout's pontificating to be irrelevant to the story, so I guess it's a question of perspective.


Quote:
As for the Watergate Scandel, I told Adonis before that I didn't find it overdone or tedious, but a clever plot device to distract the reader from the real story. It is something Rex Stout hasn't tried before, to divert the reader so directly, then bring that road to a screeching stop and switch gears all of a sudden. I enjoyed it a lot, so I don't mind if he expressed his opinions on the matter.


Didn't Stout do exactly that in the Zeck trilogy - begin with a seemingly run-of-the-mill investigation, such as a poisoning, and then discover that the murder is actually a small cog in a larger criminal machine?

Quote:
I disagree. I totally think it is in Orrie's character to suddenly wig out and pop someone off. He strikes me as very insecure.


But it wasn't a case of wigging out, which I could have accepted - and I hope I'm covered by the spoiler warning here: he planted an explosive device on the waiter because he knew he would go to Wolfe. He had to buy/construct the device and plant it - premeditation. The second murder was more the action of a panicky, desperate man, as he shot him - and then the girl - but it all began with that ridiculous bomb. If Orrie had gone to the waiter, confronted him, learned he couldn't be bought, and cracked him over the head with something, fair enough - but planting an explosive?

Quote:
(On a side note, you mentioned how Orrie wouldn't bite the hand that feeds him, because Archie could have been killed by that bomb, but did Orrie know Ducos was going to go to Wolfe and that it would explode in his Brownstone? Is there any indication in the book?)

Yes. I think that was his fear. When Ducos confronted Archie, giving Wolfe one of his flimsy clues, it was to say that he had to tell Wolfe in person - he had obviously thought about the best solution, and decided that Marko's good friend, the intelligent detective Nero Wolfe, would tell him what to do, but he knew that what he was about to confide would disturb Wolfe, so he had to tell him in private.

And I've run out of time to answer the rest! I shall return, with avatar, to think about this defence! :wink:

_________________
'The discretion of an avalanche'


Thu, 25 Oct 2007, 11:37
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed, 4 Jul 2007, 16:45
Posts: 101
Location: UK
New post And finally ...
Goodwingrad wrote:
As to why he murderered, it seems like a perfect reason to me. Orrie is a chronic lady's man, yes, and you would think his wife finding out about the affair wouldn't bother him, but I don't know. I got the impression that Orrie was really in love with his wife, that he really cherished her. (Obviously not enough) It would make sense that an insecure man like Orrie would feel horrified about his wife finding out, because he probably didn't want to loose her, so he wigged out and shot Bassett. And once you commit one murder, two more murders don't seem all that bad, especially now he is trying to cover up his first murder.


Here, I agree with you; I understood Orrie's possible motives, because he seemed like a man who would want to keep all his toys, and not risk losing the one woman he wanted to marry, Jill. So, yes - if only Ducos' death had been more spontaneous and less extravagant, I could have accepted that he might have flipped and 'eliminated' any witnesses, as he did strike me as rather selfish.

_________________
'The discretion of an avalanche'


Thu, 25 Oct 2007, 22:22
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 21 Jul 2007, 23:13
Posts: 39
New post 
Adonis,
I would like to try answering your question about Americans and democracy.
Historically, for Europe democracy has been an add-on. It's countries were established long ago by different rules.
In contrast, the essence of America is democracy. It was the beginning of the country and is the basis for and the foundation of everything. 8)


Fri, 26 Oct 2007, 23:10
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed, 4 Jul 2007, 16:45
Posts: 101
Location: UK
New post 
starfish wrote:
Adonis,
I would like to try answering your question about Americans and democracy.
Historically, for Europe democracy has been an add-on. It's countries were established long ago by different rules.
In contrast, the essence of America is democracy. It was the beginning of the country and is the basis for and the foundation of everything. 8)


Yes, but for Europe, an 'add-on' can still have been established hundreds of years ago :wink:

One definition of democracy is "a state of society characterised by formal equality of rights and privileges", and I suppose the operative word is 'formal'. There will always be Big Men and Little Men, and the Big Men will always rule; doesn't matter if they're kings or oil barons, really. And the rich men own the newspapers and control the politicians, so the mechanics of democracy are somewhat farcical.

I always get stuck with an image of the 1960s, when I think of democracy in action - black Americans fighting for equal rights, such as a university education and the freedom to achieve the 'American dream' ... And this is two hundred years after they first settled in the country.

As I say, individual perspective.

_________________
'The discretion of an avalanche'


Sat, 27 Oct 2007, 0:47
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 7 Jul 2007, 3:51
Posts: 19
New post 
Quote:
I happen to find America's preoccupation with democracy rather ironic - Civil Rights?


True, I will not deny the irony of the Civil Rights movement happening in America, the country founded on individual freedom, but that's life. Democracy isn't a foolproof plan, but it is the best government system. America is the greatest country ever, that there is no denying. We have our problems, we aren't perfect, but you just have to put things into perspective. Would you rather be dying in Africa? Oppressed in Russia? Here, people grow rich and fat worried about what their ringtone on their iphones should be instead of worrying about what they are going to eat, where they are going to sleep, or about the wellbeing of their lives!

I say the failure of democracy is because of the failure of the people. But, it is much better for us to be in control of both our good decisions as well as our bad decisions, rather than have some dictator or government telling us what to do!

Freedom of the people! RAH! 8)

That really had nothing to do with AFA, but I thought I would address it anyway, hehe.

Quote:
Didn't Stout do exactly that in the Zeck trilogy - begin with a seemingly run-of-the-mill investigation, such as a poisoning, and then discover that the murder is actually a small cog in a larger criminal machine?


Well, I guess it is the same sort of thing, but for me AFA was really noticeable in that arena. There was absolutely NO inkling Orrie was even involved at all, and you think it is going to have a normal resolution just like all the other ones. Discovering a larger criminal machine is understandable for a mystery series, but for the "member of the family" to turn out as a murderer? That's a different aspect of the story. It would have been a surprise to me, if I hadn't already known. :wink:

Quote:
he planted an explosive device on the waiter because he knew he would go to Wolfe. He had to buy/construct the device and plant it - premeditation. The second murder was more the action of a panicky, desperate man, as he shot him - and then the girl - but it all began with that ridiculous bomb. If Orrie had gone to the waiter, confronted him, learned he couldn't be bought, and cracked him over the head with something, fair enough - but planting an explosive?


Yyyyyeah, well the whole explosives thing was rather overdoing it, I admit. I don't mind, but I can see where it could seem ridiculous and out there. My thinking is that he wanted to totally get rid of the body so that Wolfe couldn't link it to him, because he must have known killing in Wolfe's territory was a BAD IDEA. I mean, really really REALLY bad. So he uses something so outlandish it could in no way be connected with him, but then he ruined it by killing the daughter, and thus met his demise.

Quote:
Yes. I think that was his fear. When Ducos confronted Archie, giving Wolfe one of his flimsy clues, it was to say that he had to tell Wolfe in person - he had obviously thought about the best solution, and decided that Marko's good friend, the intelligent detective Nero Wolfe, would tell him what to do, but he knew that what he was about to confide would disturb Wolfe, so he had to tell him in private.


Well, what I meant was when Orrie planted the bomb on Ducos, did he know Ducos was going to go to Wplfe's place right then? Did he know Ducos was going to explode in Wolfe's house? I can't recall if he did or not. That's the only way your argument would have merit, is if Orrie knew/planned Ducos to explode in the Brownstone.

In conclusion, I'm glad that you slightly agree with me about Orrie's motivation for murder, and that you have gotten over your little temper tantrum as you call it, hehe. It really is a good book afterall. :D


Sun, 28 Oct 2007, 6:38
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Wed, 4 Jul 2007, 16:45
Posts: 101
Location: UK
New post Stout vs. Cather
This topic has just been resurrected at the Oracle - pardon, Yahoo Nero Wolfe community - but I can't be bothered to add my ha'p'orth at the moment. Some constructive arguments, on both sides of the fence, but I'm all out of defence for Stout's poor scapegoat - and posting there is like butting my head against a brick wall, anyway. Sorry, Orrie! :(

_________________
'The discretion of an avalanche'


Wed, 20 Feb 2008, 0:28
Profile
site admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat, 7 Oct 2006, 18:46
Posts: 198
New post 
I see the dreaded spoiler rule is not too closely observed in the discussions over there this time around! :? With the notable exception of Flummery. Aaah, all the poor folks who stumble upon the name of the murderer unwittingly by viewing the thread. :o


Wed, 20 Feb 2008, 11:33
Profile E-mail WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.