Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1
Titolo: Team manager meeting minutes

10
out by Professor Watkins in the past. He would also act as a GP for the 
paddock.
This was noted.
Stewards
Max Mosley felt that it was no longer advisable for a steward to come from 
the same
country as one of the drivers or one of the teams as there could be enormous
pressure on them not to award penalties. He also proposed to rotate the 
stewards
more frequently and to appoint a non-voting Chairman of the stewards who 
would
ensure speedy decisions. He proposed that Alan Donnelly be appointed the 
nonvoting
steward. The FIA Permanent steward role would no longer exist. This was
agreed.
Superlicences
Max Mosley felt that the Superlicence rules needed to be tightened up. He 
referred
to an application from a Spanish driver who had carried out a full season in 
GP2 but
had not fulfilled the criteria in terms of results. The FIA had been told 
that this was
an exceptional case but in his view it was not. He proposed that if an 
applicant did
not meet the criteria in the future, unless it was a very exceptional case, 
he would be
refused automatically. This was noted.
Brazil - fuel temperature
Finally Max Mosley referred to the incident in Brazil when the chief 
scrutineer had
told the stewards that a team's fuel temperature in the rig was too cold. 
The
stewards had then initiated a six-hour enquiry. He said that they should 
rather have
asked the chief scrutineer to measure the fuel temperature in the car as 
stipulated in
the regulations. If he had done this, the temperature would have been within 
the
regulations and this case should therefore not have been used in a protest. 
He said
that the teams should always look at the regulations for clarification as 
that was what
the International Court of Appeal would do.
John Howett said that his team referred many questions to Charlie Whiting 
when the
regulations were not 100% clear and he clarified matters and gave his 
opinion. He
was concerned that Max Mosley was now saying that a team should not ask for
clarification, but race and then have the FIA rule on it. Max Mosley said 
that this had
begun over a decade ago when the FIA had not wanted teams to spend money on
an expensive piece of kit only to find that it was illegal when 
scrutineered. So the FIA
had begun to answer questions of clarification. Charlie Whiting would give 
his
opinion but it was only his opinion and not a rule. Teams were then free to 
agree or
dispute that opinion and race. He did say however less than 1% of Charlie 
Whiting's
opinions had been challenged successfully by the stewards. This was noted.
Charlie Whiting said that it had been proposed to update the regulations 
more
regularly, perhaps every two-three months with these clarifications, with 
the approval
of the Technical Working Group. This was agreed. 

ach... non prende tutto il documento

Meeting of Formula One Team Principals and the FIA
FIA Headquarters, Paris, Friday 11 January 2008
Minutes
Present:
FIA: Max Mosley
Tony Purnell
Charlie Whiting
Peter Wright
Formula One Teams: Peter Sauber BMW Sauber
Dr. Burkhard G�schel BMW
Mario Theissen BMW
Jean Todt Ferrari
Aldo Costa Ferrari
Colin Kolles Force India
Dr Vijay Mallya Force India
Nick Fry Honda
Ross Brawn Honda
Otmar Szafnauer Honda
Martin Whitmarsh McLaren
Christian Horner Red Bull Racing
Flavio Briatore Renault
Pat Symonds Renault
Daniel Audetto Super Aguri F1
Gerhard Berger Toro Rosso
Tadashi Yamashina Toyota
John Howett Toyota
Sir Frank Williams Williams
Adam Parr Williams
FOM: Bernie Ecclestone
Max Mosley welcomed the participants to the meeting. He felt that it was 
time for
the relationship between the teams and the FIA to move into a new era 
because the
sport could no longer afford to be faced with conflict and confrontational 
situations.
He felt that there was no reason for there to be any conflict at all between 
the FIA
and the teams but acknowledged that this was not the case between the teams
themselves and also between the teams and FOM. The FIA was only interested 
in a
fair and successful championship. On that basis therefore it ought to be 
entirely
possible for the FIA to work with the teams to find solutions to the 
problems currently
facing the championship. He referred to examples in the past when the FIA 
had
introduced certain measures which had been vehemently opposed by the teams 
but
were now well accepted and approved of. He did not wish to say that the FIA 
was
always right and admitted that it also made mistakes. However he felt that 
history
showed that sometimes there was a need to take a step back from the 
day-to-day
competition of the championship order to seek long-term solutions and 
protect the
future of the sport.
Max Mosley reminded the meeting that there were today an unprecedented 
number
of manufacturers in the championship - six - but that some of them were 
reviewing
their involvement due to the high costs. A further factor was that new EU 
regulations
now stipulated that manufacturers needed to produce cars with a 130g/km 
emissions
2
output. The Riccardo engineering consultancy believed that manufacturers did 
not
currently have enough engineers to achieve this reduced level within the 
time frame.
There was therefore enormous pressure on manufacturers to use their 
engineering
expertise, particularly in relation to engines, to solve this problem, 
rather than in
Formula One. A third factor was a possibility of a worldwide recession which 
would
have an effect on the motoring industry. These three factors showed that 
steps were
now urgently needed to cut costs and all teams, regardless of how big and
guaranteed their budgets were, needed to address them.
Max Mosley did also not wish to say that the FIA proposals were the ultimate
solution and encouraged the teams to find alternative solutions. He asked 
the Team
Principals to put aside for a moment their own team's interests to think 
about the
championship as a whole and its future. He apologised for this bluntness for 
felt that
this was needed to illustrate the seriousness of the situation.
On a related note, Max Mosley referred to Sir Jackie Stewart's comment that 
the FIA
should be run by a business man. He pointed out that the FIA President's 
role was
far more than just running the regulatory side of Formula One. The FIA was a 
world
federation with 160 sporting and non-sporting clubs in 120 countries, many 
of them
huge organisations. Formula One was just the peak of its work. It also 
worked
closely with organisations such as the UN, the International Energy 
Authority and the
World Bank. He acknowledged however that Formula One was the most visible
aspect of the federation's role and said that any successor would need to be
experienced in all these aspects. He wished to ensure that the sport was in 
excellent
health when his tenure came to an end and for this reason also wished to 
take steps
to address the coming crisis. He added that it was impossible for Formula 
One to
split from the FIA for two reasons: firstly, Mr Ecclestone had a long term 
contract with
the FIA and secondly, the FIA's member clubs ran motor sport in their 
respective
countries.
He added that the teams should also not forget that the motor manufacturers' 
CEOs
were not obliged to be involved in Formula One and that it needed to be 
justified and
they wanted the maximum exposure for minimum expenditure.
Bernie Ecclestone felt that the problems in the past had been due to the 
fact that
changes had to be unanimously agreed and this had often caused conflict. He
proposed to find a way to introduce new measures that did not always require
unanimous agreement. He added that in his opinion the measures that had been 
the
most vehemently opposed had been the ones that had ultimately been the most
successful. He felt that the prevailing opinion amongst the teams in the 
past,
regardless of the proposal, had been that anything the FIA or FOM proposed 
was not
advantageous to the teams and said that this mindset needed to change.
Nick Fry commented that Honda would endorse the strategy outlined by Max
Mosley. The Honda team was under pressure from the Honda CEO, who was in
favour of continued involvement in the sport, to reduce expenditure. He was 
pleased
to hear Max Mosley's comments on the FIA openness to hear the teams' views 
and
Ross Brawn would expand Honda's views later.
Implementation of the 10-year engine freeze
The FIA proposal was that there should be a total freeze of the engine 
starting from
the first race of the coming season for 10 years. The FIA required the 
unanimous
agreement of all the teams to introduce this.
3
John Howett said that the problem was Toyota would be freezing its current 
very
expensive engine. The FIA was aware of this problem. He endorsed Nick Fry's
comments but wished to discuss the details of this proposal to try and find 
a cheaper
solution.
Jean Todt agreed with Max Mosley's comments and said that it was crucial for
Ferrari that both its road car and racing car sections worked in synergy. He 
agreed
that current engine costs were too high and needed to be reduced to ensure 
that the
private teams could buy cheaper engines and stay in the sport. However he 
felt that
a 10 year frozen engine was too big a step and as a compromise he proposed a 
total
freeze for four to five years and an agreement on what the next step would 
be after
that time. He added that the teams were yet to see the financial benefits of 
the single
engine rule and agreed with John Howett that the current engine, at between 
?300-
400,000, was too expensive. He also agreed that efforts should be 
concentrated on
developing a cheaper engine to take into consideration the new technology.
Mario Theissen said that BMW believed that today's Formula One engine
technology was already behind its road car technology, especially concerning
emissions and efficiency. They therefore believed that discussion should 
focus on
these issues in the coming years. For this reason BMW was also not in favour 
of a
10-year total engine freeze but agreed with Ferrari's proposal for a freeze 
for four to
five years. After five years, a new engine could be introduced that would be 
ahead of
road car technology and this could then influence developments in future 
road cars.
He proposed to set up a small power train working group to define the 
parameters of
such a new engine.
Nick Fry agreed with John Howett that freezing the current engine for five 
years
seemed to be the expensive option and asked, if such a freeze was 
introduced,
whether it might be possible for the engine working group to try to reduce 
the related
variable costs within that period.
Jean Todt agreed and said that an option could be to extend the current 
engine's life
to three or four races.
Aldo Costa said that Ferrari's proposal was to keep the current regulations 
and
continue to allow teams with reliability issues to make modifications with 
the FIA's
approval and to also allow engine modifications in order to reduce costs.
Flavio Briatore agreed that costs needed to be reduced and with the proposal 
to
have a five year freeze. He added that Renault's engine costs were in the 
region of
?200,000 and that the only way to reduce these costs would be to cut the 
number of
personnel working in the Formula One engine department. He did not agree 
that any
changes should be allowed within the five year period as this would not 
present a
clear message to the wider audience in the sport.
Max Mosley said that there were two separate reasons for the high costs: 
firstly the
actual cost of the current engine and the second, and in his view more 
importantly,
the fact that the teams had not reduced their number of engine department
personnel, even after the original engine freeze had been introduced. 
Instead they
had maintained their entire department of engineers to work on all those 
parts of the
engine that they were allowed to. With a total freeze engine he was 
convinced that
costs could be reduced to around ?40-50million simply by reducing the number 
of
personnel in R&D departments or by transferring them to the road car 
division. He
felt that Ferrari's proposal would not cut the number of personnel. He 
therefore
proposed to introduce a total freeze on engine development for a certain 
period and
4
then to specify the aims of a new engine, such as long life; low cost; 
technological
relevance; inexpensive to maintain and run; and to set a time period in 
which to
define the regulations and develop the new engine.
Professor G�schel agreed that the engine should be frozen and that work 
should
concentrate on development of a modern power train. He also agreed that 
there
should be some common research on the future technologies and that there 
should
be a specific time frame.
Martin Whitmarsh said that Mercedes Benz would accept a four to five year 
freeze
but that the FIA should continue to allow teams to make modifications to the 
engine if
there were reliability problems. He added that this would however need to be
carefully monitored to ensure that no teams were taking advantage of this as 
had
been suspected in previous seasons. He also said that within 12 months, a 
clear
timeframe should be established in which to define the engine after the 
freeze and
that it should encompass road car technology. He agreed with Flavio Briatore 
that no
changes should be allowed within the freeze period.
Ross Brawn felt that the FIA and the teams' albeit worthy attempts in the 
past to
drastically cut costs had failed due to the fact that although technical 
constraints had
been introduced to reduce expenditure, the teams had continued to spend in 
other
ways. He therefore felt that it might be preferable to consider budget caps 
in some if
not all areas of car development along with technical constraints as he felt 
that this
was the only way to really control actual spend.
Christian Horner said Red Bull Racing would support a five year freeze as 
long as
any savings were passed onto the independent teams and parity of performance 
was
ensured.
Flavio Briatore proposed that each car should be allowed to use one spare 
engine
per season without incurring a penalty as he felt that the current penalty 
was too
severe. Any further engine changes would be subject to the current penalty 
of
moving back 10 places on the grid.
John Howett said that a budget target needed to be established and added 
that it
would not be possible in Toyota's case to pass on any savings to its 
customers as it
did not charge them for R&D. He also said that a reduced number of engines 
would
mean that the unit cost of components would increase. In addition, Toyota 
had other
problems which it would struggle to address properly without an engine team 
before
the start of the season. The most sensible approach was in his opinion to 
agree a
budget cap for the engine and the chassis and then to set up a working group 
to
agree certain synergies, such as a standard KERS system.
Flavio Briatore said that all the teams wanted to cut costs but was 
concerned that if
the message that there would be no engine changes allowed for the next five 
years
was not communicated properly, the teams would continue to maintain their
engineering departments. Therefore it needed to be made abundantly clear 
that
there would be no changes to the engine for the next five years and only 
then would
a new engine be developed.
Max Mosley agreed and said that no-one would know the new engine 
specification
for at least one year. On this note, he felt that there could even be a 
standard basic
engine, common to all teams, with all the R&D concentrating on the new
technologies. This would send a clear message that certain departments would 
need
5
to switch the focus of their work to road cars as there would be no work to 
do within
Formula One.
Bernie Ecclestone did not see the urgency in defining the parameters of the 
new
engine as soon as it was approved, the engine departments would begin to 
work on
it.
Max Mosley acknowledged this and said that part of the Working Group's remit
could be to advise the teams and the FIA on how to achieve the new engine at
minimum cost by only working on its development for two years.
Professor G�schel agreed with Bernie Ecclestone and said that more time 
could be
taken to decide on the remit and composition of the working group and if 
there should
be development of a common engine or other components.
Adam Parr also agreed with Bernie Ecclestone and said that there was perhaps 
a
need to first agree the financial constraints. The engineers would then need 
to work
within these constraints to develop an engine within two years.
Bernie Ecclestone added that if the engineers could not develop a new engine
within those parameters, the current frozen engine could continue.
Jean Todt proposed that the engine for 2013 onwards be announced at the end 
of
2009, giving two years for detailed discussions. In that way work could not 
start until
the end of 2009.
After some further discussion, Max Mosley proposed the following:
. there should be one free engine change per season per car for the first 
engine
failure from the 2008 season onwards, not including the last race of a 
season;
. the existing engine should be "frozen" (as defined in the published 
regulations)
from the beginning of the 2008 season for a period of five years;
. the FIA would finalise a proposal in conjunction with the car 
manufacturers for the
objectives of the new engine from 2013 onwards by 1 January 2009. This
proposal would be in the overall interests of Formula One and would contain 
a
strict cost cap in terms of development, build, supply and maintenance; with 
an
obligation to use modern technology and be fuel and energy efficient. This 
would
then be for the Team Principals to agree;
. a working group would then be set up to discuss the detail of the agreed
objectives and propose engine regulations to the FIA and the Team Principals 
for
their agreement;
. the agreed engine regulations would be published by 30 June 2010 for
introduction in 2013.
This was agreed unanimously.
Nick Fry referred to a shorter term problem which his team needed to address 
with
the FIA technical team, in that some of the Honda car's ancillary components 
would
not last two races.
Charlie Whiting explained that, as long as the specification was identical,
homologated components such as exhausts could be changed without incurring a
penalty.
6
Ross Brawn asked if the "freeze" introduction date could be pushed back as 
Honda
had already paid for some development work which would not be ready for the 
first
race.
Max Mosley said that this was not possible. This was always the case with a 
cut-off
date and Honda would save money in the future with this proposal.
With reference to Martin Whitmarsh's point about reliability changes, 
Charlie
Whiting felt that the current system worked well. A team would make its 
request and
the FIA would then decide if it was acceptable due to cost or reliability 
reasons and, if
so, it was then circulated to all the other teams for comments. The FIA also 
asked
the manufacturer concerned for evidence. To date, there had only been one 
issue
with a Ferrari component. Max Mosley said that if there were concerns, they 
should
be raised with Charlie Whiting and he said that all teams needed to feel 
comfortable
with this.
Measures to reduce chassis costs
Max Mosley commented that it was impossible to "freeze" the chassis as it 
had to
change every year so that there were new cars every season. Chassis costs 
were
therefore complex.
Sir Frank Williams proposed a budget cap on chassis development work.
Peter Wright said that the basic principles in the FIA proposal were that 
there should
be restrictions on the use of capital equipment and R&D and on the 
homologation of
critical components to address the rate at which research was done and then 
the rate
at which it would be applied.
Professor G�schel said that cost was indeed one issue but other issues 
needed to
be considered, e.g., overtaking and changing the aerodynamics to improve the
spectacle. He also felt that some areas, e.g. safety elements, could be 
standardised.
Nick Fry was in favour of Sir Frank Williams' proposal. Capping overall 
chassis
costs would naturally lead to more detailed proposals on what should and 
should not
be allowed and what could be achieved by the teams working together to 
improve the
show. He added that technical regulations had not been successful in the 
past to
address overtaking for example.
Max Mosley felt that both measures, that is, a cost cap and technical 
regulations,
could be used together to improve the show. If there was to be a cost cap, 
he felt
that everything ought to be included as then it would be a management 
decision
where to spend the money. There was also a school of thought which could be
discussed at a later date that the drivers should be paid by FOM out of the 
money
which was currently given to the teams by FOM. He noted that the inclusion 
of all
costs raised the issue of monitoring such a policy. The FIA would need to 
devise a
system to ensure that all teams were comfortable that no team could abuse 
it. He
believed that it could be done with considerable thought and planning.
Professor G�schel agreed and said that a Working Group could be set up to
address this point.
Ross Brawn agreed that the mechanism would be complex but no more than the
current Technical and Sporting Regulations. In addition, he felt that no 
team could
7
feel disadvantaged by a cost cap unlike certain technical constraints which 
might
favour or penalise a particular team.
Bernie Ecclestone felt that in addition to a cost cap, there should also be 
a list of
activities that would be prohibited, such as using more than one wind 
tunnel.
Otherwise teams might be offered facilities for free and would therefore 
incur no cost.
Max Mosley said that it would simply be a question of an auditor assigning a 
value to
the use of a wind tunnel or another activity or component.
Peter Wright said that a complex element of a cost cap would be how to deal 
with
the supply costs of the teams' technical partners. Max Mosley reiterated 
that a value
could be applied to a certain item or it could be made available to all 
teams.
Professor G�schel said that if there was to be a cost cap, there would need 
to be a
transition phase.
Peter Wright said that of the list of chassis cost reduction proposals, 
homologation
issues could be easily addressed. R&D issues which involved capital 
expenditure
were much more difficult to address.
Sir Frank Williams reiterated that for 2008, a cost cap could be set and 
then it
should be left to the teams to spend that money as they wished.
Bernie Ecclestone said that there was great disparity in terms of income and
expenditure between the different teams and thus it might be difficult to 
set a
common cost cap and would be better to assign a value to each activity.
Ross Brawn believed that it could indeed be done but that it would take a 
complete
change in mindset and in approach as all previous approaches had failed to 
cut costs
as hoped.
Martin Whitmarsh agreed but added that the difficulty of this should not be
underestimated.
Sir Frank Williams said that it would discriminate against his team for 
example if no
more than one wind tunnel could be used. He felt that a budget cap was the 
fairest
solution for 2009 onwards. Budgets for 2008 had already been set and in 
addition
engines costs for the manufacturers would not be reduced immediately.
VJ Mallya agreed with the proposals to reduce costs. A budget cap for 2008 
would
discriminate against his team. As a new team this was its first budget year 
and it was
far behind the other teams in terms of aerodynamic development. His team had
some catching up to do and was currently running three wind tunnels. By 
imposing a
wind tunnel restriction for 2008, his team would never catch up. He 
supported Sir
Frank William's proposal to set a cap but to allow the team to spend its 
budget as it
wished according to its own needs. Regarding enforceability and allocated 
and
shared expense, he added that there were several public organisations 
throughout
the world where the concept of allocated expense was well documented.
After some discussion, Max Mosley proposed to set up a Working Group to 
propose
the scope of the cost cap to be introduced in 2009 and also the precise 
methodology
by which a regulation could be enforced. He also proposed that the FIA 
circulate a
proposal for the composition of such a group to the teams for their 
comments.
8
Christian Horner was concerned that, in the meantime, some teams might 
invest in
items such as wind tunnels or simulators which would in 2009 become 
redundant.
Max Mosley said that no item would become redundant but it might be assigned 
a
relatively high value. He therefore said that until these values had been 
agreed and
introduced, the teams should make their own decisions on what values could 
be
assigned to certain items of expenditure.
Jean Todt said that Ferrari did not believe that a cap would be achievable 
in a short
time frame. It was concerned that the current costs were too high and 
therefore was
more in favour of the immediate cost reduction proposals. Max Mosley
acknowledged this point but felt that Ferrari should reserve judgement on 
the
applicability of the cost cap until the mechanism had been agreed. It was 
indeed an
unknown but he was confident that it could be done. In the meantime the 
teams
could form their own estimates of what budget they would each have available 
and
on that basis make a decision on whether to make any capital expenditure 
layout in
2008. Jean Todt did not agree that this was the case for a team which was 
also part
of a manufacturer. Max Mosley disagreed as the Ferrari team shared some of 
the
facilities with the rest of the FIAT group and the use of these facilities 
could be
assigned a value. He added that Ferrari contracts with various employees 
could
mean that they would not be able to adhere to a cost cap in the short term.
Sir Frank Williams said that Ferrari had agreed to do this for the engine 
engineers
so did not see why it could not be done for the chassis engineers. Max 
Mosley
agreed and said that they could be transferred into the road car section of 
Ferrari.
When cost cutting was discussed, it inevitably meant that roles would 
disappear and
people would lose their jobs. Jean Todt repeated that Ferrari would not be 
able to
do it. Max Mosley said that it would be able to do so if the budget cap was 
high
enough.
After further discussion, Max Mosley proposed that Tony Purnell convene a 
meeting
of the teams' Finance Directors as soon as possible to discuss on a figure 
or figures
for costs excluding engine, marketing and drivers for 2009, 2010 and 2011. 
This was
unanimously agreed. It was also agreed that Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley
would decide on a final figure. It was also agreed that no press statements 
were
made about these plans as they would have severe implications for employees 
and
also might encourage sponsors to reduce their sponsorship levels.
The next step would be to set up a Working Group to discuss the measurement 
of
how the money was spent. This would need to be in place before 30 June 2008
because the rule would need to be introduced as a sporting regulation for 
2009.
Otherwise other rules would need to be in place for 2009 to cap teams' 
budgets.
Jean Todt said that the Team Principals would also need to explain these 
plans to
shareholders and therefore requested the FIA to write to the teams to 
explain the
situation in writing so that it could be communicated to the shareholders. 
This was
agreed and Max Mosley undertook to write to all the teams the following 
week.
Stability of regulations, Chapter XV International Sporting Code (ISC)
Max Mosley explained that the FIA had updated Chapter XV of the ISC which
stipulated that for all disciplines except the single seater series, the 
notice periods
had to include 1st January of the two previous years for Technical 
Regulations and for
the single seater series, 1st January of the three previous years.
9
A special provision had been left for Formula One as the now agreed five 
year
engine freeze was inconsistent with Chapter XV. This would also allow the 
FIA to
impose regulations if working groups did not find solutions.
This was agreed.
Resolution of disputes between teams
Max Mosley explained that the FIA had agreed that it would only become 
involved in
a dispute if two conditions were satisfied, namely: the dispute affected the
championship; and if one of the two teams complained to the FIA.
This was noted.
KERS and other new "green" technologies
Max Mosley explained that work on these technologies was progressing. It was
considering allowing heat recovery technology to be used from 2011 but this 
would
be discussed in due course. It was also in favour of the introduction of 
turbo
generators in 2013 to coincide with the new engine.
Christian Horner asked if KERS would be included in the proposed cost cap. 
Max
Mosley said that it would be logical for KERS to be included in the engine 
work and
costs. This was noted.
Contract Recognition Board (CRB)
Max Mosley explained that the CRB, as an appendix to the Concorde Agreement,
had expired at the same time as the Concorde Agreement. The World Motor 
Sport
Council had, however, agreed to continue the CRB. He understood that there 
were
some concerns about the CRB and he asked them to be sent to the FIA 
secretariat.
This was noted.
Bernie Ecclestone proposed that a team could add up to five of its top 
personnel to
be covered under the CRB. He undertook to prepare an amendment to the rule 
for
consideration and approval.
Any Other Business
Documents
Nick Fry commented that the teams seemed to receive documents from the FIA 
at
different times and asked the FIA to ensure that all documents were sent out 
in a
timely fashion and at the same time to all teams. This was agreed.
Entry Fees and Costs
Max Mosley said that the FIA felt that there should be an entry fee to cover
everything, rather than extra fees for weather forecasts for example. The 
FIA would
make a proposal for 2009. This was noted.
Doctors
Max Mosley explained that the FIA had appointed Jean-Charles Pi�tte, a very 
wellknown
and respected doctor in France, who would take on many of the duties carried


Magic wrote:
""""
Meeting of Formula One Team Principals and the FIA
FIA Headquarters, Paris, Friday 11 January 2008   """"
b....b.....b...... BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
dai, smettila... ti stai rendendo ridicolo.

 dai, smettila... ti stai rendendo ridicolo.
Lui, eh? Tu, invece...
-- 
Ciao.
Rox
___________________________________________
Onesto � colui che adatta le proprie opinioni alla verit�,
Disonesto � colui che adatta la verit� alle proprie opinioni.
(Proverbio Arabo)

 Lui, eh? Tu, invece...
IO rido: e di gusto, anche.

 IO rido: e di gusto, anche.
Risum abundat in ora stultorum.

 Risum abundat in ora stultorum.
! ATTENZIONE: quella che segue e' IRONIA ! *
____________________________________
Hai poi prenotato per la cina ? Bon Appetit. 
____________________________________
! ATTENZIONE: quella che precede e' IRONIA ! *
* che se a te non ti si fanno gli schemini, poi non capisci.

 Risum abundat in ora stultorum.
Al posto tuo proverei a ripassarmi qualche declinazione. E perchï¿œ no, 
anche qualche genere (ROTFL).
-- 
"E che non spiegata a babbo di minchia come fai fatto tu, con n-p e m+q 
si basa sul fatto che l'acqua contenuta nel volume che attraversi ï¿œ 
sempre la stessa indipdentemente dalla velocita' che lo percorri." - 
Quando l'accademia della cruscacci incontra la fisicacci, 28.10.2008