Rory Cellan-Jones

Scrabulous users - stunned, bemused,baffled.

  • Rory Cellan-Jones
  • 25 Aug 08, 11:24 GMT

My inbox is filling up with the grief-stricken, the angry, the lost and the desperate. Who are they? Sad obsessives who played Scrabulous on Facebook. They had been through a spasm of anxiety a few weeks back when the word game - which some may think resembles a popular offline board game - disappeared from the American site after legal action by Hasbro, but somehow assumed that it would never happen to them.

Now though Mattel - which owns Scrabble outside the US and Canada - has deprived British (and I assume other) users of their drug and they are not happy. One even suggested that the BBC should rouse itself from its Bank Holiday torpor and give ample coverage of this event of earth-shattering importance. Well I've tried to convince the news editors that the disappearance of a much-loved word game from a popular social network is more significant than some Democratic convention(happens every four years, doesn't it?) or the return of our victorious Olympic athletes (similar argument) but they remain to be convinced.

So it's dirty work but I'm going to have to do it . However, you're going to have to do a little work yourselves. Assume you have a rack of seven tiles and a board with which to spell out the key words of the great Scrabulous disaster.


This word sums up the attitude of all those who somehow thought that a game which looks and feels exactly like Scrabble would be permitted by Hasbro and Mattel to go on serving millions of Facebook users around the world, while reaping a steady flow of advertising dollars for its young Indian creators. You might as well expect Rolex to endorse those people selling "Rolex" watches on street markets worldwide, or Viacom to say, "Hey, YouTube, great to see our content on a whole new platform."


A fabulous word(and could be high-scoring) which describes what has been directed at Hasbro and Mattel on a number of Facebook groups. "What the HELL ..... where is my scrabulous, I feel sick to my stomach". "I am seething MAD....I had abt 10 games going on and now they have just taken it away????? This isnt fair...". "CURSE YOU HASBRO / MATTEL!!!!!!!! I'm going home to cut up my deluxe scrabble set and feed it to the cat."

It seems capital letters and mass exclamation marks are the natural online response to any traumatic event these days - even for the highly literate Scrabulous crowd. But it does show how powerful a brand an online application can build within a very short space of time. Is there any other Facebook application whose disappearance would cause such grief and anger?


This word is how some (not the BBC, of course) might characterise the stance of Hasbro and Mattel. Could they really not come to some kind of accommodation with the makers of Scrabulous? Have they enhanced the Scrabble brand - and their own reputations - by their actions? And, if they were going to remove Scrabulous, could they have not replaced it with one official game instead of two - one for American and Canadian users, another for the rest? It's a serious setback for transatlantic relations - two nations not just divided by a common language, but by the lack of a common word game.


One of these has now appeared for any other platform that might seek to attract the smart, and presumably prosperous and time-rich crowd that plays Scrabulous. It could be the perfect pastime for a mobile phone with a decent screen - and so far none of the games that have appeared on the new iPhone have broken away from the pack to establish a big lead. Or maybe the first Android phone will feature a compelling way of wasting time trying to work out how to score maximum points with a dodgy word like Qi?


And that is how Facebook executives may be feeling. In May last year they were acclaimed for throwing open the social network's doors to outside developers and thus making it a far more "sticky" place for its users, at no cost. "Scrabulous" was a particularly "sticky" application, and some of its fans may now feel they have little reason to spend much time with Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg's little firm claimed it was just a playground where users and developers could enjoy themselves as they liked, at their own risk, with no comeback for the network's owner. But, like Google's YouTube, Facebook has now grown into a big media business, and other firms see no reason why it should profit from their intellectual property.


This, believe it or not, is the name of my mongrel, and it sums up the dog's dinner Mattel has made of its official Facebook Scrabble application. Every time you open it you get "a message from our sponsors", and the first message I got told me that I had won a free iPhone. Is this kind of spam really going to convince Scrabulous users to transfer their allegiance? It does not seem to be working so far - the worldwide version had only attracted 75,000 users when I last looked, as compared with the millions who used Scrabulous. What's more, those users have given it very poor reviews, with an average rating of 1.6 stars out of 5.

All of these words will fit together onto a conventional Scrabble board, and should not prove a challenge for any moderately skilled player. But it might give some of those tortured Scrabulous souls a little respite from their grief. But can you come up with a really high score?Answers later this week.


  • Comment number 1.

    You don't seem to have mentioned that the Scrabulous developers have a new word game which looks somehow familliar called "Wordscraper"...

  • Comment number 2.

    I'm still playing Scrabulous via email on the Scrabulous site.

  • Comment number 3.

    Wordscraper doesn't have quite the same feel as Scrabulous did, the board layout is taking some getting used to! The main reason Hasbro / Mattel have taken this actio now is to publicise their own version of the game which has been launched on Facebook. What they didn't take into account though was that their version is actually very badly written, and far inferior to Scrabulous.

    It's a real shame that Hasbro / Mattel didn't actually take any notice of the correspondance they received from the Scrabulous fans on the matter.

  • Comment number 4.

    There's a lot of whining from people who dislike the concept of copyright and demand free access. One wonders if they would extend the same to random people popping into their house for a use of their TV or stereo.

    One suspects not.

  • Comment number 5.

    Well all I can say is count yourselves lucky that you can access Facebook. Since last week Facebook has joined Youtube in being blocked in the country I live in. Bang goes another way of keeping in touch with friends and family around the world (and of wasting time on the likes of Pathwords and Petrolhead!)

  • Comment number 6.

    When Ford wanted a sticky application for its Model-T (lamps,electric starter, airconditioning) it went out and brought the intellectual and physical application lock, stock, and barrel. Ahhh the good old days. Likewise, Mattel/Hasbro should follow suit and buy the two Indian developers, and then control the applications of their own application. The real lesson here is that big companies do not yet take the internet seriously. If they did, they would have either gotten the Indian guys, or designed a far better in-house version. Music companies still underestimate its power, as do Mattel: Wake up guys!

  • Comment number 7.

    When you've all grown up, I recommend this Facebook group:

  • Comment number 8.

    I can feel your pain, but have you visited

  • Comment number 9.

    You analogy is flawed selling a Rolulous watch should be totally fine. Your world sides with the monopolist big business side. If scrabble want to compete then they should produce a better game. If the concept of Scrabble had not existed and had been dreamt up by the Indian developers then Hasbro would have copied it and have been able to bully them out of ownership entirely by the weight of their legal team. Of course the BBC is a monolpolist organisation that bullies rivals out of business but the twist being that I am taxed for this privilege.

  • Comment number 10.

    Mattel and Hasbro can take Scrabulous away, as they're big companies with expensive lawyers - and we all know that in the legal world, might trumps right.

    Meanwhile, I, a solitary consumer, can only decline to purchase any of their products again. And so that's what I'll do.

  • Comment number 11.

    "At 4:26pm on 25 Aug 2008, rulebookconsulting wrote:
    When you've all grown up, I recommend this Facebook group:"

    That's the squarest facebook group ever.

  • Comment number 12. is still online and functioning in Paris, France.

  • Comment number 13.

    I am not a 'sad obsessive' though I did play scrabulous on Facebook. It was so easy to use. My husband refuses to go on FB anymore as that was the only reason he logged in!! :-(((

  • Comment number 14.

    What we are seeing with Scrabulous is the same thing we have seen with "file sharing".

    People like free and the Internet is like a bazar of knock off goods aplenty. Unlike the real world the counterfeit goods on the internet can be as good, if not better quality, than the original. However it doesn't make them any more legitimate and doesn't put food on the table of the hardworking people who, in this case, make scrabble games whether online or on cardboard.

    There can't be many scrabulous players that honestly think that scrabulous is totally original. If they answer dispassionately they know that it was at some point going to have to behave like what it is - a derivation of copyright work and subject to the ire of the owners of that copyright.

    I would like all the people who complain about "big business" in these scenarios to think that big business is made up of thousands of ordinary people trying to earn an ordinary wage which is threatened by people stealing their company's income.

  • Comment number 15.

    Oh dear, what a sorry state of affairs. Just think, if the inventor of Rock Papers Scissors, Checkers and Chess owned the copyright to their games we wouldn't be able to play anything on the Internet.

  • Comment number 16.

    if Pepsi are allowed to copy Coca-Cola, why isn't someone else allowed to make a word game which is almost the same but slightly different?

  • Comment number 17.

    Alfred Butts, the inventor of Scrabble, died in 1993. To my mind he's the only one due protection of intellectual capital. Hasbro/Mattel/EvilEmpire may have paid a fair price, but I would suggest they have no right to claim exclusive rights over a product they produce rather than something they created. Were Mr Butts to be losing out, I would have every sympathy, however in this case I suspect that he's not that bothered and that it's another example of money grabbing greed by a multi-national.

  • Comment number 18.

    You have to wonder what it is that would turn a group of alleged adults with seemingly average intelligence. In to a monstrous rabble of precocious brats suspending reality at will.

    Any fool would have realised that Scrabulous was indeed operating on borrowed time since its very inception.

    Alas, such artificial drama seems to be the curse with Facebook applications.

    Scrabulous is merely yet another blip on the road of application sponsored venting, of an angst ridden frustration which is almost childlike in style.

    The only truly astonishing is that you believe 'Scrabulous' to be the first and indeed only application giving rise to such nonsense.

  • Comment number 19.

    'the master' In what way was Scrabulous depriving anyone of their wages?
    There was no charge for it, there was no alternative electronic version, and even now when there is there is no charge for it.
    In fact they've caused much bad feeling and lost potential customers because of it.

    Of course I can understand why they got it closed down (in all countries bar India where the designers are from interestingly enough) but why oh why ;) didn't they do a decent job with the official version?

    It's really bad in comparison. The major issue I have with it is that if you don't have your go within 24 hours you forfit your turn. Funny as it sounds some FB users actually have lives and don't sit on it all the time.

    Both companies could have dealt with this in a much better way.

  • Comment number 20.


    That scrabuluous did not charge is immaterial they were gaining advertising revenue on the back of someone elses intellectual property.

    Now that the official version is live if the two were in competition that would be depriving revenue from the official version.

    Even if the official version wasn't live, it still has the right to enter the market and gain from their own IPR.

    And scrabulous not only bears a striking resemblence to cardboard scrabble but to previous computer (offline) scrabble games.

    What is a real shame though is that the official version does not appear to appeal as much as the knock-off version - which perversely might be because the official version respects scrabulous's own intellectual property!

  • Comment number 21.

    No idea who was right or wrong about intellectual property.

    I am absolutely convinced that Habro Mattel have really lost out in closing the FB version. Millions of players per day?? Any deal would have been worth the adverts alone.

    This will be seen as the biggest pyrrhic victory since King Pyrrhus of Epirus beat the Romans in 279BC.

  • Comment number 22.

    I think the point is that Scrabulous was, in many people's opinion, a better implementation of the game than the official version is now. The copyright holders appear to have announced to the world "Scrabulous stole our IP and added nothing, so we're not going to negotiate with them". This is not a popular point of view.

    If Wordscraper becomes popular (which would admittedly be a surprise), I'll be amused at Hasbro/Mattel's expense, both metaphorical and literal.

  • Comment number 23.


  • Comment number 24.

    If you want to stick it to Mattel and Hasbro, and show your support for the Indian and help promote Wordscraper. It is very easy to set up a Scrabble board layout on it, though of course this is not default, but sharing it with everyone you know has been made very straight forward.

    Do not give in and use their pathetic "official version".

  • Comment number 25.

    "I would like all the people who complain about "big business" in these scenarios to think that big business is made up of thousands of ordinary people trying to earn an ordinary wage which is threatened by people stealing their company's income."

    Hasbro/Mattel weren't making a penny out of an web version of Scrabble before Scrabulous came along, so I fail to see how anybody is stealing income that wasn't there in the first place.

    Hasbro/Mattel long ago brought the "rights" to this game, which essentially means they can now sit down and make money they otherwise wouldn't have made if they weren't in this monopolistic position, simply because they bought a piece of paper the cost of which they've now covered several times over. I don't really see the justice in that myself.

  • Comment number 26.

    Themaster tries to defend the indefensible of intellectual property. To explain:

    A drug company spends £100 million developing a life saving drug for strokes/heartattacks/aids. It
    has patent protection for 20 years after that anyone can make it.

    Fred develops a game/writes a song/takes a photo and it costs him a few hours work. His work is protected for 70 years after his death.

    So society sees scrabble as more important than life saving drugs.

  • Comment number 27.

    Perhaps you could be more specific than the vague term "intellectual property"? What is it about Scrabulous that is actually infringing? I don't think the rules of a game can be copyrighted, since copyright protects a specific *expression* of an idea, and not the idea itself. Does copyright apply to the layout of the score multipliers on the board? I know the name and logo of Scrabble are trademarked, and "Scrabulous" definitely sounds similar to "Scrabble", but is that enough to prove infringement or does it need to cause people to believe it's an official Scrabble product? Some analysis of the intellectual property situation would be greatly appreciated.

  • Comment number 28.

    It's strange... certain software companies have all sorts of very dubious IP actions, but that's fine.

    But take away an on-line word game and suddenly the middle-class revolts. :-)

  • Comment number 29.

    What people forget is that it is the responsibility of the owners of intellectual property to protect their rights to it. If they do not, they open themselves up to all and sundry being able to copy them and claim that because they did not defend those rights that they have no defence. Scrabulous on Facebook may seem like nothing more than a bit of fun, but if they let it continue then they would have difficulty stopping others producing lookalike board games and selling them in direct competition. Scrabulous may not take a penny directly out of their pockets, but giving up their rights certainly would do.

  • Comment number 30.

    Gosh, has it gone?

    I've been too busy on Facebook playing Bubbletown

  • Comment number 31.

    'Scrabulous' may sound similar to 'scrabble', but it sounds like it's been deliberately contrived to sound like 'scrabble' without actually being 'scrabble'. Did you genuinely think that with a name like that it was an official Hasbro\Mattel product? I didn't.

    Maybe it's just a cunning ploy - let millions get hooked on playing scrabble again, take it away, massive spin-off sales of real scrabble sets to people desperate to get their scrabble-fix.

  • Comment number 32.

    Also if you are pro-Scrabulous I do hope you're running an open source operating system (I recommend PCLinuxOS - very windows user friendly).

    Well at least until someone does some patent prospecting, as with the pageup/pagedown keys recently.

  • Comment number 33.

    I think that Hasbro should hire the two Indian developers, just like the security people at banks hire ex-criminals. Part of it though, is that you aren't filling the pockets of a multi-national.

    Bottom_feeda - the idea of being able to protect a drug for 20 years is in the public interest, so that after 20 years, competition for a very effective drug, such as for cancer, comes into play and pushes the price down. Otherwise we'd end up with a situation where you'd have to pay what they'd ask forever, knowing that it would save your life.

  • Comment number 34.

    I'd love to say I say I share your pain but ever since Scrabble introduced the silly "parallel words count so long as that includes every two letter word including ones no-ones ever heard of", Scrabble and their people can go jump.

  • Comment number 35.

    For those missing Scrabulous, through a timely reminder by Rory's mongrel of a game Monitorites (those who read the Magazine Monitor on the BBC News website) play, you could try out the fabulous game of Cabbaging (rules:

    Little chance of this game being pulled :)

  • Comment number 36.

    I think there are 2 points here that people are missing.

    The first is that Scrabulous is a great game and has revived interest in the board game. Mattel need to thank the developers for doing something they could not do. If my friends (who since playing Scrabulous have purchased the board game) are anything to go by sales must have ramped up significantly.

    Second is about consumerism. I played the Scrabble game, it's horrid. If they want to shut down Scrabulous fair dues to them but they must pull their socks up and provide a viable alternative rather than the rubbish they are currently serving.

  • Comment number 37.

    The fact that it took Hasbro/Mattel this long to react demonstrates executive ineptitude bordering on the negligent.

    Traditional media and entertainment companies continue to be out-thought and out-manouveured by kids. It's time that shareholders put their foot down and fired some of these inept boards and replaced them with people with some imagination and inventiveness.

  • Comment number 38.

    I can't begin to understand Hasbro/Mattels position on this. Does no-one know in the company understand the principles of internet brands? A simple licensing agreement with the creators and they've got a nice source of income based on the work of someone else.

    But no, they show themselves to be what they in reality are, a corporation, rather than the happy-go-lucky, elves-in-the-grotto toymakers that they'd like us to think they are, by wielding the impressive, yet somehow pathetic law at Facebook.

    I shan't buy anything off them again, though frankly as they produce Barbie, I was hardly likely to anyway.

  • Comment number 39.

    Nope, I never thought Scrabulous was an official Scrabble product, and I think most people are quite savvy enough to realise the same, but the trademark aspect really seems to be the only plausible angle I can see Hasbro/Mattel fighting on. As I understand it, copyright doesn't cover the concepts behind the game, only the creative expression of those concepts as written rules, decorated board and box art. And the extent of the creative expression here "infringed" seems to be merely to colour-code the letter multipliers blue and the word multipliers red.

  • Comment number 40.

    What's Facebook?

  • Comment number 41.

    This is NOT the same as filesharing.

    Filesharers rarely recieve any renumeration for their actions. The makers of this game (and facebook as a whole) were making money by selling advertising while infringing someone elses copyright.

    This is more akin to the geezer with a market stall selling copied versions of DVDs and living off the proceeds while the rest of yus actually have to work hard for a living.

  • Comment number 42.

    I never played Scrabulous on Facebook, although I don't know why, I love Scrabble! I don't understand why they didn't just employ the Indian guys; that way they would have got their money, so would the Indian guys, and the users would still be happy!

  • Comment number 43.

    This is more proof that the terms "copyright" and "intellectual property" are becoming more and more irrelevant in today's society.

    There needs to be a rethink, but the most important factor is the person/company who provides the best service should be the one to get the most business.

    The reason copyright laws exist is to protect the originator, but what actually happens in this age of big companies, is that the consumer is penalized. It should be the consumer who is protected.

    The comparison with file sharers is true. Many, many people who download using bittorrent don't do it because it's free, but rather because it offers the best service, a service worth paying for.

    However greedy companies want total control over their products, so that they can sponge the most out of consumers. This is the problem.

  • Comment number 44.

    If Scrabulous is for Facebook users, I wonder what is the longest word they've come up with so far? :-)

  • Comment number 45.

    For all the pro-scrabulous people - if two brothers came up with an idea for a game, and Hasbro/Mattel stole that idea and made a game identical to it and made money from it, that'd be ok?

  • Comment number 46.

    JP (45) I guess you want us to say 'no that would not be ok'

    But, to carry on the narrative: should the two brothers then used IP law to close down the Hasbro/Mattel game?? Or rather, would they be better advised to enter into a licencing agreement with the successful game corp?!

    My advice - and its free - would be the latter.

  • Comment number 47.

    Some of you are clearly quite ill. I recommend real life. The possibilities are quite endless.

  • Comment number 48.

    I must be really sad because I could never get Scrabulous to work and my one game was left suspended after three less than riveting plays.

    Come to think of it, perhaps I should have had a moan about it on

  • Comment number 49.

    Nikki Noodle (46), maybe if it was the other way round then they would be better off trying to negotiate a licensing deal, but Hasbro/Mattel are a company and exist to make money. How would you feel as a shareholder if the company you had shares in decide it was going to stop trying to make as much money as possible and devalued your investment? They have to protect their intellectual property because they make money with it.

  • Comment number 50. is the place to play, the standard is much higher and it's against the clock.

    I'm amazed all these FB'ers haven't the gumption to find themselves.

  • Comment number 51.

    .....find IT themselves....


  • Comment number 52.

    Why is everyone assuming that they DIDN'T try and licence the game. Maybe they did, but both parties could not agree on suitable royalties.

  • Comment number 53.

    On the whole this is a reasonably balanced article, covering the pros and cons of the whole debacle (good point scoring word). I thought the anagrams a rather nice touch for all the 'sad obsessives' who are likely to read it. Unfortunately that brings me to my one major complaint... those who played Scrabulous were, on the whole, not 'sad obsessives' with too much time on their hands (presumably a synonym for having no life). Anyone who chooses to play a word game for pleasure is unlikely to have to resort to a night shift position in certain fast food establishments. Perhaps the BBC were rather we were all sat like couch potatoes, watching East Enders, rather than doing something mentally stimulating that, as research has shown, keeps the brain active and staves off those nasty degenerative diseases

  • Comment number 54.

    The 'Indian guys'... do they have names? :o)

    I heard they were brothers, so perhaps we can refer to them as 'The XYZ brothers', .. you know, just for a change. I'm getting tired or reading 'the Indian guys' or 'the Indian boys' :oP

  • Comment number 55.

    crongtong (34),

    Just because you don't know your two letter words well enough doesn't mean they are not perfectly acceptable words.

    Mattel have not introduced any such "silly" rules... laying parallel has always been acceptable, so long as it doesn't create words that aren't covered by the rules.

    Tell you what... let me know some of the words that have got you into a tizzy and I will enlighten you.

    p.s. 6 acceptable two letter words in (sorry, 7) this post. 5 in yours.

  • Comment number 56.

    Scrabulous fell off the back of a lorry. It doesn't matter about the various amateur interpretations of Intellectual Property law in the blog: the fact is that Mattel/Hasbro own the various IP rights inherent in the Scrabble game and Scrabulous infringes those rights. They have every right to do what they did and, under Sarbanes Oxley, they had an obligation to their shareholders to take all steps to protect the assets of the business.
    In response to the question about what IP rights were involved, Scrabble always used to be an example of how to maximise protection in a product such as a game. The method of playing the game itself is difficult to protect in most jurisdictions, being inherently unpatentable. However, there is copyright in the design and appearance of the board, the box, the instructions for playing; there is design right in elements of parts used to play the game; and there are registered and unregistered trademark rights in the name Scrabble and no doubt other names.
    The amount of investment, how they acquired the game, the history are all irrelevant. Mattel / Hasbro own Scrabble in the same way as you or I own a car or a potato or a sofa. Its ours and, within the laws of the land, its our decision who else gets to use it.

  • Comment number 57.

    I would personally remove games from these sites or better yet remove these sites completely as they have been proven to nothing more than a nuisance

  • Comment number 58.

    @ Raven2751 (57)

    Facebook is very useful as through it I can easily keep in contact with friends across the country (yes I could email, but it helps to be able to have everyone see everyone elses replies) , have found at least one old friend from primary school, can organise parties and trips out with a central point for contact and information for all guests and I've even agreed to be wedding photographer for a friend who has seen my photos on the site. And all for free.

    Hardly a nuisance.

  • Comment number 59.

    I would personally remove games from these sites or better yet remove these sites completely as they have been proven to nothing more than a nuisance


    Facebook is aperfectly legitemate tool. I know far more about how my school firends and former work colleagues have done since the last time our paths crossed and have rekindled several lost friendships through using it.

    I love the idea of friends being able to browse around each others logs without the impersonal free-for-all exposure that is myspace.

    The only possible nuisance factor I can find is when people use it at work instead of doing what they are paid to do. As long as it is restricted to lunch hour or other personal time I can't see a problem.

  • Comment number 60.

    Haven't Mattel just sued the makers of Bratz dolls as well? If I recall Barbie's losing sales to Bratz.

    Seems strange how, any threat to an "empire" results in some sort of lawsuit, especially in the United States of Sue-me.

    Maybe Mattel, Hasbeen etc should stop trying to beat the entrepaneurs of this century with last century's laws. The world is changing at an astronomical rate, and these "empires" will die, as the music industry is, unless they wake up and evolve: now! Obviously there was an oppourtunity for this application, and someone took it. The internet is not new, Facebook is not new, but they are full of new spins on old ideas.

    Maybe some of the industry cartels would be better off losing the old guys in suits, and putting people in charge who are actually in touch with the world in which we live today.

  • Comment number 61.

    JP (49) as a shareholder, you are right in that I would want to Maximise my return.

    As I see it, and i realise i am repeating myself, the maximum return for a shareholder would be from the Millions and Millions of games on Scrabulous (because of the advertising) rather than the 50,000 users of the Scrabble game on FB - to gain this income would have required a tough licencing with the gamers, but imo, it would have been an investment worth the money; and without alienating the youth market online.

    After all, successful licencing could have speeded up putting other Hasbro/Mattel games online.

    best wishes!

  • Comment number 62.

    Text Twist and Scramble may not be great facebook application substitutes, but they give me the lingual fix I need.

    Please feel free to add and addict yourself to something else in place of Scrabulous.

  • Comment number 63.

    Why not watch Countdown on 4ondemand?
    Alternatively, almost every daily newspaper offers a word puzzle!
    Even better, read a bleeding book.
    What is the world coming to - this blog entry has attracted more responses than Darfur, the US conventions or the Olympics - it's all gone horribly surreal!

  • Comment number 64.

    It's really wrong to steal our game. They did the same thing with Pharaoh's in 2003. Not only are these games fun and addictive. I am one of the many people who used these games as mental therapy. I had a stroke and these games helped me to regain memory and speed. It's a sorry day.


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites