Subscription Only Caches--grrrrrrrrrr!

January 27, 2006

And, I guess I'll add this in for good measure, everyone helps pay for the site by viewing the advertisement on the site.

Oh, and what a huge number of ads those are. NOT. There is ONE ad in the sidebar. And most of the time, the ad is for a Groundspeak product. (No revenue stream on those ads).

Plus, I've yet to see an sponsored ad here in the forums.

Yeah, I bet they're just raking in the dough on all those ads they bombard us users with.

</sarcasm>

January 27, 2006

It's hard enough for a lot of us to make ends meet and those who cannot afford a premium membership should NOT be penalized for being a basic member!

Excuse me to bring that up but when reading your hobbies, it does say that one of them is Caribbean Cruises, so when you say "a lot of us" I guess it doesn't include yourself. I'm sure you could easly become a Premium Member. I just came back from a cruise and you must know that you can also be in the Captain's Club wich means that you get special treatment. So let's just say that beeing a Premium Member is like beeing in the Captain's Club. So by not beeing in the Captain's Club on the ship, you DO NOT get penalized, you just don't get that little special treatment.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Nomade

January 27, 2006

It's hard enough for a lot of us to make ends meet and those who cannot afford a premium membership should NOT be penalized for being a basic member!

Excuse me to bring that up but when reading your hobbies, it does say that one of them is Caribbean Cruises, so when you say "a lot of us" I guess it doesn't include yourself. I'm sure you could easly become a Premium Member. I just came back from a cruise and you must know that you can also be in the Captain's Club wich mean that you get special treatment. So let's just say that beeing a Premium Member is like beeing in the Captain's Club.

You are correct--I go on Caribbean Cruises. I spend a lot more than $3/month in order to own a TiVo, subscribe to premium TV channels I never watch, buy jugs of Poland Spring water, and belong to the Keurig Coffee Club in order to have Kenya Kilimanjaro K-cup individually brewed coffee every morning. It is not that I can't afford to be a Premium Member, which I think is fine if you want to use some of the features like Pocket Queries. Its the principle of the thing--I feel the caches themselves should be available to everybody.

January 27, 2006

You can keep tabs on whos looking at your cache.

You can keep tabs on some of people who are looking at your cache.

As a subscriber I can set up a PQ to get a list Members Only Geocaches and none of the owners will have any indication that I have the looked at the information.

January 27, 2006

subscribe to premium TV channels

exactly, so when you pay for premium TV, you get channel that others don't get. Once you own a TV, shoudn't all channels be available to everybody without paying for premium TV? Edited January 27, 2006 by Nomade

January 27, 2006

It has been said many times over that the audit log is little more than useless.

Said by people who do not use it or like it.

I argue it is useful and I like it.

Thus it must be slightly higher on the Useful scale for som of us. Thanks though I always like a well informed discussion on why I like useless things.

...

Ok, what is it useful? Knowing who looked at the cache page is helpful because....

...it shows how many of the local cachers have been looking at one of my caches over and over, proof that they've been stumped but don't have the stones to log their DNFs.

Not many cachers here log their DNFs, in fact a few cachers even admitted that they had indeed tried when I've noticed them looking at the cache page over and over (over 50 times in some cases) and emailed them seeing if there was any problems.

The audit log wasn't why I made a MO cache, but it sure is a fun added feature. That feature alone may entice me to place more MO caches.

The reason I made this cache MO is that it was meant as a form of revenge on the local crowd that likes to hide micro caches in the woods, most of which are Premium Members, and I didn't really want to unleash this on the general community, new cachers in particular.

1.4k · January 27, 2006

Up until now, I refrained from posting any comments on Members Only caches, as the arguments were always the same - "it's affordable" vs. "Geocaching should be free."

I would defer the blame on people who chooe to list so many MO's in your area to annoy you. (After all, they ultimately own the cache) There is a very small percentage of MO's in my area, and fortunately, most people choose to list their caches otherwise. My enjoyment did not change when I upgraded my membership to Premium after caching for about 5 months without.

You really ought to cancel your subscription to premium TV channels, though.

January 27, 2006

Its the principle of the thing--I feel the caches themselves should be available to everybody.

I disagree. I think they should only be made available to people who cache.

I've had two stolen off of public land when a nearby cabin leasee (not owner) decided they didn't like them being there. I made them MOC's and they have gone untouched since.

Salvelinus

1.8k · January 27, 2006

Oh no ... everytime this topic shows up, I hear the worlds smallest violin playing, "My Heart Bleeds For You".

January 27, 2006

I feel the caches themselves should be available to everybody.

This is the concept that I can't wrap my mind around.

A company, Groundspeak, provides geocaching.com and this forum for you to use and from which you derive entertainment. Why do you feel this should be free to you? Should not that company and its employees be compensated for the services they provide to you? Why do you feel you are entitled to something for nothing?

January 27, 2006

subscribe to premium TV channels
exactly, so when you pay for premium TV, you get channel that others don't get. Once you own a TV, shoudn't all channels be available to everybody without paying for premium TV?

Premium TV channels were created to be paid for, just like buying software programs, or a million other things. The reason MOC's were created is to specifically exclude certain people from accessing them. You may be excluded from watching HBO because you can't afford it, but HBO wasn't created specifically to exclude viewers. HBO was created to generate revenue. MOC's are created to generate exclusivity.

January 27, 2006

MOC's are created to generate exclusivity.

:mad: :mad: That's a hoot!

As long as you've got the power to read Jeremy's mind as to why he created MOCs, why don't you tell us his plans for when cache planning along a route, or any of the other future functionality, is going to be available.

Thanks for the laugh!

January 27, 2006

A company, Groundspeak, provides geocaching.com and this forum for you to use and from which you derive entertainment. Why do you feel this should be free to you? Should not that company and its employees be compensated for the services they provide to you? Why do you feel you are entitled to something for nothing?

Groundspeak makes money from the banner ads, and from the Travel Bugs and caching gear you buy, so everybody contributes in some way to Groundspeak, not just premium members. Do you look up stuff on Yahoo! or Google? I bet you don't get out the credit card every time you use their search engine.

January 27, 2006

Oh no ... everytime this topic shows up, I hear the worlds smallest violin playing, "My Heart Bleeds For You".

2.1k · January 27, 2006

edited due to silliness on my part, no need to throw gas on this blaze

jamie

Edited January 27, 2006 by NFA

January 27, 2006

MOC's are created to generate exclusivity.

That's a hoot!

Thanks for the laugh!

Doesn't the term "Members Only" define exclusivity?

7.3k · January 27, 2006

January 27, 2006

MOC's are created to generate exclusivity.

That's a hoot!

Thanks for the laugh!

Doesn't the term "Members Only" define exclusivity?

I my book, Yes, it is exclusive. Certain benifits for those willing to pay extra.

Anyone can golf at the city golf course. If you want to golf at the big fancy golf course, you will pay extra. Nothing wrong with that. Just because a few folks don't like it does not make it wrong, it only means they don't like it.

The site was based on the fact that anyone can find a cache without paying. You do have to create an account, but you can find most caches. Nobody say you have to be able to find every cache.

It boils down to opinion. Yours is valid as an opinion, but most folks disagree.

6.5k · January 27, 2006

...Ok, what is it useful? Knowing who looked at the cache page is helpful because....

You can bet on who will be FTF.

The Cache Maggot will look at the page (now that you have to register to see coords).

You can keep tabs on whos looking at your cache.

You can guage the interest level in your cache relative to your other caches.

I certainly can't think of everthing that could be done with the audit log. That's just a few.

And other than 'just interesting' what good is the audit log?

January 27, 2006

MOC's are created to generate exclusivity.

That's a hoot!

Thanks for the laugh!

Doesn't the term "Members Only" define exclusivity?

I this instance, no I don't believe it does.

To be a member, one only has to pay $3/month of $30/year. I find it difficult to believe that folks who frequent gc.com or the forums can't come up with $3 if they really want to.

Now, if membership cost were truly a substantial amount, or memberships were only open to people with red hair or people that lived in certain zip codes or people with certain beliefs, then yes, that would be promoting exclusivity.

1.4k · January 27, 2006

Are there really that many MO caches out there? I live just north of the Bronx and doing a 50 mile radius the only 2 or 3 MO's I noticed (I'm a basic member but the search will show the cache and the member only icon, then when you try to look at the cache listing it will tell you it's "member") were out in Long Island both hidden by the same member.

I would think that the biggest urbanized area in America would have a lot more than that many MO's. This was out of 200+ cache listings.

Or maybe I have the wrong mentality; maybe it is out in the deep woods and the mountains where you are more likely to see the 4+/4+ rated caches that you'd have more MO's. Just wondering......

January 27, 2006

subscribe to premium TV channels
exactly, so when you pay for premium TV, you get channel that others don't get. Once you own a TV, shoudn't all channels be available to everybody without paying for premium TV?

Premium TV channels were created to be paid for, just like buying software programs, or a million other things. The reason MOC's were created is to specifically exclude certain people from accessing them. You may be excluded from watching HBO because you can't afford it, but HBO wasn't created specifically to exclude viewers. HBO was created to generate revenue. MOC's are created to generate exclusivity.

Exactly! When I get around to putting out my first caches they are going to be for Premium paying members only. I don’t want the common riff-raff messing with my new virgin caches; I only want those members that are willing to support Geocaching.com to search for my caches and the $2.00 trinkets included therein. If I could somehow also make them exclusive to the paying members of the state geocaching association I’d do that as well.

January 27, 2006

So I have a quick question. Is it taboo for a premium member to take a regular member to a Member's Only cache. And if that happened is there anyway for the regular member to log the find online?

7.3k · January 27, 2006

edited due to silliness on my part, no need to throw gas on this blaze
jamie

Aaaaaaawww.... but you inspired me!

I'm feeling a little silly today, so everyone please forgive me. Blame it on lack of sleep.

January 27, 2006

So I have a quick question. Is it taboo for a premium member to take a regular member to a Member's Only cache. And if that happened is there anyway for the regular member to log the find online?

No, it isn't taboo and yes the non-premium member can log the cache.

January 27, 2006

To be a member, one only has to pay $3/month of $30/year. I find it difficult to believe that folks who frequent gc.com or the forums can't come up with $3 if they really want to.

Now, if membership cost were truly a substantial amount, or memberships were only open to people with red hair or people that lived in certain zip codes or people with certain beliefs, then yes, that would be promoting exclusivity.

So if membership so inexpensive, and its not about making exclusive caches why have a pay membership at all? Or why not make EVERYONE pay? Then there would be no issues abou exclusivity.

1.4k · January 27, 2006

A company, Groundspeak, provides geocaching.com and this forum for you to use and from which you derive entertainment. Why do you feel this should be free to you? Should not that company and its employees be compensated for the services they provide to you? Why do you feel you are entitled to something for nothing?

Groundspeak makes money from the banner ads, and from the Travel Bugs and caching gear you buy, so everybody contributes in some way to Groundspeak, not just premium members. Do you look up stuff on Yahoo! or Google? I bet you don't get out the credit card every time you use their search engine.

I wouldn't necessarily compare search engines like Yahoo! and Google as something "free." Yahoo! started out as a simple listing service, but they had to find ways to finance their operations, so the ads kept increasing, while some services were removed. They offer a "subscription service" for their e-mail so you can read them by POP3 without dealing with bandwidth and CPU wasteful Macromedia Flash ads.

Don't hold your breath for Google either. Eventually, they will have to finance their operations by means other than promoting growth and using the securities market.

If you have beef with our economic system, then I can understand why you are complaining.

6.5k · January 27, 2006

MOC's are created to generate exclusivity.

That's a hoot!

Thanks for the laugh!

Doesn't the term "Members Only" define exclusivity?

I my book, Yes, it is exclusive. Certain benifits for those willing to pay extra.

Anyone can golf at the city golf course. If you want to golf at the big fancy golf course, you will pay extra. Nothing wrong with that. Just because a few folks don't like it does not make it wrong, it only means they don't like it.

...

I don't see the comparison exactly (maybe I should try golfing?). Are MOCs assured to be better um.... grass?? Is the pin/flag think more pretty to look at? Or is the just the privilege of playing at the fancy club (that was build and is maintained by someone else) the reason?

January 27, 2006

I wouldn't necessarily compare search engines like Yahoo! and Google as something "free." Yahoo! started out as a simple listing service, but they had to find ways to finance their operations, so the ads kept increasing, while some services were removed. They offer a "subscription service" for their e-mail so you can read them by POP3 without dealing with bandwidth and CPU wasteful Macromedia Flash ads.

Yes its essentially the same situation as with Groundspeak. I am just saying don't be hypocritical about criticizing people who use Groundspeak without being a premium member and turn around and use Yahoo! search engine every day without subscribing to their pay services.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Pinster56

18.9k · January 27, 2006

...
Yes its essentially the same situation as with Groundspeak. I am just saying don't be hypocritical about criticizing people who use Groundspeak without being a premium member and turn around and use Yahoo! serch engine every day without subscribing to their pay services.

But you gotta pay Yahoo for the premium services - they aren't automatically available to all no matter how much you want them.

2.5k · January 27, 2006

<snipped, viewable on page 1>

It's ironic that you have enough time on your hands to post over 1000 times on these forums, and find 128 caches for free, yet you dislike MO caches. If you ask me, you get a lot of quality entertainment for free.

You have missed the entire point, I dislike MOC caches because of the principle. It is a easy way to exclude those who are not paying membership, much like a country club. I would like to see this game stay friendly to all members. It's fine to sell advanced and helpful features, as a matter of fact, I'll probably become a PM in the future. But like I've said before, leave the caches out of it.

----------------

I have something to add --> Click here.

If you will notice in the list of requirements to place a cache on this Government controlled property:

Caches need to be public, no member only or subscription caches.

1k · January 27, 2006

...
Groundspeak makes money from the banner ads, and from the Travel Bugs and caching gear you buy, so everybody contributes in some way to Groundspeak, not just premium members. Do you look up stuff on Yahoo! or Google? I bet you don't get out the credit card every time you use their search engine.

Google vs. Groundspeak...like comparing watermelons to raisins.

24.7k · January 27, 2006

...I feel the caches themselves should be available to everybody.

Why? It's my cache. I did the work, I planned it, I stocked it, I hid it, I listed it. What part of my cache makes it so that it should be available to you on the terms you have set?

Edited January 27, 2006 by Renegade Knight

January 27, 2006

You have missed the entire point, I dislike MOC caches because of the principle. It is a easy way to exclude those who are not paying membership, much like a country club. I would like to see this game stay friendly to all members. It's fine to sell advanced and helpful features, as a matter of fact, I'll probably become a PM in the future. But like I've said before, leave the caches out of it.

This has been my point exactly from the beginning. Agree 100%.

1.8k · January 27, 2006

Hmmm...I'm a "you pay for what you get" mouse, myself - tanstasfl.

Edited January 27, 2006 by ATMouse

2.5k · January 27, 2006

It had been mentioned earlier that MOC caches are to limit the visitors to more "dedicated" cachers. If this really is the case, why is it not based upon the find count. This would be a more accurate means to determine ones dedication. As far as I know, a cachers dedication to the activity is not in direct porportion to the amount of money they have.

1k · January 27, 2006

...A fun sport such as gocaching should be available to all--not just those who pay extra. Fine if you want to pay extra for special techniques .... It's hard enough for a lot of us to make ends meet and those who cannot afford a premium membership should NOT be penalized for being a basic member!

I feel the same way about women who withhold their affections, yet the unreasonable discrimination continues. <_<

24.7k · January 27, 2006

...I have something to add --> Click here.

If you will notice in the list of requirements to place a cache on this Government controlled property:

Caches need to be public, no member only or subscription caches.

Oooohhhh I could make a Federal Case out of that one. <_< It brings up some good questions that are worth discussing in another thread....

January 27, 2006

I always hope a new cache will pop into my cleared radius and when it does, it often is one of these hoity-toity subscription only caches

Pinster56

30 MOC in 1980 caches in the Wilmington area, in a 100 mile radius. You are really an unlucky guy, they most have all poped out near your location.

3.3k · January 27, 2006

I have something to add

If you will notice in the list of requirements to place a cache on this Government controlled property:

QUOTE

Caches need to be public, no member only or subscription caches.

They are also allowed for no more than one year.

Here are a few links to a few horses who have been beaten to death.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...pic=58669&st=0&

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=69298

Here is a "3 pager"

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...9162&hl=members

3.9k · January 27, 2006

Enough is enough.

I am locking this thread until morning, give everyone a chance to settle down a bit.

3.2k · January 28, 2006

Good Morning!!!! All this flap might be meaningful if the MO caches were something special that the rest of us were missing out on.. but look at them. Lamp post micros.. soccer field caches.. Most of them are not prime caches that are any better than others in the same areas so why get your panties in a bunch because you can't get the smiley there.. go around the block and get another one instead. Make your caches muggle proof? If they need this little bit of extra protection then may I suggest they be placed in a less conspicuous spot. A half mile off the nearest trail is probably muggle proof enough unless you use a blaze orange box sitting out in the open

.

3.3k · January 28, 2006

Good Morning!!!! All this flap might be meaningful if the MO caches were something special that the rest of us were missing out on.. but look at them. Lamp post micros.. soccer field caches.. Most of them are not prime caches that are any better than others in the same areas so why get your panties in a bunch because you can't get the smiley there.. go around the block and get another one instead. Make your caches muggle proof? If they need this little bit of extra protection then may I suggest they be placed in a less conspicuous spot. A half mile off the nearest trail is probably muggle proof enough unless you use a blaze orange box sitting out in the open
.

I reserve MO caches for my better stocked caches, none of them are micros, or caches under a lamp post. This is a bad assumption.

Here are pictures of the original cache contents for two of my MO caches.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/sgbofav/100_0451.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/sgbofav/CacheItems.jpg

5.7k · January 28, 2006

So you see edscott? Most of them are in fact 'prime' caches.

3.9k · January 28, 2006

A company, Groundspeak, provides geocaching.com and this forum for you to use and from which you derive entertainment. Why do you feel this should be free to you? Should not that company and its employees be compensated for the services they provide to you? Why do you feel you are entitled to something for nothing?

I must agree with what NoLemon wrote. Further, the cache was placed as a service to the geocaching community by the cache hider, and, to me, it seems only reasonable and sane and fair that the cache hider have some degree of choice regarding to whom she/he makes the cache available, and if the hider chooses to make the cache a PMOC, God bless them for their choice. Sue and I found a number of great benefits in upgrading (in our second month in the geo world) to Premium membership, but frankly, even if those benefits had not been there we still would have done so in order to be able to help to support the site and the sport and to express our gratitude and appreciation for this great service. In fact, we have our joint team account (this one) and Sue now also has her own account for solving and tracking puzzle caches, and both accounts are Premium member accounts.

We also place many extreme caches, and all of them, or almost all of them, are Premium member-only caches. We do it for a number of reasons:

1) to say thanks to the other folks who help to support the geocaching.com website.
2) to say thanks to the folks at geocaching.com for their work and time.
3) to drastically reduce the chances that a casual website visitor will find the listing and attempt something for which they are unqualified.
4) to drastically reduce the chances that a casual website visitor with a bit of larceny or vandalism in their heart will find the listing and attempt to damage or steal the cache.

Really, without beating the point to death, complaining about the existence of PMOC caches and the existence of Premium membrships seems to me like a sense of entitlement -- wanting something for nothing and getting a bit demanding about the whole matter -- and also, to me, indicates a possible lack of gratitude and appreciation for what is being offered.

January 28, 2006

I am working on a multi-cache that I feel I am expending a lot of effort on. It is going to have some old silver coins in as swag. I am going to make it a MOC for a couple reasons. It's not that I want to keep it exclusive for the snobbery aspect. I just don't want a person who's intentions are not like most geocachers to find it.

I am not fond of having my efforts plundered by someone just out to get all the goodies only to have McToys or nothing left in trade. I feel a paying member is more likely to trade even. I think the vast majority of folks caching do it for the enjoyment they get from it, but that small minority that do it for the plunder take the fun out of it. How many times have you seen Geo-coins and Travel bugs disappear with no trace, never to be seen again?

I also feel it is important to support the website in a financial way. Nothing is cheap anymore, but 30 bucks a year???? That is small price to pay. A carton of cigs costs that, a case of beer is close to that, heck , you can't even take the family out for one meal at a restaurant for that anymore.

So I am sorry that some folks feel put off by have caches for PAYING members only, but I feel you get out of it what you are willing to put into it. You want free caches, I have those. But I should be able to have an exclusive cache or two also.

After all, I am the one spending the money to put my caches out.

3.3k · January 28, 2006

A company, Groundspeak, provides geocaching.com and this forum for you to use and from which you derive entertainment. Why do you feel this should be free to you? Should not that company and its employees be compensated for the services they provide to you? Why do you feel you are entitled to something for nothing?

I must agree with what NoLemon wrote. Further, the cache was placed as a service to the geocaching community by the cache hider, and, to me, it seems only reasonable and sane and fair that the cache hider have some degree of choice regarding to whom she/he makes the cache available, and if the hider chooses to make the cache a PMOC, God bless them for their choice. Sue and I found a number of great benefits in upgrading (in our second month in the geo world) to Premium membership, but frankly, even if those benefits had not been there we still would have done so in order to be able to help to support the site and the sport and to express our gratitude and appreciation for this great service. In fact, we have our joint team account (this one) and Sue now also has her own account for solving and tracking puzzle caches, and both accounts are Premium member accounts.

We also place many extreme caches, and all of them, or almost all of them, are Premium member-only caches. We do it for a number of reasons:

1) to say thanks to the other folks who help to support the geocaching.com website.

2) to say thanks to the folks at geocaching.com for their work and time.

3) to drastically reduce the chances that a casual website visitor will find the listing and attempt something for which they are unqualified.

4) to drastically reduce the chances that a casual website visitor with a bit of larceny or vandalism in their heart will find the listing and attempt to damage or steal the cache.

Really, without beating the point to death, complaining about the existence of PMOC caches and the existence of Premium membrships seems to me like a sense of entitlement -- wanting something for nothing and getting a bit demanding about the whole matter -- and also, to me, indicates a possible lack of gratitude and appreciation for what is being offered.

By far the best reply to this topic.

When I first started, the only benefits (besides supporting the site) for premium membership were PQs, MO caches, and zoomable/movable maps. I didn't use PQs for my first few months. Now there are tons of additional benefits.

$3.00 is a very small price to pay for hundreds of hours of quality entertainment, that I derive from this hobby.

2.5k · January 28, 2006

Everyone seems to think this issue is all about money, so think of it this way.

Women only caches. Only a person of the appropiate gender can get access to the cache page by some method on the website to determine your really who you say you are. Now think for a minute on how you would feel knowing that the cache hider, who doesn't know you, is restricting you just because you are a guy.

I could also apply this to race, nationalty, religious denomination, etc.... What I'm saying is, it's not about the money. As me and several others have said it is the principle that there even exists an option to restrict others from your caches.

[edit to correct spelling]

Edited January 28, 2006 by Airmapper

6.4k · January 28, 2006

Everyone seems to think this issue is all about money, so think of it this way.

Women only caches. Only a person of the appropiate gender can get access to the cache page by some method on the website to determine your really who you say you are. Now think for a minute on how you would feel knowing that the cache hider, who doesn't know you, is restricting you just because you are a guy.

I could also apply this to race, nationalty, religious denomination, etc.... What I'm saying is, it's not about the money. As me and several others have said it is the principle that there even exists an option to restrict others from your caches.

[edit to correct spelling]

Ok, how is that different from SCUBA divers only caches?

Or mountain climber only caches?

Or caches you need a boat or 4x4 to access?

Or caches that require a multi-day hike?

Or caches that require you to figure out a puzzle?

Not everyone can dive, rock climb, or hike 30 miles for a cache.

Not everyone can afford a boat or offroad vehicle.

Not everyone can figure out a puzzle.

Should all those be banned for discriminating too?

Not everyone can hike even 1.5 miles. Should those be banned as well?

SO WHAT if there are caches you can't or won't do?

You are never gonna be able to do ALL the caches on the site anyway, so what's the difference?

3.3k · January 28, 2006

Everyone seems to think this issue is all about money, so think of it this way.

Women only caches. Only a person of the appropiate gender can get access to the cache page by some method on the website to determine your really who you say you are. Now think for a minute on how you would feel knowing that the cache hider, who doesn't know you, is restricting you just because you are a guy.

I could also apply this to race, nationalty, religious denomination, etc.... What I'm saying is, it's not about the money. As me and several others have said it is the principle that there even exists an option to restrict others from your caches.

[edit to correct spelling]

GC actually approved a "Women Only" Event cache, so there goes that argument.

Edited January 28, 2006 by Kit Fox

Subscription Only Caches--grrrrrrrrrr!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment