Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
UT-PIRATE

Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches? I think it should be brought back, even if only Premium members can add new caches. I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun. I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

Share this post


Link to post

They won't be back. Jeremy has stated this.

 

I don't miss them. Geocaching should be about finding something somewhere not just finding somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad the existing ones with the "WOW!" factor stayed on the site. I wish there was a way new "WOW!" Virtuals could be back on Geocaching. The Earthcaches got moved back because no one was visiting them when they were on Waymarking . . . so, one could hope. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches?

I don't. But I would like it very much if someone would give BlueDeuce a pony. ;)

 

I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun.

I don't believe that most waymarks are commercial in nature. If you are referring to the relatively small number of commercial categories, they are easy to ignore. I can't imagine why the mere existence of such categories would 'bog down the fun' for anyone.

 

I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

Are you saying that you are creating a Waymarking group with the intention of creating a Waymarking category that tries to capture some of the fun of Virtual caches? If so, great idea! :P

 

If, instead, you have created a Waymarking group whose goal is to somehow stir support within the Waymarking community for bringing back virtuals to GC.com, I don't think you'll make much progress.

Share this post


Link to post

I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun. I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

Waymarking has many categories. Some are commercial, some are educational, and some are fun. I suggest looking at the Waymarking Games categories and the Oddities categories. There are also some categories that may be fun or "wow" to you depending on your interests in other categories. It's easy to setup your favorite categories so you can find only waymarks in those categories and ignore the commercial categories or the ones that aren't fun for you. I like the idea of setting up Waymarking groups to bring back the Virtual Cache fun within Waymarking. I did this with the Wow Waymarkers group. But I think that different people will have different ideas of why Virtual Caches were fun and different ideas of how to make Waymarking categories be as fun as Virtual Caches. So there should be more groups that are trying to do this.

Share this post


Link to post

I wish there was a way new "WOW!" Virtuals could be back on Geocaching.

You'd need to first come up with a workable definition of WOW. Then you'd have to convince Jeremy that it was a workable definition of WOW. In the past, no one was able to do this.

 

The Earthcaches got moved back because no one was visiting them when they were on Waymarking . . . so, one could hope. ;)

Was this ever substantiated? I have heard this before, but don't remember ever seeing it confirmed by TPTB. Do have a link?

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches?

I don't. But I would like it very much if someone would give BlueDeuce a pony. :P

 

If I had a pony in my pasture right now I would gladly give it to Blue Deuce. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

The Earthcaches got moved back because no one was visiting them when they were on Waymarking . . . so, one could hope. ;)

Was this ever substantiated? I have heard this before, but don't remember ever seeing it confirmed by TPTB. Do have a link?

Nope . . . that's just what I heard. One day I had an Earthcache on Waymarking.com, the next day I owned another cache on GC.com. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches? I think it should be brought back, even if only Premium members can add new caches. I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun. I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

 

I'm totally confused by this. You mean a Waymarking group to bring back the virtual cache fun? Then I suppose this should really be in the Waymarking forums. Virtual caches are absolutely not coming back to this website. And almost no one other than founders will ever visit waymarks. (just kidding about that last one ;) ).

Share this post


Link to post

Are you saying that you are creating a Waymarking group with the intention of creating a Waymarking category that tries to capture some of the fun of Virtual caches? If so, great idea! ;)

 

I am trying to create a Waymarking group "The Pirates" to recapture the fun of Virtual caches, just struggling with getting officers and the process. I'll try thier forum to see if I can generate interest.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a little fun, now back to the topic...

 

As the originator of the "I want a Pony" phrase and the owner of the Alpha Test group Ponys in Waymarking.com I think Blue Deuce and I need to have a chat about infringment regarding "I want a pony" :P:);)

Edited by CO Admin

Share this post


Link to post

Just a little fun, now back to the topic...

 

As the originator of the "I want a Pony" phrase and the owner of the Alpha Test group Ponys in Waymarking.com I think Blue Deuce and I need to have a chat about infringment regarding "I want a pony" :P:);)

I am not a lawyer, but a quick search leads me to believe that your claim may not be supportable. I have reason to believe that an Internet reference to the expression "I want a pony" took place as early as November 3, 1995.

 

Back on topic, I think the chances of virtuals returning to GC.com are about the same as the chances of both BlueDeuce and CO Admin both coming into possession of the elusive pony at the same moment.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches?

Um..... no. Geocaching should be about geocaching. No box, no log, it's not a geocache.

 

I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

"Pirates"? You might want to do a little research on that name, first.

Edited by Prime Suspect

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches? I think it should be brought back, even if only Premium members can add new caches. I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun. I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

 

Yes, i would like them very much.

 

Its cumbersome to me to try to use two sites. And frankly, i find the Waymarking site confusing and not very useful.

 

For instance, what the heck is this? Am i missing something? I thought waymarks are a way of marking interesting places. Is this the first McDonalds? I just dont understand at all. Why should anyone use that site if it takes you to places like that?

 

Yes, you could ignore it- but i dont even see why its allowed on there at all.

 

At least on GC if you visit a LPC or a FYC its at least something- like it or not. But i just dont get it.

Edited by knight2000

Share this post


Link to post

Virtuals were great to have as another type of cache to hunt. As long as they are used for exceptional sites and not for side show curiosities.

Edited by Peoria Bill

Share this post


Link to post

 

For instance, what the heck is this? Am i missing something? I thought waymarks are a way of marking interesting places. Is this the first McDonalds? I just dont understand at all. Why should anyone use that site if it takes you to places like that?

 

Yes, you could ignore it- but i dont even see why its allowed on there at all.

Waymarking is a completely different activity than virtual caching. The original idea was as a replacement for locationless or reverse caches. A locationless cache was kind of like a scavenger hunt. The cache owner would ask you find an example of something and post the coordinates of that for the find. Once a particular location was used it couldn't be used by anyone else. As the Waymarking site was put together several ideas were considered as to what would make good categories and how to control the creation of new categories. It was finally determined that you need to get a group of at least 3 people together to propose a category. There is then a peer review in the Waymarking forums. After the peer review, Groundspeak has final veto rights but they rarely will use it. So there are many categories that seem silly to people who are use to Wow virtual caches. But these categories tend to be ones where a group of people see a value in just listing examples of that category with coordinates. Someone may think it is useful to have the coordinate of all the McDonald's restaurants. I think I have them as POI in the mapping software on my GPS so I don't have any use for them on the Waymarking site but others may feel different. What we need is just a few Waymarking categories that capture the best of the virtual caches. Virtual cachers could just look at these categories and ignore the rest.

 

Virtuals were great to have as another type of cache to hunt. As long as they are used for exceptional sites and not for side show curiosities.

This is a great example of what was broken with virtuals on Geocaching.com. There was no agreement on what was "Wow" enough to be a virtual. There is no good definition. What is an exceptional site? What is the difference between an exceptional site and a side show curiosity? The best virtuals I did could be categorized as side show curiosities - someone's weird folk art in their front yard, or 10 naked statues in the driveway. A virtual to get information off an information sign at Old Faithful or an inscription on the Empire State Building would be a let down for me. The truly spectacular site would be worth visiting even with no virtual cache there - so why put one there. The Best Kept Secrets Waymarking category reflect this view of virtuals in that well known sites would not qualify. Instead cool, unusual places that are not well known are featured.

Share this post


Link to post

[

 

For instance, what the heck is this? Am i missing something? I thought waymarks are a way of marking interesting places. Is this the first McDonalds? I just dont understand at all. Why should anyone use that site if it takes you to places like that?

 

Yes, you could ignore it- but i dont even see why its allowed on there at all.

 

At least on GC if you visit a LPC or a FYC its at least something- like it or not. But i just dont get it.

 

This is the original McDonalds.

Also some of the Earp family are buried nearby. :(

Edited by vagabond

Share this post


Link to post

They won't be back. Jeremy has stated this.

 

I don't miss them. Geocaching should be about finding something somewhere not just finding somewhere.

Agreed. I do not miss virtual caches at all, and I am glad that they are gone.

Share this post


Link to post

As I said before, I wish there was a way truly "WOW," or truly interesting and informative Virtuals could be back on this site. B)

 

I'm sure there are other places like this that people would like to list as a Virtual cache on GC.com instead of on Waymarking . . .

 

Now . . . about those Webcam "caches" . . . :(:)

Share this post


Link to post
No.
This reminds me of going to a football game and doing the wave. Then when the wave is over you look around and there are still a few people still trying to keep the wave going.....

Share this post


Link to post

I assume that a virtual could be used as a step in a multi (i.e., info on a sign can be used to get cordinates to next step and the real cache)? Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
I assume that a virtual could be used as a step in a multi (i.e., info on a sign can be used to get cordinates to next step and the real cache)? Is this correct?
Yes

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches? I think it should be brought back, even if only Premium members can add new caches. I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun. I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

 

I very much would like to see the return of virtual caches.There are many wonderful places where a physical object is not allowed in an area, however a virtual would be a perfect solution. This has been discussed in groups we have been with in New York State and Arizona and there is a total agreement among the geocachers in these groups. Surely the reviewers could check to see if it is a worthy virtual.

Share this post


Link to post
I assume that a virtual could be used as a step in a multi (i.e., info on a sign can be used to get cordinates to next step and the real cache)? Is this correct?
Yes

I don't know why the folks who want to bring back virts don't do this. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

I like virts and encourage this practice!

 

And, this way, nobody judges your virt for 'wow' or any other factor!

Share this post


Link to post
I assume that a virtual could be used as a step in a multi (i.e., info on a sign can be used to get cordinates to next step and the real cache)? Is this correct?
Yes

I don't know why the folks who want to bring back virts don't do this. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

I like virts and encourage this practice!

 

And, this way, nobody judges your virt for 'wow' or any other factor!

I like virts and encourage their adoption in case current owners are thinking about archiving.

And yes, this is a good way to incorporate something that would otherwise be something one might want to have for a virtual cache into something that is acceptable to be listed.

Share this post


Link to post

Having just gotten back from the Peoples Republic of China I was glad there were so many Virtual Caches there. All of them having been well thought out. Most of the Traditional caches there have not been found recently mostly because Muggles find the container and take it because they can use it, or one of the many park litter picker uppers have found it.

 

I would be for a very limited return of Virtuals if a Traditional would not be viable.

Share this post


Link to post

Nope. Happy to see them off the site to a better site more suited to their purpose.

 

I'd like see a new category in Waymarking.com called "physical caches", and then just close down the existing site. Then there would no longer be an issue! (although I'd like to see some operability changes made to wm.com first.)

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches? I think it should be brought back, even if only Premium members can add new caches. I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun. I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

 

I very much would like to see the return of virtual caches.There are many wonderful places where a physical object is not allowed in an area, however a virtual would be a perfect solution. This has been discussed in groups we have been with in New York State and Arizona and there is a total agreement among the geocachers in these groups. Surely the reviewers could check to see if it is a worthy virtual.

The reviewers did this for a while. It was called the "Wow" requirement. None of the reviewers liked having to turn down virtuals because they didn't meet the "wow" requirement. Everybody who submitted a virtual felt that their virt was "wow" enough. Obviously not everyone was.

 

Waymarking uses a group managed category system. Each Waymarking category is managed by a group of individuals who are interested in that category. They determine if a submitted waymark belongs in that category or not. Most categories have straight forward objective requirements. For example a state historical marker is listed in that state's online database of historical markers. As the lead of the one of the groups that has somewhat subjective requirements, I can tell you that is is hard sometimes to know when to accept or reject a Best Kept Secret. Our group has to decide whether or not the object is really something that locals don't know about or at least don't pay enough attention to to check it out. There is also a "Wow" factor in determining whether something is a Best Kept Secret - although the standard isn't as high as it was for virtual caches. The voting mechanism, where the group officer vote on submissions, is something I keep meaning to try out in Best Kept Secrets. At least that way the decision is made by the majority of group officers, instead of by an individual.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches?

 

Yes! Some of my favorite caching experiences have been with virtuals. Personally, I don't care much if there's a physical cache -- I like great locations, not log books and trinkets.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I don't care much if there's a physical cache -- I like great locations, not log books and trinkets.

Then you should be Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return (of) Virtual Caches?

 

Nope! Not me.

 

I logged about 275 containerless caches, about 130 of them were virtuals. About half of the virts were interesting, about 10% had wow and the rest were pretty boring.

 

Some people had it down and made good ones, others had no imagination at all.

 

Logging virts was not much fun. I would rather write an interesting story about the virt site than answer questions via email. I always logged first and answered question later. Only once did I get challenged for logging a virt fist without "approval". The one who challenged me was very upset and she, maybe not concidentally, had the most boring, uninteresting and non-wow virt I ever came across. Logging first - answerng later is useful when you want to pin down a century mark or are otherwise tracking finds or just want to log finds in order.

 

Virts were an interesting experiment but they don't meet the Prime Directive of geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I don't care much if there's a physical cache -- I like great locations, not log books and trinkets.

Then you should be Waymarking.

Groundspeak doesn't get it - we dislike Waymarking.com as much as y'all dislike virtuals!

 

The folks I have talked with feel like it's a really poor solution.

 

Has the focus changed from the language of location to signing a log?

 

If it's still about location then virtuals do that as well if not better than physical caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Has the focus changed from the language of location to signing a log?

 

If it's still about location then virtuals do that as well if not better than physical caches.

I know they are dead, but I agree because I am a "location" cacher too. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Has the focus changed from the language of location to signing a log?

 

Not changed. Returned exclusively to...

 

The original goal was to hide a container with a logbook and have others find it using a gpsr. Location is not part of the Prime Directive. It's good to have a nice location but that is not a requirement.

Share this post


Link to post

Has the focus changed from the language of location to signing a log?

 

Not changed. Returned exclusively to...

 

The original goal was to hide a container with a logbook and have others find it using a gpsr. Location is not part of the Prime Directive. It's good to have a nice location but that is not a requirement.

 

....and so the game is split in half as far as preference. But both are good for business. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Seems funny that a common refrain on these forums is "if you don't like that kind of cache (LPC, Micro, etc.) then don't do them", yet people did not like virtuals and so they were discontinued and turned into Waymarks.

 

My experience with trying out the Waymarking site has been one of frustration. I have not found it is as easy to navigate as the Geocaching one. And then I have a couple ideas that would require creation of new categories, but I don't want to manage a category - I just want to share a cool spot. I'm stuck.. But that is just me. YMMV.

 

VKsnr

Share this post


Link to post

It's mostly a case of whining over sour grapes with me, I guess.

 

I ignored virts for my first couple of years in the game, then had a really great tour of Dallas / Ft Worth doing mostly virts while at GW4 and fell in love with them.

 

Shortly after that they were no longer being listed.

 

I tried Waymarking, had a category for Favorite Fishing Holes. Ten or twelve folks listed one, then the structure became cumbersome and I abandoned it.

 

I don't know database mechanics very well, but if a choice could be made in my profile, or better yet on the PQ creation page, to list results from both databases, gc and wm, then that would be way cool.

 

A PQ with geocaches AND waymarks in the target area would certainly be worth more of a subscription fee to pay for the coding, at least to me!

Share this post


Link to post

Seems funny that a common refrain on these forums is "if you don't like that kind of cache (LPC, Micro, etc.) then don't do them", yet people did not like virtuals and so they were discontinued and turned into Waymarks.

 

My experience with trying out the Waymarking site has been one of frustration. I have not found it is as easy to navigate as the Geocaching one. And then I have a couple ideas that would require creation of new categories, but I don't want to manage a category - I just want to share a cool spot. I'm stuck.. But that is just me. YMMV.

 

VKsnr

My memory and insight may both be way off, but it was my impression that certain vocal Reviewers (read powerful, all Reviewers are not equal!) drove out virts.

 

I may be way wrong, but I have always felt this whole thing had nothing to do with geocacher's likes or dislikes!

 

I totally support Groundspeak and hope they ever remain dominant in the listings business, but I feel this was a bad call.

 

I want one place to go for all my geocaching info, and geocaching.com is it for me.

 

As I said in an earlier post, I would double my yearly subscription fee to get all the info I want, caches and waymarks, in one PQ. I suspect that I am not alone.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler

Share this post


Link to post

Seems funny that a common refrain on these forums is "if you don't like that kind of cache (LPC, Micro, etc.) then don't do them", yet people did not like virtuals and so they were discontinued and turned into Waymarks.

 

My experience with trying out the Waymarking site has been one of frustration. I have not found it is as easy to navigate as the Geocaching one. And then I have a couple ideas that would require creation of new categories, but I don't want to manage a category - I just want to share a cool spot. I'm stuck.. But that is just me. YMMV.

 

VKsnr

My memory and insight may both be way off, but it was my impression that certain vocal Reviewers (read powerful, all Reviewers are not equal!) drove out virts.

 

I may be way wrong, but I have always felt this whole thing had nothing to do with geocacher's likes or dislikes!

 

I totally support Groundspeak and hope they ever remain dominant in the listings business, but I feel this was a bad call.

 

I want one place to go for all my geocaching info, and geocaching.com is it for me.

 

As I said in an earlier post, I would double my yearly subscription fee to get all the info I want, caches and waymarks, in one PQ. I suspect that I am not alone.

There was a time that they accepted all virts much like they accept all caches now. But then many complaints arouse about the low quality of many virts. Like having a virt near a dumpster behind Wal-Mart. So they enforced a "wow" standard to stop that for virts. But that standard was a pain for the the reviewers. So they banned new virts. The good news is that we still get to find a cache near a dumpster behind Wal-Mart. The difference is that we sign a log to prove we were actually at the location near the dumpster.... :) Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches? I think it should be brought back, even if only Premium members can add new caches. I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun. I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

 

Yes, i would like them very much.

 

Its cumbersome to me to try to use two sites. And frankly, i find the Waymarking site confusing and not very useful.

 

For instance, what the heck is this? Am i missing something? I thought waymarks are a way of marking interesting places. Is this the first McDonalds? I just dont understand at all. Why should anyone use that site if it takes you to places like that?

 

Yes, you could ignore it- but i dont even see why its allowed on there at all.

 

At least on GC if you visit a LPC or a FYC its at least something- like it or not. But i just dont get it.

 

There's a great deal of chatter in the Waymark community about fast food chain waymarks. Probably their most controversial subject over there. It doesn't really matter, because no one actually finds waymarks, people only create them. Oh, there I go kidding again. I'm so silly :)

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I don't care much if there's a physical cache -- I like great locations, not log books and trinkets.

Then you should be Waymarking.

 

I'm sure that this is intended as a constructive suggestion, but to me Waymarking looks like a poor, cluttered substitute for virtual caches.

 

Here's my recent experience. Late last week, I visited the Crystal City area around the Pentagon in Northern Virginia. I discovered and visited a truly interesting site, literally in the middle of National Airport (one of the worst places on earth for a physical cache), because of this virtual cache.

 

After seeing your note, I decided I should give Waymarking another test, so I clicked on the nearest waymarks link from that virtual cache page to check it out. After scrolling down far enough to see that there was actually local information (off-screen at the bottom) I see that near the airport there are:

  • an indoor McDonalds (never visited, but I actually walked right by it without knowing it was a waymark :) )
  • another McDonalds (never visited)
  • some benchmarks (not interesting to me, but maybe to others)
  • the Pentagon (I already knew that...)
  • the Jefferson Memorial (ditto...)
  • the FDR Memorial (ditto...plus it's a virtual cache, I think)
  • some interesting historical markers and statues (maybe cool; I might have investigated)

This is a small test, but it's pretty representative of my feelings about Waymarking: it's hard to navigate, and there's not enough quality control. Most of it looks dull.

 

In contrast, I can tell from the list of nearest virtual caches that there are several I'd like to visit (two owned by mtn-man!!).

 

I simply think that virtuals were a better way of telling cachers about cool locations. Even if it's a futile hope, I wish they would return.

 

[edited: added list of nearest virtuals]

Edited by Urubu

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone want to see the return on Virtual Caches? I think it should be brought back, even if only Premium members can add new caches. I've spend time in Waymarking, and most are commercial sites really bog down the fun. I'm trying to start a new group "The Pirates" to bring back the Virtual Cache fun.

 

Yes, i would like them very much.

 

Its cumbersome to me to try to use two sites. And frankly, i find the Waymarking site confusing and not very useful.

 

For instance, what the heck is this? Am i missing something? I thought waymarks are a way of marking interesting places. Is this the first McDonalds? I just dont understand at all. Why should anyone use that site if it takes you to places like that?

 

Yes, you could ignore it- but i dont even see why its allowed on there at all.

 

At least on GC if you visit a LPC or a FYC its at least something- like it or not. But i just dont get it.

 

There's a great deal of chatter in the Waymark community about fast food chain waymarks. Probably their most controversial subject over there. It doesn't really matter, because no one actually finds waymarks, people only create them. Oh, there I go kidding again. I'm so silly :)

:) There's a lot of truth in that. :laughing: Anyhow, I find them I just don't log them because I just sit at the waymark and eat my Big Mac.... :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
My memory and insight may both be way off, but it was my impression that certain vocal Reviewers (read powerful, all Reviewers are not equal!) drove out virts.
"My memory and insight may both be way off" may be the hugest understatement in the history of geocaching. You make it sound as if the reviewers sit and wait to hear what the "exhaulted ones" have to say before they make any comments. My opinions carry no more or no less weight than any other member of the volunteer group. We can all feel free to express our opinions, but in the end the decision all come down to three people -- Hydee, Rothstafari and Jeremy. (Hydee always gets top billing :) ) Heck, I am vocal, but there is no doubt that they make the decisions. I've said in the past that I wish virtuals could have somehow stayed with heavy restrictions, so I guess I am not one of the "powerful" reviewers. Still, I totally respect and support Jeremy and his decisions. I enjoy the Waymarking site. I think it has better functionality for these virtual targets that the geocaching.com site. Heaven knows there is MUCH more freedom to list these virtual targets over there. Almost all of those waymarks are basically virtuals that probably would have been denied. They now have a home.

 

Let me make this perfectly clear. There are *NO* "powerful" reviewers. TheAlabamaRambler's assumption could not be further from the truth. It is insulting to me that you would say this. I would imagine that you have insulted the entire reviewer community with your statement (yet again, no less).

 

I may be way wrong, but I have always felt this whole thing had nothing to do with geocacher's likes or dislikes!
You actually got this one right. This was Jeremy's decision. It is his site and he has made the decision to run it the way he wants. No reviewers tell him what to do with his site. We can suggest and tell our thoughts and concerns, but what happens with the site is ultimately his decision.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...