Official Thread for Discussing the Minor Oh So Blue (GC15D) Controversy

3.9k · March 16, 2009

Everyone is a comedian. The new cache is now in place. I just spoke with Richardo. Too bad you'll never get down that way. It's a beautiful place.

Good news! And... congratulations! I hope to get down there sometime and go after this one. It could be fun. And, it would get me away from Sioneva's relentless geo-stalking for a few days, for she is not allowed outside of the USA (security risk issues, y'know...).

1.7k · March 17, 2009

Everyone is a comedian. The new cache is now in place. I just spoke with Richardo. Too bad you'll never get down that way. It's a beautiful place.

Good news! And... congratulations! I hope to get down there sometime and go after this one. It could be fun. And, it would get me away from Sioneva's relentless geo-stalking for a few days, for she is not allowed outside of the USA (security risk issues, y'know...).

(little does Vinny realize that the infamous Obama-Biden button actually houses a miniature webcam...)

3.3k · March 17, 2009

Everyone is a comedian. The new cache is now in place. I just spoke with Richardo. Too bad you'll never get down that way. It's a beautiful place.

Good news! And... congratulations! I hope to get down there sometime and go after this one. It could be fun. And, it would get me away from Sioneva's relentless geo-stalking for a few days, for she is not allowed outside of the USA (security risk issues, y'know...).

(little does Vinny realize that the infamous Obama-Biden button actually houses a miniature webcam...)

Well that changes everything for me! How could anyone deny the high tech treasure hunting aspect of the game when a piece of swag has hidden tracking devices? Hopefully there will be a website that posts daily pictures of the travels of the button. Of course it could be a short trip if the finder is anyone other than an Obamacrat and who doesn't appreciate the historical significance of such an object.

I do wish this cache will have a long and fruitfull life with many finders. There seems to be no doubt that anyone who does manage to find this cache will have an opportunity to experience a wonderful adventure.

March 17, 2009

This is great news sailor and I'm thrilled by how receptive Ricardo has been. We have plans to go again this summer. Last one there is a rotten egg and so not FTF!!!

9.2k · March 18, 2009

Everyone is a comedian. The new cache is now in place. I just spoke with Richardo. Too bad you'll never get down that way. It's a beautiful place.

So that means that there wasn't a cache to be found until now? Hmmmm...

March 18, 2009

Good golly, I don't understand all the hubbub over a cache folks don't own, won't look for, have no involvement in. My hat's off to you sailor, for persevering through all of this nonsense.

Yes, I know I'm new to caching and new to the forums, but isn't the whole point of the thing to have fun and make new friends? Seems like some lightening up is in order...

We've been looking for a dive spot for this summer and have talked for several years about diving the blue hole. I might have to go look for this one if for no other reason than to swap out the Obama button with a Bush/Cheney button...

March 18, 2009

Now what would be really impressive is if someone found the old, original cache, and it too had an Obama/Biden button in it.

20.7k · March 18, 2009

Good golly, I don't understand all the hubbub over a cache folks don't own, won't look for, have no involvement in. My hat's off to you sailor, for persevering through all of this nonsense.

Well, it was the purpose of this thread to discuss the cache. Certainly, the thread discussion should not be limited only to those who have either own the cache or have made arrangements to go find it.

Yes, I know I'm new to caching and new to the forums, but isn't the whole point of the thing to have fun and make new friends? Seems like some lightening up is in order...

Yes, but you must realize that in order to maximize the fun, it is important for cache owners to take their ownership/maintenance responsibilities seriously. Among these responsibilities is temporarily disabling caches that are not available to be found and replacing the cache timely.

We've been looking for a dive spot for this summer and have talked for several years about diving the blue hole. I might have to go look for this one if for no other reason than to swap out the Obama button with a Bush/Cheney button...

Hiding the Bush button where it is unlikely to be found is a great idea.

Edited March 18, 2009 by sbell111

March 18, 2009

Well, in this case, the fun for me is knowing that there's one out there just begging for a dive trip...

March 22, 2009

Well, we are planning for a short stint in Belize next summer as part of a research project. We will make it our mission to log this cache or at least attempt it at that time.

March 22, 2009

Well, we are planning for a short stint in Belize next summer as part of a research project. We will make it our mission to log this cache or at least attempt it at that time.

1.8k · March 26, 2009

(Applause)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...cd-5fea15585ee2

March 26, 2009

Now what would be really impressive is if someone found the old, original cache, and it too had an Obama/Biden button in it.

It had a Nixon/Agnew button.

March 26, 2009

(Applause)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...cd-5fea15585ee2

Fantastic! On one level we were hoping it would never be found, but the timing of this couldn't have been better. Note the Obama button is in transit.

3.9k · March 26, 2009

I am very tickled that someone finally found this, and wow, seems that the finder went to some lengths, and expense, to do it as well!

BTW, I have noticed a very-out-of-place (as in "it does not belong there") note by a non-finder cacher on the cache listing page demanding that the Difficulty rating for this cache be lowered to a 1. I will simply say here that I could not disagree more with the claim made by that poster. There is an old myth which, although it flies in direct contradiction to the ClayJar system, does not seem to want to die, and that old and erroneous myth claims that Terrain factors and amount of effort needed to find/reach the cache does not affect the Difficulty rating. From my perspective, and that of many other seasoned veteran cachers, that claim is not at all true. To me, the Difficulty rating of the cache is fine as it is.

Lastly, I hope to find this one someday!

March 26, 2009

I am very tickled that someone finally found this, and wow, seems that the finder went to some lengths, and expense, to do it as well!

BTW, I have noticed a very-out-of-place (as in "it does not belong there") note by a non-finder cacher on the cache listing page demanding that the Difficulty rating for this cache be lowered to a 1. I will simply say here that I could not disagree more with the claim made by that poster. There is an old myth which, although it flies in direct contradiction to the ClayJar system, does not seem to want to die, and that old and erroneous myth claims that Terrain factors and amount of effort needed to find/reach the cache does not affect the Difficulty rating. From my perspective, and that of many other seasoned veteran cachers, that claim is not at all true. To me, the Difficulty rating of the cache is fine as it is.

Lastly, I hope to find this one someday!

Yes, we're tickled also... bittersweet on some level, but still fantastic.

I replied directly to this person twice. Once asking why the hostility, and the second time, I think I'll leave it the way it was approved. I reviewed the checklist, and it still seems about right.

3.1k · March 26, 2009

Congrats to the FTF. What an awesome trip!!!!!

It is so sad that some bitter people always feel the need to rain on other's parades.

I vote for leaving it the way it is. Better yet. Archive it so that the whiner can't ever find it. Just kidding on that part.

March 26, 2009

It is now 1648 EDT on March 26, 2009. darterkitfox posted a found log for Oh so blue March 25, 2009. According to his profile, as of this minute, his last visit to gc.com was March 21, 2009. How does that work?

3.9k · March 26, 2009

It is now 1648 EDT on March 26, 2009. darterkitfox posted a found log for Oh so blue March 25, 2009. According to his profile, as of this minute, his last visit to gc.com was March 21, 2009. How does that work?

When filing his log find, he apparently did not log in to the main Internet part of the website, and rather, sent his log using one of then electronical digitized cellular radio-telephones, using WAP protocols only, and via the geocaching.com WAP portal, and thus kinda snuck his message onto the server backbone in a very limited and circumscribed way that does not trigger the "Last visit was..." counter.

3.9k · March 26, 2009

I am very tickled that someone finally found this, and wow, seems that the finder went to some lengths, and expense, to do it as well!

BTW, I have noticed a very-out-of-place (as in "it does not belong there") note by a non-finder cacher on the cache listing page demanding that the Difficulty rating for this cache be lowered to a 1. I will simply say here that I could not disagree more with the claim made by that poster. There is an old myth which, although it flies in direct contradiction to the ClayJar system, does not seem to want to die, and that old and erroneous myth claims that Terrain factors and amount of effort needed to find/reach the cache does not affect the Difficulty rating. From my perspective, and that of many other seasoned veteran cachers, that claim is not at all true. To me, the Difficulty rating of the cache is fine as it is.

Lastly, I hope to find this one someday!

Yes, we're tickled also... bittersweet on some level, but still fantastic.

I replied directly to this person twice. Once asking why the hostility, and the second time, I think I'll leave it the way it was approved. I reviewed the checklist, and it still seems about right.

Exactly. I agree. Thanks! And... like you... I wonder... why did the author of that odd log note exhibit such hostility and such a fierce need to control the behaviors of others, and, of strangers, nonethelss? It is not like the author of the note had ever visited the cache site, nor looked for the cache, nor found the cache, nor ever plans to find the cache! Very very very odd!

BTW.... Personally speaking, you are way more tolerant of aberrant behavior than I. I would simply have deleted her/his log note without a second thought.

9.2k · March 26, 2009

I am very tickled that someone finally found this, and wow, seems that the finder went to some lengths, and expense, to do it as well!

BTW, I have noticed a very-out-of-place (as in "it does not belong there") note by a non-finder cacher on the cache listing page demanding that the Difficulty rating for this cache be lowered to a 1. I will simply say here that I could not disagree more with the claim made by that poster. There is an old myth which, although it flies in direct contradiction to the ClayJar system, does not seem to want to die, and that old and erroneous myth claims that Terrain factors and amount of effort needed to find/reach the cache does not affect the Difficulty rating. From my perspective, and that of many other seasoned veteran cachers, that claim is not at all true. To me, the Difficulty rating of the cache is fine as it is.

Lastly, I hope to find this one someday!

Your "find/reach" is the problem, as you're lumping them together. Searching = Difficulty. Journey = Terrain.

This cache is most definitely rated incorrectly. A cache that someone just hands you should, indeed, be rated a Difficulty 1. This cache requires a boat to get to, so it should be a Terrain 5.

If I put a big orange box on a cliff ledge, clearly visible from the ground, but reachable only with climbing equipment, that's a D1/T5.

3.9k · March 26, 2009

I am very tickled that someone finally found this, and wow, seems that the finder went to some lengths, and expense, to do it as well!

BTW, I have noticed a very-out-of-place (as in "it does not belong there") note by a non-finder cacher on the cache listing page demanding that the Difficulty rating for this cache be lowered to a 1. I will simply say here that I could not disagree more with the claim made by that poster. There is an old myth which, although it flies in direct contradiction to the ClayJar system, does not seem to want to die, and that old and erroneous myth claims that Terrain factors and amount of effort needed to find/reach the cache does not affect the Difficulty rating. From my perspective, and that of many other seasoned veteran cachers, that claim is not at all true. To me, the Difficulty rating of the cache is fine as it is.

Lastly, I hope to find this one someday!

Your "find/reach" is the problem, as you're lumping them together. Searching = Difficulty. Journey = Terrain.

This cache is most definitely rated incorrectly. A cache that someone just hands you should, indeed, be rated a Difficulty 1. This cache requires a boat to get to, so it should be a Terrain 5.

If I put a big orange box on a cliff ledge, clearly visible from the ground, but reachable only with climbing equipment, that's a D1/T5.

And now we hear from the other side.

The Men In Black will be knocking on his door in the wee hours of the morning to have a conversation with him about his beliefs...

4.4k · March 26, 2009

This is a historic cache. The rules of the day were almost certainly different. ClayJar System? What? Who?

Let's not get all revisionist with history now, okay?

March 27, 2009

Wow just got the notification. Not sure how I feel yet. Happy for the finder and yet Oh so blue.

I haven't been around the forums lately so had to read through the last 2 pages of nonsense to get caught up. So much drama, I wanted to laugh but mostly I just felt irritated. I'm always amazed at what gets some people's panties in a twist.

Anyway, this cache will always be on my list. Sorry the Obama pin has been traded out, that was a panty twister all on its own - I wish I had it.

And VP, after your email, this was the conversation I considered having with my boyfriend:

"Honey, I'm going to take some time off to meet a guy who I've never met in Cancun. Take a bus to Belize and charter a boat to some island so I can find a cache ok? You don't mind do you? Can I have the credit card?" hehe...still makes me laugh. Lets start with an Alberta cache ok? I'll meet ya in Red Deer

WTG Sailor on a memorable cache experience that transcends finders.

March 27, 2009

I agree with the WTG sailor!!! I don't care that the cache has been found finally, for us it is still one that got away until we get back there and grab the smiley. Its the adventure that counts and FTF just a lovely cherry on top when it happens. Fingers crossed for this summer; hope to meet some of you there!

20.7k · March 27, 2009

This is a historic cache. The rules of the day were almost certainly different. ClayJar System? What? Who?

Let's not get all revisionist with history now, okay?

You are correct, this cache does predate the Clayjar/Brokenwing rating 'system' by something like six months. Still, the ratings were in place at the time this cache was placed. Prime Suspect and Art Carnage are correct that this cache is hugely misrated. This should be corrected. Also, it should be noted that D/T ratings are not 'grandfathered'. If ratings are discovered to be wrong, they should be adjusted to make them correct for future finders. Doing so is a service to the community and should not be an ego hit to the cache owner, as things about this cache appear to have become.

3.3k · March 27, 2009

I am very tickled that someone finally found this, and wow, seems that the finder went to some lengths, and expense, to do it as well!

BTW, I have noticed a very-out-of-place (as in "it does not belong there") note by a non-finder cacher on the cache listing page demanding that the Difficulty rating for this cache be lowered to a 1. I will simply say here that I could not disagree more with the claim made by that poster. There is an old myth which, although it flies in direct contradiction to the ClayJar system, does not seem to want to die, and that old and erroneous myth claims that Terrain factors and amount of effort needed to find/reach the cache does not affect the Difficulty rating. From my perspective, and that of many other seasoned veteran cachers, that claim is not at all true. To me, the Difficulty rating of the cache is fine as it is.

Lastly, I hope to find this one someday!

Your "find/reach" is the problem, as you're lumping them together. Searching = Difficulty. Journey = Terrain.

This cache is most definitely rated incorrectly. A cache that someone just hands you should, indeed, be rated a Difficulty 1. This cache requires a boat to get to, so it should be a Terrain 5.

If I put a big orange box on a cliff ledge, clearly visible from the ground, but reachable only with climbing equipment, that's a D1/T5.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

The fact that the finder needed to take a cruise ship, and also hire a local boater to reach the cache justifies a minimum 4 star terrain difficulty.

20.7k · March 27, 2009

I am very tickled that someone finally found this, and wow, seems that the finder went to some lengths, and expense, to do it as well!

BTW, I have noticed a very-out-of-place (as in "it does not belong there") note by a non-finder cacher on the cache listing page demanding that the Difficulty rating for this cache be lowered to a 1. I will simply say here that I could not disagree more with the claim made by that poster. There is an old myth which, although it flies in direct contradiction to the ClayJar system, does not seem to want to die, and that old and erroneous myth claims that Terrain factors and amount of effort needed to find/reach the cache does not affect the Difficulty rating. From my perspective, and that of many other seasoned veteran cachers, that claim is not at all true. To me, the Difficulty rating of the cache is fine as it is.

Lastly, I hope to find this one someday!

Your "find/reach" is the problem, as you're lumping them together. Searching = Difficulty. Journey = Terrain.

This cache is most definitely rated incorrectly. A cache that someone just hands you should, indeed, be rated a Difficulty 1. This cache requires a boat to get to, so it should be a Terrain 5.

If I put a big orange box on a cliff ledge, clearly visible from the ground, but reachable only with climbing equipment, that's a D1/T5.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

The fact that the finder needed to take a cruise ship, and also hire a local boater to reach the cache justifies a minimum 4 star terrain difficulty.

In that case, that 1/1 that I found in Venise should have been rated a 5. After all, I flew halfway around the world, then took two trains, a boat, and had to walk a short ways to the location.

March 27, 2009

"Facts are stubborn things..." ~John Adams

~*

Edited March 27, 2009 by Star*Hopper

3.3k · March 27, 2009

The fact that the finder needed to take a cruise ship, and also hire a local boater to reach the cache justifies a minimum 4 star terrain difficulty.

In that case, that 1/1 that I found in Venise should have been rated a 5. After all, I flew halfway around the world, then took two trains, a boat, and had to walk a short ways to the location.

Venise is located on a Continent whereas GC15D is located on a island with no geocachers or other geocaches nearby. In fact, the nearest cache, is 19.5 miles away.

I've always felt the Clayjar system doesn't cover all aspects.

3.9k · March 27, 2009

I am very tickled that someone finally found this, and wow, seems that the finder went to some lengths, and expense, to do it as well!

BTW, I have noticed a very-out-of-place (as in "it does not belong there") note by a non-finder cacher on the cache listing page demanding that the Difficulty rating for this cache be lowered to a 1. I will simply say here that I could not disagree more with the claim made by that poster. There is an old myth which, although it flies in direct contradiction to the ClayJar system, does not seem to want to die, and that old and erroneous myth claims that Terrain factors and amount of effort needed to find/reach the cache does not affect the Difficulty rating. From my perspective, and that of many other seasoned veteran cachers, that claim is not at all true. To me, the Difficulty rating of the cache is fine as it is.

Lastly, I hope to find this one someday!

Your "find/reach" is the problem, as you're lumping them together. Searching = Difficulty. Journey = Terrain.

This cache is most definitely rated incorrectly. A cache that someone just hands you should, indeed, be rated a Difficulty 1. This cache requires a boat to get to, so it should be a Terrain 5.

If I put a big orange box on a cliff ledge, clearly visible from the ground, but reachable only with climbing equipment, that's a D1/T5.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

The fact that the finder needed to take a cruise ship, and also hire a local boater to reach the cache justifies a minimum 4 star terrain difficulty.

Exactly! The Difficulty rating is at least a 4 due to a number of factors, including time required. This issue has been discussed and settled repeatedly in past forum threads, and I am amazed that it has reared its head again here.

20.7k · March 27, 2009

The fact that the finder needed to take a cruise ship, and also hire a local boater to reach the cache justifies a minimum 4 star terrain difficulty.

In that case, that 1/1 that I found in Venise should have been rated a 5. After all, I flew halfway around the world, then took two trains, a boat, and had to walk a short ways to the location.

Venise is located on a Continent whereas GC15D is located on a island with no geocachers or other geocaches nearby. In fact, the nearest cache, is 19.5 miles away.

I've always felt the Clayjar system doesn't cover all aspects.

Pssst. Venise is an island.

1.3k · March 27, 2009

In that case, that 1/1 that I found in Venise should have been rated a 5. After all, I flew halfway around the world, then took two trains, a boat, and had to walk a short ways to the location.

Is that the only reason you went to Venise?

March 27, 2009

Taking a slight tangent from the original topic.....

It was my understanding that this cache was the oldest unfound cache in the world. Now that it's been found, anyone know which cache would now get that title?

March 27, 2009

It is a shame that a cache that very few will ever try to seek has garnered so much heated discussion.

I'm glad that most owners aren't subjected to the abuse sailor has taken (and continues to take) so graciously here.

20.7k · March 27, 2009

It is a shame that a cache that very few will ever try to seek has garnered so much heated discussion.

I'm glad that most owners aren't subjected to the abuse sailor has taken (and continues to take) so graciously here.

There has been no abuse of anyone in this thread.

3.9k · March 27, 2009

It is a shame that a cache that very few will ever try to seek has garnered so much heated discussion.

I'm glad that most owners aren't subjected to the abuse sailor has taken (and continues to take) so graciously here.

Exactly! Well said!

Of course, the abusers will likely immediately jump in here and deny that they were abusive, arguing that they were merely trying to "improve the world for the rest of us" and that the were trying to "maintain law and order"!

Why is it that people who claim that they are merely trying to help us so often turn out to be our worst enemies?

20.7k · March 27, 2009

It is a shame that a cache that very few will ever try to seek has garnered so much heated discussion.

I'm glad that most owners aren't subjected to the abuse sailor has taken (and continues to take) so graciously here.

Exactly! Well said!

Of course, the abusers will likely immediately jump in here and deny that they were abusive, arguing that they were merely trying to "improve the world for the rest of us" and that the were trying to "maintain law and order"!

Why is it that people who claim that they are merely trying to help us so often turn out to be our worst enemies?

If you didn't wish to discuss the issues surrounding the cache, why did you create the thread? Surely, it wasn't just to stir up the dust.

3.3k · March 27, 2009

Pssst. Venise is an island.

True, but it has a nice bridge connecting it to the mainland. :laughing:

20.7k · March 27, 2009

Pssst. Venise is an island.

True, but it has a nice bridge connecting it to the mainland.

Like many people, we took the boat. After all, the bridge only gets you over there. You then have to transfer to a boat, anyway.

Edited March 27, 2009 by sbell111

20.7k · March 27, 2009

In that case, that 1/1 that I found in Venise should have been rated a 5. After all, I flew halfway around the world, then took two trains, a boat, and had to walk a short ways to the location.
Is that the only reason you went to Venise?

No, but I wouldn't go to Belize solely to find one cache, either.

4.4k · March 27, 2009

No, but I wouldn't go to Belize solely to find one cache, either.

Well, I almost did. (Scroll way back.) Hence, the original rating is fine with me.

I vote we all (especially you) stop trying to interfere with the cache owner and this cache. And may I respectfully suggest you take your corrosive remarks ("ego") and subsequent denials to another forum or thread, somewhere else? Thank you.

1.3k · March 27, 2009

In that case, that 1/1 that I found in Venise should have been rated a 5. After all, I flew halfway around the world, then took two trains, a boat, and had to walk a short ways to the location.
Is that the only reason you went to Venise?
No, but I wouldn't go to Belize solely to find one cache, either.

And I wouldn't spend the time or the money required to get to this cache and arrange to retrieve it once I was in Belize. In my mind that's the difference between this cache and your Venice example.

20.7k · March 27, 2009

No, but I wouldn't go to Belize solely to find one cache, either.

Well, I almost did. (Scroll way back.) Hence, the original rating is fine with me.

I vote we all (especially you) stop trying to interfere with the cache owner and this cache. And may I respectfully suggest you take your corrosive remarks ("ego") and subsequent denials to another forum or thread, somewhere else? Thank you.

First, request denied.

Second, as I tried to infer in my earlier post, the difficulty rating is not based on how difficult it would be for someone who lives half a world away to get to the cache area and make the find. The difficulty is based on how hard it is to make the find once you are there.

7.3k · March 27, 2009

Belize is an incredible country. I encourage everyone to drop whatever they are doing right now, take a week or two off, and explore the whole place! (That includes doing the caches there.) :laughing: :rolleyes:

3.9k · March 27, 2009

No, but I wouldn't go to Belize solely to find one cache, either.

Well, I almost did. (Scroll way back.) Hence, the original rating is fine with me.

I vote we all (especially you) stop trying to interfere with the cache owner and this cache. And may I respectfully suggest you take your corrosive remarks ("ego") and subsequent denials to another forum or thread, somewhere else? Thank you.

First, request denied.

Second, as I tried to infer in my earlier post, the difficulty rating is not based on how difficult it would be for someone who lives half a world away to get to the cache area and make the find. The difficulty is based on how hard it is to make the find once you are there.

Oh, no... strife and stress and slightly harsh words on the forum. I am now stressed. Poor me. Excuse me while I run to my lab and quaff two 15 ounce mugsful of radon-enriched (and radon progeny-enriched) water, with a radiance level of over 145,000 pCi/L, from my radioactive water dispenser to soothe and calm my jangled nerves.

sigh...

March 27, 2009

What is now the oldest unfound cache?

4.4k · March 27, 2009

You can rig up a pocket query in no time to answer that.

March 28, 2009

You can rig up a pocket query in no time to answer that.

I dont think it's that easy since you have to search a country, a state or a limited radius from a specific point. The oldest I could find was a cache unfound since June 2003.

Can anyone find anything older than that?

Edited March 28, 2009 by sdarken

4.4k · March 28, 2009

You can select all countries (click Afghanistan, shift-click Zimbabwe), select not-been-found, and choose placed-date between the beginning of time and, say, 2003. That'll give you a small handful to sift though.

When you look at the remaining ones, it'll be clear that a lot of 'em are just plain gone. DNFs, or Google Earth now shows a warehouse at those coordinates, or whatever.

My old nemesis Mount Temple, for example, is still available. It goes back to 2001.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3521226

Edited March 28, 2009 by Viajero Perdido

Official Thread for Discussing the Minor Oh So Blue (GC15D) Controversy

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