Jump to content

Old Man Having a Moan


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Having been out of it for a while I did a few a couple of proper geocaches yesterday. However, I can't but help thinking that the hobby's gone downhill. My 2 particular moans:

 

1) Why are there so many 'micro in a non-descript lay-by' caches nowadays, haven’t people got any imagination or sense of adventure any more?

2) Why does nearly everyone sign their logs with just a simple ‘TFTC’ or something just as curt – don’t they appreciate the effort the placer went to in settng their cache; is it too hard to say a few words by way of a little positive feedback? Mind you, I can fully understand doing this when finding a cache like in 1 above.

 

Where did it all go wrong?!!!! :):);)

 

Moan over now - I'll crawl back into my little hole.

Link to comment

Having been out of it for a while I did a few a couple of proper geocaches yesterday. However, I can't but help thinking that the hobby's gone downhill. My 2 particular moans:

 

1) Why are there so many 'micro in a non-descript lay-by' caches nowadays, haven’t people got any imagination or sense of adventure any more?

2) Why does nearly everyone sign their logs with just a simple ‘TFTC’ or something just as curt – don’t they appreciate the effort the placer went to in settng their cache; is it too hard to say a few words by way of a little positive feedback? Mind you, I can fully understand doing this when finding a cache like in 1 above.

 

Where did it all go wrong?!!!! :):);)

 

Moan over now - I'll crawl back into my little hole.

I know we are new to this,but if someone has something to say about the cache etc,they could put this into the online log.If you put it onto the paper log in the cache, you will need a new log each month. I have to agree that there does seem to be a lot of micro's about, but it really is a challenge to find these. We prefer small or regular caches as we like to move TB's and GC's. But what a great hobby/sport/game this is, it has taken us to places we wouldn't have dreamed of going.

Link to comment

To this date I have not some across non-descript layby caches, I have come across layby caches with a great view of the surrounding area. Yes micros can be a pain from time to time, but hey if you don't want to do a micro you don't have to do it.

 

I tend to write the about the cache on line, rather than in the log, what if the log get wet, what if it gets muggled, there would be no record of what I would have written then.

Link to comment

Why does nearly everyone sign their logs with just a simple ‘TFTC’ or something just as curt – don’t they appreciate the effort the placer went to in setting their cache; is it too hard to say a few words by way of a little positive feedback? Mind you, I can fully understand doing this when finding a cache like in 1 above.

 

Where did it all go wrong?!!!! :););)

 

Moan over now - I'll crawl back into my little hole.

 

I tend to write little in the logbook but prefer to log more detail online where it takes up less physical space it also saves the setter maintenance visits either to read the logs or replace the logbook :)

Link to comment

 

I tend to write little in the logbook but prefer to log more detail online where it takes up less physical space it also saves the setter maintenance visits either to read the logs or replace the logbook :)

 

Me too, my handwriting's bad enough under perfect conditions, but while trying to write on small bit of paper, leaning against a tree, in the wind it's pretty much indecipherable.

Link to comment

Like some others who've posted, I write little in the logbook but try to post an interesting log of reasonable length online.

 

I think the proliferation of micros and drive-bys may be due at least partly to the rapidly rising number of newcomers. It's a self-propagating thing - they go out and find a micro in a layby, and assume that's what it's all about and set one themselves.

 

As only a minority of cachers read forums, they often never discover that many people don't care too much for those. I think it would help if we could get more cachers into forums, and for that reason I'd suggest that people might want to put links to forums (these, GAGB's, regional forums, whatever) on their cache pages to try to spread the word. Also, if you meet newcomers at caching events tell them about the forums.

Link to comment

All I ever write in the logbook is my name and the date. My reason for this is simple.... less muggle time and less rain splash on logbook time!

 

I write proper logs (normally) on the cache page in the comfort of my own chair, and the very same log can be read by fellow cachers in the comfort of their own chairs. For me, the logbook is just proof that I was there.

Link to comment
Having been out of it for a while I did a few a couple of proper geocaches yesterday. However, I can't but help thinking that the hobby's gone downhill. My 2 particular moans:

 

1) Why are there so many 'micro in a non-descript lay-by' caches nowadays, haven’t people got any imagination or sense of adventure any more?

2) Why does nearly everyone sign their logs with just a simple ‘TFTC’ or something just as curt – don’t they appreciate the effort the placer went to in settng their cache; is it too hard to say a few words by way of a little positive feedback? Mind you, I can fully understand doing this when finding a cache like in 1 above.

All of us have some sympathy for this gripe: including those who set those hellish micros.

 

I always try to place the LARGESTthat the location will accommodate. I am conscious that many families and their children hope to find a decent cache with lots of goodies. I am aware of at least three 'series' I have either done or part done where in my most humble opinion, the setter went out with a handful of 35mm canisters and a screw driver and ratcheted the canister to whatever could be found. The locations are nice but the containers are grizzly and barely worth the effort.

 

Some micros as in Rodz's devilish series are consciously micros and that's fair game given the difficulty levels etc.

 

Have I set micros: one or two. The first leg of Peter Pan is a nano simply because the Royal Parks purloined the larger container.

 

So YES , you have a point - but do also remember as cache density grows, all those lovely easy locations able to take big caches disappear abnd only the more troubled locations remain.

Link to comment

It's called progress. :)

Of all my finds (large caches included) I'd say about 12 had anything actually worth swapping in them.

I've yet to stumble on more than 6 "layby" caches too..maybe it's because I walk.

The log I sign and date only. My notes are added to the cache pages later.Why duplicate?

:)

Link to comment

Where did it all go wrong?!!!! :););)

When it became all about the numbers.

Hasn't it always been about the numbers, they're just bigger and easier now :D .

 

No - it's never been about the numbers :) but unfortunately that seems to be the impression that any newcomers to this game are going to get (and act on, judging by the way cache setting seems to be heading :):ph34r: )

Link to comment

Couldnt agree more,far to many non descript micro's where a nice big container could go with a little effort,we took on board many ideas from doing at least 50 caches before deciding to place our first hide,trying to find a nano in a wood is just plain silly and i believe in location location location-with a bit of history thrown in......MooToo

Link to comment
Having been out of it for a while I did a few a couple of proper geocaches yesterday. However, I can't but help thinking that the hobby's gone downhill. My 2 particular moans:

 

1) Why are there so many 'micro in a non-descript lay-by' caches nowadays, haven't people got any imagination or sense of adventure any more?

2) Why does nearly everyone sign their logs with just a simple 'TFTC' or something just as curt – don't they appreciate the effort the placer went to in settng their cache; is it too hard to say a few words by way of a little positive feedback? Mind you, I can fully understand doing this when finding a cache like in 1 above.

 

Where did it all go wrong?!!!! :):);)

 

Moan over now - I'll crawl back into my little hole.

I totally agree.

Geocaching is "Monkey see, monkey do". If you go to an area with Chinese takeaway containers for caches, then they'll proliferate there. The same goes for poor logs, lame hides, caches in bin liners etc.

We should all be setting good examples, though I do believe it's gone too far now to be recovered. ;)

Link to comment

I've pretty much lost interest in caching. Not really sure why. There are enough decent caches nearby, but I just can't be bothered. I actually quite regularly visit areas where I have cached before to run, walk or whatever, but finding new places holds little magic now. Quite often the "suitable for dogs" attribute is added and when you on site, it's fine for dogs in that they are allowed there, but there's nothing to enjoy.

 

Another thing is the amount of effort I went to to set caches - I used to have 40+ - and very few of them were stickoflage jobbies. People used to seek mine as milestone caches, which was very flattering, but visits became more and more rare after the influx of "numbers-nanos" that I decided there was no point.

 

Anyone want a 60CSx with Topo 2?

 

 

 

 

To buy, you pikeys!

Link to comment

Well like most of the others, I don't write War and Peace in the log, primarily to keep the subterfuge to a minimum. I feel I must appear suspicious enough as it is without taking ages writing in often unfavourable conditions.

 

As a relative newbie, I find there's a lot of "it's not as good as it used to be" type comments, which gives geocaching rather a cliquey image, whether intended or otherwise, which takes the edge off it somewhat. Isn't the point of this that we all have FUN sharing experiences and histories of the wide blue yonder?

 

:)

Link to comment

Guilty that's me, placed a trail of micro's I have since increased where possible to larger containers.....

 

I haven't increased the trail yet but may do at some point.

 

At the moment I am placing regular sized containers with easy puzzles, hopefully interesting locations and premium member only to try and slow down the local cache thief.

 

With tens of thousands of caches to look for its easy to filter out the ones you don't want to look for, so why not just do that then you won't have to complain about them. A quick look at the size and a map usually tells you what you need to know.

 

Some people enjoy pulling up at the side of the road and looking for a micro at the bottom of a post that every man and his dog waters. If you don't then simply look around for something different.

Link to comment

Dont knock all layby caches, one on the A69 took me 2 attempts to find because thought had gone into it and i am thick. :laughing:

 

Those that say its not like the old days are maybe nearing the end of their days in this hobby. Lets face it we all change as we go through life, I once played football now I look like one.

 

Caching is about doing it your way, some place puzzles, some place micros, some place a cache then realise its rubbish and kill it thats what I like about this I can do as much or as little as I want and do it whichever way I want to do it. One day a fine hike to a remote spot then maybe a drive by, all are good as far as I am concerned. Each cache has its own merits and demerits.

 

As for signing a log well as long as you sign it to show you have realy been there thats all that matters. I try to add a little about the day on the online log then folk can see what I thought about the cache and make up thier minds to do it or pass along to another.

Link to comment

Having been out of it for a while I did a few a couple of proper geocaches yesterday. However, I can't but help thinking that the hobby's gone downhill. My 2 particular moans:

 

1) Why are there so many 'micro in a non-descript lay-by' caches nowadays, haven’t people got any imagination or sense of adventure any more?

2) Why does nearly everyone sign their logs with just a simple ‘TFTC’ or something just as curt – don’t they appreciate the effort the placer went to in settng their cache; is it too hard to say a few words by way of a little positive feedback? Mind you, I can fully understand doing this when finding a cache like in 1 above.

 

Where did it all go wrong?!!!! :laughing::rolleyes:;)

 

Moan over now - I'll crawl back into my little hole.

 

1) Because they're easy to set and easy to do. But you don't have to do them. Just say "no".

 

2) Because I could spent ten minutes writing in the log about how I jumped down into a hole and then couldn't get out again, or how I stepped on a log which rolled and dumped me in the river ... and about three people will ever read it and laugh, assuming they can read my handwriting. Or I can do a brief signature, and do a full write-up online, where it will be seen by the cache owner immediately (and not a year later when he does some maintenenace, and possibly not even then, because who reads all the logs?) and by loads of other people who will be able to see what an idiot I am, and avoid making the same stupid blunder that I made.

Link to comment

Sorry, but as the original complainant I should have been more clear. It was the online cache page log I was referring to when I said "just a simple ‘TFTC’ or something just as curt".

 

I too keep it short on the paper log but I would have thought folk would give the setter some feedback once in the comfort of their own home.

Link to comment

Sorry, but as the original complainant I should have been more clear. It was the online cache page log I was referring to when I said "just a simple ‘TFTC’ or something just as curt".

 

I too keep it short on the paper log but I would have thought folk would give the setter some feedback once in the comfort of their own home.

In that case I'm 100% with you on this one. Don't you just love the "No 5 of 26 whilst out caching along ****, TFTC", bad enough when it's just one or two of your caches, but when you own the majority of the 26 :laughing: .

Link to comment

Sorry, but as the original complainant I should have been more clear. It was the online cache page log I was referring to when I said "just a simple ‘TFTC’ or something just as curt".

 

I too keep it short on the paper log but I would have thought folk would give the setter some feedback once in the comfort of their own home.

 

Some people ( :laughing: ) use their online logs to express their appreciation for a cache.

If a log says TFTC, and nothing else, perhaps that reflects the amount of effort that went into placing the cache.....

Link to comment

I too keep it short on the paper log but I would have thought folk would give the setter some feedback once in the comfort of their own home.

 

I agree with you to a certain extent, but don't forget that some people can't spell, aren't happy typing a lot, or aren't very good at writing much.

Link to comment

Good point Stuey, I have a Geocaching buddy who openly admits he can't write or spell very well and always signs his logs with the least number of words possible but believe me, he is extremely enthusiastic and gets just as much fun out of this as I do and I can bang on about flocks of lesser spotted godwits fluttering amongst the Fagus sylvatica until the cows come home. I have another buddy who loves the roadside micros because it fits in with his lifestyle .... each to his own I say.

Link to comment

I do know of one caching team that don't log their visits online at all, I think they sign the paper log book though.

That's surprisingly common, actually. There was a thread in the main forum here about it some years ago. As it happened I had one of my own caches at home for maintenance. I checked the logbook against the online logs and around 21 per cent of those who'd signed the logbook hadn't logged the cache online. And that was about average in that thread - 20 per cent or so of finders didn't log online.

Link to comment

I will opt for a Multi before a 8 mile walk with 35 micro caches.

At an Event last week some cacher was going to archive

their multi (3miles) , as it had not been done for 6 months,

before i went.

So many over a mile for 1 Cache find are just not being done.

 

Get to enjoy the scenery in solitude. :ph34r:

Link to comment

On the sub-topic of the quality of logs, I recently had had this entry made on one of my caches, edited to remove names and stuff...

 

This was the beginning of a great four day trip with ........ and many of these caches led us to some beautiful areas that many people don't know exist.

 

Thanks for placing the cache

 

I looked at the Cachers profile and over that 4 day trip they logged 81 caches, all with the same on-line log.

 

I can see the temptation, when it recently took me several hours just to log about 20 from a recent road trip. At least they made a little effort, even if it was a copy and paste for 81 caches :ph34r:

 

 

edited because of my terrible spelling!

Edited by careygang
Link to comment

I will opt for a Multi before a 8 mile walk with 35 micro caches.

At an Event last week some cacher was going to archive

their multi (3miles) , as it had not been done for 6 months,

before i went.

So many over a mile for 1 Cache find are just not being done.

 

 

That's why I now have no caches out. All gone.

Link to comment

I will opt for a Multi before a 8 mile walk with 35 micro caches.

At an Event last week some cacher was going to archive

their multi (3miles) , as it had not been done for 6 months,

before i went.

So many over a mile for 1 Cache find are just not being done.

 

 

That's why I now have no caches out. All gone.

I have one that's a little over a mile, uphill all the way, with no other caches particularly close, and it's logged very infrequently, but the few who do it obviously enjoy it very much.

Link to comment

The phrase 'Horses for Courses' comes to mind. I don't see what the problem is. If you put out the type of cache you yourself would like to find, then where is the issue?

 

If you are a micro hunter, put out micros.

If you want to hike 5 miles, the put out a big cache on a long hike. But don't moan if it doesn't get visited as often as the urban micro.

 

There are caches within a 10 mile radius of my current home which can go over a year between finds.

 

See these for examples.

GC10TCF

GCVD41

14 finds in 3 years, and it's only that many because cachers team up and visit as a group of 2, 3 or more.

 

This one GCJ1E9 is only about a mile off the road, but I still had a coin stagnate there for 6 months because only one person went there in that time and they never picked it up.

The point it you cannot expect the high quality, out of the way caches to be at the top of some high visit league table. It's human nature that the harder to visit to less they will be visited, BUT, they will be appreciated by those visitors.

 

For an even stranger example, this cache GCZCZ3 which I placed in UK and had adopted before moving to the US, is a micro in the centre of the village, but still didn't get visited between 18 Oct 08 and 12 March 09. So 5 months without a visit for an easy puzzle/multi micro.

 

I guess if any cache owner is doubting the location of a cache, they have to examine why they are placing it? :ph34r:

Edited by careygang
Link to comment

[...]

If you want to hike 5 miles, the put out a big cache on a long hike. But don't moan if it doesn't get visited as often as the urban micro.

[...]

I guess if any cache owner is doubting the location of a cache, they have to examine why they are placing it? :mellow:

 

Just to pick out the two points that affect me, if you don't mind a bit of quote mining.

 

My point is that the caches I had out used to get regularly visited until latterly and, having examined why I placed them there initially, I have now removed them. I wasn't moaning, just being reactive/proactive as far as my placements went.

 

It is for this reason that I haven't placed a cache for a while now, and don't intend to in the foreseeable future. It's just the way it's gone, I suppose and can't be helped.

Link to comment

Oh :mellow:

 

Don't archive all the longer caches. There are still geocachers out there who are very happy to spend a couple of hours or more walking a multi for just the one smiley, as the logs on one of our caches show. I really don't care that it only gets found 3 or 4 times each year as long as those who complete it enjoy the tramp through the lovely woodlands. :wacko:

 

MrsB

 

Yes. Ladysolly and I just did "Little Ripper 3". It took us most of the day (and included being blasted with hailstones, although I should point out that the cache setter wasn't resposible for that), included a big (non-injury) disaster, and which we really enjoyed. But I would point out, we didn't do it for the smiley, we did it for the fun. It was last found nine months ago, and really deserves being done more often.

 

So please don't archive the longer caches if the only reason is that they don't get done very much.

Link to comment

I will opt for a Multi before a 8 mile walk with 35 micro caches.

At an Event last week some cacher was going to archive

their multi (3miles) , as it had not been done for 6 months,

before i went.

So many over a mile for 1 Cache find are just not being done.

 

 

That's why I now have no caches out. All gone.

I have one that's a little over a mile, uphill all the way, with no other caches particularly close, and it's logged very infrequently, but the few who do it obviously enjoy it very much.

 

uphill all the way? does that include the return journey? Is this some kind of escher-based landscape near you?! :blink:

 

regarding the OP, I'll sit in the fence a little, if I may! I never (AFAIK) use copy and paste logs, and always try and say something a little different. However, if I've found 30 caches in a ring, I admit I may run out of ioriginal things to say for every cache. However, I ALWAYS write a decent 'summary' log on the last one, and this is what I'm happy with on our own 30+ circular walk. I generally hope for a different log on two very unusual caches on the ring, plus a decent summary, and I'm happy with short logs in between. Anything more is a nice bonus!

Link to comment
purple_pineapple wrote:

uphill all the way? does that include the return journey? Is this some kind of escher-based landscape near you?! :o

The cache is on a giant Mobius strip that is constantly revolving. :laughing:

 

Seriously though, I was thinking I might have to archive that one before long as due to my health I'm no longer able to reach it to maintain it. But I now have an offer of maintenance from local cachers, which is very much appreciated. For various reasons it's one of my favourites of my own caches, and I'd hate to lose it.

Link to comment

[...]

If you want to hike 5 miles, the put out a big cache on a long hike. But don't moan if it doesn't get visited as often as the urban micro.

[...]

I guess if any cache owner is doubting the location of a cache, they have to examine why they are placing it? :o

 

Just to pick out the two points that affect me, if you don't mind a bit of quote mining.

 

My point is that the caches I had out used to get regularly visited until latterly and, having examined why I placed them there initially, I have now removed them. I wasn't moaning, just being reactive/proactive as far as my placements went.

 

It is for this reason that I haven't placed a cache for a while now, and don't intend to in the foreseeable future. It's just the way it's gone, I suppose and can't be helped.

 

I wasn't attempting to single out any one individual with the 'don't moan' statement. It was aimed at anyone who might put out a good cache that is a decent hike but foolishly things everyone will flock to it :laughing: .

 

The activity needs the diversification, in the 'good ol'days' most caches were way out in the countryside; now they are all over the place. What is needed is balance so that the nano/mirco explosion doesn't consume the traditional sizes.

 

:rolleyes::anibad:;)

Link to comment

[...]

If you want to hike 5 miles, the put out a big cache on a long hike. But don't moan if it doesn't get visited as often as the urban micro.

[...]

I guess if any cache owner is doubting the location of a cache, they have to examine why they are placing it? :o

 

Just to pick out the two points that affect me, if you don't mind a bit of quote mining.

 

My point is that the caches I had out used to get regularly visited until latterly and, having examined why I placed them there initially, I have now removed them. I wasn't moaning, just being reactive/proactive as far as my placements went.

 

It is for this reason that I haven't placed a cache for a while now, and don't intend to in the foreseeable future. It's just the way it's gone, I suppose and can't be helped.

 

I wasn't attempting to single out any one individual with the 'don't moan' statement. It was aimed at anyone who might put out a good cache that is a decent hike but foolishly things everyone will flock to it :laughing: .

 

The activity needs the diversification, in the 'good ol'days' most caches were way out in the countryside; now they are all over the place. What is needed is balance so that the nano/mirco explosion doesn't consume the traditional sizes.

 

:rolleyes::anibad:;)

 

Hey, I know!!! :D:D:lol:

Link to comment

1) Why are there so many 'micro in a non-descript lay-by' caches nowadays, haven’t people got any imagination or sense of adventure any more?

I've just been looking at my stats and I notice that out of the 3690 caches I have found only 36% are classified as micros. Another 7% are classified as "Other" or "Not Chosen", some of these will have been micros. So lets say around 40% micros, yes that is a lot, but no where as bleak a picture as some would paint it. If you take this one stage further, many of these micros, probably much less than 50% were not in nondescript/unimaginative locations, and dare I say I have found plenty of larger caches in such locations. Although not particularly a scientific evaluation I think that it is probably quite representative as we do not tend to bother about the size of a cache, if it's there we will try and find it.

 

Just my thoughts on the matter for what it's worth :laughing:.

Link to comment

1) Why are there so many 'micro in a non-descript lay-by' caches nowadays, haven’t people got any imagination or sense of adventure any more?

I've just been looking at my stats and I notice that out of the 3690 caches I have found only 36% are classified as micros. Another 7% are classified as "Other" or "Not Chosen", some of these will have been micros. So lets say around 40% micros, yes that is a lot, but no where as bleak a picture as some would paint it. If you take this one stage further, many of these micros, probably much less than 50% were not in nondescript/unimaginative locations, and dare I say I have found plenty of larger caches in such locations. Although not particularly a scientific evaluation I think that it is probably quite representative as we do not tend to bother about the size of a cache, if it's there we will try and find it.

 

Just my thoughts on the matter for what it's worth :D.

 

Or to put it another way....

 

You've found more micros than any other size - by quite a large margin (1476, compared to 1164 small, 787 regular)

Of those 1476 micros - how many did you find in your first year caching? I'd hazard a guess and say not that many, and that the number of micros you've found each year over the past five years has been steadily increasing?

I don't think people are moaning that there are micros out there - but that the proportion of micros being placed is increasing far more than any other cache size is....

 

There's going to come a day when The time has sadly already arrived when regular caches are in the minority :laughing::laughing::laughing: and the majority of new caches nowadays are film pots in hedges containing nothing more than a rolled up log.

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

So would it be an idea to write what you REALLY think about an "inappropriately sized" cache rather than just some bland platitude when posting a log? Perhaps something along the lines of:

 

"A lovely location for a cache but such a disappointment that it was not a larger container with the ability to house swaps and Travel Bugs in keeping with the original spirit of geocaching."

Link to comment

So would it be an idea to write what you REALLY think about an "inappropriately sized" cache rather than just some bland platitude when posting a log? Perhaps something along the lines of:

 

"A lovely location for a cache but such a disappointment that it was not a larger container with the ability to house swaps and Travel Bugs in keeping with the original spirit of geocaching."

 

Something like this then :laughing:

 

Thanks for a very nice walk....but why, oh why - with all that space - are they (nearly) all micros?????

:D

 

:laughing::laughing:

Link to comment

Of those 1476 micros - how many did you find in your first year caching? I'd hazard a guess and say not that many, and that the number of micros you've found each year over the past five years has been steadily increasing?

Yes a good point and a quick check tells me that out of the 144 physical cache finds in my 1st year, 28 were micros or 20%. I'm not denying that they have increased, just that it is not as bleak as some would paint it. There is a huge difference in the quantity (and variety) of caches out there now to what there was 5 years ago, including many many more small/regular/large caches. So with so much choice I fail to understand why so much concern by some, if a person does not like that style of cache then just leave it, that is unless it "is about the numbers". Don't get me wrong, I get as frustrated as the next person at the inappropriate micro stuffed at the base of a [vil] covered tree where a 50 litre large cache would have fitted, but generally I will have enjoyed the walk getting there and the hunt finding it. What is being ignored is that there are very many micros that are well placed in great locations in imaginative containers and hides, and that there are also very many larger caches out there that are in manky containers that ain't maintained so there is good and bad on both sides of the camp. As far as I am concerned each cache is a valid find, some are poor, some are excellent but the majority fall somewhere between, and as for size, well so what as it is very rare that we will do a swap.

 

As a way of illustration we have a circular (power trail?) series where all bar two are micros and it extremely popular and get fantastic logs. BTW you wont find this on my profile.

Link to comment

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...