Jump to content

opencaching.com new mascot...


FickFam

Recommended Posts

Try it! List a new test cache on opencaching.com at N33° 32.013 W086° 42.625.

http://www.opencaching.com/#geocache/OXZTY0P

So it let you put a cache right next to mine. Bummer. There's a link labeled "Report a violation of geocaching guidelines" which links to geocaching@garmin.com but it doesn't work.

 

All of the problems I see should have been discovered in development... this software is so far from being ready to Beta test that I wonder if it's not actually a negotiating ploy of some sort with Groundspeak.

 

I only see a blank page when checking on this cache. Bug? or is it gone?

This is what I see...

 

ScreenHunter_01Dec091430.gif

 

OTOH I listed 8 caches and only see 5, so it's broken somewhere.

 

I'm not posting bug reports over there, if they want my opinion they'll have to come here to get it! :huh:

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
Try it! List a new test cache on opencaching.com at N33° 32.013 W086° 42.625.

http://www.opencaching.com/#geocache/OXZTY0P

So it let you put a cache right next to mine. Bummer. There's a link labeled "Report a violation of geocaching guidelines" which links to geocaching@garmin.com but it doesn't work.

 

All of the problems I see should have been discovered in development... this software is so far from being ready to Beta test that I wonder if it's not actually a negotiating ploy of some sort with Groundspeak.

 

I only see a blank page when checking on this cache. Bug? or is it gone?

This is what I see...

 

OTOH I listed 8 caches and only see 5, so it's broken somewhere.

 

I'm not posting bug reports over there, if they want my opinion they'll have to come here to get it! :huh:

TAR, your cache, OX14B0Z, shows up fine. The test cache that someone placed in your yard (if I'm recalling the experiment correctly), OCZTY0P, no longer shows up. My suspicion is that Garmin has deleted that listing.

Link to comment
TAR, your cache, OX14B0Z, shows up fine. The test cache that someone placed in your yard (if I'm recalling the experiment correctly), OCZTY0P, no longer shows up. My suspicion is that Garmin has deleted that listing.

that was me and yeah they did. not that i got a notification about it or anything, it just disappeared. doesn't even show up as archived.

Link to comment

Geocaching.com didn't always have reviewers

 

Geocaching.com has always had reviewers.

Winner. Don't expect the president of Garmin to post in the opencaching.com forums.

 

I thought early caches were published without review.

I think the key is the ".com" part. Dave Ulmer was his own reviewer, but geocaching.com has always had them.
Link to comment

Geocaching.com didn't always have reviewers

 

Geocaching.com has always had reviewers.

Winner. Don't expect the president of Garmin to post in the opencaching.com forums.

 

I thought early caches were published without review.

Nope, there were reviewers. My first cache in February of 2001 was entered, went into a queue and was published some time later by Jeremy. It was the same process we see today with a few changes to our current input form. I've been a reviewer since March 2002, and there were a few others before me.

Link to comment
Opencaching has the same rule as cache placement every 1.0 range.

But that rule is naught but a bunch of pixels if they don't have a process to determine if it's being followed.

Ed gave a great example of this. He posted an OC cache, and requested that someone else post a new one nearby.

It got published with no questions.

 

Had they tried that on this site, it would've been stopped before it got published.

 

Geocaching.com didn't always have reviewers, and it didn't always have all the features it has now.

True. Groundspeak learned, over time, what was needed to be the best cache listing site possible. Terracaching also learned, in their own way, what doesn't work. (RIP) Garmin had a choice going in. Either learn from their own mistakes, over time, (a usually costly process), or they can learn from the mistakes of others, skipping all the problems encountered during Groundspeak's growing process. I would think that anyone, wanting to build a competitor to Groundspeak, would make finding out what is important to success would be a critical first step. I guess Garmin doesn't agree.

 

they will regulate caches

Yes they will. After a player points out the problem. Kinda putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. Of the two business models, I think the site that rectifies most problems before they go live beats hands down the site that only acts when a player reports a problem. I think most folks in here would agree that having a problem cache in play is a bad thing, for many various reasons. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, Garmin's business model allows for bad cache placement and publishing.

Link to comment

My two cents worth on this. Right now we are all playing devils advocate with the opencaching.com site and we are trying to break it. Garmin is watching things pretty closely and reacting quickly since this is all brand new for them.

 

But what happens in 6 weeks or 6 months when the shine has worn off? Will people be as quick to report OX caches that violate the guidelines then?

 

I think not, in fact I suspect that the opposite will become the norm. People who like to think that the rules don't apply to them will gravitate to opencaching.com and it will become known as the place to go if you want to hide a cache that wouldn't get published on geocaching.com. I also suspect that the mainstream caching public will tire of their buggy site quickly and ignore it just like they did with TC.com and NC.com. OX.com will be left with just the people who don't care about following guidelines and who have no motivation to report problem caches.

Link to comment

I'm curious. Several "other" geocaching websites have opened their doors (so to speak) in the last few years. Most have nary caused a ripple. Why all the excitement about this new one? :huh:

To add to this, opencaching.us was announced several months ago. opencaching.com was announced yesterday. Near as I can tell, OC.com already has three times as many cache listings as OC.us - after less than 48 hours. I'm guessing the bulk of those are listings that owners have cross-listed on multiple sites (and some others may be test cases designed to suss out guideline violations). But if these forums are any guide, at least some of the OC.com listings are unique and real.

 

This seems like it could be a little different.

Link to comment

My two cents worth on this. Right now we are all playing devils advocate with the opencaching.com site and we are trying to break it. Garmin is watching things pretty closely and reacting quickly since this is all brand new for them.

 

But what happens in 6 weeks or 6 months when the shine has worn off? Will people be as quick to report OX caches that violate the guidelines then?

 

I think not, in fact I suspect that the opposite will become the norm. People who like to think that the rules don't apply to them will gravitate to opencaching.com and it will become known as the place to go if you want to hide a cache that wouldn't get published on geocaching.com. I also suspect that the mainstream caching public will tire of their buggy site quickly and ignore it just like they did with TC.com and NC.com. OX.com will be left with just the people who don't care about following guidelines and who have no motivation to report problem caches.

 

And what happens when 5000 people post a cache instead of 50?

Link to comment
But what happens in 6 weeks or 6 months when the shine has worn off? Will people be as quick to report OX caches that violate the guidelines then?

why wouldn't they? apart from the reviewing/publishing process, gc.com also relies on cachers reporting guideline violations and other cache issues to the "authorities". why should this work on gc.com but not on oc.com?

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

Darn! I somehow managed to miss that OC also has a .1 mile saturation guideline. I will seek clarification from them about whether that rule pertains to both GC and OC listings. As a practical matter, I wonder whether GC will respect .1 mile separation from caches listed exclusively on OC and whether GC reviewers will start checking for proximity to OC caches? (I bet they won't)

 

And just how do you suggest that the geocaching.com reviewers accomplish this task? Log in over there and ensure that the spot is clear? <_< I bet they won't either. :huh:

Link to comment

...OX.com will be left with just the people who don't care about following guidelines and who have no motivation to report problem caches.

 

Add to that cachers that have left here with massive chips on their shoulders and just want to put caches in the same close-quarters as existing gc.com caches.

 

Talk about chips. :huh: Have you not be following along that they have been removing caches already that is not in the guidelines? I think someone is doing their job there. <_<

Link to comment

...OX.com will be left with just the people who don't care about following guidelines and who have no motivation to report problem caches.

 

Add to that cachers that have left here with massive chips on their shoulders and just want to put caches in the same close-quarters as existing gc.com caches.

 

Talk about chips. :huh: Have you not be following along that they have been removing caches already that is not in the guidelines? I think someone is doing their job there. <_<

I have, and you didn't answer my question about it... did they remove the three of mine automatically, or was it because you reported them. I'm not blaming you, I just want to know by what process were they noticed and removed.
Link to comment

...OX.com will be left with just the people who don't care about following guidelines and who have no motivation to report problem caches.

 

Add to that cachers that have left here with massive chips on their shoulders and just want to put caches in the same close-quarters as existing gc.com caches.

 

Talk about chips. :huh: Have you not be following along that they have been removing caches already that is not in the guidelines? I think someone is doing their job there. <_<

 

Have you not been following along that there are caches that are not adhering to guidelines that haven't been removed?

 

Regardless, publish first and remove later is a incredibly wrong idea- for all the reasons that have been posted here already, had you been following along.

 

EDIT: It's not a chip. I'm genuinely concerned about the future of the hobby for all of us. If you want to see an example of a chip on a shoulder, I can show you some examples in the EC forum.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment
There is no review process at 'open'caching.com. (snip).
For a site with no review process the sure did remove violating cache fast. hmmmmm... I think this is a moot point, they will regulate caches - next argument boys....

 

Its pretty obvious from their responses to issues brought up here that they are monitoring this thread. I suspect they are taking a close look at caches mentioned here. I bet caches that are not brought up in this thread will not receive the same scrutiny.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I have, and you didn't answer my question about it... did they remove the three of mine automatically, or was it because you reported them. I'm not blaming you, I just want to know by what process were they noticed and removed.

If they removed yours, why weren't you notified or offered a chance to remedy?

 

What happens if something is removed in error?

Link to comment
And just how do you suggest that the geocaching.com reviewers accomplish this task? Log in over there and ensure that the spot is clear? <_< I bet they won't either. :huh:

In the vast majority of the cases, I don't much care if a GC is close to an OC (or a Letterbox, or...)

 

There are some situations in which land managers have asked that caches not be placed any less than X distance apart. In those cases, acknowledging that from their perspective land managers don't much care that there are different listing sites, I'd like to hope that reviewers from different sites can co-exist. If that means checking another site to make sure there aren't any published caches within X, then maybe that's the price we all pay (increased reviewer time, etc.) to enjoy caching in that location.

 

If one listing service insists that it refuses to check anything on another site before publishing new listings, it could put caching in that area in jeopardy. I don't know that I *expect* a reviewer from one site to check another web site. But neither would I exempt reviewers or listing services from my hopes that all cachers can work together to keep caching alive in certain wonderful, but strictly managed, areas.

Link to comment

...OX.com will be left with just the people who don't care about following guidelines and who have no motivation to report problem caches.

 

Add to that cachers that have left here with massive chips on their shoulders and just want to put caches in the same close-quarters as existing gc.com caches.

 

Talk about chips. :huh: Have you not be following along that they have been removing caches already that is not in the guidelines? I think someone is doing their job there. <_<

I have, and you didn't answer my question about it... did they remove the three of mine automatically, or was it because you reported them. I'm not blaming you, I just want to know by what process were they noticed and removed.

 

I did go look for them but they must on been gone already before I could find them. Someone must be doing there home work. :)

Link to comment
I have, and you didn't answer my question about it... did they remove the three of mine automatically, or was it because you reported them. I'm not blaming you, I just want to know by what process were they noticed and removed.
My best guess is that they read about them here. I actually looked into how I might report them for a proximity violation - I was going to clear it with you here first - but I couldn't even figure out how I might do that. There was a "Report a problem with website" email link, but nothing about reporting a problem with a cache. So I dropped it.

 

Have you not been following along that there are caches that are not adhering to guidelines that haven't been removed?

I don't think this makes up for a lack of a review process in the first place (which even the rogue sites have), but I'm not aware of a lot of guideline-violating caches that haven't been removed. They seem to be taking them down as quickly as we bring them up.

 

I suspect they are monitoring this thread and taking a close look at caches mentioned here. I bet caches that are not brought up in this thread will receive the same scrutiny.

I think you meant "will not receive..." and if so I'm inclined to agree.

Link to comment

I have, and you didn't answer my question about it... did they remove the three of mine automatically, or was it because you reported them. I'm not blaming you, I just want to know by what process were they noticed and removed.

If they removed yours, why weren't you notified or offered a chance to remedy?

 

What happens if something is removed in error?

Their email said:

 

Your geocaches, OXZTXZ7, OXZTXZ5, and OXZTXZ6 have been deleted because they did not appear to be a real geocaches. If we are mistaken, and they are real caches, please let us know and we will reevaluate them.

 

They also may have simply been following this thread and deleted them when they saw me post about it. One of the three was moved just a teensy bit off from the coords of the other two, so they were probably not automatically caught (although it is possible).

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

There are some situations in which land managers have asked that caches not be placed any less than X distance apart. In those cases, acknowledging that from their perspective land managers don't much care that there are different listing sites, I'd like to hope that reviewers from different sites can co-exist.

 

Some land agencies in my region have adopted guidelines that specify that the cache must be listed on this site, in large part to limit cache saturation. If opencaching.com had a review process, they would be aware of these policies and require cross-listing for these particular areas (or work with the agency to convince them to change the policy). But I hope that the whole thing will not end up putting the agencies in the middle of a dispute.

Link to comment

There are some situations in which land managers have asked that caches not be placed any less than X distance apart. In those cases, acknowledging that from their perspective land managers don't much care that there are different listing sites, I'd like to hope that reviewers from different sites can co-exist.

 

Some land agencies in my region have adopted guidelines that specify that the cache must be listed on this site, in large part to limit cache saturation. If opencaching.com had a review process, they would be aware of these policies and require cross-listing for these particular areas (or work with the agency to convince them to change the policy). But I hope that the whole thing will not end up putting the agencies in the middle of a dispute.

 

There's the trouble. The agencies WON'T be put in the middle of it. They will just avoid all the hassle by saying to heck with it and going back to just banning geocaching altogether. If this becomes a problem we would be lucky if they'd still allow EC's, virts, and Waymarking. Let's face it, the bureaucratic mentally is that if something is the least bit of hassle, ban it and be done with it.

Link to comment
There is no review process at 'open'caching.com. (snip).
For a site with no review process the sure did remove violating cache fast. hmmmmm... I think this is a moot point, they will regulate caches - next argument boys....

 

Its pretty obvious from their responses to issues brought up here that they are monitoring this thread. I suspect they are taking a close look at caches mentioned here. I bet caches that are not brought up in this thread will not receive the same scrutiny.

 

Experiment underway!

Link to comment
(snip) There are some situations in which land managers have asked that caches not be placed any less than X distance apart.

 

This is the main problem with geocaching. If we played the game properly NO ONE WOULD KNOW! Geotrails are a sad sight and they do not need to exist. Torn up trees are a shame and they do not need to exist.

 

If you leave behind any evidence of you being in a place or if you are seen you simply are not playing the game properly in my not to popular book - obviously in light of the awful mess many geocachers make on the trails.

Link to comment

 

This is the main problem with geocaching. If we played the game properly NO ONE WOULD KNOW! Geotrails are a sad sight and they do not need to exist. Torn up trees are a shame and they do not need to exist.

 

If you leave behind any evidence of you being in a place or if you are seen you simply are not playing the game properly in my not to popular book - obviously in light of the awful mess many geocachers make on the trails.

 

And how do you avoid geo trails?

Link to comment

 

This is the main problem with geocaching. If we played the game properly NO ONE WOULD KNOW! Geotrails are a sad sight and they do not need to exist. Torn up trees are a shame and they do not need to exist.

 

If you leave behind any evidence of you being in a place or if you are seen you simply are not playing the game properly in my not to popular book - obviously in light of the awful mess many geocachers make on the trails.

 

And how do you avoid geo trails?

 

Easy tread lightly, stay out of mud!

Link to comment

 

This is the main problem with geocaching. If we played the game properly NO ONE WOULD KNOW! Geotrails are a sad sight and they do not need to exist. Torn up trees are a shame and they do not need to exist.

 

If you leave behind any evidence of you being in a place or if you are seen you simply are not playing the game properly in my not to popular book - obviously in light of the awful mess many geocachers make on the trails.

 

And how do you avoid geo trails?

 

Easy tread lightly, stay out of mud!

 

It only takes a couple people walking the same grassy area to start a trail, no matter how lightly one treads.

Link to comment

 

This is the main problem with geocaching. If we played the game properly NO ONE WOULD KNOW! Geotrails are a sad sight and they do not need to exist. Torn up trees are a shame and they do not need to exist.

 

If you leave behind any evidence of you being in a place or if you are seen you simply are not playing the game properly in my not to popular book - obviously in light of the awful mess many geocachers make on the trails.

 

And how do you avoid geo trails?

You shoot all the bear, elk, deer, coyotes, foxes, cattle and anything bigger than a squirrel. Then once they stop making trails the humans won't bother.

Link to comment

And how do you avoid geo trails?

 

I have been using one of Groundspeak's black helicopters and making the find without touching land. They use super-secret stealth and anti-grav technology from Area 51 (there is a reason for the ET Trail). But I suppose now I will have to borrow something from Garmin. Maybe Jeremy will give me one of his personal Noodle Node (brand) Jetpacks for old times sake and I can hop over the grassy knolls.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

Pros: I like the overall design. The 4 tier rating with tenths instead of just halves is cool.

 

Cons: Cache ratings are either automatically set at a 3 or the owner can rate their hides. No reviewers. No PQ's CAAR, etc.

 

:sarcasm: The good news is I can now go hide a cache in all the graveyards in SC on opencaching since they don't appear to have anyone enforcing the limited guidelines they have! :sarcasm:

 

^ That's a MAJOR concern!

Link to comment
There is no review process at 'open'caching.com. (snip).
For a site with no review process the sure did remove violating cache fast. hmmmmm... I think this is a moot point, they will regulate caches - next argument boys....

 

Its pretty obvious from their responses to issues brought up here that they are monitoring this thread. I suspect they are taking a close look at caches mentioned here. I bet caches that are not brought up in this thread will not receive the same scrutiny.

 

Experiment underway!

 

Dude. *Announcing* that you're about to start an experiment is hardly the way to be stealthy about it! :huh:

Link to comment

There are some situations in which land managers have asked that caches not be placed any less than X distance apart. In those cases, acknowledging that from their perspective land managers don't much care that there are different listing sites, I'd like to hope that reviewers from different sites can co-exist.

 

Some land agencies in my region have adopted guidelines that specify that the cache must be listed on this site, in large part to limit cache saturation. If opencaching.com had a review process, they would be aware of these policies and require cross-listing for these particular areas (or work with the agency to convince them to change the policy). But I hope that the whole thing will not end up putting the agencies in the middle of a dispute.

 

There's the trouble. The agencies WON'T be put in the middle of it. They will just avoid all the hassle by saying to heck with it and going back to just banning geocaching altogether. If this becomes a problem we would be lucky if they'd still allow EC's, virts, and Waymarking. Let's face it, the bureaucratic mentally is that if something is the least bit of hassle, ban it and be done with it.

 

That is GroundSpeaks stance, If anyone is a hassle ban them and be done with it. Why shouldn't anyplace else be different. Speaking of ECs that is. :huh:

Link to comment

Wow, okay. No spaces in user names. Fruity.

Yeah, stuff like that is a common mistake for developers, they think they have some logical reason to control things like usernames and passwords. There actually used to be good reasons for that, but not since about the COBOL II era.

 

It's usually indicative that they have a retired military coder as the IT manager. My National Weather Service password has to be 12 characters including numbers, uppercase letters, lowercase letters and at least one special character. To protect what, you ask? Your weather forecast! Who makes that decision? Yep, an ex-Air Farce officer who probably hasn't learned a new development software in 20 years. :huh:

 

If I recall correctly however Groundspeak used to do the same no-spaces thing, which is why my username is three words with no spaces.

Link to comment
the beauty of the open API is that you can have GSAK pull the caches for your area from oc.com directly without you having to do anything. once the number of caches listed on oc.com reaches a certain threshold, you will lose interest in having to run, download and import PQs. GS will have to work hard to beat that.

I think your making an assumption about GSAK the may not be true in the near future. It is true today, it might not be true in a couple months.

yeah GSAK is probably going to be one of the first applications to get access to the GS API (if that even ever happens), but GSAK only serves as a well-known example. there's a myriad of other applications out there which could make good use of an API, some of which only exist as ideas in some people's head so far. those would never see the light of day as their developers aren't special enough to get access, or maybe just can't be bothered to ask for access. this is different with an open API. everyone is free to mess around with the data and some people will come out with brilliant new ideas and applications.

Link to comment

They also may have simply been following this thread and deleted them when they saw me post about it. One of the three was moved just a teensy bit off from the coords of the other two, so they were probably not automatically caught (although it is possible).

I suspect you're right.

Link to comment
the beauty of the open API is that you can have GSAK pull the caches for your area from oc.com directly without you having to do anything. once the number of caches listed on oc.com reaches a certain threshold, you will lose interest in having to run, download and import PQs. GS will have to work hard to beat that.

I think your making an assumption about GSAK the may not be true in the near future. It is true today, it might not be true in a couple months.

yeah GSAK is probably going to be one of the first applications to get access to the GS API (if that even ever happens), but GSAK only serves as a well-known example. there's a myriad of other applications out there which could make good use of an API, some of which only exist as ideas in some people's head so far. those would never see the light of day as their developers aren't special enough to get access, or maybe just can't be bothered to ask for access. this is different with an open API. everyone is free to mess around with the data and some people will come out with brilliant new ideas and applications.

You really need to check the feedback site every now and then .....

Groundspeak is currently in the process of developing an API for 3rd party applications. Our current plan is to make the API available to a limited group of trusted third parties starting in late January 2011. Once the API has been properly tested, we intend to expand the list of 3rd party developers throughout 2011 and beyond.

There is a rumor that GSAK will be making use of the API. Now it does not say that any Bozo that just fell off the turnip truck gets to use the API, I'm sure we will see more application development using it.

Link to comment
You really need to check the feedback site every now and then .....

i'm quite aware of what's going on there, thank you.

There is a rumor that GSAK will be making use of the API. Now it does not say that any Bozo that just fell off the turnip truck gets to use the API, I'm sure we will see more application development using it.

exactly my point. i don't care about GSAK. obviously you have no idea about how open source development works. it literally lives off the "Bozos that just fell off the turnip truck", because those are exactly the people who have the brilliant ideas but never get to turn them into something real because of corporate restrictions. several whole worlds of operating systems and related applications were born from that very idea. chances are you're using at least one of them (firefox).

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
Groundspeak is currently in the process of developing an API for 3rd party applications. Our current plan is to make the API available to a limited group of trusted third parties starting in late January 2011. Once the API has been properly tested, we intend to expand the list of 3rd party developers throughout 2011 and beyond.

 

I don't suppose Garmin is still on the list of trusted third parties. I wonder if it will eventually be made available to developers of smart phone apps (like geosphere), but that seems like direct competition for Groundspeak's own endeavors in that field. But pqs work fine for me so I am not in that much of a hurry.

Link to comment
You really need to check the feedback site every now and then .....

i'm quite aware of what's going on there, thank you.

There is a rumor that GSAK will be making use of the API. Now it does not say that any Bozo that just fell off the turnip truck gets to use the API, I'm sure we will see more application development using it.

exactly my point. i don't care about GSAK. obviously you have no idea about how open source development works. it literally lives off the "Bozos that just fell off the turnip truck", because those are exactly the people who have the brilliant ideas but never get to turn them into something real because of corporate restrictions. several whole worlds of operating systems and related applications were born from that very idea. chances are you're using at least one of them (firefox).

I did not read the announcement as precluding a serious developer from gaining access. Maybe not in February, but at some time in the future. So if a guy that has the skills to develop on FireFox and has an idea and submits a request to GS, it looks to me that the request would be favorably considered. But if, who is Clan Riffsters favorite guy?, BillyBobNosePicker just wants learn how to program using this API the answer probably be no.

Link to comment

Blah Blah Blah.

 

Anarchy.

 

This is what makes the world go round.

 

Here's a thought,

 

Place a "geocache" somewhere on the planet where "muggles" CAN find it, and see if they steal it, or leave you a note,

 

When you find it missing, make up a story about who took it, and what they are doing with it now. Try and make it a happy story.

 

Or heres an even better idea.

 

Place a treasure box on the grass at a local park in plain view, and sit at a nearby bench, and watch someone find it, and open it, and light up that they have just found treasure.

 

Who here has ever "spied on" someone visiting your cache? Is'nt it fun seeing someone enjoy geocaching?

Did you think, "I just made that persons day"

or did you think

"I wonder what they will write in their log online on geocaching.com?"

 

point is,

this game is nothing but a game,

stop making it so political. You are acting like its your religion, and someone down the street just opened up a new church where you dont have to dress up for sunday service.

 

In actuality, you are merely doing the above, placing a treasure box for other people to find, does it really matter on what site, or if on any site at all you do it?

 

If you are so worried about your privacy, stop interacting with the public.

 

If you become more upset over cache swag degradation, then the realization someone wanted a keepsake of the journey you took them on, then you have lost the love of the game.

 

If you hate micros more than you enjoy placing non-micro caches, i mean, how can you be angry at anyone but yourself?

 

Should I go on?

 

P.S.

Who cares if Jeremy logged on this discussion, and wrote a sentence. It really said nothing.

 

P.S.S.

Moderators. Strange isn't it how we impose rules and regulations to protect us from ourselves.

 

P.S.S.S.

I hate P.S's.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...