Jump to content

Don't go caching in this playground!


Recommended Posts

http://gothamist.com/2011/06/06/ticketed_for_eating_a_doughnut_in_a.php

 

"this weekend the police gave two young women in Bed-Stuy summonses for eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor."

 

Yet another reason to avoid muggles.

There's some playgrounds that truly have signs that say, "no adults unless accompanied by a minor". I have a feeling they are leaving this part out, for better story purposes.

Link to comment

http://gothamist.com/2011/06/06/ticketed_for_eating_a_doughnut_in_a.php

 

"this weekend the police gave two young women in Bed-Stuy summonses for eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor."

 

Yet another reason to avoid muggles.

There's some playgrounds that truly have signs that say, "no adults unless accompanied by a minor". I have a feeling they are leaving this part out, for better story purposes.

 

It says there was a sign that stated that. It was apart of all the rules of the park.

 

I always read the signs at parks and trails before I enter them. I dont need to deal with problems like this.

Link to comment

There's some playgrounds that truly have signs that say, "no adults unless accompanied by a minor". I have a feeling they are leaving this part out, for better story purposes.

 

The story directly addressed this:

 

My friend and I were confused. We had seen parks with gates that had a sign clearly stating that adults without children were not allowed in. This park had no such sign.

 

When the cop that was guarding us asked if we had ever gotten summonses before, I asked him if he could show me the sign that alerted people to the fact that they were about to commit a violation by sitting on a bench. We looked at the sign together. "That? I’m supposed to read that?" I asked. He said yes. It was a list of about fifteen park regulations. You would have to be no more than three feet away from it in order to read it.

Link to comment

They said there was a sign, but they didn't read it. They claimed it was unreasonable because the sign was too small, and there were no bullet points making it hard to read.

 

In my area, all parks are open to everyone, but I have had trouble with caches near playgrounds. People don't like adults "creeping" around where kids play. One lady famously told me to "get the f*** out of here!" while I was caching. (I was the only one in the park until she showed up, also childless herself)

Link to comment

There's some playgrounds that truly have signs that say, "no adults unless accompanied by a minor". I have a feeling they are leaving this part out, for better story purposes.

 

They buried it in the article. After saying "This park had no such sign," the article goes on to say:

 

I asked [the cop] if he could show me the sign that alerted people to the fact that they were about to commit a violation by sitting on a bench. We looked at the sign together. “That? I’m supposed to read that?” I asked. He said yes.

 

Apparently, the sign was not clear enough.

Link to comment

I have never seen a park with signs like that but if they did I would obey them. Good luck fighting it though, ignorance of a law does not excuse you from it.

 

You don't have to fight it on being ignorant of it; you can fight it because you shouldn't be barred from a public park.

 

 

Link to comment

I would have promptly recieved another ticket for littering when I threw the first one on the dirt.

Just curious. Why would you willingly do something as dumb as that? Presumably you might beat the citation for being in a park without kids, (at least, let's pretend you can... for a minute), but committing a second violation just to prove you are contemptuous of the law won't win you any friends in court. I've seen almost this exact thing play out in court, more than once, (though the citations were for different offenses), and every single one ended badly for the defendant, once the Judge was advised that the defendant believed themselves to be above the law. :unsure:

Link to comment

Most New York City playgrounds have that warning. "No adults unless accompaned by a child". The standard list has 7 or so items on it. It is not hard to read, and not written in small letters. (These are standard signs placed at the entrance to all playgrounds.) Generally, I do not go into them. I was looking for a benchmark in one, and was yelled at by and adult accompanied by two small children. His language was obscene. He was several hundred feet away when he decided to confrontme. Poor kids!

But, the laws are not routinely enforced. I frequent one with a rest room, near a subway stop. Same warning, but there are usually fifteen or so unaccompanied adults.

New sign at all NYC playgrounds: Metal surfaces may become hot in the sunlight. Use proper caution.

Link to comment

Public Areas are not without rules/laws. Look at fair grounds for instance that have legal allowances for drinking alcohol and selling of goods. Try drinking in a typical public park and you will find that you are breaking the law. Another example, off leash parks! Some parks have made it legal to have your dog off a leash, most parks that is a ticket. Both are public parks but have different rules. Some parks allow all people, some are restricted to family use only. Not saying I agree with it, but not all public parks are "public" by law. Another example are parks that don't allow skateboarding and roller blading. They are public parks with restrictions. Happens all the time. All your going to do is waste yours and the judges time by taking this to court.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Edit: Mastor Spellar

Edited by MikeAndHike
Link to comment

I have never seen a park with signs like that but if they did I would obey them. Good luck fighting it though, ignorance of a law does not excuse you from it.

 

You don't have to fight it on being ignorant of it; you can fight it because you shouldn't be barred from a public park.

Not a geocaching topic but,,,,

 

You look like your from NY, you should know of all the ridiculous rules of the Fascist City State of Bloomberg

Link to comment

Public Areas are not without rules/laws. Look at fair grounds for instance that have legal allowances for drinking alcohol and selling of goods. Try drinking in a typical public park and you will find that you are breaking the law. Another example, off leash parks! Some parks have made it legal to have your dog off a leash, most parks that is a ticket. Both are public parks but have different rules. Some parks allow all people, some are restricted to family use only. Not saying I agree with it, but not all public parks are "public" by law. Another example are parks that don't allow skateboarding and roller blading. They are public parks with restrictions. Happens all the time. All your going to do is waste yours and the judges time by taking this to court.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Edit: Mastor Spellar

 

Drinking booze, skateboarding, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are not people, they're activities. It stands to reason that you can allow and not allow certain activities in a park.

 

We're not talking about activities, we're talking about people, and for the most part people who actually pay for that park (with tax dollars they pay) and are not allowed to use. Not the same thing at all, sorry.

 

Link to comment
you can fight it because you shouldn't be barred from a public park.

The Supreme Court says that municipalities have the right to enact legislation affecting otherwise public locations, that they feel best serves the members of that community. Certainly there are limits, lines the city can't cross, but this isn't one of them. While I might find that particular law a bit silly, fighting it will only add to your court fees when you lose. While it's your right, as a citizen, to toss your money out the window, it sure does seem wasteful.

 

I can imagine the conversation at home following such a move:

 

Defendant's spouse: "You just wasted $200 fighting that silly ticket?"

Defendant: "Dern tootin! I ain't backin' down for nuthin!"

Defendant's spouse: "But that was our kid's lunch money!"

Defendant: "I don't care! Right is right, and by golly, I was right!"

Defendant's spouse: "Not according to the Judge, you weren't"

Defendant: "Stoopid Judge! What does he know anyway? This is a matter of principle!"

Defendant's spouse: (sigh...)

 

:lol::P:laughing::anitongue:

Link to comment

Public Areas are not without rules/laws. Look at fair grounds for instance that have legal allowances for drinking alcohol and selling of goods. Try drinking in a typical public park and you will find that you are breaking the law. Another example, off leash parks! Some parks have made it legal to have your dog off a leash, most parks that is a ticket. Both are public parks but have different rules. Some parks allow all people, some are restricted to family use only. Not saying I agree with it, but not all public parks are "public" by law. Another example are parks that don't allow skateboarding and roller blading. They are public parks with restrictions. Happens all the time. All your going to do is waste yours and the judges time by taking this to court.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Edit: Mastor Spellar

 

Drinking booze, skateboarding, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are not people, they're activities. It stands to reason that you can allow and not allow certain activities in a park.

 

We're not talking about activities, we're talking about people, and for the most part people who actually pay for that park (with tax dollars they pay) and are not allowed to use. Not the same thing at all, sorry.

 

In every park I have ever been a regular attendee of it has been illegal for homeless people to loiter there. That is an example of "people" not being allowed in a park. Or are you saying that is an "activity"

Link to comment
The Supreme Court says that municipalities have the right to enact legislation affecting otherwise public locations, that they feel best serves the members of that community. Certainly there are limits, lines the city can't cross, but this isn't one of them. While I might find that particular law a bit silly, fighting it will only add to your court fees when you lose. While it's your right, as a citizen, to toss your money out the window, it sure does seem wasteful.

 

And of course, once the Supreme Court says something, God knows it's perfect unchangeable law *cough* Plessy vs. Ferguson *cough*

 

Not saying you'd win, and I'm not even arguing the wisdom of having that fight, but accepting the idea that the law is final, unchangeable, and unfightable seems to me to be a bit submissive. It essentially says that if you think something is unjust, shut your mouth because a court ruled on something and don't fight it. If we all thought that way, we'd have a much worse-off planet than we do now. Sorry.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Most New York City playgrounds have that warning. "No adults unless accompaned by a child". The standard list has 7 or so items on it. It is not hard to read, and not written in small letters. (These are standard signs placed at the entrance to all playgrounds.) Generally, I do not go into them. I was looking for a benchmark in one, and was yelled at by and adult accompanied by two small children. His language was obscene. He was several hundred feet away when he decided to confrontme. Poor kids!

But, the laws are not routinely enforced. I frequent one with a rest room, near a subway stop. Same warning, but there are usually fifteen or so unaccompanied adults.

New sign at all NYC playgrounds: Metal surfaces may become hot in the sunlight. Use proper caution.

So the thing I wonder about is, what is a child? 5? 8? 12? 16? I suppose by the time the child turns 18 you can't use the kid for cover any more. And what, heaven forbid, a "child" goes into the park by himself? Probably not much of a problem for a 14 year old since he is probably packing heat. I'm sure the intent is pure, but the law is stupid.

Link to comment
In every park I have ever been a regular attendee of it has been illegal for homeless people to loiter there. That is an example of "people" not being allowed in a park. Or are you saying that is an "activity"

 

Wow. Awesome strawman. Yeah; that's exactly what I'm saying. Homeless people are activities.

 

Of course a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet is exactly the same thing as someone sitting on a bench eating a donut, right?

 

That being said, I don't think banning homeless people from the parks are right either, unless of course you want to make an argument that some people are more equal than others.

 

And just as an aside, there are plenty of parks where loitering, in general, is banned in NYC. That being the activity of loitering, not the person doing it.

 

Edited by vincenzosi
Link to comment
So the thing I wonder about is, what is a child? 5? 8? 12? 16? I suppose by the time the child turns 18 you can't use the kid for cover any more. And what, heaven forbid, a "child" goes into the park by himself? Probably not much of a problem for a 14 year old since he is probably packing heat. I'm sure the intent is pure, but the law is stupid.

 

26.

 

The legal age you can stay on your parents insurance until.

 

laugh.gif

 

 

Link to comment
If we all thought that way, we'd have a much worse-off planet than we do now.

On this we agree. For something like that particular idiotic law, I would think the best time to fight it is before you, (the collective you), gets cited for violating it. That puts the shoe on the other foot. Now the city is the defendant. A good constitutional lawyer could probably win a suit like that.

Link to comment

There's some playgrounds that truly have signs that say, "no adults unless accompanied by a minor". I have a feeling they are leaving this part out, for better story purposes.

 

They buried it in the article. After saying "This park had no such sign," the article goes on to say:

 

I asked [the cop] if he could show me the sign that alerted people to the fact that they were about to commit a violation by sitting on a bench. We looked at the sign together. “That? I’m supposed to read that?” I asked. He said yes.

 

Apparently, the sign was not clear enough.

 

I don't know. They provided a link to a similar sign (link), except it had no bullets. The linked sign is pretty clear. It's the very first rule.

 

I've seen similar signs and they are pretty clear that you are not supposed to be there unless you have a kid with you.

Link to comment
In every park I have ever been a regular attendee of it has been illegal for homeless people to loiter there. That is an example of "people" not being allowed in a park. Or are you saying that is an "activity"

 

Wow. Awesome strawman. Yeah; that's exactly what I'm saying. Homeless people are activities.

 

Of course a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet is exactly the same thing as someone sitting on a bench eating a donut, right?

 

That being said, I don't think banning homeless people from the parks are right either, unless of course you want to make an argument that some people are more equal than others.

 

And just as an aside, there are plenty of parks where loitering, in general, is banned in NYC. That being the activity of loitering, not the person doing it.

 

 

I am only entering this discussion because I had to ask where the dividing line is between someone sitting on a bench eating a donut and a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet. Obviously, there are huge differences, but how do you objectify them? And who has greater need to spend time in that park?

Link to comment

I have never seen a park with signs like that but if they did I would obey them. Good luck fighting it though, ignorance of a law does not excuse you from it.

You don't have to fight it on being ignorant of it; you can fight it because you shouldn't be barred from a public park.

Most of our city parks are closed to the public between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Portions of some parks are closed to the public in an attempt to allow vegetation to grow back. At least one of our city parks is entirely closed to the public 24/7, complete with "No Trespassing" signs. Occasionally, certain trails in our provincial parks are closed to the public when bears are known to be in the area.

 

You might feel that people shouldn't be barred from public parks, but it is a frequent occurrence.

Link to comment
In every park I have ever been a regular attendee of it has been illegal for homeless people to loiter there. That is an example of "people" not being allowed in a park. Or are you saying that is an "activity"

 

Wow. Awesome strawman. Yeah; that's exactly what I'm saying. Homeless people are activities.

 

Of course a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet is exactly the same thing as someone sitting on a bench eating a donut, right?

 

That being said, I don't think banning homeless people from the parks are right either, unless of course you want to make an argument that some people are more equal than others.

 

And just as an aside, there are plenty of parks where loitering, in general, is banned in NYC. That being the activity of loitering, not the person doing it.

 

 

I am only entering this discussion because I had to ask where the dividing line is between someone sitting on a bench eating a donut and a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet. Obviously, there are huge differences, but how do you objectify them? And who has greater need to spend time in that park?

 

Clearly, the donut does. There was nothing on the sign forbidding donuts from being in the park unless accompanied by a child, but donuts lack legs. Someone has to carry them in, usually in paper sacks. And if a child is not available, what's a poor donut to do, but buttonhole the two closest ladies?

Link to comment

Parks in San Francisco that have children's play areas generally have them fenced off within the park, and to enter you'd have to pass a sign where it is written in LARGE LETTERS that adults are not allowed in that area without being accompanied by a child. You know what I do?

 

I don't go in there.

 

It's pretty simple, but nobody's gonna write a big whiney article about it.

Link to comment

A number of cities, including New York, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Sacramento, and Miami, have enacted similar ordinances that apply to various playgrounds. A writer at kaboom (a nonprofit organization that promotes playgrounds) points out that such policies make little sense and may be counterproductive. Some attorneys have suggested that they are on constitutional "thin ice," but as a time, place, and manner restriction they would only require a rational basis that is not that hard to establish. But if you are cited, you could try the geocaching defense and hope for the best.

 

Still, I think a city in England did them all one better and banned parents from play areas unless they were properly vetted as "play rangers."

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment
In every park I have ever been a regular attendee of it has been illegal for homeless people to loiter there. That is an example of "people" not being allowed in a park. Or are you saying that is an "activity"

 

Wow. Awesome strawman. Yeah; that's exactly what I'm saying. Homeless people are activities.

 

Of course a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet is exactly the same thing as someone sitting on a bench eating a donut, right?

 

That being said, I don't think banning homeless people from the parks are right either, unless of course you want to make an argument that some people are more equal than others.

 

And just as an aside, there are plenty of parks where loitering, in general, is banned in NYC. That being the activity of loitering, not the person doing it.

 

 

I am only entering this discussion because I had to ask where the dividing line is between someone sitting on a bench eating a donut and a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet. Obviously, there are huge differences, but how do you objectify them? And who has greater need to spend time in that park?

 

Clearly, the donut does. There was nothing on the sign forbidding donuts from being in the park unless accompanied by a child, but donuts lack legs. Someone has to carry them in, usually in paper sacks. And if a child is not available, what's a poor donut to do, but buttonhole the two closest ladies?

 

O< Smarty-pants. Then... which of them has the greater need to eat a donut? Answer me that, O Blue Bow.

Link to comment

I have never seen a park with signs like that but if they did I would obey them. Good luck fighting it though, ignorance of a law does not excuse you from it.

You don't have to fight it on being ignorant of it; you can fight it because you shouldn't be barred from a public park.

Most of our city parks are closed to the public between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Portions of some parks are closed to the public in an attempt to allow vegetation to grow back. At least one of our city parks is entirely closed to the public 24/7, complete with "No Trespassing" signs. Occasionally, certain trails in our provincial parks are closed to the public when bears are known to be in the area.

 

You might feel that people shouldn't be barred from public parks, but it is a frequent occurrence.

 

But those are exclusions that are applied equally across all, correct? It isn't excluding just a single sector of the tax-paying population based on profiling. I think that is the point that people are having a problem with.

Link to comment

 

I am only entering this discussion because I had to ask where the dividing line is between someone sitting on a bench eating a donut and a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet. Obviously, there are huge differences, but how do you objectify them? And who has greater need to spend time in that park?

 

Clearly, the donut does. There was nothing on the sign forbidding donuts from being in the park unless accompanied by a child, but donuts lack legs. Someone has to carry them in, usually in paper sacks. And if a child is not available, what's a poor donut to do, but buttonhole the two closest ladies?

 

O< Smarty-pants. Then... which of them has the greater need to eat a donut? Answer me that, O Blue Bow.

 

Well, duh. The cop who cited them!

Edited by Sioneva
Link to comment

I am only entering this discussion because I had to ask where the dividing line is between someone sitting on a bench eating a donut and a homeless person loitering for 12 hours at a park and turning it into his home and toilet. Obviously, there are huge differences, but how do you objectify them? And who has greater need to spend time in that park?

 

Clearly, the donut does. There was nothing on the sign forbidding donuts from being in the park unless accompanied by a child, but donuts lack legs. Someone has to carry them in, usually in paper sacks. And if a child is not available, what's a poor donut to do, but buttonhole the two closest ladies?

 

OK Smarty-pants. Then... which of them has the greater need to eat a donut? Answer me that, O Blue Bow.

 

Well, duh. The cop who cited them!

You have a point there. With a nice blue bow on it.

Link to comment

http://gothamist.com...ughnut_in_a.php

 

"this weekend the police gave two young women in Bed-Stuy summonses for eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor."

 

Yet another reason to avoid muggles.

 

That kind of crap is why I live in the country outside of city limits.

I've lived in the suburbs my whole life, and visit the city very frequently. I hate the suburbs, nothing happens, it's boring and very few people are ever out. No block parties, nothing to do, no stores. Uggh. All of my aunts, uncles, sisters, ect ect... (I have like 5 aunts and one uncle) live in Philadelphia. I've been to block parties, on my relatives blocks, they have them often, they would hire a band, open up a fire hydrant, it was pure fun. Both of my parents moved to the suburbs of philadelphia before I was born (Most of the rest of my family stayed).

 

I plan to move to the city when I get old enough to buy my own house/condo/rent. I can't imagine living in rural area's. So your post is really insulting to me, and everyone else who can't stand places other the cities.

Edited by Coldgears
Link to comment

http://gothamist.com...ughnut_in_a.php

 

"this weekend the police gave two young women in Bed-Stuy summonses for eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor."

 

Yet another reason to avoid muggles.

 

That kind of crap is why I live in the country outside of city limits.

I hate the suburbs, nothing happens, it's boring and very few people are ever out. No block parties, nothing to do, no stores. Uggh.

I plan to move to the city when I get old enough to buy my own house/condo/rent. I can't imagine living in rural area's. So your post is really insulting to me, and everyone else who can't stand places other the cities.

 

Your post is really insulting to me, and everyone else who can't stand places other the suburbs.

 

Actually, no, it's not, anymore than his was to you... Only person it was insulting to was the doughtnut cop! I'm betting that wasn't you :)

Link to comment

http://gothamist.com...ughnut_in_a.php

 

"this weekend the police gave two young women in Bed-Stuy summonses for eating doughnuts in a playground while unaccompanied by a minor."

 

Yet another reason to avoid muggles.

 

That kind of crap is why I live in the country outside of city limits.

I've lived in the suburbs my whole life, and visit the city very frequently. I hate the suburbs, nothing happens, it's boring and very few people are ever out. No block parties, nothing to do, no stores. Uggh. All of my aunts, uncles, sisters, ect ect... (I have like 5 aunts and one uncle) live in Philadelphia. I've been to block parties, on my relatives blocks, they have them often, they would hire a band, open up a fire hydrant, it was pure fun. Both of my parents moved to the suburbs of philadelphia before I was born (Most of the rest of my family stayed).

 

I plan to move to the city when I get old enough to buy my own house/condo/rent. I can't imagine living in rural area's. So your post is really insulting to me, and everyone else who can't stand places other the cities.

 

I don't understand how that can be insulting to you. It's not like he insulted you personally or anything. One of the benefits of living in the country and outside city limits is that laws (and taxes) are less restrictive. No city ordinances, HOA's are fewer and far between, there's more space to yourself, etc. All it takes to have a party of any kind is someone to say, "Let's have a party!" I've attended plenty of such gatherings in the suburbs and in the country. In the country, it usually involves a fire with marshmallow roasting and catching lightning bugs and games in big fields and getting muddy and sitting on a patio drinking beer. In the suburbs it revolves around houses that have big patios, grills, and maybe a pool...with beer on said patio. It requires you to know your neighbors and invite them over, not for some HOA or neighborhood association to vote and plan everything for you.

 

People who claim the suburbs/country are boring just don't know how to make their own entertainment.

Link to comment

I think the point really is whether caches should be hidden/placed in locations with such restrictions.

 

Well, I suppose they certainly can, but shouldn't the write up have some kind of warning?

 

Yahh, and who actually reads cache write-ups these days?

 

Certainly the 'offenders' should have read the sign, but J.F.C. why does there need to be a park with restrictive age limits!!??

Link to comment
Drinking booze, skateboarding, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are not people, they're activities. It stands to reason that you can allow and not allow certain activities in a park.

 

We're not talking about activities, we're talking about people, and for the most part people who actually pay for that park (with tax dollars they pay) and are not allowed to use. Not the same thing at all, sorry.

 

No, we're still talking about activities. It is illegal to be in the park without a child. "Be" is a verb. It's an activity. It's an activity that is illegal in that park. You cannot BE in the park without a child. Just like drinking booze, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are illegal in many parks.

 

If you're not satisfied with "be" then "accompany" is also an activity. You cannot be in the park unless you are accompanying a child.

 

Are you also anti-library? Because they only let people with library cards take out books. Maybe we should take them to court for discrimination, since they are public places (that are tax-payer-funded!) that have restrictions on allowing certain people to perform certain activities.

Link to comment
Drinking booze, skateboarding, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are not people, they're activities. It stands to reason that you can allow and not allow certain activities in a park.

 

We're not talking about activities, we're talking about people, and for the most part people who actually pay for that park (with tax dollars they pay) and are not allowed to use. Not the same thing at all, sorry.

 

No, we're still talking about activities. It is illegal to be in the park without a child. "Be" is a verb. It's an activity. It's an activity that is illegal in that park. You cannot BE in the park without a child. Just like drinking booze, roller-blading, selling things, and walking dogs are illegal in many parks.

 

If you're not satisfied with "be" then "accompany" is also an activity. You cannot be in the park unless you are accompanying a child.

 

Are you also anti-library? Because they only let people with library cards take out books. Maybe we should take them to court for discrimination, since they are public places (that are tax-payer-funded!) that have restrictions on allowing certain people to perform certain activities.

 

Uh, libraries aren't allowed to tell people they can't come in.

Link to comment

I'd be inclined to sue the city if I were them; a public park is a public park.

 

Absolutely, even when the public equates child molesters and perverts can sit there and leer at tiny children.

This is in NYC. While it may not be to your liking this rule is there to protect children and give them an area to play safely.

 

Yet another reason why geocachers should be acutely aware of where they place caches.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...