Jump to content

Cache thief, stealing caches, leaving nasty comments, forcing reviewer into archiving them and now is going to city council to have geocaching banned.


Coldgears

Recommended Posts

Yeppers, This has been burning my butt for the last couple of days. Today was the last straw though. Someone was removing caches from the Medford NJ area, which is a short drive from me, and I have cached their a few times.

 

Over the last few days, caches were dissappearing...

 

"Did a maintenance check today, only to find three of the four stages missing. The hollow log hiding the final was also missing - that's not some kid finding the cache, that's someone's deliberate act of removing a cache. I think I know who, but why bother? It's just a game.

 

Well, it was 8 years of fun. Archiving now."

 

"This cache was removed by someone with an ax to grind. Too bad. Some people just don't know how to have fun.

 

Arching now."

 

"Yup. It's gone. Not sure why somebody would take a fake sprinkler head. Maybe we're another victim of the cache bandit, maybe they re-mulched. Our apologies to those that hunted in vain."

 

That was okay. But now the guy is PUBLICALLY showing his displeasure. He writing Needs Archived notes, and saying, in his logs, that these are trash.

 

"This piece of garbage has been disposed of. I am disappointed to discover that there are many who play this game and TRESPASS without any regard to the residents."

 

"How does one come to the conclusion to TRESPASS though other people's backyards? IT should be OBVIOUS that it is only open to local residents."

 

"THERE IS A SIGN WHICH READS:

 

CRANBERRY LAKES CONDOMINIUMS

PRIVATE PROPERTY RESIDENTS ONLY

 

ANOTHER SIGN WHICH READS:

 

PRIVATE PROPERTY

NO TRESPASSING, SWIMMING, FISHING, BOATING

 

ALL OFFENDERS WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW.

 

THESE ARE NOT NEW SIGNS. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO READ? DO ALL YOU PEOPLE ROUTINELY TRESPASS? PERHAPS I SHOULD REQUEST TO THE TOWN COUNCIL THAT THIS ENTIRE ACTIVITY SHOULD BE BANNED IN MEDFORD."

 

"I have removed several pieces of trash from this game hidden on private property without permission and there will be more."

 

From my understanding, there WAS adequate permission gained. It was explained IN THE DESCRIPTION of the cache. This guy has not read it, and seems to assume that it is trespassing.

 

It would be a SHAME to have geocaching abolished in Medford.

 

Is there anything that can be done?

Link to comment

First if he is leaving logs then you can get the froggie to lock his account. He will probably pop up again but it is a start.

 

Do you have a list of the ones that he has forced a reviewer to archive?

 

The CO's could get the police involved but I doubt they will expend much energy on such a low level crime.

 

Lastly two beers and the serenity prayer.

Link to comment

Lastly two beers and the serenity prayer.

 

Might be a problem for a 12yr old. :blink:

I sincerely hope you didn't just imply I am anywhere near the age range of 12.

 

I'm afraid you are closer to 12 than 21.

I don't want to de-rail my thread. I just think that geoBain either was trying to agitate me, or was clueless. Either way, I felt compelled to say something.

Edited by Coldgears
Link to comment

Lastly two beers and the serenity prayer.

 

Might be a problem for a 12yr old. :blink:

I sincerely hope you didn't just imply I am anywhere near the age range of 12.

 

I'm afraid you are closer to 12 than 21.

 

Wow! You have a dilemma, for sure. That is a very obvious cache thief. Ironically, merely by starting this thread, you may have tossed gas on the fire. The "maggot" (I really hate that term, seeing it as "hate speech") may very well be reading this thread and feeling rewarded by it. There really isn't much that can be done. There was that case of the guy in NY that was caught by the police and hit some very rough roads while going through court for theft, but it is unlikely for that to happen again.

 

Many people suggest trying to set a trap, such as a deer cam or hiding out, or whatever, but the problem then becomes, what to do when & if you catch the guy. Almost anything you might do that would be satisfying could also cause you to end up in jail.

 

By the way, are any of these PM caches?

Link to comment

Lastly two beers and the serenity prayer.

 

Might be a problem for a 12yr old. :blink:

I sincerely hope you didn't just imply I am anywhere near the age range of 12.

 

I'm afraid you are closer to 12 than 21.

I don't want to de-rail my thread. I just think that geoBain either was trying to agitate me, or was

 

Nah, I think he was just making a funny.

I don't read anything more into it.

 

As to the issue, I would report the logs to the powers that be at GC.com and see what they can do.

Link to comment

 

"How does one come to the conclusion to TRESPASS though other people's backyards? IT should be OBVIOUS that it is only open to local residents."

 

"THERE IS A SIGN WHICH READS:

 

CRANBERRY LAKES CONDOMINIUMS

PRIVATE PROPERTY RESIDENTS ONLY

 

ANOTHER SIGN WHICH READS:

 

PRIVATE PROPERTY

NO TRESPASSING, SWIMMING, FISHING, BOATING

 

ALL OFFENDERS WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW.

 

THESE ARE NOT NEW SIGNS. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO READ? DO ALL YOU PEOPLE ROUTINELY TRESPASS? PERHAPS I SHOULD REQUEST TO THE TOWN COUNCIL THAT THIS ENTIRE ACTIVITY SHOULD BE BANNED IN MEDFORD."

 

"I have removed several pieces of trash from this game hidden on private property without permission and there will be more."

 

From my understanding, there WAS adequate permission gained. It was explained IN THE DESCRIPTION of the cache. This guy has not read it, and seems to assume that it is trespassing.

 

I'm not going to condone the removal of caches, but it seems to me that if the caches were, in fact, located in a private residential community with "private property, no trespassing" signs, adequate permission is not enough. If there are signs which explicitly say that the general public is not allowed to go to a specific area, there better be explicit permission which makes an allowance for geocaching.

 

Since the caches are archived we can't see what was written in the description.

 

Has the cache thief removed caches located outside the residential community?

 

Based on your story, it sounds like if the caches were located in a private residential community they should have been archived long ago.

Link to comment
Since the caches are archived we can't see what was written in the description.

I think we could, if we had the GC numbers. Not if they were retracted, but these sound like run-of-the-mill archivals.

 

Easy Peasy...Just click on his username and his profile pops up. You can view his caches.

 

(I don't have time to care to look, but in case someone else did)

Link to comment
Since the caches are archived we can't see what was written in the description.

I think we could, if we had the GC numbers. Not if they were retracted, but these sound like run-of-the-mill archivals.

 

Easy Peasy...Just click on his username and his profile pops up. You can view his caches.

 

(I don't have time to care to look, but in case someone else did)

 

The OP is not the cache owner, so that won't help much.

 

Perhaps he has found the caches in question previously, so maybe going through all of his cache finds might help. Who knows?

 

Listing GC codes would at least let us see if it's a trend, or just a problem with a few caches placed on private property by one cache hider.

Link to comment

I don't understand the use of " in the OP's post.....are you posting notes that were written to you or something?

 

I agree, the original post is confusing. I'm assuming that these are logs posted on caches that the OP has read.

 

Using the quote tagging would have made the post easier to read.

 

Linking to the cache pages, or at least including the GC codes, would have made things crystal clear.

Link to comment

It's hard to say. If it was truly just a property issue then getting the caches archived would be enough, right? But if this maggot is stealing caches and not willing to return the property to the cache owner then it is theft. For any COs in the area they should clearly label their caches and logs, make sure they have explicit permission (where needed), and the best thing to do is head this guy off. Medford cachers should go ahead to the City Council and let them know what geocaching really is about, show them the positives, show that (for the most part) their caches are placed on public property, and that we as a community do not condone trespassing but it sometimes happens. Show them CITOs and maybe get stats on how many people (like yourself) have come to Medford just to cache. As the ET highway has shown if the community can clearly see the positive business impact they will be much more open to caching.

Link to comment
Since the caches are archived we can't see what was written in the description.

I think we could, if we had the GC numbers. Not if they were retracted, but these sound like run-of-the-mill archivals.

 

Easy Peasy...Just click on his username and his profile pops up. You can view his caches.

 

(I don't have time to care to look, but in case someone else did)

 

The OP is not the cache owner, so that won't help much.

 

Perhaps he has found the caches in question previously, so maybe going through all of his cache finds might help. Who knows?

 

 

Five minute of my life I'll never get back, but Coldgears has not found any archived caches in New Jersey which contain such drama on the cache pages.

 

I did however catch him logging an unlocked virtual cache that was archived in 2004 though. :laughing:

Link to comment

"How does one come to the conclusion to TRESPASS though other people's backyards? IT should be OBVIOUS that it is only open to local residents."

 

"THERE IS A SIGN WHICH READS:

 

CRANBERRY LAKES CONDOMINIUMS

PRIVATE PROPERTY RESIDENTS ONLY

 

ANOTHER SIGN WHICH READS:

 

PRIVATE PROPERTY

NO TRESPASSING, SWIMMING, FISHING, BOATING

 

ALL OFFENDERS WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW.

 

THESE ARE NOT NEW SIGNS. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO READ? DO ALL YOU PEOPLE ROUTINELY TRESPASS? PERHAPS I SHOULD REQUEST TO THE TOWN COUNCIL THAT THIS ENTIRE ACTIVITY SHOULD BE BANNED IN MEDFORD."

 

"I have removed several pieces of trash from this game hidden on private property without permission and there will be more."

 

From my understanding, there WAS adequate permission gained. It was explained IN THE DESCRIPTION of the cache. This guy has not read it, and seems to assume that it is trespassing.

 

I'm not going to condone the removal of caches, but it seems to me that if the caches were, in fact, located in a private residential community with "private property, no trespassing" signs, adequate permission is not enough. If there are signs which explicitly say that the general public is not allowed to go to a specific area, there better be explicit permission which makes an allowance for geocaching.

 

Since the caches are archived we can't see what was written in the description.

 

Has the cache thief removed caches located outside the residential community?

 

Based on your story, it sounds like if the caches were located in a private residential community they should have been archived long ago.

 

Those are only two of the caches that Coldgears referenced, though. In those two caches, it certainly sounds as though somebody with a personal interest in the private property being mentioned, found, and removed the caches, and that is totally understandable. But we don't know if that was the case on all of those that CG mentioned.

Link to comment
There was that case of the guy in NY that was caught by the police and hit some very rough roads while going through court for theft, but it is unlikely for that to happen again.
I wouldn't call it "very rough roads."

 

A couple court dates and "keep your nose clean for 6 months and it'll go away." No fines, no restitution. The official wording was "an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal). If he does not commit (or alleged to commit) these types of crimes for six months the case is dismissed."

 

The worst that may have come of it was that if he was working on a government/defense contract (not terribly unlikely given the area he was in), it may have affected his employment status. But no one ever heard anything about that.

Edited by dakboy
Link to comment
There was that case of the guy in NY that was caught by the police and hit some very rough roads while going through court for theft, but it is unlikely for that to happen again.
I wouldn't call it "very rough roads."

 

A couple court dates and "keep your nose clean for 6 months and it'll go away." No fines, no restitution. The official wording was "an ACD (Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal). If he does not commit (or alleged to commit) these types of crimes for six months the case is dismissed."

 

The worst that may have come of it was that if he was working on a government/defense contract (not terribly unlikely given the area he was in), it may have affected his employment status. But no one ever heard anything about that.

Throw in some legal expenses and some nights with cold sweats and I'd still call it rough roads. You may not think so, but I'm guessing that he would agree that it wasn't the most pleasant time of his life.

Link to comment

"maggot" (I really hate that term, seeing it as "hate speech")

 

My dad used to call us maggots. As in, "Alright, you maggots, get in the car, we're leaving." So in that sense, I see it as a term of endearment. I passed the tradition on to my day camp kids back when I was a counselor.

 

Maybe it's context-sensitive -- I am a maggot, so I can use it, but it's bigotry if you use it to refer to me.

 

:laughing:

 

As for the cache thief in question -- definitely report it to The Frog, see what they advise. Cache thieves are a pain -- just ask folks in the Pacific Northwest, or Maryland, or Rome, New York.

Link to comment
Medford cachers should go ahead to the City Council

Lots of good advice in Ike's post, but, if ColdGears' predictions regarding this guy trying to ban geocaching in Medford are true, I would see this as the most critical element for a defensive strike. I've found it is virtually impossible to change the minds of true believers. If you wish to test your skills in this field, find a roadside Evangelist and try convincing them that other Religions are every bit as valid as the one they chose. This guy obviously believes in his cause, so appealing to his common sense might not be productive. But by carefully crafting a response to his rants, and presenting such to the City Council, you can make him look like a kook.

 

As to the issue of caches in a private community, I agree that these can cause problems. Most of the private communities I deal with have Home Owner Association rules which allow residents to invite guests into the community. Typically, these require that the guest proceed directly from the entrance to the resident's house, and/or they must be with the resident. My interpretation of such a rule would be that it would prohibit a resident from placing caches in the community for unescorted "guests" to find. Other communities may have entirely different rules.

 

Note: These rules are not laws, and as such, mostly cannot be enforced by law enforcement.

Link to comment

"maggot" (I really hate that term, seeing it as "hate speech")

 

My dad used to call us maggots. As in, "Alright, you maggots, get in the car, we're leaving." So in that sense, I see it as a term of endearment. I passed the tradition on to my day camp kids back when I was a counselor.

 

Maybe it's context-sensitive -- I am a maggot, so I can use it, but it's bigotry if you use it to refer to me.

 

:laughing:

 

As for the cache thief in question -- definitely report it to The Frog, see what they advise. Cache thieves are a pain -- just ask folks in the Pacific Northwest, or Maryland, or Rome, New York.

 

I called a lot of fine young men (and a few not so fine), maggots for 2 years. If anyone else called them maggots, there would be problems. They were my maggots while under my area of operations.

 

As for the thief, remember, it's only a crime if you get caught... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Medford cachers should go ahead to the City Council

 

Agreed, not sure I would poke a sleeping bear just yet if how coldgears represented is fact. When doing so, realize it is the cache hider that created this issue, not the property owner or city council.

 

Going in with that attitude and explaining that this cache hider is not representative of cachers in the area or caching in general will go a long way.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment
Is there anything that can be done?

 

Sure, don't hide caches on private property without permission.

Cachers who find caches that are clearly placed without permission should use the Needs Archive log.

 

Unless a property owner has asked that you remove the cache, you shouldn't be taking the cache.

 

You can put in your online logs that you were confronted by a property owner or you have doubts as to the legality of cache on the cache page; you shouldn't be using the cache page to rant against all caches on private property.

 

My guess is this is someone who got tired of confrontation with property owners and decided to take matters into their own hand. It still doesn't justify stealing caches, ranting on cache pages, and threatening to do more of the same. There are tools provided by Groundspeak for dealing with problem caches.

Link to comment

I'd say these look more probable:

Lake Mishe Mokwa and ockanick-inn. And I see others in the area.

This would be Medford Township, not city or town. Google Maps show it as part of Burlington Co Camps Acq, but Google maps is not very reliable. And perhaps that's part of the problem here???

I've never heard of a towship council prohibiting geocaching in the township. Township lands, perhaps. But these days who knows?

Link to comment

I'd say these look more probable:

Lake Mishe Mokwa and ockanick-inn. And I see others in the area.

This would be Medford Township, not city or town. Google Maps show it as part of Burlington Co Camps Acq, but Google maps is not very reliable. And perhaps that's part of the problem here???

I've never heard of a towship council prohibiting geocaching in the township. Township lands, perhaps. But these days who knows?

 

I'd say you are correct, sir!

 

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

Link to comment

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

 

Okay. What other issues? Grin and Bear It. Steve the Bear

 

Well, for one, none of the caches that RPACE9 posted NAs on was a multi, but CG's post included this quote:

 

"Did a maintenance check today, only to find three of the four stages missing. The hollow log hiding the final was also missing - that's not some kid finding the cache, that's someone's deliberate act of removing a cache. I think I know who, but why bother? It's just a game."

 

And there are others.

Link to comment

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

 

Actually, these are answered, the private property issue does appear to answer all the other issues. See the logs for the rest of the story left out by the OP.

 

It appears that one cacher posted all the logs the OP quoted. It appears that this was someone either representing the homeowners association or was a member that created a account to find the caches and remove them. They probably did so after finding one by accident, possibly the one of the two you listed that does not have a log from them.

Link to comment

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

 

Okay. What other issues? Grin and Bear It. Steve the Bear

I found the Grin and Bear it cache several years ago. It definitely appeared to be on private property to me. I called the phone number on the sign and it did not match the name, plus the person did not own any property in the area so I let it go and assumed the signs were outdated or invalid.

It's ashame as there was a legal spot 100 feet away or so, but now any new placement may get muggled by the maggot.

 

The other spots appear to be semi private, but they never check for badges or ID in those places and it should not be a problem for anyone to be there.

Link to comment

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

 

Okay. What other issues? Grin and Bear It. Steve the Bear

I found the Grin and Bear it cache several years ago. It definitely appeared to be on private property to me. I called the phone number on the sign and it did not match the name, plus the person did not own any property in the area so I let it go and assumed the signs were outdated or invalid.

It's ashame as there was a legal spot 100 feet away or so, but now any new placement may get muggled by the maggot.

 

The other spots appear to be semi private, but they never check for badges or ID in those places and it should not be a problem for anyone to be there.

Yes, it is such an ashame. :(:ph34r:

Link to comment

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

 

Okay. What other issues? Grin and Bear It. Steve the Bear

I found the Grin and Bear it cache several years ago. It definitely appeared to be on private property to me. I called the phone number on the sign and it did not match the name, plus the person did not own any property in the area so I let it go and assumed the signs were outdated or invalid.

It's ashame as there was a legal spot 100 feet away or so, but now any new placement may get muggled by the maggot.

 

The other spots appear to be semi private, but they never check for badges or ID in those places and it should not be a problem for anyone to be there.

Yes, it is such an ashame. :(:ph34r:

 

Ashame on you! :lol:

Link to comment

As a relatively new cacher who goes with her two young children, I'm a bit hesitant to chime in here, but since I live near Medford and 2 of the archived cache's were on my watch list, I thought I'd add my nickel's worth.

 

I've heard that Medford police are a bit hesitant about cachers. I suspect it is the secrecy that is involved. In trying to avoid muggles, we can also look like suspicious, potential thieves or vandals. That said, we've never had a problem.

 

There have also been a couple of caches that we've attempted to find and I've felt that we were getting uncomfortable close to private property, so I've called the heathens (children who believe the best path to a cache is a straight line, even if it does involve running through poison ivy) and we've gone on to another location. What can I say, I'm a wimp.

 

Grin and Bear it was noted that it was close to, but not one private property. Didn't want to attempt it during the summer with the humidity and mosquitos and certainly would NEVER attempt it during hunting season (as a runner, I wear very bright colours and frequently call out "I'm not a deer!" when trail running or even on the dirt road near my home).

 

Again, as a newbie, how does one know a cache is legit? Many that we find are in public parks, but they are still not the property of the person leaving the cache.

Link to comment

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

 

Okay. What other issues? Grin and Bear It. Steve the Bear

I found the Grin and Bear it cache several years ago. It definitely appeared to be on private property to me. I called the phone number on the sign and it did not match the name, plus the person did not own any property in the area so I let it go and assumed the signs were outdated or invalid.

It's ashame as there was a legal spot 100 feet away or so, but now any new placement may get muggled by the maggot.

 

The other spots appear to be semi private, but they never check for badges or ID in those places and it should not be a problem for anyone to be there.

Yes, it is such an ashame. :(:ph34r:

 

Ashame on you! :lol:

 

Yes it is a shame, if it was placed 100 feet east it would have been fine.

 

It's more ashame to have people pick on speling erorrs. :rolleyes:

I am so ashamed. :cry:

 

:laughing:

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

However, as I pointed out up above, and nobody responded to... the OP by Coldgears mentions a number of other issues that do not seem to be related to these private property issues. There may be more than one issue here.

 

Okay. What other issues? Grin and Bear It. Steve the Bear

I found the Grin and Bear it cache several years ago. It definitely appeared to be on private property to me. I called the phone number on the sign and it did not match the name, plus the person did not own any property in the area so I let it go and assumed the signs were outdated or invalid.

It's ashame as there was a legal spot 100 feet away or so, but now any new placement may get muggled by the maggot.

 

The other spots appear to be semi private, but they never check for badges or ID in those places and it should not be a problem for anyone to be there.

 

I recall your log 4wheelin, and I too tried following up with Schulman at the time but also wasn't able to find him, so I figured that you must have approached from a different way than me with remains of old signage (the land had been donated to the preserve).

 

When I hid the cache it definitely seemed to fall within the boundaries of the nature preserve, from what I recall the opposite side of the trail from the cache was posted but I checked thoroughly for signage in the immediate area on the side I hid it and saw nothing. I warned about staying to the trail and obeying private property signs in the cache description from the get-go.

 

Rpace first requested it be archived yesterday and I deleted the log and sent him a note asking that he check the cache description before crying wolf about an area he obviously hadn't been to. It appears that in response he actually went out there to find the cache and steal it...after reading this thread I'm thinking of contacting him and trying to arrange to have my property returned, and if he refuses he can take it up with Medford PD.

 

Maybe ground zero has been posted since my hide but at the time this was hidden I accessed legally from Hawkins Road according to the directions from the state's own preserve website and chose a location for ground zero that was not posted as required by law for private property (and an area very nearby it was, so it seemed easy to tell which land was the preserve's and which wasn't).

 

I'm going to go back to rehide this soon and will move it a little bit if the original spot has indeed become sketchy...I've been talking to OReviewer to make sure I'll be in the clear and this user has been reported to Groundspeak. Since I'm picturing RPace as a grumpy old fogey I may also have to up the difficulty to something grumpy old fogeys can't pilfer so easily...

 

also, thanks to FobesMan for posting a note to let me know about this thread :-)

Link to comment

I will comment on 4 of the 6 caches. The "Wood" caches in the Sherwood Forest development. These were hidden by a College kid (according to his profile) in the neighborhood he grew up in. Well, fine and dandy to romp around the woods as a kid in a neighborhood with a homeowners association, assuming, like, your parents live there. :unsure: But to invite the general public to to converge on the neighborhood in hoardes, under the premise "you know every one on the street"? Wrong answer. Knowing a few people on the street is not permission from the homeowners association. The kid hiding them has 26 finds, hasn't logged in in 6 months, and hasn't logged a find on a cache in almost a year. Pretty much just a horrible n00b idea. And a n00b who seems to have lost interest in Geocaching pretty quickly.

 

Now, should some vigilante be creating accounts, removing them, and posting militant logs to Geocaching.com? No. That's way over the top. This is just an all around messed up situation.

Link to comment

I think it sucks that this individual has logged finds then removed the containers. I would be sending a personal message requesting the return of my property - very politely, of course - within 5 days.

If it were an area they live in, and IF the cache was on private property, why couldn't they send an email asking the CO to remove the cache? They are policing other areas, it seems.

A cache near us was archived as it was on private farmland - no permission. Had permission been sought, it would have been given. It was not removed, and I contacted our reviewer asking if he/she wanted me to do so. As the cache is deemed to be the property of the cache owner, I was asked to leave it and only if the reviewer got back to me was I to remove it. The CO's dealt with it, as is right and proper. Took them awhile, but they got it done. This is what RPace9 should have done....but they've only been caching for 24 hours...........

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...