Mingo gone again?

3.1k · December 21, 2012

12/21/12
This cache has been on my must do list for a long time. I was bummed to see that it had been muggled. So I came prepared with a new container and log book. But of course it was to big for the correct cache placement. So off to the nearest town with a walmart to get a smaller container and log book. I also picked up a tool to clean out the hole that the cache hides in.

This cache is now back in business to be found. All it needs is for the owner to enable it again.

Here we go again!

Does this mean another "throwdown thread" is about to be posted?

The only reason this cache is getting throwdowns like this, or getting the attention is because it is the oldest active geocache. But, is being on life support really a good thing for this long?

19k · December 21, 2012

12/21/12
This cache has been on my must do list for a long time. I was bummed to see that it had been muggled. So I came prepared with a new container and log book. But of course it was to big for the correct cache placement. So off to the nearest town with a walmart to get a smaller container and log book. I also picked up a tool to clean out the hole that the cache hides in.

This cache is now back in business to be found. All it needs is for the owner to enable it again.

Here we go again!

Well, that kind of settles that. If this is his maintenance plan, then I totally agree that it is unacceptable. What's funny is the disable log. "Getting tired of this". Tired of what? Having to post a log and then wait anxiously to see if someone goes to Walmart and buys a container for you?

Yup, that's what I'm talking about. I'd hate to see the cache go away, I really would... but that would require a bit more effort from the cache owner than he appears to be willing to give it.

9.3k · December 21, 2012

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

What it does not say, (and it not says it quite emphatically), is who the person making the visits must be. It tells me that I am the person responsible for occasional visits to my cache. If I call up BillyBobNosePicker and ask them to pop by my cache, then I have satisfied that condition, as I have ensured my cache gets a visit.

Yes, if you call Billybob up, you are taking responsibility that your cache gets visited.

The same could be said for watching the logs on your cache. It really doesn't matter who the actual person is that makes the visit, or why they visited. If they log that all is well, or take corrective action so that all is well when they left, you have fulfilled your part of the bargain.

9.3k · December 21, 2012

But, is being on life support really a good thing for this long?

If the cache owner and the local Reviewer are okay with it, "Meh"...

No worries from over here in the cheap seats.

19k · December 21, 2012

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

What it does not say, (and it not says it quite emphatically), is who the person making the visits must be. It tells me that I am the person responsible for occasional visits to my cache. If I call up BillyBobNosePicker and ask them to pop by my cache, then I have satisfied that condition, as I have ensured my cache gets a visit.

Yes, if you call Billybob up, you are taking responsibility that your cache gets visited.

The same could be said for watching the logs on your cache. It really doesn't matter who the actual person is that makes the visit, or why they visited. If they log that all is well, or take corrective action so that all is well when they left, you have fulfilled your part of the bargain.

I think you're just being argumentative, CR. Sure, it could happen that your cache went missing and somebody threw down a new one, and you were convinced by the DNF logs that your original truely was missing and that the new one actually was rehidden where it is supposed to be... and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch. You *should* still visit it to make sure you don't have two caches there, or that the new one is where it is supposed to be. But when it happens over and over and over again, something is wrong.

9.3k · December 21, 2012

I think you're just being argumentative, CR.

Not really. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

...and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch.

So is interpreting the Guidelines as a directive to visit your cache, when no problem has been suggested.

You *should* still visit it to make sure you don't have two caches there...

Unless you decide, based on the logs, that all is well.

Then there really is no need to visit, at that time.

For instance, if you went hunting my Dr Who themed Wherigo, and your log was to the effect of, "Looked for a few seconds. Didn't see anything. Threw down a film can", then I would agree, absolutely, that a visit to my cache is imperative. But if your log were more to the effect of, "Got to ground zero, hunted the likely spots and came up empty. Checked the hint, and found a depression in the shape of a 50 calibre ammo can, and a severed tether. Looked at the photos and confirmed this was where it used to be. Spent about an hour searching an ever widening circle, just in case it somehow broke its tether and migrated away. I took the liberty of bringing a fully stocked replacement 50 calibre ammo can with me, which I attached to the same tether. I hope this is okay? I will remove it if need be. I will send a picture to the cache owner showing exactly where I put my throw down", then I would check your photo only to ensure you got the GZ right, and thank you profusely for saving me a trip.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Clan Riffster

19k · December 21, 2012

...and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch.

So is interpreting the Guidelines as a directive to visit your cache, when no problem has been suggested.

Where did THAT come from? I have neither said, nor implied any such thing. Everything I have been saying is assuming there is evidence, through logs, that there is a problem. For that matter, everything I've been posting here is in light of Mingo in its current status. Don't read more into what I'm saying than that. Edited December 21, 2012 by knowschad

6.1k · December 21, 2012

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

What it does not say, (and it not says it quite emphatically), is who the person making the visits must be. It tells me that I am the person responsible for occasional visits to my cache. If I call up BillyBobNosePicker and ask them to pop by my cache, then I have satisfied that condition, as I have ensured my cache gets a visit.

Yes, if you call Billybob up, you are taking responsibility that your cache gets visited.

The same could be said for watching the logs on your cache. It really doesn't matter who the actual person is that makes the visit, or why they visited. If they log that all is well, or take corrective action so that all is well when they left, you have fulfilled your part of the bargain.

I think you're just being argumentative, CR. Sure, it could happen that your cache went missing and somebody threw down a new one, and you were convinced by the DNF logs that your original truely was missing and that the new one actually was rehidden where it is supposed to be... and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch. You *should* still visit it to make sure you don't have two caches there, or that the new one is where it is supposed to be. But when it happens over and over and over again, something is wrong.

Yes, something is wrong with the maggot who has habitually destroyed the cache a few times. In this instance, I think rather you are being argumentative in insisting the owner should come out each time and personally deal with the guy. It is a very popular cache and has more than enough community support to keep it going. You have an extreme situation pitting an obsessive muggle nutcase versus the cache owner. It's refreshing to see some teamwork in others who are eager to help the Kansas Stasher, rather than have him duke it out himself.

Edited December 21, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

5k · December 21, 2012

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

What it does not say, (and it not says it quite emphatically), is who the person making the visits must be. It tells me that I am the person responsible for occasional visits to my cache. If I call up BillyBobNosePicker and ask them to pop by my cache, then I have satisfied that condition, as I have ensured my cache gets a visit.

Yes, if you call Billybob up, you are taking responsibility that your cache gets visited.

The same could be said for watching the logs on your cache. It really doesn't matter who the actual person is that makes the visit, or why they visited. If they log that all is well, or take corrective action so that all is well when they left, you have fulfilled your part of the bargain.

I think you're just being argumentative, CR. Sure, it could happen that your cache went missing and somebody threw down a new one, and you were convinced by the DNF logs that your original truely was missing and that the new one actually was rehidden where it is supposed to be... and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch. You *should* still visit it to make sure you don't have two caches there, or that the new one is where it is supposed to be. But when it happens over and over and over again, something is wrong.

Yes, something is wrong with the maggot who has habitually destroyed the cache a few times. In this instance, I think rather you are being argumentative in insisting the owner should come out each time and personally deal with the guy. It is a very popular cache and has more than enough community support to keep it going. You have an extreme situation pitting an obsessive muggle nutcase versus the cache owner. It's refreshing to see some teamwork in others who are eager to help the Kansas Stasher out, rather than have him duke it out himself.

I'm going to have to concede the point to Knowschad. It is starting to look like the "community support" is not local and just happens to be whoever has a vacation planned at the same time that it goes missing. That really is not how a cache should be maintained.

Not that it matters, but I would feel better about this if the cache was at least being maintained by the local caching community and not the global one. The oldest cache in Los Angeles County has never had any maintenance from the CO, but it has had constant support from the local caching community. If something happens, we don't wait around for someone from Kansas to show up and fix it.

19k · December 21, 2012

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

What it does not say, (and it not says it quite emphatically), is who the person making the visits must be. It tells me that I am the person responsible for occasional visits to my cache. If I call up BillyBobNosePicker and ask them to pop by my cache, then I have satisfied that condition, as I have ensured my cache gets a visit.

Yes, if you call Billybob up, you are taking responsibility that your cache gets visited.

The same could be said for watching the logs on your cache. It really doesn't matter who the actual person is that makes the visit, or why they visited. If they log that all is well, or take corrective action so that all is well when they left, you have fulfilled your part of the bargain.

I think you're just being argumentative, CR. Sure, it could happen that your cache went missing and somebody threw down a new one, and you were convinced by the DNF logs that your original truely was missing and that the new one actually was rehidden where it is supposed to be... and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch. You *should* still visit it to make sure you don't have two caches there, or that the new one is where it is supposed to be. But when it happens over and over and over again, something is wrong.

Yes, something is wrong with the maggot who has habitually destroyed the cache a few times. In this instance, I think rather you are being argumentative in insisting the owner should come out each time and personally deal with the guy. It is a very popular cache and has more than enough community support to keep it going. You have an extreme situation pitting an obsessive muggle nutcase versus the cache owner. It's refreshing to see some teamwork in others who are eager to help the Kansas Stasher out, rather than have him duke it out himself.

I'm going to have to concede the point to Knowschad. It is starting to look like the "community support" is not local and just happens to be whoever has a vacation planned at the same time that it goes missing. That really is not how a cache should be maintained.

Not that it matters, but I would feel better about this if the cache was at least being maintained by the local caching community and not the global one. The oldest cache in Los Angeles County has never had any maintenance from the CO, but it has had constant support from the local caching community. If something happens, we don't wait around for someone from Kansas to show up and fix it.

And I am going to have to give in a little to 4WF... it is true that this is not a normal needs maintenance situation. Still, I'd feel a lot better if I knew that Kansas Stasher had at least visited the cache site once or twice during all of this (which possibly he has... we're all 2nd guessing here)

9.3k · December 22, 2012

...and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch.

So is interpreting the Guidelines as a directive to visit your cache, when no problem has been suggested.

Where did THAT come from?

From here:

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

19k · December 23, 2012

...and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch.

So is interpreting the Guidelines as a directive to visit your cache, when no problem has been suggested.

Where did THAT come from?

From here:

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

That was a quote, not an interpretation.

9.3k · December 23, 2012

...and so you don't feel the need to physically visit your cache. That could happen. But its a stretch.

So is interpreting the Guidelines as a directive to visit your cache, when no problem has been suggested.

Where did THAT come from?

From here:

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

That was a quote, not an interpretation.

You 'interpreted' that quote to mean more than it did.

Ergo, your post was both a quote and an interpretation.

3.7k · December 23, 2012

I wish they'd just let it die. It's buried, for crying out loud.

December 23, 2012

I wish they'd just let it die. It's buried, for crying out loud.

So are the roots of a tree, and nobody argues trees should be left to die.

I really struggle to understand why there is such negativity on this forum towards something that is part of caching history. Surely we should all want it to survive? If we let Mingo die, don't you think another piece of caching history will get targeted (like GCD and the Washington Ape Cache were)? Better to make a stand and fight it out in a place that is easy to make maintenance visits (which certainly isn't the case for GCD, nor for the departed WA Ape cache).

Also has anyone thought that Mingo was placed 12+ years ago. How do you know that the Kansas Stasher is still in a fit state to make regular vists? (I personally have no idea whether he/she actually is I have to say). Groundpeak encourage the caching community, I can see no problem in letting the community help out. Sooner or later the clown buying the concrete will get bored or run out of concrete.

2.8k · December 23, 2012

I really struggle to understand why there is such negativity on this forum towards something that is part of caching history. Surely we should all want it to survive? If we let Mingo die, don't you think another piece of caching history will get targeted (like GCD and the Washington Ape Cache were)? Better to make a stand and fight it out in a place that is easy to make maintenance visits (which certainly isn't the case for GCD, nor for the departed WA Ape cache).

It is a part of the history only because it is currently the longest running active cache. If it were to be archived, that record would be broken 2 days later by the next oldest cache. Then everyone will flock to that one since it is the longest running cache. Repeat.

3.7k · December 23, 2012

I wish they'd just let it die. It's buried, for crying out loud.

So are the roots of a tree, and nobody argues trees should be left to die.

Is this your logic? The cache is buried, which is against current guidelines. It also has a CO who is not maintaining it anymore. Other than its age, it hasn't got any particular merits. I say let it go.

5k · December 23, 2012

I wish they'd just let it die. It's buried, for crying out loud.

So are the roots of a tree, and nobody argues trees should be left to die.

I really struggle to understand why there is such negativity on this forum towards something that is part of caching history. Surely we should all want it to survive? If we let Mingo die, don't you think another piece of caching history will get targeted (like GCD and the Washington Ape Cache were)? Better to make a stand and fight it out in a place that is easy to make maintenance visits (which certainly isn't the case for GCD, nor for the departed WA Ape cache).

Also has anyone thought that Mingo was placed 12+ years ago. How do you know that the Kansas Stasher is still in a fit state to make regular vists? (I personally have no idea whether he/she actually is I have to say). Groundpeak encourage the caching community, I can see no problem in letting the community help out. Sooner or later the clown buying the concrete will get bored or run out of concrete.

If the CO can't maintain his cache, he should adopt it out to someone who has the passion about it that we see from those that defend it in these forums.

If he simply wont maintain it, then it should be archived. As far as community. What community. Are random cachers from all over the country a community? The issue behind the negativity on the forum is that there does not appear to be an organized effort by anyone to keep this cache maintained. It's simply wait until a cacher comes by and decides to take it upon themselves to replace it.

3.6k · December 23, 2012

Oh there is more trouble now...I think it got damage again. :blink:

Stopped by for some coffee with The Coffee Bug ( pics to follow when I'm able to connect my phone )...

Sadly, more damage near GZ... Looks like a tub of glue was dumped... Not sure, but it definitely did not smell good for the environment. Glad I saw it before stepping in it.

Oh let just shut it down. Someone is having too much fun messing with the biggest fish of the geocaching world and knows that a good share of cachers will keep feeding his/her needs to keep on damaging it. The cache is "over" and its time for the geocaching community to let it go. If we just archived it, we are removing his/her fun but he/she knows it wont happen. Thats where the problem is at. Someone is going to have to give up.

5k · December 23, 2012

Oh there is more trouble now...I think it got damage again.

Stopped by for some coffee with The Coffee Bug ( pics to follow when I'm able to connect my phone )...

Sadly, more damage near GZ... Looks like a tub of glue was dumped... Not sure, but it definitely did not smell good for the environment. Glad I saw it before stepping in it.

Oh let just shut it down. Someone is having too much fun messing with the biggest fish of the geocaching world and knows that a good share of cachers will keep feeding his/her needs to keep on damaging it. The cache is "over" and its time for the geocaching community to let it go. If we just archived it, we are removing his/her fun but he/she knows it wont happen. Thats where the problem is at. Someone is going to have to give up.

Sigh! Geocaching's sacred cow is becoming a joke.

1.4k · December 23, 2012

Thats where the problem is at. Someone is going to have to give up.

Well I for one hope that it isn't us that gives up, cant we just move it a little ways away?

SS

5k · December 23, 2012

Thats where the problem is at. Someone is going to have to give up.

Well I for one hope that it isn't us that gives up, cant we just move it a little ways away?

SS

"We" can't do anything. The cache owner needs to maintain his cache.

9.3k · December 24, 2012

I really struggle to understand why there is such negativity on this forum towards something that is part of caching history.

Because picking up torches & pitchforks requires very little effort...

Angst is just one of the bandwagons circling around this forum.

Those naturally geared toward negativity hop on every time it circles around.

6.1k · December 24, 2012

Mingo was repaired a few days ago by a kind soul, and the owner reenabled it, but the pile of poo continues.

Stay tuned Mingo fans for the next muggling. Will the pichforks come out against the cache owner? Or will it be a helpful cacher's motive that triggers the arming of pointy implements of destruction?

Or will cachers team up and rail against the muggle who is providing the forum with subpar entertainment? :rolleyes:

Edited December 24, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

December 24, 2012

Any other thread like this one, I would read, muse over, say "meh" and move on without comment. But... I guess this one provoked a comment. It seems... I don't even know the word... "shameful?" nah... that doesn't really fit. "Sad?" yeah I could use that one... not sure.

It just kinda bugs me that the CO can take the time and effort to log on, temporarily disable the listing, wait... wait some more... then, after some kind soul repairs the cache, log back on and re-enable it.

I don't know the CO, or his life-situation, but it seems to me if all he can do is the online part, could he at least audit the Trackables list??

I am just giving my summation of the situation, but (IMO) this is the perfect example af a neglectful owner. I think that IF this is all the effort the CO can put forth, perhaps an adoption to a more active owner is in order. Barring that... someone with a need to be publicly roasted by the Geocaching world should pull the trigger on a N.A.

Looking on... this just seems like the poster child of how not to own a cache. As someone mentioned earlier... this is becoming a joke.

edit;speelink

Edited December 24, 2012 by NeecesandNephews

6.1k · December 24, 2012

The most bizarre part of this tale, is that the cache owner is being victimized by someone over and over again, but yet now he is the bad guy because others are helping him? :blink:

This is not a poorly designed container that is being damaged by the elements. And people ask why there is so much negativity in the forums..

19k · December 24, 2012

The most bizarre part of this tale, is that the cache owner is being victimized by someone over and over again, but yet now he is the bad guy because others are helping him?

This is not a poorly designed container that is being damaged by the elements. And people ask why there is so much negativity in the forums..

Well, "Bad guy" is a bit of deliberate hyperbole, but ignoring that... it isn't because others are helping him. Its because, time and time again, he is simply waiting for others to help him. There is a huge difference there. If I ever fall into that mode of "cache maintenance", please archive them all. There is nothing negative about that. I'm talking about taking responsibility for what you have created.

6.1k · December 24, 2012

There is a big difference between someone neglecting their caches which are damaged because of the weather, and someone who is dealing with a cache maggot. In addition, complaining that the owner is not doing the work in person is only encouraging the maggot some more. They are more likely to be discouraged once they figure out that more than one person is fixing it.

A wild guess about the person doing it, is that it could be a disgruntled previous forum regular.

Edited December 24, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

3.6k · December 24, 2012

There is a big difference between someone neglecting their caches which are damaged because of the weather, and someone who is dealing with a cache maggot. In addition, complaining that the owner is not doing the work in person is only encouraging the maggot some more. They are more likely to be discouraged once they figure out that more than one person is fixing it.

A wild guess about the person doing it, is that it could be a disgruntled previous forum regular.

I dont think so...

14k · December 24, 2012

There is a big difference between someone neglecting their caches which are damaged because of the weather, and someone who is dealing with a cache maggot. In addition, complaining that the owner is not doing the work in person is only encouraging the maggot some more. They are more likely to be discouraged once they figure out that more than one person is fixing it.

A wild guess about the person doing it, is that it could be a disgruntled previous forum regular.

I dont think so...

As a wild guess, it's as good as any.

The fact is, we have no idea who is doing it or what their motives are. There has been all sorts of speculation that it's a disgruntled geocacher, a forum regular, a "cache maggot", or someone that is out to spoil the fun for others. It could be someone associated with the road crew that has been working in the area, or someone from the pacific northwest that won't be happy until every cache of historical significance is located nearby.

The fact is, we just don't know

December 24, 2012

There is a big difference between someone neglecting their caches which are damaged because of the weather, and someone who is dealing with a cache maggot. In addition, complaining that the owner is not doing the work in person is only encouraging the maggot some more. They are more likely to be discouraged once they figure out that more than one person is fixing it.

A wild guess about the person doing it, is that it could be a disgruntled previous forum regular.

4wheelin I agree... there is "somewhat" of a different situation here. I may have been quick to cast the CO in a bad light, but certain points I stated are true, in my opinion.

I think Groundspeak , while they have not clearly stated it, allows a "reasonable" amount of time for an Owner to repair a cache that has been flagged N.M. Perhaps the smiley-hungry Cachers who drop a throwdown, or even restore the cache to it's original state are doing it so quickly, that the CO did not have time.

Even if this is the actual case... let me pose this question... does the CO not have a responsibility to act in some way?? As I mentioned... the Trackables log on this cache needs auditing. There are people either dropping throwdowns, or repairing the cache PRIOR to the Owner doing it, and I cannot tell by the logs that any communication is taking place beforehand. I can just speculate. Reading through the logs, I do notice every well-meaning replacer is logging the "Found It". I think a log on a throwdown should be immediately deleted. I think the CO might want to let this settle down a bit before replacing the cache, and these well-meaning (and I use that term loosely) helpers are not giving that a chance. Failure of the CO to act when this happens, further encourages it.

If we believe the best thing for this cache (aside from archive) is to let it remain disabled for a period of time, hoping the maggot loses interest, the CO is going to have to take steps to make that happen. Allowing others to dictate this cache's condition, availability, and more to the point "logability" (if that's a word) is not in my opinion, a display of great cache ownership.

I will give the Owner the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps he is as frustrated about the replacements as forum readers seem to be.

Bottom line is... the CO should be the one responsible for the cache's status. If the cache is disabled, I think the "Found It" logs on it should not be allowed during that time. I am sure this is going to ignite (or re-ignite) the old debate of letting logs stand, or what actually constitutes a find, ect.. It all comes down to the CO. It is HIS (or hers) cache. HE/SHE should be the one taking action. NOT the "well-meaning" helpers. Allowing cachers who are so desperate for the "Found It" on the oldest existing cache, to repair, throwdown, or log it while it is disabled is nonsense. "The Emporer has no clothes!" I am not afraid to say it... these cachers doing this "maintenance" are NOT doing it to help the CO and you darn well know it. This is a perfect example of the cart pulling the horse.

Edited December 24, 2012 by NeecesandNephews

6.1k · December 24, 2012

Perhaps we should review the reasons why throwdowns are bad.

Replaced without the owners knowledge or permission
Hidden in the wrong spot
Commonly uses an inferior container or incorrect size

This does not meet the criteria, nor match what is going on here. Also for all we know, the person who replaced it has received permission. The owner also may have visited the spot. If he hadn't, it's really nobody's business. The cache is currently repaired and enabled by the owner.

The fact is, we have no idea who is doing it or what their motives are. There has been all sorts of speculation that it's a disgruntled geocacher, a forum regular, a "cache maggot", or someone that is out to spoil the fun for others. It could be someone associated with the road crew that has been working in the area, or someone from the pacific northwest that won't be happy until every cache of historical significance is located nearby.

You left out that it could be someone who thinks it sets a poor example for other caches by being buried. In any case, someone is trying very hard to have it forcibly archived by vandalizing the area. Knowing that a team of people are thwarting his efforts may discourage him. Having a thread open where other geocachers are complaining that it wasn't repaired by the owner himself only encourages the obsessive maggot. I suppose that if they are an active geocacher, they may eventually post the same in here.

Actually, I'd prefer it if the owner didn't do much. That would show that there isn't too much work being done by any one person to reverse the damage. If they keep it up, eventually they will get caught.

Edited December 24, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

3k · December 25, 2012

Filled with cement/concrete 3 times in one year??? :huh: Someone needs a new hobby... :smile:

3.6k · December 25, 2012

Filled with cement/concrete 3 times in one year??? Someone needs a new hobby...

1) dirt

2) industrial foam

3) possible joint filler

4) concrete

5) cement soup

6) attempted glue?

19k · December 26, 2012

I made this about a year ago from actual snippets of conversation found in this very thread. Please don't take it too seriously... its all in fun!

3.3k · December 26, 2012

I thought that

was really

interesting to watch.

Thanks for posting

it here. It

is right on point for this

discussion in my

opinion.

Mingo gone again?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation