Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Theniyaal

Etiquette question regarding the replacement of an abandoned cache

Recommended Posts

There's a local cache that's been in dire need of maintenance for over three years, and today I found the scattered remains of what's left at ground zero. The cache was originally placed in 2004, and I'd really hate to see it go to waste because of an absentee owner. The current CO hasn't logged on in three years, and with a Needs Maintenance log that spans that same length of time, it's probably quite safe to assume they're not involved with Geocaching any longer. I know that cache adoption isn't possible without the CO's involvement, but what is the etiquette on someone replacing an abandoned cache and performing the upkeep on it, even if their name isn't attached to it? I'd have no problem helping this cache continue on into its' fifteenth year, but I'd hate to do so if such things are frowned upon.

Share this post


Link to post

If there's a NM that hasn't been acted upon in three years it should have been archived a long time ago.

If you want to save the location, post a NA and create a new cache at the same spot.

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Theniyaal said:

There's a local cache that's been in dire need of maintenance for over three years, and today I found the scattered remains of what's left at ground zero. The cache was originally placed in 2004, and I'd really hate to see it go to waste because of an absentee owner. The current CO hasn't logged on in three years, and with a Needs Maintenance log that spans that same length of time, it's probably quite safe to assume they're not involved with Geocaching any longer. I know that cache adoption isn't possible without the CO's involvement, but what is the etiquette on someone replacing an abandoned cache and performing the upkeep on it, even if their name isn't attached to it? I'd have no problem helping this cache continue on into its' fifteenth year, but I'd hate to do so if such things are frowned upon.

One problem I've encountered from  maintaining an old friend's cache is that even though I perform maintenance  quickly,  anytime there's a  DNF or NM posted, I cannot make the red wrench go away. The CO hasn't logged anything in years! I'm happy to help my old friend, but I'm quite limited in what I can do. It's frustrating seeing the red wrench always there, knowing I fix any issues within 2  days. If the reviewer steps in, I will place my own cache there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, on4bam said:

If there's a NM that hasn't been acted upon in three years it should have been archived a long time ago.

If you want to save the location, post a NA and create a new cache at the same spot.

 

 

I'm about to give up on this cache anyway. If my friend cared he would have responded to my numerous emails over the years.  Too bad I didn't accept the offer to adopt when he moved. Dummy me said keep the cache, and I'll maintain it,  never thinking he'd go MIA on me. Lesson learned. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Theniyaal said:

There's a local cache that's been in dire need of maintenance for over three years, and today I found the scattered remains of what's left at ground zero. The cache was originally placed in 2004, and I'd really hate to see it go to waste because of an absentee owner. The current CO hasn't logged on in three years, and with a Needs Maintenance log that spans that same length of time, it's probably quite safe to assume they're not involved with Geocaching any longer. I know that cache adoption isn't possible without the CO's involvement, but what is the etiquette on someone replacing an abandoned cache and performing the upkeep on it, even if their name isn't attached to it? I'd have no problem helping this cache continue on into its' fifteenth year, but I'd hate to do so if such things are frowned upon.

 

Have cachers been logging it over the past three years?  I wonder what's been happening there besides posting an NA log?

 

It may be a spot that's become compromised.  Found by non-cachers, messed with.  If that's the case and you were to place a new cache there, you'd have your work cut out for you.  Good luck!  :)

Share this post


Link to post

To reply to some of your posts, I actively want to avoid the cache being archived; a cache from 2004 seems valuable to me, and I've little desire to see it replaced. I'd have asked the more active reviewer for our area, but I already have a message out to them I'm awaiting a response on, and I don't want to be 'that guy'.

 

The cache has been logged over those years, but the container had fallen into further disrepair as time went on. It was eventually field dressed and vaguely functional up until it was last found a month ago. It has since been destroyed and strewn about, leaving half a container, some scattered swag and no logbook. This is the state I found it in today, and if it took three years for a damaged cache to finally stop kicking, I don't have a problem with risking it happening again.

 

As for why it's been flagged as NM for three years and not been archived, it seems local policy is that if the cache is being logged, it's still fit to be up. It's not until it's reported as missing or the DNFs start to pile up before a reviewer will put the word out the cache will soon be archived for non-responsiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Theniyaal said:

a cache from 2004 seems valuable to me

 

From what you describe there's little more than a pile of litter at the cache location.

 

Would you value that pile of litter as highly if you just found it dumped in a random spot?

 

Would a muggle happening on that pile of litter where it is now think hey - look at that cool pile of litter there - how lovely?

 

In the words of the song - let it go.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Theniyaal said:

There's a local cache that's been in dire need of maintenance for over three years, and today I found the scattered remains of what's left at ground zero. The cache was originally placed in 2004, and I'd really hate to see it go to waste because of an absentee owner. The current CO hasn't logged on in three years, and with a Needs Maintenance log that spans that same length of time, it's probably quite safe to assume they're not involved with Geocaching any longer. I know that cache adoption isn't possible without the CO's involvement, but what is the etiquette on someone replacing an abandoned cache and performing the upkeep on it, even if their name isn't attached to it? I'd have no problem helping this cache continue on into its' fifteenth year, but I'd hate to do so if such things are frowned upon.

 

I have done this myself with good results. In my case, the original container was broken. I replaced the container and dried the original logbook. The cache is still there after many years. As far as you are sure what kind of cache it was and how it was hidden there is no reason not to fix it if you want to participate. Only adding a new cache without knowledge of the original version should be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Theniyaal said:

To reply to some of your posts, I actively want to avoid the cache being archived; a cache from 2004 seems valuable to me, and I've little desire to see it replaced.

 

The placed date shouldn't make a difference.I'm sure no cache would survive 3 years without a OM after a NM around here. Reviewers would have picked that up soon enough and posted a reviewers note followed by a TD and archived log.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

From what you describe there's little more than a pile of litter at the cache location.

Would you value that pile of litter as highly if you just found it dumped in a random spot?

 

I'm not talking about valuing the container, contents or location. When I say it seems valuable because it's fourteen years old, it's the 145 logged visits, and the stories and photos contained within. It just seems really silly to let that all fade into obscurity by archiving it when I can just stick a lock n' lock in ground zero and keep an eye on it, and preserve all of that history. Pretty low risk for what I see as a moderate reward; worst case, it gets looted again and I'm out a couple bucks, some camo tape and some dollar store swag.

 

19 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

The placed date shouldn't make a difference.I'm sure no cache would survive 3 years without a OM after a NM around here. Reviewers would have picked that up soon enough and posted a reviewers note followed by a TD and archived log.

 

 

Bully for your area. I already explained why my local reviewers have elected to leave this one be.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Theniyaal said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

From what you describe there's little more than a pile of litter at the cache location.

Would you value that pile of litter as highly if you just found it dumped in a random spot?

 

I'm not talking about valuing the container, contents or location. When I say it seems valuable because it's fourteen years old, it's the 145 logged visits, and the stories and photos contained within. It just seems really silly to let that all fade into obscurity by archiving it when I can just stick a lock n' lock in ground zero and keep an eye on it, and preserve all of that history. Pretty low risk for what I see as a moderate reward; worst case, it gets looted again and I'm out a couple bucks, some camo tape and some dollar store swag.

 

We're not talking about Stonehenge here, or the pyramids - we're talking about a pile of litter that used to be a cache which the owner seemingly doesn't value at all.

 

Any value for previous finders remains preserved for them in their logs.

 

In fact the whole history of the cache - such as it may be - is preserved.

 

As for fading into obscurity - pretty much every cache does that so I fail to see what's so special about this one - other than maybe it helps someone fill a square on a grid because of its age - even though it's not the original or the original owner.

 

ETA - presumably you have the required number to reinstate the cache to its original status so that the final cache of the series can be found?

 

The first three caches (101, 201, 301) have a number on or in them. You will need these numbers to help solve the final exam (401).

Edited by Team Microdot
Additon
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Theniyaal said:

Bully for your area. I already explained why my local reviewers have elected to leave this one be.

 

I'm glad they work like that, in fact sometimes they miss an abandoned cache and it takes a bit longer, anyway, caches by inactive CO's, no matter what the placed year is have no reason to remain active. 2004 caches are (at least not around here), there are still 48 in my unfound Belgian database (not counting finds).

What would be the placed year abandoned caches can be archived?

 

BTW, read the throwdown threads about "maintaining" other people's caches. There's some good info on how this is looked upon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Theniyaal said:

I'm not talking about valuing the container, contents or location. When I say it seems valuable because it's fourteen years old, it's the 145 logged visits, and the stories and photos contained within. It just seems really silly to let that all fade into obscurity by archiving it when I can just stick a lock n' lock in ground zero and keep an eye on it, and preserve all of that history. Pretty low risk for what I see as a moderate reward; worst case, it gets looted again and I'm out a couple bucks, some camo tape and some dollar store swag.

 

My opinion, and I stress this is just an opinion based on my experiences, is that the cache is best archived. An archived listing doesn't vanish into the never-never, it can still be easily viewed along with all those old logs and photos. And really, if you replace the logbook, container and swag, the only thing that's still original is the listing. If you wanted to preserve it, why not log an NA and then, when it's archived, create a new tribute cache in its place with a link to the old listing on the cache page (https://coord.info/gc-code is the simplest).

 

The worst case isn't that your replacement cache will be muggled and you'll be down a few dollars, the worst case is that in a year or three or five you'll lose interest or move away and when your replacement container falls into disrepair you won't be able to respond or clear any NMs that might be logged, and we'll be having this same discussion all over again.

 

I once thought I was doing the right thing, propping up an old cache with a long-gone CO that had lost its container and had a ball of paper mache for the logbook, replacing it with what I thought was a reasonably waterproof box and a new logbook. Less than a year later the area flooded (again) and my new logbook turned into paper mache, so I did then what I should've done in the first place and logged an NA. I learnt my lesson.

 

Nothing lasts forever and to me, an old cache with a long-gone CO that's been propped up with as many new blades and handles as that proverbial old axe is a bit like the undead haunting the twilight zone.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Nothing lasts forever and to me, an old cache with a long-gone CO that's been propped up with as many new blades and handles as that proverbial old axe is a bit like the undead haunting the twilight zone.

 

Ladies and gentlemen - I give you - Trigger's Broom

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I was going to read and not respond, but then I noticed Team Microdot's post about the code that's supposed to be  in the cache.  You have that code?  how about the code  ( and box ) for Math 201?

there were 4 of these, the last dependent on the first 3. Now there's one apparently still intact and findable. May have code   may not.

the CO has moved on - time to let these go. 

 

Local to me, had I found this, I'd have probably CITO'ed the lidless logless   container bottom, logged a DNF, logged NA, uploaded photo of removed container, and possibly (probably) noted that the bonus cache is also unfindable and NA as well.  

I'm okay with logging that as a find instead. You were hunting for a container there, and found enough of it to be confident of the find.

Replace? no way. 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

If a cache were a parrot...

 

Quote

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I like old caches that are well maintained.

 

I regretfully posted a NA log on a 2002 cache a couple years ago.  CO was out of the game, and the only thing at ground zero (which was itself about 75-100 feet from the coordinates) was the cracked plastic tupperware lid.  I specified it was more of a "needs reviewer attention" than "needs archived."  Reviewer still killed it off two days later because they saw the writing on the wall (and had dealt with this same cacher's abandonment of other caches).

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion, the age of the cache should require a HIGHER standard of care and maintenance by the CO.  We should only value the age if it is holding up and is preserved by the person who put it there.  I see absolutely zero value in a missing cache container.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Theniyaal said:

 

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

From what you describe there's little more than a pile of litter at the cache location.

Would you value that pile of litter as highly if you just found it dumped in a random spot?

 

I'm not talking about valuing the container, contents or location. When I say it seems valuable because it's fourteen years old, it's the 145 logged visits, and the stories and photos contained within

 

When the cache is archived the logs and cache description and stories and original cache owner are preserved. Anyone with the cache code in their inventory has a link to it. If you place your cache there you can link to the old cache in your description. Archiving the cache preserves the history. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Archiving the cache preserves the history. 

 

Yes it does but only like deleting your files from a hard disk. The data remains on the disk surface but you can not see it any longer unless you know exactly how and where to look.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Yes it does but only like deleting your files from a hard disk. The data remains on the disk surface but you can not see it any longer unless you know exactly how and where to look.

 

And that's why L0ne.R has also mentioned:

 

30 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Anyone with the cache code in their inventory has a link to it. If you place your cache there you can link to the old cache in your description.

 

So, if you put a new cache you can also make a great tribute to that log history by making easy to know we can find the archived listing/logbook for all those new visitors to the location. Even you can put the archived owner's name in the "hide by" field and the original date of hiding. It would be like an adoption but just with a new GC-code and an active owner. Perfect solution to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, anpefi said:

 

And that's why L0ne.R has also mentioned:

 

 

So, if you put a new cache you can also make a great tribute to that log history by making easy to know we can find the archived listing/logbook for all those new visitors to the location. Even you can put the archived owner's name in the "hide by" field and the original date of hiding. It would be like an adoption but just with a new GC-code and an active owner. Perfect solution to me.

I do not think anyone should put another geocacher's name in the "hide by" field without their permission, NOR list the new cache's hide date as the date of the old cache.

Edited by Max and 99
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

I do not think anyone should ...  list the new cache's hide date as the date of the old cache.

 

Why not, if it is the same cache hidden originally at that date? It is the hidden date not the publishing date.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Why not, if it is the same cache hidden originally at that date? It is the hidden date not the publishing date.

 

They said new cache. New GC code.  It's not the same cache.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Why not, if it is the same cache hidden originally at that date? It is the hidden date not the publishing date.

 

The container's been replaced, the logbook's been replaced, the swag's been replaced and now the listing's been replaced. In what way is it still the same cache hidden originally at that date?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

 

They said new cache. New GC code.  It's not the same cache.

 

What if it is the same? I have seen a cache published again in the same condition it was archived earlier. The CO allowed to post finds without visiting the site if the cache was already found.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

What if it is the same? I have seen a cache published again in the same condition it was archived earlier. The CO allowed to post finds without visiting the site if the cache was already found.

 

That sounds particularly pointlesd.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

That sounds particularly pointlesd.

 

I thougt that you wanted to see all caches archived and published again. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I thougt that you wanted to see all caches archived and published again. :huh:

 

I have no idea why you would think that.

Share this post


Link to post

Back to the OP my thought is if it is abandoned it needs to be archived through the standard NM/NA route if problems crop up. I kind of wish that GS would have a I'm alive type check to every few years check on a CO, because I can't tell you how many cache I've been to I show up no cache and 5 DNFs in a row. People are afraid of filing the NM/NA since it is an old cache, but I just wasted my time on this one so I definitely prefer owned and maintained caches. If a local cache is valued by the community I hope they reach out to the CO and specifically ask for a handoff plan. For example GC12, Mingo you get my point. I reality most adopted caches are nothing special in my opinion so a archive and new cache is not the end of the world.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Theniyaal said:

To reply to some of your posts, I actively want to avoid the cache being archived; a cache from 2004 seems valuable to me, and I've little desire to see it replaced. I'd have asked the more active reviewer for our area, but I already have a message out to them I'm awaiting a response on, and I don't want to be 'that guy'.

 

Make me feel old.  We hid six caches in 2004!

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/9/2018 at 10:30 AM, on4bam said:

 

The placed date shouldn't make a difference.I'm sure no cache would survive 3 years without a OM after a NM around here. Reviewers would have picked that up soon enough and posted a reviewers note followed by a TD and archived log.

 

You are SO lucky! The reviewers in my country doesn't (and WILL not) do that, and I think it's such a pity :(. They leave it up to the rest of us to be "the bad guys", risking being called geo-police and worse, when we make NA's  :( 

In Denmark you can easily find caches with numerous NM's and a CO that's been "dead" for years.

Well ... The worst part is actually the caches with numerous NM and an ACTIVE CO! Active in the meaning that they have plenty of time to go chasing other caches, but when it comes to maintain of their own, they don't give a s***!  That kind of people really piss me of :mad:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

If the cache is old, the CO has abandoned it, but is still in decent shape then there's no need for it to be archived. However, if the cache is missing or in very bad shape and the CO is inactive then it should be archived definitely.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/4/2018 at 5:01 PM, arisoft said:

 

What if it is the same? I have seen a cache published again in the same condition it was archived earlier. The CO allowed to post finds without visiting the site if the cache was already found.

 

Not sure why any CO believes they are to suggest to seekers that they are "allowed to post finds without visiting the site if the cache was already found.".  CO's do not determine how to log a cache, Geocaching.com does.  To log a find the seeker needs to sign their name in the logbook.  And it is the CO's duty to delete logs where the seeker hasn't done that.

 

"Jaws?  The movie?  Sure I saw it last week." when really the last time I saw it might have been 2007.  Just because someone did something in the past doesn't mean they can say they are allowed to say they did it again in the future.

 

As for "Moldy Oldie Caches", I'm not a fan of community maintenance.  The CO is 100% responsible for all maintenance, like they agreed to at the time of publication.  When they are no long holding up their end of the agreement, the listing is no longer valid and should be acted upon accordingly.

 

"Hey who's sandwich is this in the office fridge?", "Oh, that belongs to Terry.", "Didn't Terry quit three years ago?", "Yeah but they might come back, so Bob and Mary have been watching over the sandwich until Terry gets in touch with us.  Just leave it."  :blink:

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, The Blue Quasar said:

 

"Hey who's sandwich is this in the office fridge?", "Oh, that belongs to Terry.", "Didn't Terry quit three years ago?", "Yeah but they might come back, so Bob and Mary have been watching over the sandwich until Terry gets in touch with us.  Just leave it."  :blink:

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, The Blue Quasar said:

"Hey who's sandwich is this in the office fridge?", "Oh, that belongs to Terry.", "Didn't Terry quit three years ago?", "Yeah but they might come back, so Bob and Mary have been watching over the sandwich until Terry gets in touch with us.  Just leave it."  :blink:

 

When I found it, I replaced the cheese, it was moldy.  I fixed it.

 

 

 

:D

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

When I found it, I replaced the cheese, it was moldy.  I fixed it.

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

It's CHEESE!

 

It's not MOLDY; it's ALMOST READY!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Blue Quasar said:

Not sure why any CO believes they are to suggest to seekers that they are "allowed to post finds without visiting the site if the cache was already found.".

 

How about this reason: my nick was already in the logbook.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

It's CHEESE!

 

It's not MOLDY; it's ALMOST READY!

 

Yeah, but when it was placed, it was chicken.  :o

 

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

How about this reason: my nick was already in the logbook.

 

...already in the logbook of another cache, previously at the same location.

 

Delete.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

...already in the logbook of another cache, previously at the same location.

 

Delete.

 

The logbook is signed: true

The place is visited: true

There is no other requirements to log it found on-line.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 11:37 AM, Max and 99 said:

I do not think anyone should put another geocacher's name in the "hide by" field without their permission, NOR list the new cache's hide date as the date of the old cache.

 

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 1:37 PM, arisoft said:

 

Why not, if it is the same cache hidden originally at that date? It is the hidden date not the publishing date.

 

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 4:11 PM, Max and 99 said:

 

They said new cache. New GC code.  It's not the same cache.

 

1 hour ago, The Blue Quasar said:

 

Not sure why any CO believes they are to suggest to seekers that they are "allowed to post finds without visiting the site if the cache was already found.". 

 

45 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

How about this reason: my nick was already in the logbook.

 

41 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

...already in the logbook of another cache, previously at the same location.

 

Delete.

 

34 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

The logbook is signed: true

The place is visited: true

There is no other requirements to log it found on-line.

 

The logbook is signed: false.

A different cache.

 

It's "THE" logbook, not "A" logbook.

And, if your next argument is, "Well, what if the OLD logbook is put in the NEW cache?", then we're done here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Blue Quasar said:

"Hey who's sandwich is this in the office fridge?", "Oh, that belongs to Terry.", "Didn't Terry quit three years ago?", "Yeah but they might come back, so Bob and Mary have been watching over the sandwich until Terry gets in touch with us.  Just leave it."  :blink:

1

 

Exactly. ^_^

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kunarion said:

 

When I found it, I replaced the cheese, it was moldy.  I fixed it.

:D

1

 

When I found it the replaced cheese was gone and the bread was half eaten by mice, so I left a new sandwich. BTW it's not my sandwich, I relinquish all responsibility to Terry. ^_^

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kunarion said:

Yeah, but when it was placed, it was chicken.  :o

I don't know what's up with the cheese. When I found the chicken sandwich, I performed maintenance by replacing the chicken with tuna salad. I just love the amazing sandwiches that Terry hides.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

The logbook is signed: false.

 

If you see the signature in the logbook, it is signed. It may surprise you, but it is common practice that you can find a cache before it is published and log it found on-line.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

If you see the signature in the logbook, it is signed. It may surprise you, but it is common practice that you can find a cache before it is published and log it found on-line.

 

Ari, one of these days you're going to come back COMPLETELY on topic, directly responding to me without bring in something not yet mentioned as if it were the central topic being discussed, and I'm going to fall off my chair.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Ari, one of these days you're going to come back COMPLETELY on topic, directly responding to me without bring in something not yet mentioned as if it were the central topic being discussed, and I'm going to fall off my chair.

 

Never gonna happen - see Penrose Stairs ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×