Passion Of The Rock Cache

1.3k · October 21, 2004

I'm posting this thread on behalf of one of our local geocachers, Redleg1SG. I suspect he will contribute to the thread as well.

A cache owned by Redleg1SG, The Passion of the Rock cache, was archived 6 months after it was approved.

Here is the original post by Redleg on the matter:

Just got noticication from Tn Geocacher that he had archived this cache. I've got some major problems with this.

- I got no notice, no questions, nothing.

- If I read him correctly, This cache supposedly violated the 'no promoting religion' rule. I'm pointing out a local religious landmark to interested people, not trying to get them to go to church. DUH!!

- Everyone is offended by something. Some don't like cemetery caches because they disrespect the dead. Some may not like Civil War themes because they promote our dark & evil history. Night caches exclude some who may be scared of the dark & they could be a little dangerous. Must I go on ?

- Censorship? If you don't like it, make up your on mind while you are still allowed to have one.

I was about to put a frog theme cache, but I will do a poll first to make sure that it offends no one. At least not right thinking folks.

Help me out.

Am I wrong here??

I personally haven't found the cache, but I don't see how this cache is soliciting someone. It requires you to look up some information in a book, as part of a puzzle cache. The cache has been there for 6 months with no problems.

This has really caused quite a stir locally (the AL-MS area). I'm sure many others have an opinon on this - so at the request of TNGeocacher I have created this thread.

southdeltan

6.7k · October 21, 2004

-- Copy of email sent to TNGeocacher --

A request has been made by TNGeocacher that GCHWYB The Passion Of The Rock cache be archived.

I believe that this approver misunderstands the purpose and content of the cache and this request is in error.

Below find my request for review, as stated in my cache log of 10/20/04

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The request to archive this cache in in error.

Groundspeak's rules regarding religion and solicitation are well-grounded, but this cache page does not fall within their letter or intent.

Nowhere within this cache page is any religion, faith or point of view proselytized, no belief stated, no solicitation made.

The bible is a book. Almost all colleges teach at least one course entitled "The Bible As Literature" that looks dispassionately at the book without religious slant - this cache treats the bible in the same way - as a reference book and no more.

I ask that this cache be reinstated due to the archive request being made in error.

COPY TO: Groundspeak, TNGeocacher

Ed Manley

TheAlabamaRambler

205-956-6814

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response from TNGeocacher:

That a great thought, put it on the main Groundspeak forums under Geocaching topics and ask if it is by the guidelines or not

TG

Edited October 21, 2004 by TheAlabamaRambler

2k · October 21, 2004

I don't have a problem with the cache, but maybe it was archived because of this part.

To solve this you must refer the 4 books of the New Testament containing parts of the life of Christ including his last few hours, commonly called "The Passion".

Coordinates to the cache are N33 5A.ABC, W088 4D.E0F

LUKE A,A - And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

(Chapter & verse are same #)

MATTHEW 26,BC - And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.

MARK 15,DE - Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

JOHN F,XX - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(You should be ashamed if you don't already know this one.)

It would help if we could hear both sides.

Edited October 21, 2004 by Milbank

1.4k · October 21, 2004

I was the first to post a note on the page... I am sick and tired of political correctness.

The person placed the cache did not require anyone to 'be born again' to log the cache.

Yes, I know that people will say what if required a Koran to look-up verses? Well, fine. No big deal to me. I am a born again Christian but I don't think I would burn in Hell to look at a copy of the Koran to solve a geocache. It's not like a geocache would turn me into a follower of Islam.

Anyways, I'm usually low key about things, but this has really ticked me off. If it didn't meet their guidelines, they shouldn't have approved it!

2k · October 21, 2004

The bible is a book. Almost all colleges teach at least one course entitled "The Bible As Literature" that looks dispassionately at the book without religious slant - this cache treats the bible in the same way - as a reference book and no more.

I would have to agree with you on that.

1.4k · October 21, 2004

Are all geocaches that require a Bible to be used or have Biblical references now to be archived?!?!?!

We have one here in Alabama that is an awesome cache... in fact here's the link:

The Biblical Garden

The Biblical Garden is a great cache and using the Bible for hints makes it a little different than most multicaches.

I would hate to think that all caches that use a Bible or even mention the Bible will now be archived

October 21, 2004

Well, I will start out by saying I have a general distaste for how frequently people will force their religious views on people here (here being US in general, the South in particular).

BUT, I just looked at the cache in question, and I would disagree with the approver's comments of

Quote:

caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, or social agendas

on this one. Sure, it requires you to look up some references in the new testament. I can't see how that is pushing a religious agenda. Do we say all caches placed at Confederate Civil War memorials are pushing a "south shall rise up again" political agenda? Is CITO itself a "social agenda" (environmental awareness / responsibility)?

There are various mystery caches around that require seekers to look up various reference material. So what that this is a vew verses from a bible? It isn't as if it is asking people to believe in what they are reading.

I an see that twelve people have found the cache in about 6 months. Have there been any complaints about the theme? None posted on the site.

My opinion (for what its worth) is that the cache should be reapproved, and approvers focus on those caches where the original owners have fogrotten about keeping up with cache maintenance.

3.9k · October 21, 2004

Was there any communication with the approver about this cache being archived? Or did we just go straight to arguing this in the forums?

I also don't see the reason it should be archived, but I would like to see both parties talking it out in private before it's aired in public.

Just as a side note. I don't see a problem with religious caches, or even political caches as long as it's made clear from the start exactly what the theme is. Everyone has the right to hunt, or not to hunt them as they so choose.

El Diablo

1.4k · October 21, 2004

The approver stated that it should be posted here. He replied to a thread in the MSGA forums.

Edited October 21, 2004 by jeff35080

3.9k · October 21, 2004

Is CITO itself a "social agenda" (environmental awareness / responsibility)?

Now that's a dadgum good point!

El Diablo

1.3k · October 21, 2004

Was there any communication with the approver about this cache being archived? Or did we just go straight to arguing this in the forums?

Yes, there was communication. The approver TOLD us to post a thread here.

Incidentally, there was no advance notice of the archival, the explanation in the archival note wasn't clear to the cache owner and he emailed the approver but recieved no reply. I asked the approver to join a local thread and he directed us to post here.

southdeltan

1.2k · October 21, 2004

I'm posting this thread on behalf of one of our local geocachers, Redleg1SG. I suspect he will contribute to the thread as well.

A cache owned by Redleg1SG, The Passion of the Rock cache, was archived 6 months after it was approved.

Here is the original post by Redleg on the matter:

Just got noticication from Tn Geocacher that he had archived this cache. I've got some major problems with this.

- I got no notice, no questions, nothing.

- If I read him correctly, This cache supposedly violated the 'no promoting religion' rule. I'm pointing out a local religious landmark to interested people, not trying to get them to go to church. DUH!!

- Everyone is offended by something. Some don't like cemetery caches because they disrespect the dead. Some may not like Civil War themes because they promote our dark & evil history. Night caches exclude some who may be scared of the dark & they could be a little dangerous. Must I go on ?

- Censorship? If you don't like it, make up your on mind while you are still allowed to have one.

I was about to put a frog theme cache, but I will do a poll first to make sure that it offends no one. At least not right thinking folks.

Help me out.

Am I wrong here??

I personally haven't found the cache, but I don't see how this cache is soliciting someone. It requires you to look up some information in a book, as part of a puzzle cache. The cache has been there for 6 months with no problems.

This has really caused quite a stir locally (the AL-MS area). I'm sure many others have an opinon on this - so at the request of TNGeocacher I have created this thread.

southdeltan

I dont understand why the owner of this cache isnt complaining.

Why does someone else have to post it for them?

3.9k · October 21, 2004

I dont understand why the owner of this cache isnt complaining.

Why does someone else have to post it for them?

The principal of the thing maybe?

El Diablo

1.3k · October 21, 2004

I dont understand why the owner of this cache isnt complaining.

Why does someone else have to post it for them?

Some people, unlike you and I, have other things to do than be online 24/7.

In his replies to the thread at MSGA he said he would be creating a thread about this topic.

A lot of people were discussing this so I started a thread about it. I'm sorry if I overstepped my bounds.

southdeltan

1.4k · October 21, 2004

You didn't overstep your bounds.

21.9k · October 21, 2004

Is CITO itself a "social agenda" (environmental awareness / responsibility)?

...

My opinion (for what its worth) is that the cache should be reapproved, and approvers focus on those caches where the original owners have fogrotten about keeping up with cache maintenance.

Hello,

I'm posting solely about the quoted sections of your post.

1. CITO is the "official cause" of Groundspeak and thus, to the extent that this is considered a "social agenda," it is an exception consciously made by the owners of the website.

2. There are 18 disabled caches in your home state. Each one of them which ought to have triggered an inquiry from the volunteer reviewer has a note on the cache page from TN Geocacher. The caches that don't have notes from the reviewer either have satisfactory explanations from the cache owner, or were recently disabled due to the bad weather. Surely you're not suggesting that every cache damaged by Hurrican Ivan ought to have been archived by now if not repaired? TN Geocacher has a strong record for keeping after the owners of disabled caches. Ironically, that record has been the topic of prior forum threads.

Please stick with the topic at hand. If we avoid criticism of Groundspeak or its volunteers about other, unrelated subjects, it may help keep us focused on a constructive discussion of the cache at issue here. Thank you.

1.2k · October 21, 2004

I dont understand why the owner of this cache isnt complaining.

Why does someone else have to post it for them?

Some people, unlike you and I, have other things to do than be online 24/7.

In his replies to the thread at MSGA he said he would be creating a thread about this topic.

A lot of people were discussing this so I started a thread about it. I'm sorry if I overstepped my bounds.

southdeltan

Well If I had said I was going to be starting a thread about something I would not want to have someone else do it even with the best of intentions. Seems to me that is he wants a thread then he will start one. Perhaps you should close this one and let him have his chance IF he wants to.

My 2 cents.

3.9k · October 21, 2004

1. CITO is the "official cause" of Groundspeak and thus, to the extent that this is considered a "social agenda," it is an exception consciously made by the owners of the website.

you.

First off, understand that I'm playing the devils advocate here.

If CITO is an acceptable social agenda to GC and it's owners (which BTW is a good thing) Why can't the rest of the community also champion their causes without being censored?

I ask this question because GC seems to want to avoid controversy over polictical, religious and social caches to keep everyone happy, but are willing to support their own agenda. Is this not censorship?

I also understand that it is a privately held site and they can do what they want. Just wanted to add that to save someone else the trouble of pointing it out.

El Diablo

1.3k · October 21, 2004

Well If I had said I was going to be starting a thread about something I would not want to have someone else do it even with the best of intentions. Seems to me that is he wants a thread then he will start one. Perhaps you should close this one and let him have his chance IF he wants to.

My 2 cents.

If he asks me to, I will.

1.8k · October 21, 2004

I too don't see the problem. I would not be offended if I had to consult a religious text--be it the Bible, the Koran, the Tao te Ching, the Zend-Avesta, or even the Kama Sutra for that matter.

October 21, 2004

Maybe the way to resolve the issue is to work out what percentage of people have found the cache topic an unwarrented religious solicitation. Given that those who had no problem with the subject material generally wouldn't have complained, while those that were upset by it would have; we need a more sophisticated survey method that simply complaints for vs against.

I suggest the following scoring method:

Total votes: Number of times the cache page has been viewed.

Votes against: Number of complaints sent to the apprivers.

If "votes against" is more than 50% of "Total votes", then the majority view is that this cache goes against the general wishes of the geocaching community.

[sarcasm on]

And once we get this one resolved, lets look at all caches that mention "bible" "god" "holy", "satan", and anything else religious. After all, we don't have anything better to do with our time.

[/sarcasm off]

24.7k · October 21, 2004

I looked at the cache blindly. Look up some stuff in a book and figure out a puzzle. Then I checked and saw the ? That says puzzle cache. So far so good.

The catch, must be the puzzle involves the bible. If this is the case we better start collecting the official GC.com list of banned books because they "Solicit" Ignore that most books do have a spin and any author will be hard pressed not to have you see things their way.

If you are going to have a book that's probably the one. You can find it in any hotel, along side the road and quips and quotes in many a cache to where you don't need to buy the book at all.

Now if the issue is something other than the book, lets hear it.

9.4k · October 21, 2004

I ask this question because GC seems to want to avoid controversy over polictical, religious and social caches to keep everyone happy, but are willing to support their own agenda. Is this not censorship?

Of course it is. So is removing expletives from posts. We have the right to censor any information on our web site if we decide to do so. That is, by the way, one of our free speech rights.

This is personally the first time I heard of this particular cache, so I'm sure that all the information has not come to light, and I don't wish to respod prematurely about this listing. However, I'm particularly offended that someone would want to shame me because I may not know a particular line and verse in the King James version of the New Testament. Was that necessary?

So before anyone gets dumb about book burning or hitler comments, I'd rather get the story from both sides, thank you.

(edit: whoops. Guess I was too late.)

Edited October 21, 2004 by Jeremy

3.8k · October 21, 2004

First off, understand that I'm playing the devils advocate here.

Not possible! :lol:

I see no problem with the puzzle cache. I would also see no problem if the book in question was the biography of Hitler, or the constitution of the United States.

It's just a book.

1.3k · October 22, 2004

This is personally the first time I heard of this particular cache, so I'm sure that all the information has not come to light, and I don't wish to respod prematurely about this listing. However, I'm particularly offended that someone would want to shame me because I may not know a particular line and verse in the King James version of the New Testament. Was that necessary?

There definitely is a lack of communication here. The only thing that we've heard from the approver is that he is following the guidelines and to post a thread here. That's been done. As mentioned earlier, the cache owner may not check his email or the internet daily so I can't say when he'll be able to post his complete side of the story either.

I do agree that that one line may be the problem with the cache. It doesn't offend me but I suppose some thin-skinned person may be offended. However, even with that line - I can't see that this cache is a solicitation.

southdeltan

1.4k · October 22, 2004

Well If I had said I was going to be starting a thread about something I would not want to have someone else do it even with the best of intentions. Seems to me that is he wants a thread then he will start one. Perhaps you should close this one and let him have his chance IF he wants to.

Well.... here comes my first forum warning.... I can't help if it'll be from CO or Keystone, but it's worth it.

First of all CO, you can't hide behind the Lapalgia profile. Why must you always be the one to antagonize? You and I have made peace in the past when you flamed me in public (did you get a warning?)

The approver TNG stated that it could be discussed here and I made that fact be known. This cache affects many of us here within a few hundred miles of the cache in question. I have found Biblical caches and even posted one and asked if it would be archived.

Because I am often to be considered a leader of the AGA (Alabama Geocachers Assn.... I'm not really the leader or a leader) I tend to keep my opinions to myself, but the archiving of this cache really 'pushed my buttons'.

I'm plenty willing to drink the Groundspeak Kool Aid... and have done so on many occasions. I support 99% of Groundspeak's decisions but this one is ludicrous.

So... CO, if you've got something to say about this cache either say it or stay out of it. It doesn't matter who posted this topic here as it affects all caches that happen to live in this general area i.e. the Bible Belt.

Warn me if you must, I'll wear it as a badge of honor. If you want to take it to PMs or email, that will be fine CO.

9.4k · October 22, 2004

I can be offended and not boo hoo about it. Normally caches aren't archived after the fact, so there is something else going on.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

If "votes against" is more than 50% of "Total votes", then the majority view is that this cache goes against the general wishes of the geocaching community

That won't work Maclir as I have refreshed the page many times which would not give a true indication of those that have only looked once.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

so there is something else going on

Yep. Apparently the geocache wasn't politcally correct in the eyes of 'someone'. I'm sick and tired of constantly having to be politically correct

3.9k · October 22, 2004

Well If I had said I was going to be starting a thread about something I would not want to have someone else do it even with the best of intentions. Seems to me that is he wants a thread then he will start one. Perhaps you should close this one and let him have his chance IF he wants to.

Well.... here comes my first forum warning.... I can't help if it'll be from CO or Keystone, but it's worth it.

First of all CO, you can't hide behind the Lapalgia profile. Why must you always be the one to antagonize? You and I have made peace in the past when you flamed me in public (did you get a warning?)

The approver TNG stated that it could be discussed here and I made that fact be known. This cache affects many of us here within a few hundred miles of the cache in question. I have found Biblical caches and even posted one and asked if it would be archived.

Because I am often to be considered a leader of the AGA (Alabama Geocachers Assn.... I'm not really the leader or a leader) I tend to keep my opinions to myself, but the archiving of this cache really 'pushed my buttons'.

I'm plenty willing to drink the Groundspeak Kool Aid... and have done so on many occasions. I support 99% of Groundspeak's decisions but this one is ludicrous.

So... CO, if you've got something to say about this cache either say it or stay out of it. It doesn't matter who posted this topic here as it affects all caches that happen to live in this general area i.e. the Bible Belt.

Warn me if you must, I'll wear it as a badge of honor. If you want to take it to PMs or email, that will be fine CO.

Jeff,

I'm behind this cause, but please don't turn it into a flame war. As you pointed out, if you have a personal issue take it to PMs or email. Otherwise what is being dicussed here will be lost.

El Diablo

1.4k · October 22, 2004

see no problem with the puzzle cache.

Nor do many other geocachers.... apparently someone complained about it and caused it to be archived 'after the fact'

October 22, 2004

If "votes against" is more than 50% of "Total votes", then the majority view is that this cache goes against the general wishes of the geocaching community

Are we going to vote over every cache that offends someone here. I don't think that is the key issue here. The issue in my opinion is if the cache follows the guidelines, then it should be unarchived. Cachers can read cache pages and then CHOOSE if they go find it or not.

9.4k · October 22, 2004

PC aside, I'm tired of knee jerk reactions and assumptions being thrown around as fact.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

I'm behind this cause, but please don't turn it into a flame war. As you pointed out, if you have a personal issue take it to PMs or email. Otherwise what is being dicussed here will be lost.

I understand ED.... but HE never gets warned and is often the one that antagonizes others. If he locks this thread, I'm sure another will be started. If I get warned, I really don't care. Like I said, I drink the Kool Aid but I want CO to stay out of the discussion unless he can discuss the topic without attempting to antagonize others.

This is my last OT post in this thread, the rest will be 'ON TOPIC' provided the admins of the forums do the same.

Keystone, I respect you greatly... I am sorry that I went off topic, but there are some things that I felt just must be said... AGA members that I sometimes represent, I'm sorry for being non PC...

3.9k · October 22, 2004

PC aside, I'm tired of knee jerk reactions and assumptions being thrown around as fact.

I agree with you Jeremy, but if TN did asked that this be posted in the forums then someone from admin should be here to tell both sides. People tend to believe the worst. We have all seen in the past where one side of the story is told and people run down the wrong path.

El Diablo

24.7k · October 22, 2004

PC aside, I'm tired of knee jerk reactions and assumptions being thrown around as fact.

Having read the approvers archive note I'm assuming it's been archived due to his belief that it's a religious cache.

The puzzle does have a religious theme. That's pretty obvious. All this thread can do is give you and whatever other people who have actual authority feedback from the geocaching community. If the approver provides more information opinions may change based on better information. Until then everyone works with what they have which isn’t as bad as the normal “my cache wasn’t approved” thread.

October 22, 2004

If "votes against" is more than 50% of "Total votes", then the majority view is that this cache goes against the general wishes of the geocaching community

That won't work Maclir as I have refreshed the page many times which would not give a true indication of those that have only looked once.

Actualy, I did think of that, after the fact though. Now, I have seen many comments for keeping (unarchiving) the cache; either posted as notes on the actual cache entry, on the MSGA forums, or here.

As yet, I haven't seen any "first person" complaints stating that the person considered the cache violates the "no solicitation" clause. All we have heard is third party comments from the appriver who archived it that he has received emails thanking him for archiving it. So what was the original complaint(s)?

Surely, this fits in the micro / puzzle / virtual / hidden under a lightpole / hydro / name your personal dislike caches are bad and "they" shoudl put a stop to them. If you don't like a style of cache, then don't hunt them. If you believe that trying to solve the puzzle for this particular cache will somehow turn you into a raving fundamentalist christian, then don't even attempt it.

October 22, 2004

listing. However, I'm particularly offended that someone would want to shame me because I may not know a particular line and verse in the King James version of the New Testament. Was that necessary?

OK I can understand your point on this. I don't think it was his intention to "shame" anyone in this case. Many of us growing up in the Bible belt grew up knowing this particular verse wheather we went to Church or not. I think thats why he made this particular comment. It was just an assumption in this case.

However, I don't think this one comment warrents archiving the cache. I'm sure a simple note to the cache owner would have corrected this easily.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

PC aside, I'm tired of knee jerk reactions and assumptions being thrown around as fact.

Then let us who live in the area which could be considered local or within driving range of the cache what the problem is :lol:

Ya know I still love ya Jeremy... this one has just got me a little worked-up.

I apologize but any comments made are to be considered from me, not a member of the AGA, just a lowly geocacher who pays his $3 each month

October 22, 2004

I just don't see how this situation is different from caches that are hidden around churches, and there are tons of those.

In my area, one hider has a string of over 25 caches all hidden at churches, all with religious-associated names (I won't mention specifically because it is not my place to drag them into this discussion without their knowledge).

But how is having people read something in a book or online (and it is a seekers CHOICE to do this) any different than having them acuatually drive up and walk around on church grounds? You have a pretty good chance of being observed/approched by holy rollers when seeking there.

I'm confused.....

1.4k · October 22, 2004

But how is having people read something in a book or online (and it is a seekers CHOICE to do this) any different than having them acuatually drive up and walk around on church grounds?

If you figure out how it's any different, please feel free to let some of us know

I love geocaching, but I just hate that this particular cache was singled-out.

9.4k · October 22, 2004

Then let us who live in the area which could be considered local or within driving range of the cache what the problem is

You'll forgive my delay in the 2 hours this has been posted (and the less than hour I have become aware of it) that I haven't done a more thorough investigation on the matter. Unfortunately our cache medivac chopper is out on other business.

Frankly this was a crappy way to bring up this particular cache issue. If someone was nice enough to raise it to hydee first there may have been a faster and less venemous resolution.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

Jeremy.... like I said... I love ya man! However, YOUR volunteer reviewer stated that WE should post it here.... what were we supposed to do?

20.7k · October 22, 2004

Has anyone shot TNG an email so he knows that this issue is being discussed. Certainly, his take on this issue would be helpful.

Edited October 22, 2004 by sbell111

October 22, 2004

PC aside, I'm tired of knee jerk reactions and assumptions being thrown around as fact.

However, I'm particularly offended that someone would want to shame me because I may not know a particular line and verse in the King James version of the New Testament. Was that necessary?

Hmmmmmm

3.8k · October 22, 2004

...venemous resolution...

Good choice of words!

I agree that hydee is usually not venemous. :lol:

1.3k · October 22, 2004

Frankly this was a crappy way to bring up this particular cache issue. If someone was nice enough to raise it to hydee first there may have been a faster and less venemous resolution.

Frankly, TNGeocacher TOLD us to do this. I think you should talk to him about it.

The owner of the cache started a thread on the MSGA forums. I asked TNGeocacher to join that thread. He said post a thread here. I did. (Yes, I did say the original owner intended to post a thread if he didn't hear from TNG, but since we were told this was the place, I went ahead).

I'm sorry I didn't know I was supposed to email Hydee directly. Perhaps that could be placed on the MAIN geocaching.com page. Not all of us are mind readers. I would assume that the contact@geocaching.com address would be the proper place but not all geocachers are aware of that. I'll make note that now Hydee is in charge of all complaints.

Thanks for calling my actions crappy.

I find THAT offensive.

southdeltan

9.4k · October 22, 2004

Hmmmmmm

If you have something to say, say it. And keep in mind what kind of assumptions you may be making about me and my beliefs.

1.4k · October 22, 2004

Has anyone shot TNG an email so he knows that this issue is being discussed. Certainly, his take on this issue would be helpful.

TNG said to post it in the forums... or to email approvers at geocaching dot com

October 22, 2004

Triplicated comments removed.

Edited October 22, 2004 by Maclir

Passion Of The Rock Cache

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

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