Jump to content

Geostorm In A Teacup


Effrem
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Why do people get upset and carry on like spoilt children?

 

I have looked at some of the posts here recently and been disgusted by the self centred views put forward.

 

Why complain about a borderline cache that was set up to encourage people to further donate money to disaster relief fund.

I, myself have donated to the fund, But I wont claim the cache because its not my way of doing things.

 

But I dont begrudge others donating again to show their support as a geocacher.

 

It has been said by me (and others) that if this disaster occured in the Gulf of Mexico or on the Pacific coast of the US that the general reaction would be different.

 

I still believe that.

 

Why?

 

Because a good proportion of the complainants would not say a word because the backlash from their fellow Americans.

 

But because it happened thousands of miles away, its suddenly alright.

 

When something is done for the greater good of society, perhaps some people should sit back and say "Hey if it helps a nation (or ten) recover quicker, let em go for it!"

 

Or you could say "F### em, I wont bend the rules, cause my rules wont be bent unless it suits me."

 

Two valuable caches have been archived ( maybe more) because of this selfishness.

Its time to act , to react to the needs of society in general, not just your backyard.

 

I believe in free speech, I dont believe that free speech entitles you abuse the privlege of free speech by denigrating an opposing view.

 

This is after all, just a storm in a geoteacup.

 

Damian

(aka Effrem)

Ps I am also donating the money put aside for premium membership because they need clean water and medical assistance more than I need premium membership.

Link to comment

Why do people keep feeling the need to make everything in their life a geocache? Why can't it JUST be about hunting a box in the woods like its supposed to?

 

Why do people insist over and over again to use the geocaching forums to talk about stuff other then geocaching? Why cant they JUST be about geocaching like they are supposed to be?

 

Why do people think they have a right to tell a private company how they should or shouldn't operate? Why can't they just run their biz as they see fit? If you aren't happy with that, don't use the services the company provides.

 

It all seems so simple, why does it keep coming up?

Link to comment
Why do people get upset and carry on like spoilt children?

 

Thats a very good question.

 

Two valuable caches have been archived ( maybe more) because of this selfishness.

Its time to act , to react to the needs of society in general, not just your backyard.

 

Ummm, people are acting. Probably thousands of geocachers have donated to to the tsunami releif efforts. A lot of us just don't demand that we get a "smiley" for doing so.

 

Lets assume for the sake of argument that:

1- Most geocachers have heard about the tsunami disaster

2- Most geocachers thought it was a terrible thing

3- Most geocachers know where to go to donate money, or can easily find out.

 

If the preceeding are true, then what is the real point of these caches other than to garner another smiley? Kind of makes me wonder who the real selfish people are.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Two valuable caches have been archived ( maybe more) because of this selfishness.

What is more selfish is someone who insists their hobby be included in this disaster even though it has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

A true selfless person would give aid without having to be associated with anything.

Link to comment

I never once considered using my hobby to raise money. I suppose it can be effective, and those hobbies that encourage it are fine, but since this site has had a guideline against caches that solicit for a long time, I never would have expected a cache to be listed for that. I gave money the old fashioned way.... Through Amazon.com. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

The controversy touches on a lot of issues. The issues in general are worth discussing. That the discussion impacted the caches is regretable.

 

Most views are self centered, by definition. If you hold a view it's your view and it's as simple as that. If you are lucky others also have that same view. Most of us are not so lucky as there are a thousand nuances to any one issue.

 

Were the caches broken? No. Did they need to exist? No. Should they have been archived once they existed? No. Were the discussions broken? No. Was the refinement of groudspeak policy on charity caches broken? No. Would grandfathering those two caches have been wrong? No.

 

Because of all the controversy, all the issues, and so on I have made a decision that I'm not giving to any of the funds decicated to this cause. Instead I'll wait a few months to when we face more mundane problems and donate to the red cross then. They will most likely be short on cache by then, and in the bigger picture no one set of victums is any more special than any other set, but some do get more publicity. So maybe I'll help the ones that don't have the networks clamoring to provide coverage. If I change my mind though, odds are I'll log one of the archived caches. Why? It's differnet, it's variety and there is nothing wrong with that either.

Link to comment
Why do people keep feeling the need to make everything in their life a geocache? Why can't it JUST be about hunting a box in the woods like its supposed to?

 

Why do people insist over and over again to use the geocaching forums to talk about stuff other then geocaching? Why cant they JUST be about geocaching like they are supposed to be?

 

Why do people think they have a right to tell a private company how they should or shouldn't operate? Why can't they just run their biz as they see fit? If you aren't happy with that, don't use the services the company provides.

 

It all seems so simple, why does it keep coming up?

 

The controversy touches on a lot of issues. The issues in general are worth discussing. That the discussion impacted the caches is regretable.

 

Most views are self centered, by definition. If you hold a view it's your view and it's as simple as that. If you are lucky others also have that same view. Most of us are not so lucky as there are a thousand nuances to any one issue.

 

Were the caches broken? No. Did they need to exist? No. Should they have been archived once they existed? No. Were the discussions broken? No. Was the refinement of groudspeak policy on charity caches broken? No. Would grandfathering those two caches have been wrong? No.

 

Because of all the controversy, all the issues, and so on I have made a decision that I'm not giving to any of the funds decicated to this cause. Instead I'll wait a few months to when we face more mundane problems and donate to the red cross then. They will most likely be short on cache by then, and in the bigger picture no one set of victums is any more special than any other set, but some do get more publicity. So maybe I'll help the ones that don't have the networks clamoring to provide coverage. If I change my mind though, odds are I'll log one of the archived caches. Why? It's differnet, it's variety and there is nothing wrong with that either.

 

What can I say better than that? :rolleyes::ph34r:

Link to comment
Were the caches broken? No. Did they need to exist? No. Should they have been archived once they existed? No. Were the discussions broken? No. Was the refinement of groudspeak policy on charity caches broken? No. Would grandfathering those two caches have been wrong? No.

If an employee of a company knowingly violates company policy, should the company's management correct the error, or shrug their shoulders?

Link to comment

I think the link on the front page accomplishes the objective -- it alerts the membership to the cause. Of course, you would have had to have been caching in a cave not to know about the disaster, but the link on the front page is excellent and appropriate.

 

Examining what happened in the past probably won't help. What will happen if something like this happens in the future (let's hope it doesn't)? I suspect the link on the front page will go up sooner and caches such as those archived won't be approved.

 

The link is cool. Click it. Give.

Link to comment
Or maybe company management can rethink policy? It's not the ten commandments engraved in stone. maybe they can say"this is our company, we set policy, and we grant this issue a one time exemption from that policy".

This is true too, but still.... in the real world, the employee would have still violated company policy.

 

In the real world, if your job tells you not to do something, and you feel you know better and do it anyway, there is gonna be a problem. Even if the company agrees with you.

 

If I remember right you work in the food industry, right?

I'm sure there are some rules and regs you know you COULD break without hurting anyone. There are probably even a few rules you know are silly and meaningless. Still, I would hope you follow them.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

If an employee of a company knowingly violates company policy, should the company's management correct the error, or shrug their shoulders?

Quite simple. It's their decision to make a decision or not.

 

Why do you ask? you yourself just said:

Why do people think they have a right to tell a private company how they should or shouldn't operate? Why can't they just run their biz as they see fit? If you aren't happy with that, don't use the services the company provides.

:ph34r::rolleyes:

Link to comment

If an employee of a company knowingly violates company policy, should the company's management correct the error, or shrug their shoulders?

Quite simple. It's their decision to make a decision or not.

 

Why do you ask? you yourself just said:

Why do people think they have a right to tell a private company how they should or shouldn't operate? Why can't they just run their biz as they see fit? If you aren't happy with that, don't use the services the company provides.

:ph34r::rolleyes:

EXACTLY!

Thank you for seeing the big picture.

Link to comment
<snip> They will most likely be short on cache by then, and in the bigger picture no one set of victums is any more special than any other set, but some do get more publicity. <snip>

I hate it when that happens. :rolleyes: I catch myself typing that word incorrectly every now and then.

 

Remember, all that is wrong is my fault. I am the new whipping boy.

Link to comment
<snip> They will most likely be short on cache by then, and in the bigger picture no one set of victums is any more special than any other set, but some do get more publicity. <snip>

I hate it when that happens. :ph34r: I catch myself typing that word incorrectly every now and then.

 

Remember, all that is wrong is my fault. I am the new whipping boy.

may we use chains too? that might be kind of fun. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Why do people keep feeling the need to make everything in their life a geocache? Why can't it JUST be about hunting a box in the woods like its supposed to?

 

Why do people insist over and over again to use the geocaching forums to talk about stuff other then geocaching? Why cant they JUST be about geocaching like they are supposed to be?

 

Mopar said it perfectly.

Geocaching and this forum is about geocaching. 0ne's whole life does not need to be filtered thru geocaching and this website.

 

There are hundreds of places to donate to the tsunami victims.

 

I support the moderator's keeping the group on topic.

 

HWyatt

Link to comment
Why do people keep feeling the need to make everything in their life a geocache? Why can't it JUST be about hunting a box in the woods like its supposed to?

 

Why do people insist over and over again to use the geocaching forums to talk about stuff other then geocaching? Why cant they JUST be about geocaching like they are supposed to be?

I couldn't have said it better!

Link to comment
<snip> They will most likely be short on cache by then, and in the bigger picture no one set of victums is any more special than any other set, but some do get more publicity. <snip>

I hate it when that happens. :rolleyes: I catch myself typing that word incorrectly every now and then.

 

Remember, all that is wrong is my fault. I am the new whipping boy.

Man I hate when that happens. It's embarassing to talk about 1.2 million in cache. But the people I work with are good about it. They keep the ribbing to a minimum.

 

Mopar:

 

I'm going to roll up a few directions you are heading here. First Groundspeak is a private company with a couple of unique twists. Those twists being volunteers and cache owners make the site possible and customers pay the bills. When your customers, volutneers, and cache owners tell you what they want you should listen even if you are not going to change one thing. They don't HAVE to change anything but there is a point where perhaps they SHOULD to prevent the three legs this company stands from from leaving as was suggested. This applies to more than a Tsaunami cache.

 

As for as an "employee" violating policy like everthing else it depends. For every example of where the company should correct the situation I could match it where the policy was bent or broken in a good way by an employee who did the right thing. Policy and law try to capture an intent. Sometimes the letter of the law has nothing to do with the spirit of the law. Again this is in general and not specific to a Tsaunami cache. I agree with Grounspeaks new (?) stand of No charity, ever, period. Just not archiving the caches once approved.

Link to comment
Or maybe company management can rethink policy? It's not the ten commandments engraved in stone. maybe they can say"this is our company, we set policy, and we grant this issue a one time exemption from that policy".

This is true too, but still.... in the real world, the employee would have still violated company policy.

 

In the real world, if your job tells you not to do something, and you feel you know better and do it anyway, there is gonna be a problem. Even if the company agrees with you.

 

If I remember right you work in the food industry, right?

I'm sure there are some rules and regs you know you COULD break without hurting anyone. There are probably even a few rules you know are silly and meaningless. Still, I would hope you follow them.

I gotta go with RK on this last thought for this issue.

I agree with Grounspeaks new (?) stand of No charity, ever, period. Just not archiving the caches once approved.

Once the caches were approved they should have been left alone.

Your short term memory is still intact; I do work in food-service. In fact my wife and I own the company, and set its policies. Dealing with employees who think they know better is a daily ritual.

 

The 'real world' as you are calling it is full of companies big and small who changed policy/direction when it made sense to do so.

Remember Domino's guarenteeing a 30 minute delivery time?

How about phasing out Coke for new and improved Coke 2?

Or Wal-Mart locking in third shift employees to reduce shrink? (no turtles here please :rolleyes: )

Good companies are consistent with the product and service they provide.

Great companies do that too, but can be flexible in the face of overwhelming customer or public interests. Yes, there are worthwhile charities for every cause imaginable. Yes, there are people in need everywhere every day. But I sincerely hope that we never see a natural disaster of this magnitude in the real world ever again. And if we do I hope that Groundspeak, and every other company that I deal with will be responsive once again.

Link to comment
I gotta go with RK on this last thought for this issue.
I agree with Grounspeaks new (?) stand of No charity, ever, period. Just not archiving the caches once approved.

Once the caches were approved they should have been left alone.

Your short term memory is still intact; I do work in food-service. In fact my wife and I own the company, and set its policies. Dealing with employees who think they know better is a daily ritual.

 

The 'real world' as you are calling it is full of companies big and small who changed policy/direction when it made sense to do so.

Remember Domino's guarenteeing a 30 minute delivery time?

How about phasing out Coke for new and improved Coke 2?

Or Wal-Mart locking in third shift employees to reduce shrink? (no turtles here please :rolleyes: )

Good companies are consistent with the product and service they provide.

Great companies do that too, but can be flexible in the face of overwhelming customer or public interests. Yes, there are worthwhile charities for every cause imaginable. Yes, there are people in need everywhere every day. But I sincerely hope that we never see a natural disaster of this magnitude in the real world ever again. And if we do I hope that Groundspeak, and every other company that I deal with will be responsive once again.

Note the (?) in RK's post though. There was no "new" policy on not listing charity caches last week. You must remember the Toys for Tots debacle just last month. The guidelines haven't changed in a long time. Let's stay away from specific caches, and go with your Dominos example.

 

Yes, the company changed it's policy, I'm sure based on input form it's employees. However, before that policy was changed, right or wrong, if an pizza was late, it was free. If the driver had said "I'm not risking my life and others by speeding to make my delivery on time" the management would not have told the customer "hey, our guy is right, 30 minutes or free is stupid, so we expect you to still pay for this pizza that's late." Nope. They honored their policy until a new one was in place.

 

If a human employee makes a human mistake (or an equally human decision to not follow the rules) that goes against the company policy, the PROPER thing for the company to do is correct the employee's mistake.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Or maybe company management can rethink policy? It's not the ten commandments engraved in stone. maybe they can say"this is our company, we set policy, and we grant this issue a one time exemption from that policy".

Because if they did it "one time" then they'd be stuck.

 

What if they let caches that raise money for the tsunami victems stand, and then next month there was an earthquake in Mexico? Someone would want to dedicate a virtual cache to help send money there too. If it was denied, people in the forums would go nuts. Half the posters would say that if it was allowed for the tsunami victims then another "one time" cache should be allowed for earthquake relief. The other half would argue that geocaching.com isn't in the business of disaster relief fund raising and they'd get called names.

 

So then what? How many "one time" disaster relief caches should be allowed?

 

And then what other charitable caches should they also allow? Maybe someone would say that if raising money for disasters is accepted, raising money for other charieties like Goodwill and Salvation Army should also be okay. Afterall, these are well known and honorable charieties, right? Why not allow "one time" caches for those also?

 

If you allow something, you'll have to allow it for everyone. There would be no such thing as "one time" caches for charities because so many more would be demanded.

 

Someday someone would submit a cache to raise money for something that you didn't approve of, like the KKK or Unicef (both equally unpleasent in my eyes).

 

Should all caches set up to raise money be allowed?

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

Although its tragic what has happened in Asia, so is the number of people that die daily due to cancer, strokes, heart disease. The are many charities that are deserving of money. Some people may feel that the Tsunami relief efforts are very important, I agree. But so are the many other charities of the world. I do not believe it would be fair to allow an exception to the rule for Tsunami relief and say no to all others.

 

Suppose the caches associated with Tsunami relief are allowed to continue. What happens when my "cache for cancer research" idea does not get approved. Tell me why you allowed the other one and not mine?!?!?!?! Obviously this is an example and I dont have any plans for a cache of this type.

 

As cachers we do have CITO events. But this does not deal with the exchange of money. It involves a bit of our time to clean up the lands we use. My personal opinion is if we use the land we are partially responsible for its upkeep. Call it a non monetary "user fee".

 

When it all comes down to it, geocaching is a hobby for me, its meant to be fun. If anyone feels the need to donate to charities like Tsunami relief, cancer research etc.. its not that hard to find a organization that will gladly and thankfully accept yout donation. But my fun is separate from my charity. I support GC.com in their stance.

Link to comment
Once the caches were approved they should have been left alone.

To serve as a confusing, false example to others, to do the same in the future? Yeah, that's really what we need.

 

It's funny how people talk about wanting consistency in cache approval, and then complain when they're not allowed to break the rules.

Link to comment

We in the UK have just lost our two moderators/approvers?

Why, because they tried to do something for the victims in the Asain disaster which they and a great deal of people supported.

Since then the cache has been archived, threads have been closed and locked and people have been upset by the heavy handed approach of U.S moderators.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, of the democratic people of the west, yet the biggest power on this earth are restricting that right!

I have seen a lot of people switching away from geocaching.com and a lot of caches beeing archived in protest.

You have been quick enough to stop free speech, be quick enough now to stop the rot and put things right on the UK Forum.

Perhaps an explanation would go some way to easing the rift that you have caused between a very active community of British cachers. (although it seems to be more farspread than just the UK)

Explain yourselves please.

Link to comment
Once the caches were approved they should have been left alone.

To serve as a confusing, false example to others, to do the same in the future? Yeah, that's really what we need.

 

It's funny how people talk about wanting consistency in cache approval, and then complain when they're not allowed to break the rules.

I agree. Grandfathered caches are a double edged sword. This clearly isn't grandfathering. The rule existed and the approver slipped. It happens. People make mistakes - and if possible they correct them. (Hopefully...)

 

I saw this quote earlier:

 

I agree with Grounspeaks new (?) stand of No charity, ever, period. Just not archiving the caches once approved.

 

What about the other guidelines? Are you also saying they should also be enforced UNLESS the approver makes a mistake?

 

Lets say there's a cache that's on private property. It gets approved. It's later discovered that it's on private property - and you have to jump a fence and walk past dozens of "no trespassing" signs. The "SBA" log is used. Should it be archived? I mean... it's breaking a rule... but it was already listed so we have to keep it... right?

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

Either you're for the "no charity" rule or you are against it. You can't mix the issue of a particular guideline with enforcement of guidelines in general.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
...
I agree with Grounspeaks new (?) stand of No charity, ever, period. Just not archiving the caches once approved.

 

What about the other guidelines? Are you also saying they should also be enforced UNLESS the approver makes a mistake?...

That quote came from perhaps a misunderstanding of the rules on charity. I had thought the idea was like commercial caches. 'No unless specifically approved by Groundspeak'. If I was mistaken and it really was "no way, no how, ever will we accept a charity cache' then that was my own bad interpretation of the guidelines. However if that was the most common perception then...it should of remained and then been cited as the reason for the clarification.

 

As for the other guidelines there are some that just don't matter and a mistake should not result in the archival of the cache. Approved in a national park, sure archive it with profuse apologies to the owner. Not enough WOW though or some other minor rule? No.

 

Case in point. I placed a cache in Arizona. It was not approved. The reason was that I refused to divulge the names of the people helping me to maintain the cache. The guidelines came down hard on the fact that you had to name names. I wasn't going there out of respect for my help.

 

In Alaska I placed another cache under identical circumstances. I got help maintaining the cache from non geocachers, I would have refused to name the names. However in this case the reviewer 'made a mistake' in that they neglected to ask me who was maintaining the cache. Evidently my word was good enough this time around about having help. The first time around it wasn't. The cache is called Roughshod.

 

Should the second cache be archived? It's apparently a blatant violator of the guidelines and yet I really don't think a larger purpose is served if suddenly TPTB archive it. But then I put it out here for debate and who knows maybe the "Mistake" will be rectified.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Nobody is flaming. I'm not sure why it needs to be closed? I suppose it is kind of a dead horse though.

I'm not saying it should be closed, I'm just surprised that its not. I seemed to remember a comment by mtn-man saying any further topics would be closed.

 

Maybe the issue has cooled down sufficiently. Seems to be level-headed in here for the most part.

Link to comment

Someone gets paid to geocache!?

 

Wow, I want that job!

 

But seriously, Who gives a rats a** about smileys(some people seem to be obsessed about that subject).

 

The cache in question (Tsunami) is not designed to get more smileys.

Its designed to say look we care too.

Obviously some people dont understand that.

 

If you dont like it you dont have to touch it!

 

Let it be, You dont have to complain and get it archived.

 

This is not about you or your family, its about helping people desparately in need of our help.

 

I did notice the same selfish compliants come up in this thread.

Some people just believe that they are right and refuse to even entertain other point of views.

 

Please read the start of my original post and slowly read till the end.....

Now repeat.....

 

Sit back for a while and try and elaborate on my points, create an opposing view (to your own)

 

This is called conflict resolution.

You put yourself in some else shoes.

And when you understand their point of view, try to find suitable compromise.

 

 

As for the comments about this being a business and having to follow rules, Wake up! This is a hobby/sport.

The business side was setup to formalise accounting the costs of administrating the site and the hobby.

The business doesnt run the hobby.

The hobby runs the business, after all if we didnt do this hobby, there would be no Groundspeak nor GC.com

 

I asked for flexiblity not infexibility.

 

We have lost at least 3 approvers because of this bulls***, and how many ever thousands of dollars in members fees.

 

Stop.

 

Dont let your ego rule your hobby (nor your life).

 

Thanks

 

Damian

Link to comment
Dont let your ego rule your hobby (nor your life).

Back atcha. Why don't you go play your record on someone else's gramophone for a while? I'm getting the impression that "showing you care" is more important than actually helping, for those of you who can't seem to let the topic drop. And I consider that pretty despicable, frankly.

Link to comment
Groundspeak has already made an official response on this topic. You are welcome to debate further but the position on this topic has been made.

Perhaps "Groundspeaks Policy" is wrong.

 

Is that possible?

Yep!

Is it possible to change the policy?

Yep!

Is common sense ever going to make an appearance?

Maybe!

 

Three people have quit over this.

Many more have reviewed their member status.

 

Why?

Because they care.

 

Not just about Tsunami victims but about the way this place is evolving.

 

Whether or not GC survives this evolution is up to the people involved.

Not just Groundspeak, not just the approvers, but everyone.

 

You may not please everyone, but everyone matters and when people resign enmass because of a policy, that policy is probably wrong.

 

The caches were approved.

 

I think you should have let them stand Jeremy.

 

Damian

Link to comment
Dont let your ego rule your hobby (nor your life).

Back atcha. Why don't you go play your record on someone else's gramophone for a while? I'm getting the impression that "showing you care" is more important than actually helping, for those of you who can't seem to let the topic drop. And I consider that pretty despicable, frankly.

Perhaps you missed this part before becoming nasty

"Please read the start of my original post and slowly read till the end.....

Now repeat.....

 

Sit back for a while and try and elaborate on my points, create an opposing view (to your own)

 

This is called conflict resolution.

You put yourself in some else shoes.

And when you understand their point of view, try to find suitable compromise."

 

Have nice day.

 

Damian

Link to comment
We in the UK have just lost our two moderators/approvers?

Why, because they tried to do something for the victims in the Asain disaster which they and a great deal of people supported.

Since then the cache has been archived, threads have been closed and locked and people have been upset by the heavy handed approach of U.S moderators.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, of the democratic people of the west, yet the biggest power on this earth are restricting that right!

I have seen a lot of people switching away from geocaching.com and a lot of caches beeing archived in protest.

You have been quick enough to stop free speech, be quick enough now to stop the rot and put things right on the UK Forum.

Perhaps an explanation would go some way to easing the rift that you have caused between a very active community of British cachers. (although it seems to be more farspread than just the UK)

Explain yourselves please.

Please don't make this an issue of nationality.

 

Groundspeak is a (fairly small) company in the US.

 

The caches in this particular case are just caches. They aren't nations, or representatives of nations. They're just boxes in the woods, and one of them isn't even that.

 

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the action taken, be sure that it has nothing to do with where somebody happens to live.

 

Jamie

Link to comment
This is called conflict resolution.

You put yourself in some else shoes.

And when you understand their point of view, try to find suitable compromise."

No, you seem to call it "If you don't agree with me, you're not listening."

Thanks for confirming that Jeremy

 

You didnt try it did you?

 

Your probably not going to either.

 

I have, and thats why I say they should stand (not just Tsumani but the Red cross one as well)

 

Its truely a pity that its come this far.

 

Its even worse that a moderate point view is trashed by someone in your position.

 

You enjoy your nights sleep tonight.

 

Remember you could be wrong, but you will never know till its too late.

 

Damian

Link to comment
You may not please everyone, but everyone matters and when people resign enmass because of a policy, that policy is probably wrong.

Um no. In all reality there's a small number of people shrieking at the top of their lungs. Mob does not rule here.

I was hoping common sense might..........

 

Good night Jeremy

 

Damian

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...