Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 896 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Sure, I can get demos of clothing, hair, skin, and sometimes shoes, but how do you deal with jewelry

[...]

If memory serves I have never spent more than L$15 on any jewelry and the bulk of that was spent some years ago. I cleared out most of my old jewelry as that area of my inventory stock grew as I added free items.

I have quite an extensive collection of chokers, necklaces, bracelets, headbands, head decorations etc. acquired from numerous group gifts, hunts and events. They seem quite common as giveaways and occasionally an item is of exceptional quality. Much does get trashed due to ugliness or lack of modify, but in some cases I have been genuinely amazed at the quality being given away for free. My bento ring collection has exclusively come from a number of different events and hunts too. I have 7 various sets now, which makes little or no need to actually buy any more.

As a side note:  The Maitreya body is so unbelievably well catered for in all areas, particularly frees and event/hunt gifts.

Back to the subject of non-modify:  In the case of a set of a long toenails I purchased last year, which I really like, one or two toenails poked through certain pairs of shoes and I was unable to edit the nails individually to hide the offenders. I contacted the seller and they provided me with another editable set free of charge. So yes, I agree, it would have been disappointing had she not made a modifiable set available, but it all turned out fine in the end because she is a considerate seller who brought things to a very satisfactory conclusion for what is a relatively unusual situation for me.

Maybe keeping things simple isn't so bad for the likes of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another thing that I remembered for why I prefer mod permission on things (even clothing, shoes, jewelry, hair) -- so that I can rename it.  A pair of shoes that is a single inventory object does not need its own folder - except when the original name is something like "Jan group gift".  Yeah, that tells me a lot about the shoes. Ditto with any other item that is nothing more than a single object - it does not necessarily need a folder.  Yet I often create folders to contain these individual objects just so that I can put a meaningful and descriptive name on it. 

Now, if the system had been designed properly, the name of an object wouldn't be part of its non-modifiable attributes anyway.

 

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

There is another thing that I remembered for why I prefer mod permission on things (even clothing, shoes, jewelry, hair) -- so that I can rename it.  A pair of shoes that is a single inventory object does not need its own folder - except when the original name is something like "Jan group gift".  Yeah, that tells me a lot about the shoes. Ditto with any other item that is nothing more than a single object - it does not necessarily need a folder.  Yet I often create folders to contain these individual objects just so that I can put a meaningful and descriptive name on it. 

Now, if the system had been designed properly, the name of an object wouldn't be part of its non-modifiable attributes anyway.

 

I hadn't even really considered this, but..yes, that too, lol. I have so many things that are named, well, oddly, (not a knock on creators, of course) that I rename to something more appropriate for search/storage purposes. So, this would definitely be a plus for mod perms too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, trying to remember that the hair is Lea, the dress is Lia and the shoes are Leonie can be a bit much some days. My inventory is like a women's university crossed with the exploded laboratories of three mad scientists and a Victorian haberdashery.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

So you're not really criticising big buildings and furniture. You're criticising big avatars that need big buildings and furniture

Ok I'll try and put it more simply for you. The examples I gave are just that, examples, of issues that cannot be corrected if the content is no-mod. If something is wrong, broken, or wasteful about a no-mod product, then it cannot be fixed. It is stuck that way. Unless the seller is willing to personally correct or customize the item for you there is nothing you, the buyer, can do about it.

Sure, most people do may not realize the hidden cost they are paying in tier, framerates, etcetera, but that does not mean they aren't paying it. The fact that there are such people is irrelevant to the discussion.

16 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Incidentally, your idea that a tall avatar reduces the land to 1/4 is rather silly, don't you think?

No, it's basic geometry. You should have learned this in high school. If you double the size of something it takes up four times as much area. Think, how many 1x1" squares fit in a 2x2" square? An 8' tall avatar isn't quite double the size of a 5'10" avatar but it's getting there, and most content is large even relative to oversized avatars.

16 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Linking objects together to gain a bit of LI is perhaps a possibility, but it's not something that anybody should be doing. What happens when you want to change a piece of furniture, for instance, but you've linked it to another piece of furniture?

Ok, you're pulling my leg, aren't you? I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt but these last couple statements have me convinced you're having a laugh here. Do you really not know you can unlink pieces? Even a multi-piece object can be easily unlinked from a larger set. You don't even have to unlink if you're just moving the piece around, SL lets you select individual pieces of a linkset and move them together. If you know how to select multiple unlinked objects, then you selecting multiple linked pieces is the same, you just click the "Edit Linked" checkbox first. It's really that easy.

16 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

You need to use a much smaller brush, Penny.

I don't believe I do. I have never encountered content where I could not free up resources or be improved in some way through modding. Maybe there is something out there that could not benefit from this, but such content would be so few and far between as to be marginal. And I'm not going to argue semantics or play word games with you.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Penny Patton said:

Ok I'll try and put it more simply for you.

You don't need to do that, Penny. I fully understand everything you say. Your statement was wrong, and I've been explaining why. You can't win this argument, Penny, because you're trying to defend something that's indefensible. It's interesting to note that, in this thread, you've made very few attempts to answer my arguments. All you've done is cherry-pick bits that you think you have an answer for and ignore the rest. That speaks volumes ;)

The examples I gave are just that, examples, of issues that cannot be corrected if the content is no-mod. If something is wrong, broken, or wasteful about a no-mod product, then it cannot be fixed. It is stuck that way. Unless the seller is willing to personally correct or customize the item for you there is nothing you, the buyer, can do about it.

Then perhaps you should have tried a realistic example, because the ones you gave were non-starters, and I explained why.

But I see that you're changing your tune a little. Good :) Instead of all no-mod items, you now say IF something is wrong, broken, or wasteful, implying that something may not be wrong with at least some no-mod items. It's a good change.

Sure, most people do may not realize the hidden cost they are paying in tier, framerates, etcetera, but that does not mean they aren't paying it. The fact that there are such people is irrelevant to the discussion.

Aha. Another good change. Now what you say only applies to most people, instead of your previous all people. You're definitely moving in the right direction. If you'd used words like 'most', etc. in the beginning, like you're now doing, we wouldn't be having this dialogue. I may have challenged the word 'most' and suggested the word 'many' instead, but we wouldn't have been as opposite as we have been.

No, it's basic geometry. You should have learned this in high school. If you double the size of something it takes up four times as much area. Think, how many 1x1" squares fit in a 2x2" square? An 8' tall avatar isn't quite double the size of a 5'10" avatar but it's getting there, and most content is large even relative to oversized avatars.

Yes, that's basic geometry, but it didn't apply. You made the assumption that dimensions would be doubled for an 8' avatar, so that an 8' avatar would need a 40m x 40m house to have the same as a 5'10" avatar who has a 20m x 20m house. That's simply not true, as you well know. And don't forget that probably most avatars are quite a lot taller than 5'10". So knocking off 3/4 of the land for an 8' avatar was nonsense. You even admit that 8' is not double 5'10". Twice 5'10" = 11'8". 8' is nowhere near 11'8". It was just another attempt at falsely painting the picture as black as you possibly can.

Ok, you're pulling my leg, aren't you? I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt but these last couple statements have me convinced you're having a laugh here. Do you really not know you can unlink pieces? Even a multi-piece object can be easily unlinked from a larger set. You don't even have to unlink if you're just moving the piece around, SL lets you select individual pieces of a linkset and move them together. If you know how to select multiple unlinked objects, then you selecting multiple linked pieces is the same, you just click the "Edit Linked" checkbox first. It's really that easy.

Penny, Penny, Penny. There's no need to be facetious. If you'd read what I wrote you would not have asked me if I know about unlinking pieces etc. I described it in the part that you quoted from. That was a stupid thing to write. Were you just trying to be insulting because you have no answer to what I wrote?

Yes, you can move one of the multi-prim objects that you've joined to another, but I didn't say anything about moving it. I talked about changing it, and you've chosen to ignore it because there is no suitable answer to it. Let me refresh your memory:- "What happens when you want to change a piece of furniture, for instance, but you've linked it to another piece of furniture?" That's what I wrote about. Perhaps you would like to respond to what I actually wrote. In case you didn't understand it, by 'change' I meant replace. Even remove will do, because the original is removed when it's replaced.

You see, once you've linked two multi-prim objects together, you risk losing one of them if they contain scripts. You can't unlink one of the objects without a very serious risk of it not working again. Yes, you can put it back together, but you can't know that it will work afterwards. I explained all that before, but you chose to ignore it.

It's actually worse than that. Just the fact of linking two such objects together can cause one of them to stop working, and the chance of it working again after you unlink it is just pot luck.

Linking a 1-prim object to another object is fine, of course, and may ever so slightly reduce their combined LI. Neither is likely to stop working, but if one does, they can be unlinked back to normal. Even linking a 2-prim object would probably be ok for the same reason. More than that can get messy. Nevertheless, linking objects together to gain a bit of LI is something that should not be encouraged. Not unless "oops!" is a desirable word.

I don't believe I do. I have never encountered content where I could not free up resources or be improved in some way through modding. Maybe there is something out there that could not benefit from this, but such content would be so few and far between as to be marginal. And I'm not going to argue semantics or play word games with you.

I think this is where your problem lies, Penny. You LIKE improving things. It's what you do. It's part of your SL hobby. So you strongly believe that you should be able improve all objects that you acquire. So strongly that, to you, it's a crusade. That's fine so far, but you take it to false extremes by writing things such as, ALL no-mod objects and ALL users. You paint your case with the biggest possible brush, and you use the blackest possible paint, to the extent that you write things that are simply untrue. What's worse is that you KNOW that some of what you write is untrue, but the truth isn't black enough for you, so you ignore it.

You just want the ability to buy anything you want and be able to modify it whether it improves it or not. It's all about what you want for yourself, Penny. You said that you've "never encountered content where I could not free up resources or be improved in some way through modding". How many other people do you know who try to improve everything they get. I suspect that there's only one person who does it - you. And I believe that that's who your crusade is being fought for. I've improved the LI of the occasional object that I've bought, so I'm not a stranger to it, and I'm not arguing against doing it.

I'm sorry that we're having this argument, Penny. It can stop if you look at the realities instead of exagerating them to make them seem as black as possible when they are not.

 

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

I'm sorry that we're having this argument, Penny. It can stop if you look at the realities instead of exagerating them to make them seem as black as possible when they are not.

But it will stop when Phil says, "I'm right, so there's no point in continuing this" and stops posting.

Then Penny will start essentially the same thread again somewhere between six and eighteen months from now - interestingly enough, her last version of this thread is still somewhat active in another part of the forum right now.

You're both pretty predictable by now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D I know that I'm very predictable, Theresa. I have been for about 10 years. I think this is my first experience with Penny, though, so this type of 'discussion' with her is new to me.

 

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stop after this post.

Penny's statment, "I linked to an article I wrote explaining in detail how no-mod content makes it impossible to get the full value of any land you pay for, for all practical purposes forcing you to throw money away." is wrong. I've explained in detail, more than once, why it's wrong. Penny doesn't accept it, but she hasn't offered any reasonable arguments against what I've had to say, and there is no point in going over the same stuff any more. I've said everything I have to say about it, and nothing has got through. So that's the end of the discussion for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I said in the other very long and still active thread, I frankly don't give the furry crack of a rat's ass what you think. I sell clothes as no-mod for a variety of reasons. Deal with it.

I've already reported this thread, as it is redundant and exists only to pick fights. Don't bother replying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with the copy mod case, but maybe I've been a bit of a hypocrite with my customers in this sense -

I sell full perm plants, so someone buys several of these plants and then links them together and sells them as a new item, a pretty garden display, copy mod. As copy mod these can be unlinked by the next owner and then they have several of my plants at a very cheap price per plant. It's not a major concern for me but it does compete with my selling these same plants as copy mod at a much higher price per plant than would come from the unlinked display. So, I have suggested that these displays get sold as no mod. It's a very tricky business, selling full perm. But I can see how people would get annoyed that they can't unlink the display and access the individual plants. So, I don't know. Just my 2 cents.

But I must say I have enjoyed some of the arguments in this thread, particularly these wise and original, and very well thought out statements:

Quote

MY point is, you can b*tch and moan...all you want, but it won’t change a damned thing. You don’t set the rules

 

Quote

Solution: don’t buy no-mod. You’re welcome!

Quote

I said this before very recently. For most people, if an item isn't to your satisfaction, don't buy it

Another argument I really love when someone's not happy about something in SL, is telling them 'If you don't like it then leave'

Next time people are upset about a raise in fees or anything else at all, I'm going to cleverly use that top argument there, the one about 'b*tch and moan all you want, you don't set the rules.' That's all I'll ever need.

Edited by Rya Nitely
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

I've already reported this thread, as it is redundant and exists only to pick fights. 

Actually, until Phil and Penny got into their one-on-one debate, the thread was actually (and still is a little) getting some good discussion on the issue.   Also, it is most definitely not the first time that an issue has been brought up for re-discussion.  I don't think that is a problem at all, especially here in the 'General Discussion' area.  

 

1 hour ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Don't bother replying.

As you can see by my reply (and as someone else said in this thread, though in a different context) "You don’t set the rules".

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Actually, until Phil and Penny got into their one-on-one debate, the thread was actually (and still is a little) getting some good discussion on the issue.

I actually think that the 'discussion' between Penny and myself also produced some very good information. It's a pity that we seemed to hog it a bit, but there is some good stuff in it.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rya Nitely said:

Next time people are upset about a raise in fees or anything else at all, I'm going to cleverly use that top argument there, the one about 'b*tch and moan all you want, you don't set the rules.' That's all I'll ever need.

You misunderstand. “Don’t buy what you don’t want” just means that demand drives supply, not the other way around. Rather than pleading with creators, educate buyers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread has wandered off into boring la-la-land, so I'll give my feedback to any and all creators who want me to buy their stuff and I always have money burning my wallet:

1) I always shop Market Place first - it's just easier and more efficient.

2) I never, EVER buy anything that doesn't offer a demo - other than a rezzable (vehicle, furniture, etc.) that demo needs to come from MP. if you say "Demo available in-world" - no sale. I am not going to TP to your lag-invested, molasses-rezzing in-world store to wander about for 15 minutes looking for this one demo. If your MP listing doesn't say "Demo Available" in the upper right: I close that browser tab immediately.

3) Permissions: other than clothing, if it's no-modify, it's a no-sale. Seriously: your stuff isn't that good where I can't find a competing similar version from someone else that IS modify (in this instance: I am referring to rezzable stuff, not so much clothing).

4) If you sell multiple versions of the same item (usually clothing stuff): OFFER A FATPACK. I *always* buy the fatpack if one is available (and uses a HUD). If you force me to pick and choose with no fatpack option, chances are I'll just move on. I'm not going to maintain 5 separate copies of the same thing in different colors. One copy with a color-change HUD is what I want. Because easy for me; more efficient.

In fact, doing myself a make-over: shopped MP like crazy: grabbed demos (and favorited) hundreds of items, then went in-world and spent the next couple days just going through those demos. Tomorrow (as I write this) I am expecting to throw literally almost 30,000L$ at all those things I've selected as "keepers". And of those 30 or 40 items, guess how many are multiple items from the same creator? Because THAT creator "gets it". A shame because there were a LOT of really great-looking stuff I wanted to try. Most never offered a demo and many were "Demo in world". To those creators, I can only say: Sucks to be you.

Edited by Alyona Su

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

I'll stop after this post.

Penny's statment, "I linked to an article I wrote explaining in detail how no-mod content makes it impossible to get the full value of any land you pay for, for all practical purposes forcing you to throw money away." is wrong. I've explained in detail, more than once, why it's wrong.

All you've explained is that you don't understand how making objects larger causes them to take up more space and demonstrating that you forgot that the "Edit Linked" feature exists. You're not exactly making a convincing case here. Everything else you've argued has been a fabrication, putting words in my mouth and playing word games. And for what purpose? Everything you've ever said about this topic boils down to "these problems don't exist, and even if they do exist no one can change anything so everyone should stop talking about it." This is an attitude that has never made any sense to me.

In the meantime, I'm regularly contacted by people who have benefited from this information you claim isn't true. Anyway, this is my final word on the matter, too. My statements and the evidence I provide for all my arguments stands for itself.

2 hours ago, Rya Nitely said:

I sell full perm plants, so someone buys several of these plants and then links them together and sells them as a new item, a pretty garden display, copy mod. As copy mod these can be unlinked by the next owner and then they have several of my plants at a very cheap price per plant. It's not a major concern for me but it does compete with my selling these same plants as copy mod at a much higher price per plant than would come from the unlinked display. So, I have suggested that these displays get sold as no mod. It's a very tricky business, selling full perm. But I can see how people would get annoyed that they can't unlink the display and access the individual plants. So, I don't know. Just my 2 cents.

 This is a reasonable argument! I don't agree with it but I understand it! It makes sense! 

I would say that in selling full perm, a part of the price you charge goes towards the perms that allow your customers to resell the item. Someone who has no interest in reselling will of course prefer a no-trans version for a lower price. My own solution would be to sell a no-trans version at a lower price point yourself, alongside the full perm version, and then instead of making the license agreement require no-mod, instead stipulate that the plants cannot be sold by themselves or at a lower price point than what you are currently selling them for. It's a win for you, your customers, and the customers of your customers. Of course this solution also depends on the original price for your full perm items, if they're already reasonably priced to the point where people who really do just want modifiable versions might just buy your full perm versions then that might not be feasible, or at least need more consideration. I dunno.

 In any case, thanks for the example. It's one I hadn't considered and, again, while I might not agree at least it's honest and I can see the reasoning.

 And that goes for those who sell no-mod content because they use full perm kits which stipulate no-mod in the license agreement. I'm not going buy the no-mod content, but I'm also not going to give anyone in that position a hard time.

Edited by Penny Patton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

To those creators, I can only say: Sucks to be you.

LOL. I hate to disappoint you, but your custom isn't important enough to the sellers of SL to make any difference at all by writing daft posts like that. You're absolutely at liberty to buy what you want, and not buy what you don't want, of course. Whether it sucks to be you or not, I've no idea, but the sellers are just fine without you ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

LOL. I hate to disappoint you, but your custom isn't important enough to the sellers of SL to make any difference at all by writing daft posts like that. You're absolutely at liberty to buy what you want, and not buy what you don't want, of course. Whether it sucks to be you or not, I've no idea, but the sellers are just fine without you ;)

Yes, they are fine without me, that is true.

Though I suppose I am directing that toward all those sellers who post in other threads about slow-down in sales and other things. Hahahaha.

And since I wasn't clear in my own OP, which you quote, I shall do so now: I know this is my own opinion and that it matters not to anyone else and if such opinion causes any eye-rolling then it sucks to be you. Hahahaha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Penny Patton I posted that the no-mod discussion between you and me in this thread is over.

 

23 minutes ago, Penny Patton said:

All you've explained is that you don't understand how making objects larger causes them to take up more space and demonstrating that you forgot that the "Edit Linked" feature exists.

They are absolute lies - figments of your imagination. They are not mistakes on your part. They are lies. If you continue to post lies about me, I'll come back in. But I won't discuss the topic. That discussion is finished. I'll just show up your lies - like I've just done with the two I quoted. If I do come back in, I'll demonstrate in fine detail why those two are lies and not mistakes, so that everyone - not just me - can see that you have now resorted to lying.

ETA: Actually, the first lie is self-explanatory, and doesn't need me to show that it's a lie. It says that I don't understand that larger things take up more space. Really? lol. It's the second lie, about 'Edit linked', that may warrant some proof for me, but the proof is all here in this thread, and easy to show that it's a lie if you continue this way.

ETA2: Actually, I think I will show the proof now. This is what I wrote on page 2 of this thread: "You can't just unlink it unless it's a 1-prim piece. You can unlink its parts but then you have to relink them, which could break the object's functionality". That's the first time that anybody mentioned the possibility of unlinking linked objects. Whoever wrote that (me) clearly understands that you can unlink parts of an obect. In that short bit, the idea is refered to twice, once in each sentence. The first sentence talked about unlinking a 1-prim object from another another object, and the second talked about unlinking a multi-prim object from another object. You read all that when I'd written it, and yet you chose to lie about it.

I've learned a lot about you, Penny.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

I'll stop after this post.

Not possible.  I truly believe you do not have it within yourself to ever stop posting unless you have had the last word.

As your subsequent posts have shown.

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I have stopped. I'm not continuing that discussion. That's what I said I'd do. I didn't say that I'd stop posting in the thread, and none of my subsequent posts have continued that discussion.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

And as I said in the other very long and still active thread, I frankly don't give the furry crack of a rat's ass what you think. I sell clothes as no-mod for a variety of reasons. Deal with it.

I've already reported this thread, as it is redundant and exists only to pick fights. Don't bother replying.

You know, I went and looked for this other thread you were talking about and found one from about a month ago that I totally forgot making. I do apologize to everyone for that, I would have totally kept this in one thread. My bad.

As for the rest, well, you do you. I do not agree with your justifications and I have explained why. However, this thread does not exist only to pick fights. These justifications for no-mod come up time and again and I am dealing with it by calling them out for the BS they are. An informed market can make better purchasing decisions. And the market benefits from the discussion too as they can read what I say, what people like Phil say, and judge for themselves who is making a more convincing argument and providing more compelling evidence.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Penny Patton said:

 

 ....instead of making the license agreement require no-mod....

I wouldn't put that in my license agreement. I would lose almost all my customers. It's only ever a suggestion. I have found that more permissions more customers, and that's what it's all about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Penny Patton said:

the market benefits from the discussion too

Yeah. I think there's a valid meta-discussion to be had about how best to promote the ideas, so as to have the greatest market impact.

I mean, if it were as simple as organizing a boycott of unproductively no-mod content, that would be one thing, but we all know that attempted SL boycotts are notoriously ineffective. One example: there were "!quit" copybot protectors sold for years after every responsible scripter in SL told everyone through every available medium that the creator of that monstrosity was an unrepentant scam artist. 

That said, I think customers benefit from the same education on this topic as do creators. Both parties need to understand how drastically no-mod permission limits the utility and lifespan of SL content, and how rarely it offers any benefit to anybody, including the creators who foolishly choose it.

It might be useful to develop some non-confrontational sentiment that customers could use with creators to express disappointment in their no-mod choice, encourage them to reconsider in their future product offerings, and perhaps direct them to a concise explanation of why no-mod is almost always a poor choice. If we could get customers to send that sentiment for every no-mod purchase, it would at least counterbalance the lazy argument that "mod perm requires more support." Instead make those creators support their dumb no-mod decision.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 896 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...