|
|
|
|
healyje
May 22, 2007, 10:55 PM
Post #276 of 354
(10802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
bspisak wrote: However, given the non-dimpled failures and the failure to update the recall to include these, I see why everyone is hostile.
Brian, what you seem to have either missed in your review of all the previous threads or just aren't grasping is that many of us [repeatedly] attempted to help CCH on-line, off-line, individually, and in groups. No one worked harder at keeping the conversation here on RC objective and focused on the facts than I did. The bottom-line result of all that effort? We were all basically blown off in the end and CCH each time just stuck there head in sand. Coupled with a complete unwillingness to communicate minimally, let alone effectively, throughout the whole saga and even the most benevolent among us gave up. The reason we are 'hostile' isn't because of any given cam or incident - it's the complete lack of communication and sign that any significant has changed at CCH.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 23, 2007, 12:11 AM
Post #277 of 354
(10751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
I have not had to deal with CCH in the same manner as you guys have. I have dealt with them minimally. Because of that, I do not fault anyone who has dealt with CCH on a grander scale for being hostile toward them at all.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not 100% without issue with CCH. I am just not to the "hostile" point yet.
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 23, 2007, 4:10 AM
Post #278 of 354
(10684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
"healyje” wrote: Brian, what you seem to have either missed in your review of all the previous threads or just aren't grasping is that many of us [repeatedly] attempted to help CCH on-line, off-line, individually, and in groups. No one worked harder at keeping the conversation here on RC objective and focused on the facts than I did. The bottom-line result of all that effort? We were all basically blown off in the end and CCH each time just stuck there head in sand. Coupled with a complete unwillingness to communicate minimally, let alone effectively, throughout the whole saga and even the most benevolent among us gave up. The reason we are 'hostile' isn't because of any given cam or incident - it's the complete lack of communication and sign that any significant has changed at CCH.
I’m trying to understand, I really am.
So you’re not upset about the possibility that post recall cams or cams that aren’t dimpled may fail? But rather that the company didn’t effectively communicate? What obligation does any company have to respond to allegations made on an internet forum? Or, are you saying that because CCH wouldn’t communicate with you 1:1, or as part of a representative group of rc.com. that this makes them a bad company?
Looking back, they were quite responsive in early 2005 asking for more info on the quietmonk report. They never got a response. When they finally did receive a failed cam a year later from a different incident, they issued the recall expediently with a full press release.
Of course, one should question why bad product was shipped in the first place and what they’re doing to fix this. This seems to be addressed adequately on their website. This sounds like pretty good communication so far. So, I assume you are talking about post-recall issues.
Post recall, there was a lot of CCH bashing going on. Initially, this was carry over from the recall incident. It’s reasonable to think that part of the reason CCH at this point backed off on fully open communication on this site was because they had gotten burned in the past. There was a huge backlash to the “infamous hoax statement” which was used out of context and without past historical perspective. I can’t see how anyone can find fault in how they handled the recall. (Unless it turns out they were wrong in disclosing which cams were affected.)
There were also reports of cams failing that turned out to be recalled cams. In the one case where there was a substantiated report of a failure at the Forks (the orange cam), the initial information posted to this site was incorrect – the date code turned out to be in the recall range. Should we then believe that the initial information about the cam not having a dimple is then true?
If they never received the cam for inspection, and it wasn’t clear from the pictures if the cam was dimpled or not, then does this mean they buried their head in the sand? Again, they made a press release with what was known at the time. I don’t know the circumstances as to why they never got the cam. Perhaps they could and should have made a better effort to get to the bottom of this. But, without the details as to why this didn’t happen, how can one pass judgment in this case?
So, here is the list of issues that can be verified as true:
1. The incident that precipitated the recall
2. Improperly drilled cam lobes
3. The cable loop that broke at the Forks.
And here are the two most recent issues:
4. The Souder’s Crack incident.
5. The Fish cam failure that apparently was not dimpled.
Let’s look objectively at each issue, CCH’s response, and their actions:
1. The recall was the recall. They responded quickly and with full disclosure. It shouldn’t have happened in the first place, but they seem to be taking proactive action (including going for ISO certification) to prevent this from happening again.
You yourself had discussions with CCH afterwards (http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1289402#1289402) and seem to have been satisfied with CCH’s response at the time.
2. The improperly drilled cam lobes. This shouldn’t have happened and was another sign of a quality control issue at CCH. This happened at the same time as the recall. Is there any reason not to believe that this issue won't be corrected as well? Have we seen this issue reoccur since?
You also cover this in the same letter mentioned above. CCH responds with what they know. The issue doesn't seem to be a safety hazard.
3. The cable loop failure. Shouldn’t have happened. However, it is not a sign of a systemic quality control issue. Rather, it is a sign that they lack a return and replace process that prevents a secretary from pulling a cam out of the wrong bin on the production floor.
This is an isolated incident that doesn’t affect their product in general. Does this require a public statement?
4. The Souder’s Crack issue. CCH has made two posts to their website requesting that the cam be sent in for analysis. Nothing as of yet. If they can’t get the cam to understand what failed and why, what else can they do at this point? Hopefully, the cam will make it in, then we will see how they respond and what action is taken.
5. The Fish cam failure. This was just discovered less than a week ago. This seems to be the first documented failure of a cam without a dimple. I haven’t seen if any communication happened between Fish and CCH. It may still be too early to tell.
There certainly may be something else I’ve missed. If so, please provide a direct link to the specific statements in the thread that substantiates the related claim. I’ve read through what you linked for me, and can’t find anything else.
So, if we all agree that these are the only relevant issues, then how do you justify your statement that CCH has had “a complete unwillingness to communicate minimally, let alone effectively”? It seems they have communicated quite well with respect to the incidents that were of general concern above. The last two are very recent developments, and the jury is still out.
As to your statement questioning if “any[thing] significant has changed at CCH?” They seem to have posted quite a bit about what they are up to. They let everyone know that each cable is being pull tested. They recently posted results of that testing. They are as concerned as anybody about the Souder’s Crack issue and are validating there Q/A data with an outside lab.
I’m not grasping your claims because I see no evidence to back them up. I’ll gladly admit I’m wrong if you can show me that evidence.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 23, 2007, 4:26 AM
Post #279 of 354
(10663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Brian, this post will do it for me. First, you've clearly never interacted with CCH. Second, you do not have a comprehensive list of failed cams, others have failed as well. You're characterizations of several of the failures and events of the saga just graze the surface of what went on and some represent just plain wrong conclusions (the axle hole problem was and is very much a 'safety' problem). In short, you've basically strolled along after the fact and said "what's the problem". Basically, the problems as expressed on-line here and elsewhere are the proverbial tip of the iceberg relative to the CCH's ability to produce products anyone can have confidence in. I'm also guessing you have no idea what's involved with manufacturing and quality processes. As I've explained several times now much activity related to this whole affair has happened off-line, by numerous individuals including industry backchannels. You're presentation of a "logical" argument is quite fine - and might suffice if you really had any 'hands on' experience with the whole affair or the players invovled. Given you haven't, at this point it's pretty much a complete waste of time bantering with you. Shine on dude...
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 23, 2007, 5:40 AM
Post #280 of 354
(10611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
healyje wrote: First, you've clearly never interacted with CCH.
Actually I have, but I'm not sure what relavance that has to the facts.
healyje wrote: Second, you do not have a comprehensive list of failed cams, others have failed as well.
Fine, point me to the appropriate references.
healyje wrote: You're characterizations of several of the failures and events of the saga just graze the surface of what went on and some represent just plain wrong conclusions
Ok, I will conceded if you can provide the appropriate references.
healyje wrote: ( the axle hole problem was and is very much a 'safety' problem).
I can't claim to have run the engineering calculations that prove it either way. Provide me your calculations that prove that it's a problem.
healyje wrote: In short, you've basically strolled along after the fact and said "what's the problem".
No, I've asked you to provide references to confirmed issues, not speculation, not hearsay, just the facts.
Also, I've been following this since the recall as well. I think I mentioned I owned a cam with the axel hole problem.
healyje wrote: Basically, the problems as expressed on-line here and elsewhere are the proverbial tip of the iceberg relative to the CCH's ability to produce products anyone can have confidence in.
What evidence do you have to back up that claim?
healyje wrote: I'm also guessing you have no idea what's involved with manufacturing and quality processes.
I wouldn't say I have no idea, but I'm certainly not an industry expert. What are your qualifications?
healyje wrote: As I've explained several times now much activity related to this whole affair has happened off-line, by numerous individuals including industry backchannels.
Point me to those explanations so I can understand where you're coming from.
healyje wrote: You're presentation of a "logical" argument is quite fine - and might suffice if you really had any 'hands on' experience with the whole affair or the players invovled.
I saw that you exchanged some correspondance and had some phone discussions with CCH. What else are you referring to?
healyje wrote: Given you haven't, at this point it's pretty much a complete waste of time bantering with you. Shine on dude...
Dude, just give me the straight answers, not all these generalizations. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just asking for you to provide substance to your claims. If you can't do so, why should I take you at your word?
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 23, 2007, 5:48 AM
Post #281 of 354
(10616 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
This stuff needs to be moved into a new thread titled "Bickering about CCH". I'm tired of checking to see what the new post is about just to find it being a battle of words over CCH.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 23, 2007, 3:42 PM
Post #282 of 354
(10547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
healyje wrote: bspisak wrote: However, given the non-dimpled failures and the failure to update the recall to include these, I see why everyone is hostile. Brian, what you seem to have either missed in your review of all the previous threads or just aren't grasping is that many of us [repeatedly] attempted to help CCH on-line, off-line, individually, and in groups. No one worked harder at keeping the conversation here on RC objective and focused on the facts than I did.
This is very true. healyje was making a huge effort to help out CCH, offering his experience to them in all of this. When people were making the excuse that CCH didn't have the PR team that Black Diamond may have, healyje stepped up to the plate, both in that arena, and in the QC department as well. The recent failures are a complete insult to his volunteered time and efforts, as well as a complete slap in the face to the beyond-loyal Alien cult that stuck by them through all of the initial troubles.
healyje wrote: The bottom-line result of all that effort? We were all basically blown off in the end and CCH each time just stuck there head in sand. Coupled with a complete unwillingness to communicate minimally, let alone effectively, throughout the whole saga and even the most benevolent among us gave up. The reason we are 'hostile' isn't because of any given cam or incident - it's the complete lack of communication and sign that any significant has changed at CCH.
I think the communication point healyje makes needs to be noted. Those of us nutty climbers can't just talk climbing at the office, or amongst our peers like a golfer might be able to. These boards serve to unite an otherwise scattered community, and serve as an important resource. People like Mal from Trango, Paul Fish from Fish Products, Paul from Mgear, etc... have recognized this, and have made valuable contrbution to discussions here, and have been very forthcoming when the the discussion involves their products. If CCH was unaware of the discussion surrounding their products on these and other boards, their lack of communication w/ the community at large would be more reasonable. I think healyje's burrying their head in the sand comment couldn't be more apt.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 23, 2007, 4:58 PM
Post #283 of 354
(10508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
bspisak wrote: So, my list now agrees with yours
No, I'm afraid it doesn't in the least. I'm w/ healyje on this one. I'm done trying to illuminate this for you. You would be wise to put as much effort into critically reading replies to your posts as you put into responding.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 23, 2007, 5:03 PM
Post #284 of 354
(10500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
You know,
It seems like there is enough info out there on alien failures now, and no more will be forthcoming from CCH.
maybe it's time to let this go, and let people make up their minds on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 23, 2007, 5:33 PM
Post #285 of 354
(10475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
Hi Bob,
I don't doubt that healyje put his heart and soul into what he thought was the right thing to do. However, what obligation does any company have to open their doors to someone who thinks they know better (regardless if they actually do or not.) Would Metolius or Petzl simply let someone walk in who thought they could do a better job?
Granted, CCH is a small company, and the climbing community is a somewhat tight knit group of folks. But not every company producing climbing gear is a Fish or a Trango. If what you want out of a company is for them to be more open and tightly integrated to rc.com, then CCH isn't the one for you. But then neither would most of the other climbing gear companies out there. I just don't see how you can continually berate a company simply because they don't communicate to the degree that you think is appropriate.
Certainly, they should be held accountable for failures with their product and any negligence involved in regards to those failures. However, from what past history has been provided here, I haven't seen a substantiated post-recall case that proves they have a general product issue until these last few weeks. (I may have missed it somewhere, so please provide pointers to those cases if you have them.)
If it turns out that non-dimpled cams are subject to failure, then there is a clear fuck up on their part not to officially expand the recall. If it turns out that post-recall cams (that are supposedly being tested) also fail, then they are guilty of continued negligence.
But having an opinion that something was true and having it be true doesn't prove that there was sufficient data to support your claim to that affect. It just proves that you had a gut feel that turned out to be right.
I'm not one to discount gut feels - I think there is tremondous value in expert opinion and the voice of experience. But, from what I've read here, the opinions expressed seem to be fueld by a general sense of outrage at CCH due to lack of communication and not suitably grounded with other substantial facts.
Of course, that is just my opinion, and I am open to changing it if it seems I'm wrong. But so far, previous posts having been referenced can't be prove things one way or the other. These latest two may finally do so. We shall see.
Brian
p.s. Apologies to anyone who feels offended. That is not my intention. I just want to separate the facts from the opinion in order to accurately judge for myself where the truth lies.
I doubt anyone can deny that there are plenty examples of poor logic and uninformed conclusions not only wrt the CCH threads, but all across the internet. I'm not saying these were due to anyone inparticular, but just reading the posts one can see that there are few that offer any real substance.
|
|
|
|
|
climbxclimb
May 23, 2007, 5:43 PM
Post #286 of 354
(10461 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 80
|
Well....Well....Well....I feel better now!
I sold all my Aliens on e-bay 5 of them not dimpled...
Went right the way online and bought a full set of C3 15% off...
Climbed last Saturday at the Gunks placing them....I liked them a lot!
What else.....I will wait until CCH goes out of business...somebody else, more responsible buys it....and maybe I will buy again Aliens( offset for aid...)
Not to add very much to the discussion...but if you eared that a car you are thinking to buy new...is having issues would you still buy it...?
I would not....ear me! new leaders who are thinking to build a rack.....
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 23, 2007, 7:30 PM
Post #287 of 354
(10414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
climbxclimb wrote: Not to add very much to the discussion...but if you eared that a car you are thinking to buy new...is having issues would you still buy it...?
Well put. I was never advocating continued use of aliens. Whether these issues are true or not, one should not trust their life to a suspect piece of equipment. I certainly will not do so until there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that these issues are either false, or have been corrected.
Everyone needs to decide what criteria to use for these decisions - after all it's your personal safety. Some won't feel comfortable until CCH is out of business.
Business are built on reputation. If you loose that, you've lost all. If a business causes injury through negligence that any reasonable business would avoid, then there should be legal action as well.
We shall see.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 23, 2007, 8:28 PM
Post #288 of 354
(10375 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
bobruef wrote: bspisak wrote: So, my list now agrees with yours No, I'm afraid it doesn't in the least. I'm w/ healyje on this one. I'm done trying to illuminate this for you. You would be wise to put as much effort into critically reading replies to your posts as you put into responding.
Dude, where is all this animosity coming from? Someone comes along and challenges the facts and you berate him as ignorant?
I've been through your responses and I don't see any references to other information that shows that my take is incorrect. Maybe it is, if so, show me the data. If my list doesn't agree with yours, then what else should be on the list?
I don't deny that there is lots of anecdotal evidence out there. I'm not saying you should not weight that evidence how you see fit. But from what I've read here (and again, maybe I missed it) there has yet to be (until the Fish incident) a substantiated case of a non-dimpled or post-recall cam failure of the type that was the subject of the recall.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 23, 2007, 9:34 PM
Post #289 of 354
(10334 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
For the love of DinoJesus please just stop.. you've killed this thread.. you're not changing anyones mind.. many of us participated in many or all of the threads that have been linked.. i don't remember ever seeing you. CCH edited many of their posts.. who knows how many have been deleted.. how is Healyje supposed to show you telephone and in person conversations? If you don't believe people that are at the level they are in the gear industry.. you're tapped in the head
You want to see a good example.. go look at how fast, courteous, and caring Michael was when the Link cam fell apart a month or so ago.. Email Mal Daly about ANYTHING and see how fast he gets back to you. Look at how fast DMM, Mad Rock, OP came together in a thread to discuss biner construction.. that wasn't even a failure.. that was just folks talking about how they are made.. they don't NEED to do that.. but i'm damn sure their stock went up in many people's eyes because they cared about the gear they produce
CCH calls people liars before they even ask for evidence.. they took FOREVER to release the recall.. it was WEEKS before anything happened.. MGear, REI and EMS pulled the cams before the recall was even put out. M Gear did the inicial pull testing not CCH.
You're either fucking clueless or someone trolling the I/A which is just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 23, 2007, 9:38 PM
Post #290 of 354
(10325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Are there any freaking updates on the actual Souders Crack 11d groundfall?
I'm not sure that I haven't missed anything, but isn't this what the thread is about?
If you want to whine and fight over CCH move it to a place where I will know to not worry about reading.
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 23, 2007, 10:20 PM
Post #291 of 354
(10279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
Nice insults.
Go back and see how long it took CCH to respond with the recall. The cam was sent to them on the 6th, the recall happened by the 12th. With obvious mistatements like this, why should I believe anything you say to be true?
Show me where CCH called anyone a liar. The one instance everyone refers to is the "infamous hoax statement." Go back and read the whole statement and nowhere do they call anyone a liar. They simply said that without the cam for a metallurgical analysis, they'd assume it was a hoax. 1 year previously, a similar incident had been posted on rc.com and when the cam didn't materialize for analysis, everyone on rc.com said it was a hoax. Why the double standard?
If they went back and edited a post, point me to where this is discussed and substantiated.
Obviously, anyone who so vehemently supports their own opinions won't have their minds changed. On the other hand, I'm willing to listen to anything that can be substantiated. I could care less if you change your mind or not. There are plenty of other people out there who deserve to know the facts from the opinion.
So anyone who quetions the conventional thinking is either ignorant or a troll? I guess I'm on the way to becoming the second lynching victim here. I think I see a pattern emerging.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
bspisak
May 23, 2007, 10:22 PM
Post #292 of 354
(10274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 74
|
medicus wrote: If you want to whine and fight over CCH move it to a place where I will know to not worry about reading.
OK, I'm done. Sorry about taking this so far off topic.
|
|
|
|
|
antiqued
May 24, 2007, 6:48 PM
Post #293 of 354
(10145 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 243
|
Brian
Because we got virtually no info from CCH, I tried with a poll here http://www.rockclimbing.com/...9;page=unread#unread, asking for people to self report the test results of their non-dimpled aliens. Only ~80 units were reported as tested. One anonymous poll responder reported two failures, but did not back that up with a message, so it made no splash.
I would have thought that a small company with QC image issues would have announced something like "we have tested x non recalled cams over the last y months to within z% of their rated strength, and have seen _no__ failures"
but my impression is that CCH wasn't even counting. Who can tell?
|
|
|
|
|
rhyang
May 24, 2007, 7:03 PM
Post #294 of 354
(10120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 140
|
I've been watching both the alien threads on various climbing sites, and the CCH site. I noticed this morning that they now have a Testing page on their website. As of 17-May they posted the following -
In reply to: During the past year we have proof tested thousands of Aliens for customers to the 1750 lb point with no failures. We have also tested many cams to the breaking point from new production. Here are some recent figures. 3/4 placed at 50% cam closure, 2810 lbs, cable breakage Green at 50%, 2659 lbs,overcammed Green at 40%: 2520 lbs, overcammed; Blue at 80%, 2500 lbs, overcammed/axle bent Blue at 50% :1838 lbs, overcammed. Blue at 80% cam closure, 2368 lbs., and still holding.
FWIW
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 24, 2007, 7:18 PM
Post #295 of 354
(10090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
rhyang wrote: I've been watching both the alien threads on various climbing sites, and the CCH site. I noticed this morning that they now have a Testing page on their website. As of 17-May they posted the following - In reply to: During the past year we have proof tested thousands of Aliens for customers to the 1750 lb point with no failures. We have also tested many cams to the breaking point from new production. Here are some recent figures. 3/4 placed at 50% cam closure, 2810 lbs, cable breakage Green at 50%, 2659 lbs,overcammed Green at 40%: 2520 lbs, overcammed; Blue at 80%, 2500 lbs, overcammed/axle bent Blue at 50% :1838 lbs, overcammed. Blue at 80% cam closure, 2368 lbs., and still holding. FWIW
I don't buy that they're running a 100% success rate on cams they've tested that have been sent in. Sounds like BS to me. For one thing, users have reported sending in cams and getting some of them replaced.
Regarding their "recent data"- I'm assuming by overcammed they mean the cam umbrella'd.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 24, 2007, 7:27 PM
Post #296 of 354
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
Found this on their Recall FAQ page:
CCH wrote: 6) Have there been any reported or tested stem brazing failures of cams without the "center punch dimple?" No, cams without the center punch dimple have not been found to have brazing issues and are not included in this recall.
It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.
|
|
|
|
|
spideyman
May 24, 2007, 7:29 PM
Post #297 of 354
(10074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 32
|
Overcammed does not mean umbrella'd. Overcam'd means placed too close to maximum tension. 80% overcam'd means pulling the trigger back past the designated 50% regular placement. When you overcam you make it much more difficult to remove the cam from the stone as it is stuck tighter. If you undercam then you get an umbrella situation when the cam begins to bite and hold and can not do so and hence inverts due to the lack of cam stops. That is not a defect though, just the limitation of the particular piece of gear.
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
May 24, 2007, 7:33 PM
Post #298 of 354
(10068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
spideyman wrote: Overcammed does not mean umbrella'd. Overcam'd means placed too close to maximum tension.
So you mean to tell me that when they inserted a cam at 80% retraction, the result of the pull test was that it became overcammed? You mind explaining how that happened?
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
May 24, 2007, 7:51 PM
Post #299 of 354
(10038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
I think you misinterpreted what CCH is saying. My interpretation is not that the umbrella effect occurred, but that the cam was placed in an overcammed position during the testing and tested at X%.
|
|
|
|
|
spideyman
May 24, 2007, 7:53 PM
Post #300 of 354
(10035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 32
|
Yea medicus thats my interpretation as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
