|
gmggg
Aug 19, 2010, 1:41 PM
Post #151 of 217
(5804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
Oh, I forgot to include my info...
Climbing for ~10 (1-2 times a month) years "seriously" for 5(3-4 times a week).
Joined here very recently to find new partners in new lands.
I would estimate that my S/N is 45/65. I want to say 50/50, but I won't give myself the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 19, 2010, 2:40 PM
Post #152 of 217
(5777 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: LostinMaine wrote: jt512 wrote: I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise. Jay While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion. Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review. Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise. No one is suggesting that a FAQ take the place of a forum. But the purpose of the forum should be to supplement the FAQ. It's not that hard: 1. Check the FAQ first. 2. Do a search. 3. Then, if your question still isn't completely answered, post the question. I've answered thousands of programming questions for myself by doing searches and reading FAQs, only to seem the exact same question later posted by someone to a forum. In high-SNR forums, such questions are rejected, either by the moderator or the user base. Jay
Over and over this forum has rejected your version of internet Utopia.
No one wants to live under your rule dude.
No one.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 19, 2010, 2:42 PM
Post #153 of 217
(5774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: LostinMaine wrote: jt512 wrote: I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise. Jay While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion. Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review. Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise. No one is suggesting that a FAQ take the place of a forum. But the purpose of the forum should be to supplement the FAQ. It's not that hard: 1. Check the FAQ first. 2. Do a search. 3. Then, if your question still isn't completely answered, post the question. I've answered thousands of programming questions for myself by doing searches and reading FAQs, only to seem the exact same question later posted by someone to a forum. In high-SNR forums, such questions are rejected, either by the moderator or the user base. Jay Over and over this forum has rejected your version of internet Utopia. DMT
I've conceded that elsewhere. The majority of users here have gotten not only what they deserve, but what they actually prefer: garbage.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 19, 2010, 2:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 19, 2010, 2:50 PM
Post #154 of 217
(5764 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In the original vein, I have been climbing now (sheesh) 37 years.
I am not qualified to post authoritatively in the lab. I feel I have nothing to contribute there.
Further, I feel the vast majority and I mean like a super dee dooper majority, are also unqualified to post in the lab.
I would go so far as to say the reason I don't read the lab threads at all, including most all of Adatesman's work, in particular the 'steal a design' cam contest, is because of pedantic and argumentative posts from journeyman climbers who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
Its a GEEK sub forum. Math geek, engineer geek, geek geek geek. There is very little content there of practical use to real climbers.
So turning the site upside down for the sake of 6 or so posters, is really really stupid. Make the lab a private club and let them go off geeking one another and leave the rest of the site to its own counsel.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 19, 2010, 2:51 PM
Post #155 of 217
(5761 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: LostinMaine wrote: jt512 wrote: I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise. Jay While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion. Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review. Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise. No one is suggesting that a FAQ take the place of a forum. But the purpose of the forum should be to supplement the FAQ. It's not that hard: 1. Check the FAQ first. 2. Do a search. 3. Then, if your question still isn't completely answered, post the question. I've answered thousands of programming questions for myself by doing searches and reading FAQs, only to seem the exact same question later posted by someone to a forum. In high-SNR forums, such questions are rejected, either by the moderator or the user base. Jay Over and over this forum has rejected your version of internet Utopia. DMT I've conceded that elsewhere. The majority of users here have gotten not only what they deserve, but what they actually prefer: garbage. Jay
To complete your point, they (we) prefer garbage OVER YOUR VERSION OF UTOPIA.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Aug 19, 2010, 2:56 PM
Post #156 of 217
(5750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
dingus wrote: Make the lab a private club and let them go off geeking one another and leave the rest of the site to its own counsel. DMT
 Oh, Dingus, you make me laugh!
new sig?
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Aug 19, 2010, 2:59 PM
Post #157 of 217
(5745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: new sig?
Nope. I tried to add this but it was too long. I didn't want to get rid of my other 2. Fair game for anyone else.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
dagibbs
Aug 19, 2010, 3:02 PM
Post #158 of 217
(5739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2007
Posts: 921
|
gmggg wrote: I would estimate that my S/N is 45/65. I want to say 50/50, but I won't give myself the benefit of the doubt.
Well, at least you're giving the site 110%!
(This post was edited by dagibbs on Aug 19, 2010, 3:02 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 19, 2010, 3:06 PM
Post #159 of 217
(5730 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: LostinMaine wrote: jt512 wrote: I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise. Jay While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion. Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review. Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise. No one is suggesting that a FAQ take the place of a forum. But the purpose of the forum should be to supplement the FAQ. It's not that hard: 1. Check the FAQ first. 2. Do a search. 3. Then, if your question still isn't completely answered, post the question. I've answered thousands of programming questions for myself by doing searches and reading FAQs, only to seem the exact same question later posted by someone to a forum. In high-SNR forums, such questions are rejected, either by the moderator or the user base. Jay Over and over this forum has rejected your version of internet Utopia. DMT I've conceded that elsewhere. The majority of users here have gotten not only what they deserve, but what they actually prefer: garbage. Jay To complete your point, they (we) prefer garbage OVER YOUR VERSION OF UTOPIA. DMT
No, the majority of users here simply prefer garbage of substance.
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Aug 19, 2010, 3:09 PM
Post #160 of 217
(5720 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
dagibbs wrote: gmggg wrote: I would estimate that my S/N is 45/65. I want to say 50/50, but I won't give myself the benefit of the doubt. Well, at least you're giving the site 110%!
Don't give away my secrets! It took years to learn that trick from FOX.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 19, 2010, 3:12 PM
Post #161 of 217
(5732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
jt512 wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: LostinMaine wrote: jt512 wrote: I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise. Jay While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion. Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review. Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise. No one is suggesting that a FAQ take the place of a forum. But the purpose of the forum should be to supplement the FAQ. It's not that hard: 1. Check the FAQ first. 2. Do a search. 3. Then, if your question still isn't completely answered, post the question. I've answered thousands of programming questions for myself by doing searches and reading FAQs, only to seem the exact same question later posted by someone to a forum. In high-SNR forums, such questions are rejected, either by the moderator or the user base. Jay Over and over this forum has rejected your version of internet Utopia. DMT I've conceded that elsewhere. The majority of users here have gotten not only what they deserve, but what they actually prefer: garbage. Jay To complete your point, they (we) prefer garbage OVER YOUR VERSION OF UTOPIA. DMT No, the majority of users here simply prefer garbage of substance.
OK they prefer the garbage of substance over your version of Utopia.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Aug 19, 2010, 3:14 PM
Post #162 of 217
(5728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Actively supporting and encouraging the high noise level by the management has been a longstanding tradition and they have done so often at the cost of those who actually were provide the majority of the signal.
I would say my signal to noise ratio is close to 90:10 if not better. Ironically enough, I am probably considered one of RC.coms "bad guys". Whatever. I check the site to monitor for pictures, topics, or questions about local areas pretty much exclusively.
There simply isn't anything else worth reading here and I have learned my lesson about contributing.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 19, 2010, 3:25 PM
Post #163 of 217
(5721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: dingus wrote: jt512 wrote: LostinMaine wrote: jt512 wrote: I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise. Jay While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion. Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review. Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise. No one is suggesting that a FAQ take the place of a forum. But the purpose of the forum should be to supplement the FAQ. It's not that hard: 1. Check the FAQ first. 2. Do a search. 3. Then, if your question still isn't completely answered, post the question. I've answered thousands of programming questions for myself by doing searches and reading FAQs, only to seem the exact same question later posted by someone to a forum. In high-SNR forums, such questions are rejected, either by the moderator or the user base. Jay Over and over this forum has rejected your version of internet Utopia. DMT I've conceded that elsewhere. The majority of users here have gotten not only what they deserve, but what they actually prefer: garbage. Jay To complete your point, they (we) prefer garbage OVER YOUR VERSION OF UTOPIA. DMT No, the majority of users here simply prefer garbage of substance. OK they prefer the garbage of substance over your version of Utopia. DMT
Oops. Not where I'd have chosen to make a typo.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 19, 2010, 3:29 PM
Post #164 of 217
(5712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
roughster wrote: Actively supporting and encouraging the high noise level by the management has been a longstanding tradition and they have done so often at the cost of those who actually were provide the majority of the signal.
No argument here.
In reply to: I would say my signal to noise ratio is close to 90:10 if not better. Ironically enough, I am probably considered one of RC.coms "bad guys".
While I can't rival your 9:1 signal-to-noise ratio, it seems that in principle, Aaron, for once we have something in common.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Aug 19, 2010, 3:53 PM
Post #165 of 217
(5695 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: I apologize. After the recent drama, I should no to just ignore him. Josh
You should KNOW to just say NO to responding to any of Jay's egotitical know-it-all self centered useless posts.
|
|
|
|
|
subantz
Aug 19, 2010, 3:58 PM
Post #166 of 217
(5691 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2007
Posts: 1247
|
jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I think what I am trying to say is, despite the noise, don't be discouraged from posting. I think someone else already said it. To increase ratio, increase the signal, not necessarily decrease the noise... But it's the high amount of noise that discourages substantive posting. Just saying "increase the signal" isn't going to have any effect, since it ignores the very reason why the high-signal posts aren't being made. It's just an expression of wishful thinking. Jay And yet, you still post. Meaning...? I think you know exactly what I meant by that.  Josh Well, thanks for the compliment, then. Yes, I'm still one of the few people to post substantive content to the site. Jay
LIES ALL FUCKIN LIES
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Aug 19, 2010, 4:07 PM
Post #167 of 217
(5686 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: socalclimber wrote: I think this thread started out great, and now has descended into the sewer. What makes you say that? Since you were late to the thread and clearly read from the beginning, can you point to a post (even one of mine) that made you say "oh noz not again another great thread ruined"? I'm curious to know.
Threads are really like a bottle of milk, on the table with the lid left off.... sooner or later it's gonna go sour the longer you have the lid off and leave it on the table. No matter how much chocolate sauce or syrup you pour in it'll still end up tasting like crap.
Moral to the story... nature cannot be tamed!
I guess I'll add to the blather of this thread...
As pointed out by a lot of people so far, calculating signal/noise ratio for each person will depend on what they want from the site in general and each reason is legitimate. Only with time on the site will one know how and what filters to use to make their experience better and in line with what they want. As said earlier though, some users just like to flap their peacock feathers and responses are all that satisfy them... great for them...
For me, in the six years I've been on the site my content, input and amount of "give-a-crap" have all varied with time. You really need to separate completely "Campground" type topics from the noise because that's all it is and shouldn't count in the signal:noise ratio. I've been climbing since the early 90's and enjoy input into regular forums if I my experience would help. Sometimes it's just the experiences themselves that I'd rather share and also reading the stories of others.... and at other times I'd just rather log in and poop from the mouth.
I think when some users see the exact same topic and question appear repeatedly over the years it kind of gets stale. At the same time, I don't mind a new climber asking advice about a topic that obviously changes with time. "How should I fit my shoe" is very static with time and should be steered to the FAQ... but "What do people think of these Jet7 shoes?" is something worthwhile and time-dependent.
It's answers (of varying quality) that are the signal in a noise of responses.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Aug 19, 2010, 4:22 PM
Post #168 of 217
(5677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Aug 19, 2010, 4:34 PM
Post #169 of 217
(5665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
olderic wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I apologize. After the recent drama, I should no to just ignore him. Josh You should KNOW to just say NO to responding to any of Jay's egotitical know-it-all self centered useless posts.
Is this where I should point out your misspelling of egotistical? 
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Aug 19, 2010, 5:19 PM
Post #170 of 217
(5640 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: olderic wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I apologize. After the recent drama, I should no to just ignore him. Josh You should KNOW to just say NO to responding to any of Jay's egotitical know-it-all self centered useless posts. Is this where I should point out your misspelling of egotistical?
I actually saw that just as I clicked the Post button (seeing it at all is a miracle as I am recovering from surgery for a detached retina) and considered going back and fixing it - but I am too lazy. But see my typos just make me look stupid. But yours - similar to the break vs. brake or the knot vs. not ones - can actually be interpreted in a clever way.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 20, 2010, 3:39 AM
Post #171 of 217
(5591 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
atg200 wrote: Someone upthread mentioned mountain project as being a very moderated site. It is not - there really aren't any moderators. The very few threads that have been locked or deleted have been only when enough regular users have complained to the site owner. Mountain project is a good example of a largely self-policing community, which works in my opinion because the community is much smaller and most people use their real names. It also helps that it is a route database with forums as a sideshow, as opposed to the rc.com model of forums with a poorly implemented routes database as a sideshow.
Hey Andrew,
I may have been the one who said that. Certainly that was my impression--sorry if it's incorrect. You raise another interesting thought though: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 20, 2010, 4:00 AM
Post #172 of 217
(5579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed?
It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 20, 2010, 4:11 AM
Post #173 of 217
(5571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay
What? I would only require a notarized birth certificate, finger prints, retina scan, blood sample and, of course a completed DISCO security application. Don't make this sound more complicated than it really is.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Aug 20, 2010, 4:15 AM
Post #174 of 217
(5560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay What? I would only require a notarized birth certificate, finger prints, retina scan, blood sample and, of course a completed DISCO security application. Don't make this sound more complicated than it really is. Curt
Curt, you forgot the painful tissue sample...
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Aug 20, 2010, 4:16 AM
Post #175 of 217
(5557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: curt wrote: perhaps anonymous posting should not be allowed? It would be unenforceable, in practice. When signing up for an account, a new user could enter anything in the "Real Name" field. Any means that could be used to reliably verify the name would be excessive. Jay What? I would only require a notarized birth certificate, finger prints, retina scan, blood sample and, of course a completed DISCO security application. Don't make this sound more complicated than it really is. Curt
AARP card perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
