Virtual Vacation Cache

January 1, 2004

I submitted a "vacation cache" that was not approved because I would not be able to maintain it. Well, the thing is, it's a virtual cache in a bay: something that will not go away. So I don't understand why this can't be a cache. <_<

January 1, 2004

yes that would make me mad to

3.1k · January 1, 2004

Ummm you were told that the reason it was disapproved is because you couldn't maintain it?

Edited January 1, 2004 by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite

1.2k · January 1, 2004

I submitted a "vacation cache" that was not approved because I would not be able to maintain it. Well, the thing is, it's a virtual cache in a bay: something that will not go away. So I don't understand why this can't be a cache.

Yup, it's getting very interesting around here. Get used to it, it's pretty common to not find any common sense around here when it comes to #1, a virtual cache, and #2, anything that can even be stretched to fit the definition of a "Vacation cache".

Welcome nonetheless, and enjoy all of the other aspects of Geocaching that we are "allowed" to enjoy....LOL.

:wacko: :lol:

January 1, 2004

I'm thinking of putting the coordinates on my personal website because it's such a cool place.

Is there a "rival" geocaching site? <_<

January 1, 2004

I think more details are needed. Locations, clips from the denied email, etc.

January 1, 2004

Here's the whole thing . . .

This virtual cache requires a boat. You may rent a motorboat, outrigger canoe, or a kayak. It is possible to stand with your head above water at the cache location.

Very friendly stingrays frequent this location. To log this cache, you must email a photo of a ray, preferably with you in the picture too. I recommend an underwater camera because your land one might get wet. Disposable underwaters can be had for about $30 USD on the island, or better yet, buy before you arrive. You'll be glad to have this camera, not just for the rays, but also because you might see some other cool creatures.

It is possible to pet the rays on their backs -- the side with the beautiful eyes. They feel like wet mushrooms. I have heard that the mouth feels like strong suction, but they don't bite. I even accidently touched the tail (stinger!) which felt like a dull sawblade. They only sting when in danger and the pain supposedly only lasts a few hours.

Note: After I snorkled here, some friends went to the same location and a boat party was feeding the rays, which attracted sharks. The sharks are supposedly harmless, but thrashed a bit when food was available. I would not recommend feeding the rays.

Additional Hints (Encrypt)

Don't be afraid! I swam with these beauties and with sharks in another nearby spot. It was an experience I'll never forget.

From: <noreply@geocaching.com> [ Save address ]

To: <signupz@comcast.net>

Subject: [LOG] Owner: erik88l-r permanently archived Les Raies (Virtual Cache)

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 06:39:53 -0800

This is an automated message from Geocaching.com

You are receiving this email because you are the owner of this listing.

erik88l-r permanently archived Les Raies (Virtual Cache) at 1/1/2004

Log Date: 1/1/2004

Hi,

Please see the rules for Geocaches posted here

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Please see the section on

Placing Caches on Vacation here:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#vacation

Thank you for your cache submission. Your contribution to our sport is

appreciated, however...

I suspect you'd be unable to maintain this cache from your home 4700 miles away

in Oregon. I'm afraid the prohibition on "vacation caches" applies to virtual

caches and webcams as well as the traditional physical caches.

Have a happy new year!

thanks for your understanding,

erik - geocaching.com admin

NOTE: do not select "reply" in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to

this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail

erik88L-R from the log there. Be sure to reference your cache URL or GCxxxx

waypoint number so it can be found.

Visit this listing at the below address:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...d84-89072d638fe

9

Visit GCHDXM

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ca7-49c3-aed2-4

58cf0f2a5c8

Profile for erik88l-r:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=96...d8-27e8e218dc98

Search for caches from this location:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...49.900466666667

1.3k · January 1, 2004

It would be a good idea to do a search in these forums for "vacation caches" and "virtuals" to see what the reasonings for rejecting both are. There have been good points made from both sides of the discussions.

Cheers, Olar

1.4k · January 1, 2004

I'm thinking of putting the coordinates on my personal website because it's such a cool place.

Is there a "rival" geocaching site?

Sure there are other Caching web sites. A quick search will turn them up. Maybe an approver on one of those will let you post this cache to their listing site.

Or just post it (as you said) on your personal site.

The rules about vacation caches on this listing site are pretty clear. I don't really see the problem.

3.1k · January 1, 2004

I'm afraid the prohibition on "vacation caches" applies to virtual
caches and webcams as well as the traditional physical caches.

Funny how there are lots of vacation virtuals placed in hawaii by mainlanders. Your cache sounds fantastic and one that I would make a point to visit. You can list it on other sites. I have some caches listed there but they never get hit.

Maintaining a virtual is a silly excuse. I personally think you just ended up with the wrong approver. Others would have approved it I'll venture.

20.7k · January 1, 2004

I can't really fault Erik on this one. There are considerable barriers in place related to vacation caches and virts.

That being said, if you know a cacher in the area who wouldn't mind babysitting this cache in case of tidal wave or species extinction, perhaps you can get this one approved. Work with the local cachers and Erik, you might get lucky.

3.1k · January 1, 2004

Actually if all you were concerned about is the virtual site being destroyed by tidal waves or polution then you don't need to live there. You can find all all that sort of information over the internet. For example in Tahiti there are several scuba diving operators. I would just stay in touch with one of them for any updates.

1.7k · January 1, 2004

Some virtuals DO need maintenance.

Monuments get torn down or moved. Names on gravestone fade away (a multi-leg virtual here in KC has that happening) and so on.

Roads get built that change the terrain. Hotels, houses, shopping centers, and condos go up all over.

All that could ruin a virtual.

6.4k · January 1, 2004

I don't care if the hider lived 5 miles away, it was rightfully declined.

If I read this right, the "cache" is basically this:

Go to the bay (i'm guessing the rays don't just hang out in a 30x30ft spot of ocean, do they?)

Take a pic of fish

Sure, it sounds cool. But not a geocache.

If you people think that qualifies as a virtual cache, I've got one. Go to this forest and take a pic of a bird. Same thing.

20.7k · January 1, 2004

Actually if all you were concerned about is the virtual site being destroyed by tidal waves or polution then you don't need to live there...

I was just having a little fun. My point was, if this is the only barrier, perhaps a local can babysit.

January 1, 2004

I had a virtual cache turned down that was in down town washington state. They came back stating I could hide a micro in/on the bushes. I hate those kind and do not place those, also the landscape get trashed out. Then I got a local that would maintain it and it still got turned down. I placed 5-6 vacation caches in the Bahamas before they were baned. I get a lot of people that are happy there was something for them to do besides shop.

Happy New Year to everyone, Don

1.3k · January 1, 2004

Questions:

Are the rays seasonal?

Anything happening in the area that may be a threat to the rays?

If something happens to the rays, who archives or disables the cache?

If shark warnings are posted, who archives or disables the cache?

Is there a time of day that's best for this cache or is it 24 hours a day?

I mean, this is a cool plance and all, but somehow I don't expect the situation to be stable for a long period of time. It sounds a lot more like the luck of the rays and the sandbar all being in the right place for a season or so. But since I don't live there, I don't know.

Honestly, what do you do if a couple people post a DNF? While it doesn't require the maintainence a physical cache might need, I think it still need maintainence. (similar to the common "this cache has been temporarily disabled because there have been mountain lion sightings in the area" that I've seen on some land caches)

3.1k · January 1, 2004

I don't care if the hider lived 5 miles away, it was rightfully declined.
If I read this right, the "cache" is basically this:

Go to the bay (i'm guessing the rays don't just hang out in a 30x30ft spot of ocean, do they?)

Take a pic of fish

Sure, it sounds cool. But not a geocache.

If you people think that qualifies as a virtual cache, I've got one. Go to this forest and take a pic of a bird. Same thing.

Mopar it almost sounds like a locationless but I would find this an interesting cache to locate. Actually Mantas do return to the same locations on a daily basis. I'm a diver and on the Big Island of Hawaii you can visit the same exact mantas every night. All you need is an underwater light and they'll flock around you like birds. But you have to be at the right location, you miss if and you won't see a single one.

On Maui they have feeding stations where you can visit them each day. We had one that was very curious and would actually rub it's wings across the tops of our heads.

The deal is erik said it would be impossible to maintain, not that he didn't find it interesting enough. I would find this more intereting than a roadside sign wouldn't you?

sbell111 I agree, a local could babysit it. Of course there probably aren't local cachers, or very many on this island but it could be done. Still erik didn't say to get that, he just disapproved it because it couldn't be maintained.

2.3k · January 1, 2004

I'm afraid the prohibition on "vacation caches" applies to virtual
caches and webcams as well as the traditional physical caches.

Funny how there are lots of vacation virtuals placed in hawaii by mainlanders. Your cache sounds fantastic and one that I would make a point to visit. You can list it on other sites. I have some caches listed there but they never get hit.

Maintaining a virtual is a silly excuse. I personally think you just ended up with the wrong approver. Others would have approved it I'll venture.

As an approver I would not have approved this cache. For the reason mentioned and also because the guidelines state:

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

1. A virtual cache must be a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. Objects in motion (such as people, vehicles) generally do not qualify as a virtual cache, unless that item can be adequately tracked and updated on the Geocaching.com web site. (For example, a link to a tracker for a vehicle might be acceptable, but contact your local approver first before posting it as a virtual cache to work out the details.) If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

While the water and beach are permanent the animals that are part of this cache are not. There is no way to be sure that they will be there at the time the cacher shows up to take the picture. The cache description states "Very friendly stingrays frequent this location". frequent implies that they are not there all the time. I personally would not be happy to have rented a boat, purchased a camera only to find the rays frequenting another beach that day. The requirement to take a photo of a Ray would be difficult if the ray's moved. Something you might not be aware of being 4700 miles away and not privy to local news reports or weather conditions that might affect the patterns of these animals.

9.2k · January 1, 2004

This cache probably wouldn't have been approved, even if it wasn't a vacation cache. It doesn't seem to fit within the guidelines. A virtual has to be something specific. This appears to be simply an area (it sounds like a nice area, but it's still just an area).

The fact that it's a vacation cache was simply the most obvious thing to point out, but it's probably not the only reason this was denied.

4k · January 1, 2004

I don't care if the hider lived 5 miles away, it was rightfully declined.
If I read this right, the "cache" is basically this:

Go to the bay (i'm guessing the rays don't just hang out in a 30x30ft spot of ocean, do they?)

Take a pic of fish

Sure, it sounds cool. But not a geocache.

If you people think that qualifies as a virtual cache, I've got one. Go to this forest and take a pic of a bird. Same thing.

I've got to agree with Mopar on this one. There are lots of places in the world that one could photograph a stingray, and literally millions of pics on the internet that could be harvested to claim the cache. And, if you required the pic to include the finder, how would you know it's the actual finder, or just some other person in the millions of pics on the internet? Take it a step further: If you required a pic of the GPSr with the rays showing the coords, then you've got a little better chance of avoiding cheats. However, with it being a "vacation" cache, and also being dependent upon the rays actually being there, I agree that it is not an easily approvable thing. Good idea, but just too many holes to try to sew up. <_<

January 1, 2004

Just because one reason was listed, doesn't mean that other reasons would not have come into play if the hider was local.

Edited January 1, 2004 by NJ Admin

20.7k · January 1, 2004

Just because one reason was listed, doesn't mean that other reasons would not have come into play if the hider was local.

Ummm, that's why I said 'work with Erik'.

January 1, 2004

Just because one reason was listed, doesn't mean that other reasons would not have come into play if the hider was local.

Ummm, that's why I said 'work with Erik'.

I got ya, but Prime Suspect nailed it. Usually, when we decline a cache, we just go with the most obvious reason. We really don't enjoy declining them, and usually don't rejoice with beating the hider down with 15 different reasons he isn't going to get this cache appreoved. Also, I've noticed when it comes to virtuals, most hiders seem to places them on a whim. They see something, they waypoint it, and submit it as a cache. 90% of the virtual cache hiders I've dealt with don't even bother to respond to questions or concerns about their cache. Questions that might have got it approved.

January 1, 2004

I couldn't get my reverse locationless virtual vacation cache approved either. It isn't buried very deep, just 10 ft from the RR tracks, on private property and 20 ft from another cache. Other than that...

Nope, I just don't get it.

January 1, 2004

His cache page would have been plenty specific. He said up front you had to rent a boat, buy a underwater camara and that the rays frequented the area.

Seems like the fine folks at GC are trying to protect all us stupid people who cant think for our selves and understand simple english.

I'm suprised they didnt call it commercial since you had to rent a boat ect.

The only thing this one needs is a second type of verification that the rays you find or may not find, are from the area in question.

I'm kind of suprised that the fact the rays might not be there every second wasnt hailed as a good thing since I hear the complaint frequently that, "When was the last time someone logged a DNF on a LC or VC."

3.1k · January 1, 2004

So then let me ask this of you moderators. If I were to say put up a 5-5 underwater cache off the island of Maui, while on vacation and make the requirement a photo of an entrance to an underwater cave or arch, a real physical spot do you approvers think this would be approved? While it is a vacation cache it's a spot that has a real physical location and yet a spot where you couldn't place an actual cache box.

7.2k · January 1, 2004

So then let me ask this of you moderators. If I were to say put up a 5-5 underwater cache off the island of Maui, while on vacation and make the requirement a photo of an entrance to an underwater cave or arch, a real physical spot do you approvers think this would be approved? While it is a vacation cache it's a spot that has a real physical location and yet a spot where you couldn't place an actual cache box.

Regarding that type of cache for just any cave I would say no. Just any underwater cave is too common. If it was for the "Treasure of Whatever Cave" and was a well known and unique area where a regular cache could not be anchored below water in the area legally, then maybe.

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

Once again, as long as it can follow the guidelines it could possibly be approved. I think there are other areas where the cache in question in this topic fails. Taking pictures of rays is using a target that is too common. Taking pictures of rays could be easily faked as well.

3.1k · January 1, 2004

Regarding that type of cache for just any cave I would say no. Just any underwater cave is too common. If it was for the "Treasure of Whatever Cave" and was a well known and unique area where a regular cache could not be anchored below water in the area legally, then maybe.

Thanks for your imput. I have thought about a particular cave. It's by Maui, actually off the southern tip of Lanai. You couldn't fake a photo of the entrance to the Cathedrals or a photo of the inside, very distinctive. It's just a thought I had.

I'm just curious as to the current mindset of mods and approvers here.

There are also some distinctive caves and arches off of the Big Island of Hawaii and off of Maui. These wouldn't be of your yellow jeep varity of virtual or locationless. It would require extreme effort, training and money to access.

I like a wide spectrum of caches and my hides and finds reflect that.

2.1k · January 1, 2004

I'm thinking of putting the coordinates on my personal website because it's such a cool place.

Is there a "rival" geocaching site?

Feel free to place on my site in the forums under the "sight Seeing Caches" area. Same thing as virtuals. People can post messages of their finds, but their is no record keeping. Just a simple and easy way of sharing great places.

7.2k · January 1, 2004

Bear in mind that it needs to "be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects." You need a good method of verification. For an underwater photo I would ask them to have something like a laminated card with the geocaching.com logo for the photo. Read the guidelines and make sure you cover all the bases. If in doubt, ask your local approver.

3.1k · January 1, 2004

Bear in mind that it needs to "be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects." You need a good method of verification. For an underwater photo I would ask them to have something like a laminated card with the geocaching.com logo for the photo. Read the guidelines and make sure you cover all the bases. If in doubt, ask your local approver.

Sounds good and thanks for your imput. The laminated card is a perfect idea or perhaps just a diveslate whichs states GC.com on it. All us divers have one of those someplace. On our next trip we'll see if we can't get something like this submitted and approved.

24.7k · January 1, 2004

...Usually, when we decline a cache, we just go with the most obvious reason. We really don't enjoy declining them, and usually don't rejoice with beating the hider down with 15 different reasons he isn't going to get this cache appreoved....

You probably should list all the reasons a cache was denied. That way there is no false hope that if they fix the "one" reason given, it will get approved.

Plus the last thing anyone needs is to come back and have one more reason given. Then fix that and find one more problem.

While I understand not wanting to beat someone down, you are doing them no favors to not tell all of the reasons why it was disproved.

This goes for all approvers, NJ Admin you just pointed out the usual method used.

This location does sound like a cool spot well worth a visit.

Edited January 1, 2004 by Renegade Knight

9.2k · January 2, 2004

His cache page would have been plenty specific. He said up front you had to rent a boat, buy a underwater camara and that the rays frequented the area.
Seems like the fine folks at GC are trying to protect all us stupid people who cant think for our selves and understand simple english.

I'm suprised they didnt call it commercial since you had to rent a boat ect.

The only thing this one needs is a second type of verification that the rays you find or may not find, are from the area in question.

I'm kind of suprised that the fact the rays might not be there every second wasnt hailed as a good thing since I hear the complaint frequently that, "When was the last time someone logged a DNF on a LC or VC."

It's completely irrelevant how specific the cache description was. He could have provided the astrological sign of the guy who rents the boats, and it still wouldn't fit the accepted definition of virtual. :unsure:

1.3k · January 2, 2004

Not all, but most vacation virtuals that have been placed in my area are of the "read this statue" type. It always brings up images of a dog trotting along and scent marking every upright object it encounters. The base of that tree really isn't important to anyone but the dog who marked it. And it makes all of the local dogs upset, so they go mark right on top of the original one. Just close your eyes and replace cachers with dogs, and virts with fire hydrants. You might laugh hard enough to mark something of your own. :unsure:

January 2, 2004

Also, I've noticed when it comes to virtuals, most hiders seem to places them on a whim. They see something, they waypoint it, and submit it as a cache. 90% of the virtual cache hiders I've dealt with don't even bother to respond to questions or concerns about their cache. Questions that might have got it approved.

I would have gladly answered a question if asked.

Frankly, the "find a sign at the base of a statue" virtuals are pretty boring after awhile. Wouldn't I have found the famous site on my own???

I submitted this with the idea that mods might have a creative outlook and actually think this was a pretty cool idea.

As for the person who said something to the effect of take a picture in the forest of a bird. That's a cache. Um. No. It's not the same. Do you see stingrays everyday? Birds yes. Stingrays that you can pet? No.

I stayed at a hotel that provided free canoes. So renting is probably not an issue if you are already on this island. You can also walk or swim to this location; it is shallow, but it's a third of a mile.

I would imagine that few of the locals have GPS units. :unsure: Perhaps we should ban all geocaches on islands where underprivleged non-gps-owners live. That's logical. No "vacation virtuals" and since none of the locals will hide a cache, no caches at all.

6.4k · January 2, 2004

As for the person who said something to the effect of take a picture in the forest of a bird. That's a cache. Um. No. It's not the same. Do you see stingrays everyday? Birds yes. Stingrays that you can pet? No.

Just because where YOU live, thousands of miles away, you can't pet stingrays, doesn't make it unusual. Apparently, from your decription, you are much more likely to see a stingray at the location then a bird. Sounds like stingrays are pretty common in that neck of the world. Lets make my cache example more specific, ok? Lets pick a specioes of bird thats very common here on the east coast, yet non-existant where you live on the west. NOW does my virtual get approved?

Edited January 2, 2004 by Mopar

January 2, 2004

As for the person who said something to the effect of take a picture in the forest of a bird. That's a cache. Um. No. It's not the same. Do you see stingrays everyday? Birds yes. Stingrays that you can pet? No.

Just because where YOU live, thousands of miles away, you can't pet stingrays, doesn't make it unusual. Apparently, from your decription, you are much more likely to see a stingray at the location then a bird. Sounds like stingrays are pretty common in that neck of the world. Lets make my cache example more specific, ok? Lets pick a specioes of bird thats very common here on the east coast, yet non-existant where you live on the west. NOW does my virtual get approved?

I would imagine you don't have a degree in logic.

Anyway, I was on this island for ten days. This is an island that has as many visitors in one year as Hawaii has in one week. Only when I boated out to this specific location did I see stingrays. They weren't exactly crawling up on shore for sun and fun.

And I saw LOTS of stingrays. LARGE stingrays.

And a few of them just contacted me by email and asked me never to post their coordinates because they THOUGHT they were special, and now they realize they're just like common birds from central new jersey.

And several were concerned they might end up photoshoped into a fake photo, just so someone could say they found a cache. Yes, they have heard that humans spend all kinds of time falsifying stingray photos.

And underwater caves are a dime a dozen. Just like a container . . . at the foot of a tree. I can't believe anyone would actually say that. How many of you have been to an underwater cave?

So, be petty, squelch an imaginative spirit or two.

It must feel so powerful to moderate at geocaching.com.

If anyone cool's interested in a beautiful island and some friendly rays, let me know. I'd be happy to share.

January 2, 2004

Would anyone like some cheese with their whine? Sheesh!

Who wants to do a lame virtual anyway?

Happy caching and stuff!

2.1k · January 2, 2004

I don't think that was called for....

2.4k · January 2, 2004

It's not a cache PERIOD. Get over it, move on. The vacation thing was just the first thing to point out. If you lived there it would still get rejected because it's not a cache....

5k · January 2, 2004

Taking pictures of fish, no matter how rare, is not a geocache.

Taking pictures of stingrays is cool. I'd like to do that someday, but it's not a geocache.

A geocache is a container hidden at known coordinates.

This is not a geocache, although it sounds like a swell place.

Jamie

January 2, 2004

Hey guys you must remember that not all virtuals stay put

not all access points, lookout platforms, roads stay open and ready to use.

If you aren't near by to see whats going on there could be some headaches. I'm not saying this is the way it always happens but I also do not sympathize with people who are GREATLY offended when their vacation virtual wasn't approved.

If you really thought it was a cool spot e-mail some local cachers in the area and see if you can't get the virt adopted or made by a local. That way you can still share the site with other geocachers. You can always subscribe to the cache and pretend it was your cache if you want.

4k · January 2, 2004

How many of you have been to an underwater cave?

I've been to three underwater caves. All of them in Missouri. Pretty cool, too. Still there, too.

6.4k · January 2, 2004

And I saw LOTS of stingrays. LARGE stingrays.

And a few of them just contacted me by email and asked me never to post their coordinates because they THOUGHT they were special, and now they realize they're just like common birds from central new jersey.

I wanted to apologize to any stingrays that felt insulted. I even had a bonding moment with one LARGE one, and everything was forgiven. Now may I log your "cache"? PLEASE?

January 2, 2004

Waa, waa, waa!!!

January 2, 2004

It's completely irrelevant how specific the cache description was. He could have provided the astrological sign of the guy who rents the boats, and it still wouldn't fit the accepted definition of virtual.

Accepted discription of a VC is an oxymoron these days.

Lazyboy pointed out one of a number of easy alternatives one could employ to photo visit a specific underwater location and if you happened to be there when the rays were, then so much the better.

If you had read all the previous posts you would have understood that the refrence to the specificity of the discription was in response to the previous posts concerning potential cachers going there with all the time an expense and potentially finding no rays.

3.5k · January 2, 2004

Regarding vacation caches ~ if a location is so special that you believe that a cache should be placed there, mark a waypoint and contact a local cacher when you get back home.

The rash of vacation caches placed over the holiday has been a real mess. Either we're leaving geo-litter or terrible caches. :unsure:

January 2, 2004

9key I do not appreciate you reading my posts and then copying it in your own words. Thats just not nice...

:unsure:

3.5k · January 2, 2004

Oops! Sorry dood! :unsure:

Virtual Vacation Cache

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment