TalktoChuck Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 mo·nop·o·ly /məˈnɒpəli/[muh-nop-uh-lee] ?noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price. BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 mo·nop·o·ly /məˈnɒpəli/[muh-nop-uh-lee] ?noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price.Of course the NFL sets the prices. It's their product! What would you like to see? Any manufacturer being able to make a NFL jersey regardless of if they have permission from the league or not? BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?TalktoChuck has me covered. If you make a jersey for yourself you're fine. If you start producing them en mass and selling them it's IP theft. Quote PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 mo·nop·o·ly /məˈnɒpəli/[muh-nop-uh-lee] noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price. BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit.Makes sense. BTW, I'm amused at all the handwringing over inaccurate fakes when the NFL itself has "authentics" that look like Big Lots rejects on the field: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 mo·nop·o·ly /məˈnɒpəli/[muh-nop-uh-lee] ?noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price. BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit.Makes sense. BTW, I'm amused at all the handwringing over inaccurate fakes when the NFL itself has "authentics" that look like Big Lots rejects on the field:And now the NFL has handed the licence over to Reebok. The free market at work. Quote PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 mo·nop·o·ly /məˈnɒpəli/[muh-nop-uh-lee] ?noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price. BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit.Makes sense. BTW, I'm amused at all the handwringing over inaccurate fakes when the NFL itself has "authentics" that look like Big Lots rejects on the field:And now the NFL has handed the licence over to Reebok. The free market at work.Uh, Nike. No one's arguing that any of this is the free market at work, but by extension, so is the black market. Most people will accept a reasonably priced alternative; iTunes is proof of that. Speaking of, say Frankie and the Fakers records a cover of Sammy Superstar's latest hit and sells it on iTunes for 89 cents where the "real" song by Sammy costs $1.29. By your reasoning, why is okay to buy the "knockoff"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 mo·nop·o·ly /məˈnɒpəli/[muh-nop-uh-lee] ?noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.No, it does not. The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL. The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price. BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit.Makes sense. BTW, I'm amused at all the handwringing over inaccurate fakes when the NFL itself has "authentics" that look like Big Lots rejects on the field:And now the NFL has handed the licence over to Reebok. The free market at work.Uh, Nike. No one's arguing that any of this is the free market at work, but by extension, so is the black market. Most people will accept a reasonably priced alternative; iTunes is proof of that. D'oh! Yeah, Nike. Anyway my point is that the NFL was clearly not satisfied with the way Reebok was handling their properties, so they found someone else. I understand that people will accept a reasonably priced alternative. If you acknowledge it's wrong but just decide to say " it" for one reason or another that's fine. It's when people try to justify it by saying it's not that wrong that I take issue. Speaking of, say Frankie and the Fakers records a cover of Sammy Superstar's latest hit and sells it on iTunes for 89 cents where the "real" song by Sammy costs $1.29. By your reasoning, why is okay to buy the "knockoff"?Music really isn't my thing man. I have no idea how a "cover" is defined legally. So given my lack of understanding how that industry works, I'll refrain from comment. Quote PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walby2 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers. If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loogodude90 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers. If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors!+1. THANK YOU. Quote WIZARDS ORIOLES CAPITALS RAVENS UNITED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram29jackson Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Ever think of taking advantage of an "internet deal"?Here is their "quality"Most of these sites have pop-up "customer service" boxes where the sales rep admitted to me that the jerseys are counterfit... his words!Low quality China jerseys.Take a look at their hockey jerseys. They can't get a font type or size correct to save their lives.Their North Star Ns are way to big, same with the Whaler logos.Their Blackhawk 1s are in correct. ok, so , do you buy the stuff or not ? regardless of this banterThe materials used on letters number and patches don't seem to be the high quality material.You definately get what you pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjwii Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Just a show of hands: how many of you have wives or girlfriends with fake Coach or Gucci or *insert designer fashion name here* purses? If they do, do you call them criminal or immoral? Or are you glad they spent $25 for a purse rather than $500? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger77 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers. If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors!+1. THANK YOU.YAY for stealing! Quote PotD May 11th, 2011looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian E Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers. If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors!+1. THANK YOU.YAY for stealing!exactly. that's such a lame excuse. you're using this idea that people who frown upon buying counterfeits are all uppity and elitist to frame your argument and justify perpetuating the problem that you claim MLB and the NFL "have." but then again, there are always going to be people that feel the way you do. that will buy the bootlegged dvd or the knock off movado in times square or china town, because, hey, i want that and there it pretty much is at an affordable price.whatever. that's your choice and no one is going to stop you. i think we've seen that eliminating counterfeits is a fairly fruitless proposition. that being said, i don't think that kind of behavior should be celebrated and we shouldn't herald counterfeiters for giving the public the option of a nearly-authentic jersey at a fraction of the price. ultimately, if i choose to buy a $120 premiere or a $250 authentic instead of a $40 cheap knock off, that's my individual decision. i'd rather have it licensed or not have it at all. and if people choose to go in the other direction, that's theirs. but i'm not going to sit here and say "oh good for you, your exercising the free market." to do so would just be flat out silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Just a show of hands: how many of you have wives or girlfriends with fake Coach or Gucci or *insert designer fashion name here* purses? If they do, do you call them criminal or immoral? Or are you glad they spent $25 for a purse rather than $500?It's the same thing. Yes gucci has a monopoly on gucci purses...if you don't like spending hundreds on a purse, then buy another purse with no "designer cred" or whatever. They don't have the right, nor do they "need" such a purse any more than I have a right to or need an overpriced Adrian Peterson jersey. There are other purses out there, just like there are other clothes (and team memorabilia) out there.My wife, fortunately, is not into fashion purses. If she was, she'd decide whether it is worth the money or not.These purses make the jerseys seem flat out reasonable by comparison. Nevertheless, it's not anyone's right to have one and if that's the price the market has set...so be it. It's too bad anyone will pay $500 for a purse, but it is what it is. It does not render contributing to the culture of IP theft noble or even OK. Quote Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loogodude90 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers. If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors!+1. THANK YOU.YAY for stealing!...says the person who admits to speeding on a regular basis, AND not caring about it because it's not his car. Quote WIZARDS ORIOLES CAPITALS RAVENS UNITED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger77 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers. If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors!+1. THANK YOU.YAY for stealing!...says the person who admits to speeding on a regular basis, AND not caring about it because it's not his car.Actually, I have said that I don't speed because it is not my car. If you're gonna call me out get your facts straight:#2 Since I drive a company car I do not speed out of fear/concern of tickets or trouble at work. And, even though you can't manage to understand it: Speeding is a victimless crime a whereas stealing is not. Quote PotD May 11th, 2011looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loogodude90 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers. If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors!+1. THANK YOU.YAY for stealing!...says the person who admits to speeding on a regular basis, AND not caring about it because it's not his car.Actually, I have said that I don't speed because it is not my car. And, even though you can't manage to understand it: Speeding is a victimless crime a whereas stealing is not.Do you think driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime? Quote WIZARDS ORIOLES CAPITALS RAVENS UNITED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger77 Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Do you think driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime?Yes.But once an accident occurs it becomes a crime with a victim. Quote PotD May 11th, 2011looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram29jackson Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Do you think driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime?Yes.But once an accident occurs it becomes a crime with a victim.SO, has charger77 bought any knock offs since starting this thread ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers. If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors!+1. THANK YOU.YAY for stealing!...says the person who admits to speeding on a regular basis, AND not caring about it because it's not his car.Why are you so hung up on the speeding thing? Lets say Dan speeds on his way home today. How does that make the manufacturing and sale of counterfeits any less illegal? You're failing to grasp a very simple concept here. It's intellectual property theft. It violates US copyright law. This isn't "in my opinion." This is the law, and it's rather pathetic for people to label those pointing out the illegality of these counterfeits to be "self righteous" and "elitists." It's elitist and self-righteous to point out the law?Look, if really want a jersey for cheap and quality isn't a concern, go ahead. It's your choice to buy a counterfeit. Just understand that the production and sale of these things is illegal and don't try to spin it as some sort of noble "for the people" effort. It's not. It's you feeling entitled to a luxury item without the means or desire to pay full price for it, so rather then not buy one at all your entitlement leads you to seek illegally produced knock-offs. Quote PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buster Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Ever think of taking advantage of an "internet deal"?Here is their "quality"Most of these sites have pop-up "customer service" boxes where the sales rep admitted to me that the jerseys are counterfit... his words!Low quality China jerseys.Take a look at their hockey jerseys. They can't get a font type or size correct to save their lives.Their North Star Ns are way to big, same with the Whaler logos.Their Blackhawk 1s are in correct. ok, so , do you buy the stuff or not ? regardless of this banterThe materials used on letters number and patches don't seem to be the high quality material.You definately get what you pay for.From your link, the "low quality Chinese jersey" looks better than what the Colts wear on the field. Just saying...and laughing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.