Sarissa Resources, Inc. (SRSR) | Stock Discussion Forums

SiliconInvestor

sponsor

Sponsor

Gold/Mining/Energy | Sarissa Resources, Inc. (SRSR)

Previous 10 | Next 10

To: Zilyunz who wrote (661)	3/20/2012 6:14:46 PM
From: Zilyunz	1 Recommendation of 3447

and yet more gems of common *sense* that is not that common over in the cesspool: That still leaves the market fact being that there are only two basic ways to extract value from trades based on denying and/or working at destroying value that exists... talking price down to enable buying low... or talking price down in hope of generating profit on a short trade already entered. No "holder" (whose only market interest is in the growth and recognition of value inherent in his ownership) would oppose growing proper market recognition of the intrinsic value of what he owns. Owners... do not benefit themselves from making an active effort talking down the value of what they own... whether they're active participants in the market or not. Markets ARE generally rational enough in that... that when you see blatant falsehoods being told about things as basic as "value existing"... you can expect it means someone is being aggressive in talking their trades. Only active market participants would have that interest... and the real reason in that market interest can only pair with one of three things: First, a parallel interest with other buyers in buying low, by shaking shares loose from others at prices well below value, with the interest being in acquiring and accumulating the shares. Second, an interest in buying low to cover an existing short. Or, third, working at devaluing the currency used in making "deals"... because devaluing the currency that is used in making deals aligns with an illegal interest in obstructing free market competition. Lying about value... is par for the course... in markets. It simplifies the DD... when the effort made in denying value exists... is that flamingly obvious. It does still make one wonder, though, why anyone would ever invest in rocks... or posture as if they were invested in rocks... if they truly believed that rocks have no intrinsic value. Even granted that it is a faux choice being postured between being wrong and being stupid... as the two are not mutually exclusive... that still leaves a complete lack of reason at the core of the "argument" being made here... that there is no intrinsic value in any thing but $$$. Posturing that SRSR might have value some day... only IF mankind were ever to learn how to mine rocks ? LOL!!! Scott does not have to invent the concept of mining and hand build the necessary machines before SRSR will suddenly be discovered as having real value... and Nemegosenda is nowhere near the center of the sun... rather than near the center of Ontario... right near a highway... powerlines... a railroad. It is telling that the reasons offered now to explain why SRSR has no value... are that mining has not yet been invented... and that diamonds that might be found in the center of the sun are too costly to extract. I will agree it would be useful for those who are that clueless about value and its sources... to mount an immediate expedition to the center of the sun to search for diamonds... That exact same error in focus has been a persistent factor in the effort made re "talking SRSR down"... over the last four years. Go figure. The effort being expended in defending the error made in the fallacious argument re "value" is made all the more interesting, occurring as it does in our time, when we're clearly faced with the fact that the largest and still growing risk in the markets, is the recognition of risk that rocks might prove to be the only viable store of value that governments are unable to corrupt... as, whatever happens to destroy the value of money... the intrinsic value inherent in rocks will not change that much. Niobium is an outlier even in that, though, as the number of new uses is growing fairly dramatically over time... It amazes me how widely over looked that obvious (to me) aspect is... Niobium is not a "rare" metal in the sense that there's only little of it that is readily available... which means only that "value" in niobium is a function of things other than absolute rarity... relative rarity mattering more than the absolute. That means COST versus the relative availability of future supply... is what determines relative value in niobium. However, there is still a particular and unique value inherent in the odd pairing of abundance and scarcity that comes as a feature paired with niobium deposits... as the fact in the geology has niobium occurring primarily in very large quantities in very large deposits... but in relatively few occurrences... with fewer still of those deposits having truly beneficial features in terms of feasibility of extraction (the cost function, again)... while each of the potentials that exists still shares all the SAME barriers to entry as all competitors will in terms of cost. The high cost of extraction serving as a barrier to entry... is a fixed feature of the market, not unique to SRSR... That odd pairing of scarcity and abundance that exists in niobium ensures defacto control over the niobium supply will tend to reside with the lowest cost producer... with cost being mostly a function of what the rocks have in them... making the arguments here about there being no value in rocks... ridiculous. The value inherent in niobium rocks... is a function of the cost of extracting niobium from them... relative to the value obtained from the effort... relative to others costs vs value. That boils down to ROCKS... you got em... or you don't. The value question... is ONLY a feature of the rocks, what they have in them, and what that means re costs... and it is not a question of the more or less fixed, large cost required to generate an extraction effort. There WILL be an extraction effort developed... it WILL have a large fixed cost... and the relative utility of the expenditure will be determined by what's in the rocks... and not much else. You can use a pile of money to generate "an generic extraction effort" pretty much anywhere... but, the value resulting from that effort depends ONLY on whether you got the rocks... or you don't... What is being postured here as an "obstacle" to realizing intrinsic value in a SRSR share... because of the large fixed cost that operates as a barrier to entry... is in fact a primary SOURCE of value in a SRSR share... because SRSR's got the rocks... and no one else has rocks that come close to what SRSR has... on a relative cost/value basis. It ADDS value to SRSR... that there is a high cost barrier to entry... and few potential competitors who can come close to competing with SRSR's rocks on cost... because SRSR has the rocks... and it appears that no one else has rocks that can compete with SRSR on cost...

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Zilyunz who wrote (662)	3/21/2012 4:35:54 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation of 3447

Another re "the conspiracy theory" that lack of transparency in short sales is a source of problems... SRSR isn't particularly unique in being damaged by the fact of that conspiracy that does exist... rather than typical in its experience... My logic says that having a requirement that imposes genuine transparency in transactions is always vastly, vastly better than accepting banks who are known for their practice of fraud, when they are saying "trust me... the purposeful lack of transparency here doesn't matter"... and "those guys who demand transparency and accountability of us are just conspiracy theorists"... I'll gladly admit to being one of those wild eyed conspiracy theorists who pointed out, PRIOR to the event, that repealing Glass Steagal was... stupid... and that it would result in exactly what it has, by enabling banks in plundering the economy, while committing fraud as a routine part of their business plans. How telling is it that you see headline articles in the news these days, pointing out that Goldman Sachs business seems it is largely based in actively defrauding their own customers... and the industry response is... "it's OK... because everyone knows that's how its done". I also pointed out, PRIOR to the event, that the changes being imposed in the market "gate keeping" functions enabled by SOX would pair with the fraud that repeal of Glass Steagal enabled, with the result being that we'd see banks killing off the American economic engine... killing the creative capacity inherent in small companies... cutting them off from access to the capital markets... while attempting to enable transfer of the value they generate to those "gatekeepers" with no legitimate claims to make upon it... And, that is EXACTLY what has happened. The "rules" have enabled the banks in practicing theft... and the economy is failing as a result. The "rules" changes that enabled the banks in thinking the routine practice of market frauds is "OK"... are also directly destructive of economic opportunity in many ways other than the most obvious bit in the problems that come with having a market based in fraud. Most directly relevant for SRSR... is that the system we have is DESIGNED AND INTENDED to impinge on the rights and suppress the opportunity of small companies by "gate keeping" functions that INTEND to impose limits in their access to capital. Short selling schemes are an integral part of that design, and the purposeful lack of transparency in short selling is a specific requirement to enable it... The banks continue to practice "denial" as a primary tactic in resisting necessary change... but, they've raped and pillaged long enough and even the bought and paid for Congress has had enough of it. So, in spite of the industry fraudsters having the support of the SEC in slow rolling implementation of key changes required by Dodd-Frank, as much as they can, change is happening, with more coming, as we speak... Dodd-Frank aready requires the SEC make rules "fixing" the lack of transparency and disrupting the practice of the frauds that are being practiced in short selling... even with the SEC still dragging their heels... You can follow the rule making process here: sec.gov Public comments on the Dodd-Frank reforms specifically focused on reform directed at short selling abuses are addressed here: Study of the State of Short Selling and Failures to Deliver: Title IV Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act sec.gov Anti-Manipulation Protections: Title VII Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act sec.gov Short Sale Disclosure: Title IX Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act sec.gov Loan or Borrowing of Securities/Securities Lending Activities: Title IX Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act sec.gov It's also worth noting that you can go read the law for yourself... to see what it requires... without having to depend on the SEC's interpretation. That the SEC is in contempt of Congress now, in not having implementing rules in place already ? Congress is also addressing, even if in piecemeal fashion some of the "other obstacles" that the banks have created and conned Congress into implementing, that have allowed them to "capture" and exploit the value and growth potential inherent in small companies... thecorporatecounsel.net wac6.com articles.latimes.com

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

From: Zilyunz	3/22/2012 12:52:55 PM
	1 Recommendation of 3447

more sense ... I was an observer/participant in the room during some of the discussions that resulted in creating the problem... then acting in the role of the lone squeaky wheel pointing out what a really, really, really bad idea it was that everyone else in the room so badly wanted to make happen. Of course, I was already seeing those changes in context of understanding the massively bad impact already entrained in the repeal of Glass Steagal, when others were in complete denial about it. The error in analysis you're making is, first, in the perspective adopted in how you address the question... which is just another variant on the error we discuss here often enough in relation to the confusion between "price" and "value"... Price isn't ever the relevant focus... without seeing it in relation to value... and in relation to what manipulation of price intends to accomplish in relation to transfers of value. Looking at it from the bottom up, with company specific focus ? They didn't formulate the purposeful errors they did in the changes in the rules they crafted... (and in the "enforcement" effort that ensures the rules there are also do not really matter) specifically to target SRSR. But, they DID formulate those rules with the specific intent of targeting EVERY small issuer... across the entire market... with a design that I had characterized then as an vastly enhanced "toll taking" function... significantly raising the costs of capital for all smaller company market participants... in exchange for no economic benefit for anyone else. It's a flat out "transfer scheme"... with no rational basis or justification. The impact of "the rules" adopted with SOX includes directly raising the (equity) cost of capital for ALL small businesses... in a scheme fully intended to sap the most productive segment of the economy, at an very early stage... to transfer vastly more of the value being created from those who are producing it to those who controlled nothing of value other than the rule driven enhanced power to exercise wrongful control over access to $$$... and it's only control, since it's not even THEIR money we're discussing. The result was that the existing artificial limits imposed on access to the market were enhanced... that cost of access constituting a "price change"... imposing a greater virtual monopoly and a less functional market... that now requires that every small company has to surrender a much larger % of itself... for much less capital... than ever before. You clearly see the result in the impact on the economy now. The aggregate impact, initially... was a shift from what was originally roughly a 5% to 10% taking of equity as a "cost of access to capital" being paid as a toll to "gate keepers" just to access the market. The take in that toll, as a purposeful function of deliberate changes made in the rules... was initially doubled to roughly 20%... while existing access to competition, and emergent competition, were eliminated... reinforcing the monopoly control that "the banks" enjoyed in limiting issuers access to capital. The rich have not gotten richer at the pace they have in the last two decades because they own Goldman shares. They've gotten richer ONLY because they purposefully altered the rules to change the "tilt" of the playing field to require a larger % of value to flow to them... for no economic reason, and for no reason other than the change in the rules... that solidified existing monopoly control over access to capital. We don't have a free market in finance... rather than a cartel of banks that control access to the markets. Small companies, in the aggregate, create VASTLY more new wealth and new value than large ones can... so, it wouldn't have mattered much if they'd written rules that "only" worked in further limiting market access of the "large" market stocks... The design created INTENDED to forcibly transfer a larger fraction of all value being created, and more over time, from those with the capacity to create it... to those with control over access to capital. It is a top down scheme to benefit those already at the top... at the expense of those who are at the bottom. "Price" is not irrelevant in the calculus that works to enable that purposeful, large scale theft of "value"... but, you're seeing the problem exactly backwards... in thinking "low prices" in the shares of small cap issuers are a proof of their lack of market relevance or value... rather than a proof of the effectiveness of the near monopoly control over access to the capital required to enable them in succeeding... which access now requires paying extortion to pirates. The reality is... that the technology that is available to us now makes the role of the toll gate keepers who are extorting much MORE than that original 10%, then 20%, even more now... wholly superfluous. They provide no value in the "service" they provide that has them taking more while providing less. It is not just SRSR that is being hobbled by the purposeful errors imposed in market function... that mimic the "logic" advanced, as here by dmbao... that justifies the effort in fraud being practiced in relation to mass transfers of "value". You can see the nature of the impact on specific issuers easily enough... when you're aware enough of the origin in the imposition of the cost structure we have now, etc. There is no RATIONAL reason to enable the "toll takers" we have in finance who are obstructing the flow of capital... no reason there should be a monopoly or a cartel controlling market access... in fact, no legitimate reason for them to exist at all. There is no RATIONAL reason for market makers to exist. The only reason they do exist... is because of banks exercise of influence imposing rules that require they do. We don't need the intermediaries we have... or the rules that enable them... The only argument they have to justify their existence... is that they help to prevent fraud... but, what we see in fact, is that their existence itself is a fraud on the market, and the ORIGIN and SOURCE of other market fraud. So, there's not a SRSR specific issue here... but, the reality of the market context that exists, matters here at SRSR as much as it does anywhere. The impact of the changed market context we have now is as apparent here as it is anywhere. There's still the generic issue in what "the rules" are... and what they do enable... that allows callow financiers to practice fraud and extortion as a matter of routine... and allows competitors to use the market functions that exist to disrupt the proper operation of free market competition... to prevent the emergence of competition they'd rather avoid. The aggregate impact makes our markets vastly LESS efficient than they would otherwise be... if we actually had free market functions rather than monopolistic practices imposed as the core feature in the capital markets. Long live Spring Street Brewing... (?)

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Zilyunz who wrote (664)	3/22/2012 6:03:57 PM
From: sense	3 Recommendations of 3447

Spring Street Brewing... (?) You really want that rant ? LOL!!! Here it is: Virtually every industry has been transformed... or at least seriously challenged... by the emergence of the internet as a venue that enables more transparent exchange of information... but, not just information... directly between individuals, without a need for much intermediary interference. Silicon Investor was (and is) a part of that... showing we can all benefit from a direct exchange of ideas without a need for editorial controls. Before the net... it's easy to forget... information was basically command driven... we got whatever information to which editors found it useful to give us access. Now, the content control nazis in the media have lost control, and many are going out of business as a result, unable to adapt... and, with them, recently, governments that find "mind control" exercised through control of the media a necessity for their survival are also going out of business... in the way that tends to happen. Now, a tin horn dictator can't expect to shell a village in Syria... without the video showing up on the net within a couple of minutes... It's not just news and ideas that are able to be exchanged through the net. Amazon.com is now the first choice in a "go to" for books... and other things... Back in the dot.com bubble days, there was already that realization that what public access to an online electronic market of ideas AND THINGS means... is that the costs and structures of "exchanges" in things other than ideas were subject to similar transformations as those becoming apparent in information... inc.com Spring Street Brewing did an online IPO... which the securities industry naturally felt compelled to prevent from ever happening again. Spring Street presented an existential challenge. They had to kill it. So, they did. Basically... electronic exchanges have dramatically altered transaction costs... also meaning that now you can buy almost ANYTHING on e-Bay... except a valid share of stock... The securities industry HAS had its costs transformed by electronic trading... online brokers are "cheaper"... but, given the ability to engage in DIRECT transactions conducted through electronic markets... we really don't NEED to have them acting as intermediaries any more. Market makers have no reason to exist... any more than you need to have an array of intermediaries obstructing the process of completing transactions as they are occurring on e-Bay. The only reason they DO still exist... is to enable the securities industry to continue profiting from manipulation of prices... which also means they can extract benefits that are significantly greater than those that result only from skewing prices in trading. That's possible only because of the purposeful lack of transparency... that enables them in trading against their clients interest... and the public interest... in the brokers own interest... even when not trading a proprietary account. So, for instance, there is ZERO reason, now, why there should be any variation in access to information ? There should be no level II, etc., rather than a level playing field in which all market participants have access to exactly the SAME information at the same time. There's also no legitimate justification for the monopoly exchanges impose. If I want to buy the latest Gresham novel... I can get it from Amazon... or E-Bay... and I get to choose where I shop and who I buy it from... There isn't a public good that results from the exchanges having monopoly powers... since the shares of company A are the shares of company A... no matter who you buy them from, or where you buy them... Of course... that short sales are allowed... means that brokers can counterfeit shares... artificially increasing supply, lowering prices... thus denying capital to any company "the banks" find it useful to deny capital to, as a result of their own wrongful control over markets and the destructive profiteering it enables. Companies should have the right to choose where their shares will trade... just as those who sell other products have the right to control their distribution channels... without suffering from the distributors imposing monopoly practices on them that limit their markets... or require allowing the distributors to counterfeit their products. There is also no reason that every company should not directly manage or control trading in their own shares... including allowing the company to participate in proprietary trading in their own shares... as there is certainly no technical obstacles that exist to allowing companies to self manage the trade in their securities ? The REASON the markets exist... is not to enable "trading"... but to enable CAPITAL FORMATION... to enable companies to succeed... The banking and securities industries... have forgotten their purpose... and their proper place... as providers of services that we could, and should, buy elsewhere... when they fail in meeting our needs. There is a recognition that it WILL happen... you see the DTC being forced to prepare to enable it "at some point"... which doesn't mean the industry won't drag their feet, and continue using wrongful exercise of influence over government policy to impose rules that allow them to extort and defraud investors and companies... But, then, there's also not really any reason we need to tolerate the bogus "need" for a centralized imposition of a monster like the DTC ? Basically, look at the percentage of the economy that is now "financial services"... compared to what it was twenty years ago... and that difference is the percentage of GDP that is pissed down a rathole each year... to support the inefficiency inherent in "profit" generated from providing services that aren't required...

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: sense who wrote (663)	3/22/2012 11:53:03 PM
From: Zilyunz	2 Recommendations of 3447

Thanks for a great background piece around the problem of imperfect markets, and the potential for shorting down companies that it implies ... I cannot believe the cesspool the dark side has become, especially on this issue. The longs are now bickering among themselves. It is apparent they don't know who is on their side anymore. My decision to mostly stand down there has been confirmed and supported, and I am so grateful for this forum. I totally get that the company has had some delays, and some of the longs have had difficulty adjusting to that. You, sense, may be the only long that has not felt some frustration, and that seems it also includes the insiders. In the midst of that, it seems just about everybody has formed their own pet theories, and no one is going to tell them they are wrong. No matter how outlandish, any attempt to bring back some rationality just meets some more bickering, until it gets to, what's the use? One guy actually posited that SRSR was just a shell for the Keevil family, in case TCK did not make it?! That was before he apparently exited at .016? What makes all of this all the more ironic, is that, taking the last PR at face value, this in many ways is potentially the most lucrative time for SRSR in its development history. But folks are focusing on the fear instead? And the bashers are trying to make hay with it. While some are apparent with their antics, I am amazed how others are not. One purports to provide the benefit of his TA (price going lower) but it always seems he is most focused (lower support levels) on the negativity (down down down) and the fear mongering (reverse split) and pretending to respond to others (RS, but may not be bad) but it is him alone making the effort (but I am okay really, I was just responding to X) ... and when he is called out, he lies (wasn't me), forgets (when did I ever ...) and gets upset (since no one appreciates me, I am not posting anymore), until he starts anew the next day (I got some PMs from people saying they wanted me to post ...). Are you longs really that desperate for someone's TA? Sense, I think you have repeatedly done a much better unbiased, objective job of presenting the charts. And then there is the flying elephant. There is the most amazing MO ever, and most of the longs are just ... duped. He claims message boards are not important, but then spends many a day posting endlessly. Because ... message boards do matter?! He claims he is a big supporter (25-30M shares by some of his posts a while back), but by most anyone's account, he is consistently 90% plus negative. It does not pass the smell test ... who has $.5 - 1M or more wrapped in a company and continually berates it? Who? He denies the value of the company, its ability to fund its projects, and the competence or need of the CEO? Who? Just because he may have done a PP (which is not as innocent as it may seem) and has had some access to the company, and may have an insight or two you did not have ... Are you longs really that desperate for someone's FA? And on the subject of shorting, no one is quicker to bash the thought ... because ... imo, he is the short. Before going further, lets put this topic in context. Nemegosenda is a HUGE, COST-EFFECTIVE, HIGH QUALITY, LOW IMPURITY project for NIOBIUM. It is in mining friendly CANADA, with good INFRASTRUCTURE present. It is in an ADVANCED stage of development. In short, if you are looking for your niobium supplier of the future, Nemegosenda is far and away the best project on the planet. Period. And oh yeah ... in the same rocks, there are REEs with apparent ECONOMIC VIABILITY. Any wonder China is interested ... more than interested?! And yes, Shining Tree, as time goes on, and the land claims increase, and more is known ... this is not just a sideline ... but a viable project in its own right. In that context, sure, shorting is most likely occurring in SRSR shares. How much, I don't know, you don't know, no one knows. Got it? NO ONE KNOWS! In context, it is just a sidebar. We just don't know how big of a sidebar. I have had the opportunity to discuss the topic with quite a few longs in the past few weeks and months. People quickly come down on one side or the other. It is clearly the most divisive issue among the longs. I totally get that. But ... I just started reading the best selling book by the Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow." One of the things it is clearly about is the errors in our thinking and decision making, and the biases we have come to acquire that makes us prone to these errors ... Bear with me here. And I am not going to dig into the details of the topic. I am only getting into the mindset of folks expressing themselves on the topic. I have spent a lot of time digging into the details on this topic, and I am fairly knowledgeable. Here is what I have discovered ... the longs here that have also taken the time to research the topic, have probably without question all come to recognize it as a a very viable reality, both in general, and with respect to SRSR. They may have formed different overall opinions, but they RECOGNIZE the issue. The folks that quickly dismiss it generally are all unable to talk in detail about the topic, but wave it off with great superficiality: "Oh, there is no way that that is happening." "There is just not enough volume." "Those statistics are wrong ... or, they don't tell the whole story." "I have worked in the industry, and if it was happening ... I would have known it." "So and so was telling me about this topic and he doesn't believe it, so I don't believe it either." "Please stop ... you are giving me a headache." I will say now, with great respect for my fellow holders, if you are in this camp, I still have great respect for you, but on this topic, I totally disregard you. The truth is, this IS a possibility any rational person has to acknowledge, and if you just completely dis it, YOU are showing your ignorance. Once again, sense's post that this post is responding to did an excellent job of putting the issue in a broader context. One poster actually posted that if you sell using UBSS, and I buy using NITE, it is automatically a short. Total hogwash! And yet, some of the longs applauded the effort, with one calling for a sticky! (Cesspool ...) I have previously used the analogy of age discrimination among job seekers. It is illegal, so it it cannot be happening, is not happening, right?! Except it happens all of the time. It is like the forest. And coyotes. You all know they both exist. But coyotes in this forest ... "MY" forest? No way! You see the prints ... must be a dog. You heard the howls ... not clear ... until I see one with my own eyes, I refuse to believe it! ... Good luck with that one. (We are not talking about Bigfoot ...) It is like someone in the tropics denying there is snow he has never seen ... It is like you denying your favorite restaraunt has numerous health violations ... until you see it on the local news. I think folks don't want to think about anything the don't understand ... fear is probably at the root ... and more than that ... most folks want to believe that they are always right. Here, "I would not have allowed myself to invest in a company where that could have been an issue" and "so many companies having issues making progress like to play the short card but it rarely or never has merit" run rampant. But, with all of that said, by and large, holders are holding. Some lost patience, some are in too big and needed to pay their April mortgage payment, I get that, that will always happen I suppose. But otherwise, the vast majority of longs are holding. For my part, I have had my own set of ideas, my mosaic, on what has happened, what is happening, what will happen. Not saying I am perfect, and I have obviously needed to adjust the timing more than once, and I have fine-tuned some details, but I can confidently say that my mosaic has largely stood intact for over two years now. Not that I have any intent on being any more specific, I have come to appreciate the abuse one can take for making such an effort, and I see no reason to subject myself ... even in this forum. (This post is only for the four or five folks left that may still have some appreciation for my comments.) My larger point is that yes there is a plan, that plan is being followed, that plan will be executed and completed, the value in the rocks will be recognized in the share price, and your patience will be rewarded. All that and ... any day now!

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (5)

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.