Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
CptnChan

Is there an increase in "parasitic" entertainment?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

As the internet becomes used more as people's means of entertainment, it seems to me that a certain breed of "content creators" are the most popular. Perhaps you disagree and can show me statistics that show I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the websites and/or online videos that get the most views are not so much "creating" content, but attaining their viewership by making videos based on content that someone else created.

 

By this I mean that it seems to me that the most popular "content creators" are critics, reviewers, game-streamers etc. The current highest paid YouTuber doesn't really "create" anything. He simply plays games that other people have created. And it's theorized that he makes potentially at least 3 million dollars a year. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, after all I'm sure the game creators are happy that millions of potential customers are exposed to their game. But does this say anything about the viewers psychology?

 

In addition to the enormous growth of game-streamers, some of the other most popular YouTube videos include things like "Honest Trailers", and "Kids React to...". The reaction videos especially perplex me. They make a video by recording people watching another video, and very rarely do the subjects they record have ANYTHING interesting to say, or entertaining to offer. In fact, usually they just exclaim things like: "Wow what is this?!" or "Hey I like this!". And that gets MILLIONS of views.

 

Meanwhile, if a person takes time to make an internet video with creativity, a storyline, original content, or for educational purposes (besides VSauce), they are lucky to get thousands of views.

 

Do you think this means anything? Is this nothing new? After all, "reality TV" has been around for almost two decades and is still popular. (In fact that also has a branch in the internet with daily life Vlogs)

 

This is just something that has been bothering me for a while and I wanted to express it. I've attempted bringing it up at a few dinner conversations, and most people don't really care.

If there is nothing substantial to this, does anyone else at least feel the same frustration as I do? Am I crazy, or is there an incredible amount people making money by living off someone else's content?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of this article I saw:

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/09/17/why-does-glenn-think-he-could-be-out-of-business-in-two-years/

 

 

“I think we could be out of business – I don’t mean just us, I mean anybody like us – in the next two years,” Glenn said. “Everything is changing. I don’t know what to do about it, but everything is changing.”

Jeffy offered an interesting example of this shift. He follows an artist on Twitter who recently posted “a random selfie of a girl in her underwear” that garnered some 500,000 likes and 1.5 million shares compared to an original piece of art that received just 387 likes and 14 shares.

“His conclusion is selfies are more appreciated than artworks,” Jeffy said. “What is the purpose of art? What is the purpose of Facebook?”

“This is an argument people are having everywhere,” Glenn added. “The world is being redesigned right now. Everybody is so busy holding onto what they have, they are going to be in the dust bin of history. I’m telling you now: The best minds in the world are trying to redesign it. It doesn’t work this way anymore.”

Right now, there is a movement toward getting clicks or views or shares at all costs. Glenn does not believe this quantity over quality mentality is sustainable.

“That’s the argument that’s happening at the highest levels of some of these entertainment companies… doesn’t matter the quality, doesn’t matter what it is. Just put the panty pic up,” Glenn explained. “Okay and then what? That’s like heroine. You have the panty pic today. What are you going to put up in six hours from now? And what are you going to put up tomorrow, and a week from tomorrow, and a year from now? There are not enough panty pics to keep that going.”

While Glenn isn’t sure what the future holds, he does believe this current obsession with throwaway content will ultimately lead to the return higher quality things that offer real substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... it seems to me that the websites and/or online videos that get the most views are not so much "creating" content, but attaining their viewership by making videos based on content that someone else created.

It is part of something that has been happening for quite a while. I strongly recommend Daniel Boorstin's book "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America". (It is a book that will have most people agreeing completely at some points, and disagreeing violently at others, but it is always thought-provoking.) It is a "must-read" if one is thinking about media.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the quotes below are from the OP, CptnChan

 

 

 

By this I mean that it seems to me that the most popular "content creators" are critics, reviewers, game-streamers etc. 

 

Consider a couple things here:

 

1. I'm not actually sure that you're correct that these are more prolific than people who create "new" content.

2. Critics, reviewers, and game-streamers are delivering an actual product/service. They are content creators. The fact that you don't like their content doesn't actually mean anything - they are delivering value to someone. 

 

 

 

 

 The current highest paid YouTuber doesn't really "create" anything. He simply plays games that other people have created.

 

Except you're wrong here. That streamer is delivering content. People watch his channel, as opposed to other channels, because they enjoy watching him play, they enjoy listening to him talk as he plays, they enjoy the content he has created. What he has created is separate from the game he is playing - and it is content that clearly a lot of people enjoy.

 

Just because you don't like it, does not mean it is not content or that value has not been created.

 

I personally enjoy watching game streams. I've done it a lot lately, in fact, because I don't have time to play a lot of video games, but it's quite fun to watch them being played while I do my work. When I was a kid, I used to watch my friends play games more than I played them myself - that was enjoyable for me. That's how it is for a lot of people. So these game streamers are creating content, both by doing what they're doing, and by adding value in the form of the commentary and such that they add to their streams and their videos.

 

 

 

But does this say anything about the viewers psychology?

 

No, but judging by the rest of your post, you sure would like it to.

 

 

 

 

They make a video by recording people watching another video, and very rarely do the subjects they record have ANYTHING interesting to say, or entertaining to offer. In fact, usually they just exclaim things like: "Wow what is this?!" or "Hey I like this!". And that gets MILLIONS of views.

 

These reaction videos get millions of views usually because they're funny or because the people involved have personalities that people enjoy listening to or watching. It's literally the same thing as morning talk shows. People tune in because the reactions are funny, the conversations are interesting, and the personalities are fun to listen to/watch.

 

This type of entertainment is highly accessible. It doesn't require a lot of time - so there's a low barrier to entry, a low up front cost - and it's usually humorous, entertaining, enlightening, easily understandable, et cetera, so a high amount of value is obtained from it. The fact that you characterize this kind of entertainment as having nothing of interesting and contributing nothing doesn't make it so - it could very well be that you've seen a few videos and simply generalized. 

 

Keep in mind here - if value was not being gained by watching the videos, they would not be getting watched so much. People are mostly rational actors, if simplistic ones. Viewers tend to go for entertainment that has a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. Which explains your next contention:

 

 

 

Meanwhile, if a person takes time to make an internet video with creativity, a storyline, original content, or for educational purposes (besides VSauce), they are lucky to get thousands of views.

 

Historically, art has a high barrier of entry. It takes a lot of work to get into it. This isn't a new phenomena - it's ages old. Did you ever learn about Shakespeare? One of the reasons we discuss Shakespeare still today is because he wrote plays that were easily accessible to the general public. Low barrier of entry, with a fair amount of very low brow wit - some of it was frankly even slapstick. So, low barrier of entry, high entertainment value. 

 

That is how it has always been. The most complex art historically has been reserved mostly for nobles, the rich, the clergy, and various other people who had the time and money to kill to appreciate it, while lower entertainment was preferred by the masses - because it had a low barrier of entry, and a high payoff. 

 

This doesn't mean that one is better than the other, nor does it indicate anything particular about people. The fact is, everyone has their passions and their interests - and outside of their passions and interests, they're not likely to invest a whole lot of time into something. Why would you expect a creative work of art to have millions of views? Of course it wouldn't. Because the ONLY people who gain something from it are people who are passionate about art in the first place - so people who are passionate about, say, plants or math (me!) would spend hours on plant videos, but they wouldn't spend hours on creative, artistic videos - rather, I'd be likely to watch a low brow video that has a high entertainment pay off and a low barrier to entry, or else spend my time on the things I actually care about. 

 

 

 

 

This is just something that has been bothering me for a while and I wanted to express it. I've attempted bringing it up at a few dinner conversations, and most people don't really care.

 

 

The reason most people don't care is because you're stating the blatantly obvious.

 

What you've said amounts to this:

 

People, in general, won't put in the time and energy to understand and appreciate things that they don't have any previously existing interest in, and would rather enjoy something that doesn't demand so much of them.

 

This is obvious. Why would people - the majority of whom have working lives, passions, interests, and goals which they are already putting a significant amount of time into - spend extra time on something that isn't their interest? Just because you think something artistic on youtube is worthwhile doesn't mean others will. Yeah, a lot of work went into it - and that work pays off to the people who have an existing interest in it. But for everyone else, there's just a high barrier of entry and something that's demanding a lot more time from them than they have to be spending, for a minimal payoff.

 

 

 

Am I crazy, or is there an incredible amount people making money by living off someone else's content?

 

 

Nobody is living off of other people's content. You're creating an issue where none exists. Just because you don't like some content, doesn't mean that the people who made that content are parasites. 

 

 

 

 

 

Beyond ALL of that, consider this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium

https://www.youtube.com/user/AsapSCIENCE

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=DIY

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCduKuJToxWPizJ7I2E6n1kA

 

 

This is just a very small sampling of original content on youtube with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views. Your notion that people aren't paying attention to original content is patently wrong - they're just not paying attention to the content you care about. Which makes sense. You pay attention to that content because it's of value to you, so the barrier to entry isn't a big deal. But for people who have no interest in it? The barrier to entry IS a big deal, so they're naturally gonna pay attention to things that either A. are of interest to them or B. have a low barrier to entry (cat videos, reaction videos, et cetera)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on, Ludicious. There are many great content creators online who augment existing art in entertaining ways. My personal favorite youtuber is HuskyStarcraft, a commentator on professional Starcraft 2 matches, who has done more to single handedly push Starcraft forward as a game than the creators of the game themselves. 

 

 

 

On the other hand, something which maybe should be considered content parasitism is Buzzfeed-esque listicles which are almost completely devoid of content. See Maddox's argument here: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=buzzfeed

 

"When I liken BuzzFeed to a cancer on the Internet, it's not just hyperbole. A cancer spreads throughout an organism, taking over healthy cells and displacing them with something unhealthy, which doesn't serve the body's purpose anymore. The site isn't just a blight on the web, it's actually changing the fabric of the Internet. Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and most other social networks have become little more than repositories for links to list articles. The net effect has caused a shift in expectation for the average Internet reader, away from thoughtful, purpose-driven content that informs, to cheap, superfluous filler that distracts. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. I would certainly agree with the above poster on his point. There are some sites, such as Buzzfeed, that really do just leech off of existing content for their existence. Content aggregators like that that simply exist to get ad revenue using other people's products (in almost all cases without their permission) are more or less gutter slime. 

 

The original poster did not mention that kind of "parasitism" however, so I did not respond to it. Thank you for bringing up that point, Dormin111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'let's play videos' are indeed a creation, even if they are not particularly difficult to make, they are still a creation in themselves. In any case, it's not as easy as you think, if it were simple then anyone could do it, but they can't. Obviously their commentary and way of playing and video editing plays a large role in their popularity. I imagine it took them a long time and a fair bit of behind the scenes work to make the videos and promote their channels. There are many such channels, and not many accrue that many viewers. They are definitely not parasitical on those who made the games.

 

As for their psychology, I see nothing wrong with it. Playing video games is fine, so long as it's done rationally. And if you can make a living doing something you enjoy and would do for fun, then not only is it preferable, it's down right moral. That's rationally selfish! And we are for that!

 

As for the viewers, watching such videos for entertainment and relaxation is perfectly fine, if done rationally.

 

 

does anyone else at least feel the same frustration as I do? Am I crazy, or is there an incredible amount people making money by living off someone else's content?

 

Why would you be frustrated? What is there to be frustrated about? They certainly aren't 'living off someone else's content', for one thing.

 

And in terms of people watching 'trash videos': you may look down on such content, and think little of people who do, but why on earth would it bother you in the slightest. Egoism isn't about crusading to save people from themselves, it's about focusing on yourself and what's good for you. Ignore the peasants lol. Just live your life. Lead by example of the greatness in your own life. Give advice when asked if you care to. Metaphysical justice is a bitch. If these people are watching trash, unfocused and rotting their mind, they will get their just suffering.

Edited by Peter Morris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great points Ludicious, thank you.

I am aware of the fact that the things I am mentioning are new content.

 

However, you assume that by me bringing this subject up that I dislike gaming streams and other things like reviewers, but I subscribe to many of them and have even given money to some live streamers.

 

I'm subscribed to Pewdiepie too, and I acknowledge that he can be entertaining. I'm not contesting the fact that anyone can watch whatever they want, and in reality, I watch a lot of the stuff I'm "complaining" about in my OP. But I still maintain that there is something to this notion of popular entertainment being not original.

Once again, I'm not whining about videos I don't like. I'm not saying: "I don't like this, so it sucks!"

 

But even the example you posted contains what is in my opinion, something of a "parasitic" or "second-handed" vibe. I'm subscribed to ERB, and I have Weird Al to thank for giving me a sense of humor far beyond what my peers had when I was in grade school. But despite the brilliance of those videos, and the intense work that goes into creating that content, They're still playing with existing characters. (The Keynes Hayek rap beats anything on ERB in my opinion, but like you said that's just preference).

 

Again let me emphasize, I do NOT hate these content creators, I'm just questioning how much they earn that title compared to someone who directs a film crew, or even uses little to no budget to create a short film on youtube.

 

Even amazing creators like FreddieW, who makes fantastic videos using choreography and special effects is ultimately parodying an existing genre. I love it, but at the end of the day, after watching all these dynamic personalities, or skillful lyricists, or hard working video creators, I still feel this unfilled void. Something lacking, even though I may have spent hours watching "new content."

Like this intense desire for a new IDEA, where all I find, when I really analyze it, is recycled material. It leaves me feeling unsatisfied.

 

(I would almost leave music out of the conversation. I think there's a lot happening online with music creation, and people reaching a niche audience like was never possible before in history. I was primarily thinking of other types of videos)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'let's play videos' are indeed a creation, even if they are not particularly difficult to make, they are still a creation in themselves. In any case, it's not as easy as you think, if it were simple then anyone could do it, but they can't. Obviously their commentary and way of playing and video editing plays a large role in their popularity. I imagine it took them a long time and a fair bit of behind the scenes work to make the videos and promote their channels. There are many such channels, and not many accrue that many viewers. They are definitely not parasitical on those who made the games.

 

As for their psychology, I see nothing wrong with it. Playing video games is fine, so long as it's done rationally. And if you can make a living doing something you enjoy and would do for fun, then not only is it preferable, it's down right moral. That's rationally selfish! And we are for that!

 

As for the viewers, watching such videos for entertainment and relaxation is perfectly fine, if done rationally.

 

 

Why would you be frustrated? What is there to be frustrated about? They certainly aren't 'living off someone else's content', for one thing.

 

And in terms of people watching 'trash videos': you may look down on such content, and think little of people who do, but why on earth would it bother you in the slightest. Egoism isn't about crusading to save people from themselves, it's about focusing on yourself and what's good for you. Ignore the peasants lol. Just live your life. Lead by example of the greatness in your own life. Give advice when asked if you care to. Metaphysical justice is a bitch. If these people are watching trash, unfocused and rotting their mind, they will get their just suffering.

I have attempted to clarify a little more in the above post ^^

 

The frustrating part is not that such content exist. I love it and spent a lot of time watching it. But popcorn only keeps me full so long, and it feels like there is so very little steak out there.

 

Also, I don't mean to say they are physically living off of someone's creation. I'm just wondering if there is a bit of psychological second-handedness. Granted, the top streamers earn their viewership. Destiny is one of my very favorite streamers, and he often sparks philosophical conversations in chat.

 

I suppose this isn't the newest thing. There are hundreds of "dime novels" and only one "Atlas Shrugged". I guess I just would like to see more things that actually leave an impact of me, rather than just make me chuckle or smile for a minute and then forget about it the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think it's secondhanded or unoriginal to build off of the work of another? 

 

The fact is, throughout all of history, art, science, engineering, and everything in between has built off of what has come before. The fact that something references another work, or even that something samples from another work, does not mean it's unoriginal, secondhanded, or undeserving of praise. It is new content - and should be judged on its own merits. 

 

There are certain works that are entirely "derivative" - and those works should be called out as such, and often are. But if what you're creating is significantly different from what has come before it, it can and should stand and be judged on it's own merits - even knowing that it references or builds upon what has come before it. There really is no other way to do things. 

 

And again, keep in mind the cost barrier and payoff of various forms of entertainment. You're saying you'd like to see more things that actually leave an impact on you - well, there's tons of that out there. I have some VERY niche interests (modern Irish folk music, anyone?) and yet I still find wholly original work all the time. But the reason that "cheap" entertainment exists is because EVERYONE has interests like that - everyone has some passion or other that they pursue, and that it wouldn't be worthwhile for anyone else to pursue unless they themselves had a passion. Everyone has work that they do day in and day out. Everyone has things that they spend significant amounts of time and value on. So most people want some form of entertainment available to them that has a low barrier to entry and a high payoff, because that's the kind of entertainment that people can relax with when they're not involved in their various works or passions.

 

Because most people want at least some of that low-cost, high-payoff entertainment, there's a lot more of it to go around.

 

If you feel like there's not enough "juicy" content out there, then perhaps the issue isn't the content. Perhaps you haven't narrowed your own interests down enough, or you haven't looked hard enough.

Edited by Iudicious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I disagree with most of the OP's valued judgments (and watch some of those videos he disparages myself), you can and should have standards for the content of your entertainment, and "I'm busy" doesn't absolve you from being judged as a blithering moron if your main criteria for choosing your entertainment is "instant accessibility".

I also disagree with the suggestion that people who make the mental effort needed to appreciate quality in entertainment do so because "they don't work as hard so they have more free time". I even disagree with the claim that this was true historically. Yes, feudalism had its evils, but the image Iudicious is painting of it (of noblemen spending their lives lounging around, living off the peasantry) is a cliched caricature, not an accurate characterization of European aristocracy. The people who appreciated and supported art (including art of far better quality than Shakespeare) did so because they made the mental effort to recognize it as valuable, and deserve credit for it.

Just to be clear about my position: there is ZERO CORRELATION BETWEEN FREE TIME AND GOOD TASTE. None. I fully disagree with any attempts to draw any such correlation, to try and excuse someone who spends their free time watching crappy daytime talk shows or reality television. There is no excuse, they're just intellectually lazy.

P.S. I would've quoted the relevant posts to make it clear who I'm arguing against, but they're just way too long to sift through.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"I'm busy" doesn't absolve you from being judged as a blithering moron if your main criteria for choosing your entertainment is "instant accessibility".

 

You missed the point.

 

 

 

I also disagree with the suggestion that people who make the mental effort needed to appreciate quality in entertainment do so because "they don't work as hard so they have more free time". 

 

More points, being missed.

 

 

 

but the image Iudicious is painting of it (of noblemen spending their lives lounging around, living off the peasantry) is a cliched caricature,

 

Maybe you should quote the posts, because I certainly don't remember painting that picture.

 

 

 

The people who appreciated and supported art (including art of far better quality than Shakespeare) did so because they made the mental effort to recognize it as valuable, and deserve credit for it.

 

Based on your previous sentence, you seem to think that I disagree. I don't.

 

 

 

Perhaps I was a bit unclear with the way I explained myself.

 

Free time isn't the only component here.

 

My point was that the OP was disparaging the existence of easily accessible, high payoff entertainment - entertainment that doesn't require significant foreknowledge, and is usually humorous, short, or otherwise easily digestible. This type of entertainment exists because people don't always want to spend their time on the alternative.

 

Say I spend a large part of my day working in some career that's relevant to me. Then I come home and I put some time into my hobbies - perhaps watching videos that do have a high cost of entry. Things like lectures on plant science, which would require foreknowledge of plants. Or appreciating art of a certain time period - which requires specific foreknowledge of art and history in order to appreciate fully and to derive a full payoff from, and so has a high cost of entry.

 

I'm not going to finish doing all of that, and then want to watch even more entertainment that has a high cost of entry with the remainder of my free time. People have a limited amount of willpower and energy in a day, and if they use it on their jobs and their passions, they're naturally not going to want all of the rest of their entertainment to also have a high cost of entry. It makes no sense. If I spent my time doing the aforementioned things - watching science lectures or appreciating specific arts, both of which require foreknowledge - I'm certainly not going to want to spend the rest of my leisure time appreciating something else that requires gathering a significant amount of foreknowledge and putting a high quality of thought into in order to enjoy. Why would I? I've done plenty of that for the day - I want to just relax now.

 

The situation I'm describing is the kind of situation a lot of people have. Everyone has interests, but everyone also has different interests. Content with a low barrier to entry, however, is almost universal - at some point, everyone wants a little bit of that kind of entertainment. As a result, that kind of content is going to necessarily have more viewers and more existing content. There's nothing ominous or psychological about it - it's simply that low-cost entertainment is something everyone wants a little of, while high-cost entertainment is something that everyone wants, but in great variety (e.g. various kinds of art, various kinds of sciences, et cetera) so there is no single kind of high-cost entertainment that's going to get a huge number of views or a huge amount of content by comparison to low cost entertainment.

 

 

So to recap, the issue here isn't just free time. In fact, it's hardly free time. For most people, "instant accessibility" isn't the only criteria - it's simply that "instantly accessible" content is something that everyone wants at some point while the other kind of entertainment is a lot more varied, and so has, on an individual basis, fewer viewers and thus less content than the "instantly accessible" kind of content. It's also usually harder to produce, and therefore necessarily lower in supply. I never implied that only people who don't work hard can enjoy high brow entertainment - I'm fairly sure I implied the opposite actually: that most people enjoy high brow entertainment, but because it takes work to do so, most people also want to enjoy the occasional low brow, easily accessible entertainment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not gonna quote you (because your post is still too long to easily sift through in an editor), but you basically just repeated the same thing. I got it the first time: you think not having enough time/energy is the driving factor in people seeking instant gratification from entertainment.

It's not, the driving factor is intellectual laziness. Instant gratification is terrible. The things worth enjoying usually require some effort to understand. Constantly seeking instant gratification makes you miss out on most of the good things the world has to offer.
 

I'm not going to finish doing all of that, and then want to watch even more entertainment that has a high cost of entry with the remainder of my free time. People have a limited amount of willpower and energy in a day, and if they use it on their jobs and their passions, they're naturally not going to want all of the rest of their entertainment to also have a high cost of entry. It makes no sense. If I spent my time doing the aforementioned things - watching science lectures or appreciating specific arts, both of which require foreknowledge - I'm certainly not going to want to spend the rest of my leisure time appreciating something else that requires gathering a significant amount of foreknowledge and putting a high quality of thought into in order to enjoy. Why would I? I've done plenty of that for the day - I want to just relax now.

Ok, I'll quote this one thing. I couldn't disagree more with it. Relaxation and inactivity are not the same thing. Relaxation is the absence of stress, not the absence of work/play (play is a form of work). You can be intellectually active and relaxed at the same time.

 

People who define relaxation as inactivity are missing out on the joys of life. Beyond getting enough sleep, there is no reason for a human being to dedicate portions of their day to not thinking.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok, I'll quote this one thing. I couldn't disagree more with it. Relaxation and inactivity are not the same thing. Relaxation is the absence of stress, not the absence of work/play (play is a form of work). You can be intellectually active and relaxed at the same time.

 

 

Which is fantastic, except my point was a bit more nuanced than that. My point was that, people have a limited amount of energy and willpower that they can exert in a day. Human beings are not limitless reservoirs of energy. So it would really suck to have to exclusively rely on entertainment that requires significant mental accompaniment. E.G. In my absolute downtime - the time I'm not spending at my schoolwork or my job or pursuing my hobbies - I'm going to watch Supernatural, not a lecture on quantum physics. Because I don't want to have to work hard to get my entertainment at that point. In fact, if I DID pursue entertainment that required a significant amount of exertion to enjoy (at that point in time, i.e. in lieu of enjoying a simple show like Supernatural or a talk show), I would have to then spend less time and energy on things that matter to me, like my job, my schoolwork, or my hobbies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×