COTA 2014

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
povol
3718921397651152

Turns out, that is Hector Barbera's tire, not Rossi's.
Click to expand...


 


 


Yes I saw Barbera's tweet too, one of them retweeted the same pic without taking the pain of shooting their own photo, -- however the tires were in the same condition, so that's not so important. More important is the fact that two Bridgestone tires self-destroyed in the same way on two very different bikes....!


 


h28x.jpg



 


 


No doubt this one below now is Rossi's tire, uh? :)


 


tf0v.jpg
 
povol
3718881397571933

povol, on 15 Apr 2014 - 07:32, said:

Waaa Waaa Waaa, my guy isnt winning so im going to take my ball and go home.
Click to expand...


Interesting coming from the guy who not once but TWICE whined threats of boycotting the sport and going home, yet still here rationalizing yourself a seat. Pot, kettle, lame, etc.
Quote


Nonsense, what do you suggest, let the race play out then deduct 5 seconds from his time.
Click to expand...


How long have you been watching racing? You are not familiar with such a concept? (Though when its been done, they usually 'add' time.)


The point being that rules being arbitrary (a point you have never quite understood, though you seem to be in good company with the likes of migs and thedeal) have various degrees of consequences. Punting a rider off, even when done by recklessness, is rarely punished. Is there a rule against plowing into riders? The point being, perhaps the punishment should fit the crime (another concept you don't understand).
Quote


What if Lorenzo just so happens to take out one of the front runners while they are trying to get back his illegal advantage. Rules tend to spoil everything for your kind dont they.
Click to expand...


Haha, its only "legal" if one lobbies through collusion, gerrymandering, and horse trading to get advantages codified into the rules, right? Republican logic.


Rules? Oh, like I don't like the rules so I'm going to boycott waa waa waa. Sound familiar, it should, since you said it...TWICE now?

Quote
J4rn0 said:


We watch GP to see a display of the best riding skills on the best bikes of the world. Tires should never become a significant limitation for a rider or a bike
Click to expand...


But its ok for other limitations to exist that produce disparity for the riders and the bikes? (think rules)


Marc will not be troubled this year because there are only 3 other bikes that could possibly do that, and 2 of those 4 are disadvantaged by "significant limitations" produced by rules. Its not just the tires creating disparity. After all, they're all on the same tires (well not quite, but you get the picture....I think).
 
The penalty for jumping the start is not arbitrary, its set in stone, and everyone who does it is penalized the same. Try again
 
Jumkie
3718961397685805

Interesting coming from the guy who not once but TWICE whined threats of boycotting the sport and going home, yet still here rationalizing yourself a seat. Pot, kettle, lame, etc.


How long have you been watching racing? You are not familiar with such a concept? (Though when its been done, they usually 'add' time.)


The point being that rules being arbitrary (a point you have never quite understood, though you seem to be in good company with the likes of migs and thedeal) have various degrees of consequences. Punting a rider off, even when done by recklessness, is rarely punished. Is there a rule against plowing into riders? The point being, perhaps the punishment should fit the crime (another concept you don't understand).


Haha, its only "legal" if one lobbies through collusion, gerrymandering, and horse trading to get advantages codified into the rules, right? Republican logic.


Rules? Oh, like I don't like the rules so I'm going to boycott waa waa waa. Sound familiar, it should, since you said it...TWICE now?



But its ok for other limitations to exist that produce disparity for the riders and the bikes? (think rules)


Marc will not be troubled this year because there are only 3 other bikes that could possibly do that, and 2 of those 4 are disadvantaged by "significant limitations" produced by rules. Its not just the tires creating disparity. After all, they're all on the same tires (well not quite, but you get the picture....I think).
Click to expand...


Your Honda fuel conspiracy was ........, so  now what is Yamaha disadvantaged by, except for their own ineptitude to build a chassis that works with the current tires.
 
povol
3718981397691091

The penalty for jumping the start is not arbitrary, its set in stone, and everyone who does it is penalized the same. Try again
Click to expand...


 


Ah, I think I better understand you today.  Professor Pov, my dear buddy, let me help you understand this nuanced concept: the law of gravity--not arbitrary, the rules of penalties--arbitrary, the laws of physics--not arbitrary, the laws of the land--arbitrary.  In fact, ALL the rules in the MotoGP rulebook are arbitrary.  The rules which prescribe restrictions and concession, penalties for violations, the displacement formula, and the rules governing any aspect of the championship are all arbitrary.  The laws of physics that govern the forces on a GP machine in motion are not arbitrary, the rules that govern the hardware and software of the machines in motion are arbitrary. Got it?


 


The penalty for jumping the start IS arbitrary.


 


Again, you missed the point made to you about the suitability of this particular penalty because you simply fail to understand the concepts which would enable you to analyze the discussion meaningfully.  I should say Pov, that at very least you try to discuss it, and for that I give you props (unlike say migs or thedeal who...well simply don't have the minimum intellectual capacity and or the fortitude).  Anyhow Pov, all penalties are arbitrary, why say 5 yards instead of 10 for certain fouls, or in soccer, a penalty kick instead of a red card or some other punishment, etc...you get the picture?  You may simply agree the right penalty for a jump start is a ride through penalty, ok that is fine, just make your case why, but don't go saying its like some special rule from god set on stone tablets which should not be discussed regarding suitability.  I for one think a ride through is a bit harsh especial given most jump starts produce little to no advantage, I'd think a time penalty would suffice and make the remaining action more interesting; in comparison when you consider torpedoes are rarely sanctioned by any penalty and are 'arbitrarily' (if ever) applied.  I suppose a jump start is avoidable, so I'm not gonna argue too much its consequence.


 
povol
3718991397691330

Your Honda fuel conspiracy was ........, so  now what is Yamaha disadvantaged by, except for their own ineptitude to build a chassis that works with the current tires.
Click to expand...


 


As I said, I think I understand you better today.  Its not that you simply disagree, but rather you fail to understand the nuances and consequences that ARBITRARY rules produce in order to meaningfully discuss the particulars.  You believe no advantages or adverse effects can be created by one entity lobbying for certain rules.  This is your position on the state of the arbitrary rulebook.  HRC on the other hand is much smarter than you and have lobbied for rules that play to their strong suits: reliability, electronics, power, etc.  Hence you have rules that restrict the number of engines, fuel, development, etc.  You don't see the connection, but that doesn't mean they aren't there because YOU can't connect the dots.  Did you notice a Ducati on the rostrum last Sunday?  Are you aware that their improvement can be partially attributed to the advantages gained from exploiting the arbitrary rules they are governed by? (Oh I know you don't understand, even when I spell it out for you).  Btw, the tires they raced on Sunday are not the "current tires" genius.  I'm not going to argue tires much except to say the failure of them to perform across the board on Sunday made the race a bit of a fiasco.


 


Btw, Bradl should have been on the rostrum not Dovi, as the podium is reserved for "factory option" machines, the "open class" machines get their own rostrum, a step of one, therefore the Ducati which enjoys "open class" options should have been recognized as the 1st finisher.  Dovi should have been in parc ferme, but as the first 'option class' finisher.  So the rostrum should have looked like this: Marquez, Pedro, Bradl, if they insist on having  a 4th bike in parc ferme, that bike should have been Dovi's (regardless of it finishing 3rd as it is indeed the 1st open class machine).  What happens then when Aleish finishes in 3rd as a result of wacky results of the kind we saw on Sunday?  
 
So My prediction was pretty much spot on....


 
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;Happy Spaniard or two = MM and Dani = Check! 
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;Happy italian or two = Dovi (well done) = Check!
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;Some unhappy Americans = Edwards out (shame really) and Fans attending race = Check!
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;Definitely have one miserable and disappointed mexicunt = (You know who) = Check!
 
Jumkie
3719011397701951

Ah, I think I better understand you today.  Professor Pov, my dear buddy, let me help you understand this nuanced concept: the law of gravity--not arbitrary, the rules of penalties--arbitrary, the laws of physics--not arbitrary, the laws of the land--arbitrary.  In fact, ALL the rules in the MotoGP rulebook are arbitrary.  The rules which prescribe restrictions and concession, penalties for violations, the displacement formula, and the rules governing any aspect of the championship are all arbitrary.  The laws of physics that govern the forces on a GP machine in motion are not arbitrary, the rules that govern the hardware and software of the machines in motion are arbitrary. Got it?


 


The penalty for jumping the start IS arbitrary.


 


Again, you missed the point made to you about the suitability of this particular penalty because you simply fail to understand the concepts which would enable you to analyze the discussion meaningfully.  I should say Pov, that at very least you try to discuss it, and for that I give you props (unlike say migs or thedeal who...well simply don't have the minimum intellectual capacity and or the fortitude).  Anyhow Pov, all penalties are arbitrary, why say 5 yards instead of 10 for certain fouls, or in soccer, a penalty kick instead of a red card or some other punishment, etc...you get the picture?  You may simply agree the right penalty for a jump start is a ride through penalty, ok that is fine, just make your case why, but don't go saying its like some special rule from god set on stone tablets which should not be discussed regarding suitability.  I for one think a ride through is a bit harsh especial given most jump starts produce little to no advantage, I'd think a time penalty would suffice and make the remaining action more interesting; in comparison when you consider torpedoes are rarely sanctioned by any penalty and are 'arbitrarily' (if ever) applied.  I suppose a jump start is avoidable, so I'm not gonna argue too much its consequence.


 


 


As I said, I think I understand you better today.  Its not that you simply disagree, but rather you fail to understand the nuances and consequences that ARBITRARY rules produce in order to meaningfully discuss the particulars.  You believe no advantages or adverse effects can be created by one entity lobbying for certain rules.  This is your position on the state of the arbitrary rulebook.  HRC on the other hand is much smarter than you and have lobbied for rules that play to their strong suits: reliability, electronics, power, etc.  Hence you have rules that restrict the number of engines, fuel, development, etc.  You don't see the connection, but that doesn't mean they aren't there because YOU can't connect the dots.  Did you notice a Ducati on the rostrum last Sunday?  Are you aware that their improvement can be partially attributed to the advantages gained from exploiting the arbitrary rules they are governed by? (Oh I know you don't understand, even when I spell it out for you).  Btw, the tires they raced on Sunday are not the "current tires" genius.  I'm not going to argue tires much except to say the failure of them to perform across the board on Sunday made the race a bit of a fiasco.


 


Btw, Bradl should have been on the rostrum not Dovi, as the podium is reserved for "factory option" machines, the "open class" machines get their own rostrum, a step of one, therefore the Ducati which enjoys "open class" options should have been recognized as the 1st finisher.  Dovi should have been in parc ferme, but as the first 'option class' finisher.  So the rostrum should have looked like this: Marquez, Pedro, Bradl, if they insist on having  a 4th bike in parc ferme, that bike should have been Dovi's (regardless of it finishing 3rd as it is indeed the 1st open class machine).  What happens then when Aleish finishes in 3rd as a result of wacky results of the kind we saw on Sunday?  
Click to expand...


I agree that some  rules are somewhat abitrary by definition, but there is reason for the rule and it is within a system . The penalty for jumping the start is a ride through, everyone knows it, and no one is shocked when the penalty is enforced. The penalty   is not random, enforced on a personal whim or determined by what mood race direction is in, therfore, by definition is not arbitrary. If the penalty was arbitrary, Jorge would not have come in before completing the first lap, he would have stayed out hoping for an arbitrary decision by race direction on his behalf. The reason for the rule is obvious, you gain a competitive advantage and its dangerous. Lets be hypothetical. There is a 5 second penalty added :....:  for  a jump start. Jorge jumps the start  to get the lead. Using that lead, he dictates the race with the advantages his machine [a] has over the other machines [ B ] advantages, thus forcing machine b to alter its prefered strategy and lines,leading to additional fuel consumption or   even tire degradation. Bike [a] wins by 5.1 seconds  after bike 's  fuel computer cuts power in the last 5 laps because of altered strategy . If you can gain an advantage by breaking the rules, i would try it every race. As soon as the lights turn red, go. You will have anywhere from a 2 -5 second lead with no worries heading into turn 1 on the first lap. The possibilities are endless on what might happen in your favor if you chose to just bolt every race. On the dangerous side, imagine the carnage  that could have occured when he bolted then stopped. If you jump early, go, dont go 20 feet then bow up and stop. What if the lights had gone out right when he  decided he was going to bow up, it could have been a disaster.


 
ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbiˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"



synonyms:

capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable;
 
povol
3719041397739520

I agree that some  rules are somewhat abitrary by definition, but there is reason for the rule and it is within a system . The penalty for jumping the start is a ride through, everyone knows it, and no one is shocked when the penalty is enforced. The penalty   is not random, enforced on a personal whim or determined by what mood race direction is in, therfore, by definition is not arbitrary. If the penalty was arbitrary, Jorge would not have come in before completing the first lap, he would have stayed out hoping for an arbitrary decision by race direction on his behalf.
Click to expand...


 


Fair, however, jump starts are in fact a decision made by race direction (humans).  That means it is certainly on the whim of the man making the decision.  Have you ever seen what appears like a jump start not penalized?  Its happened.  And the reverse is true, a penalty for which it appeared the jump start was questionable.  When a person has to make a decision to apply the penalty, it becomes arbitrary.  Lorenzo's was an extreme example.  Most are not so spectacularly obvious.  Keep in mind Pov, that the rules governing the start of a race have changed several times.  Do you remember in the 90s when you could roll as long as your back axel didn't cross the grid plain?  Also the procedures have changed, that means they the rules have arbitrarily evolved; I can't remember off hand exactly but I think I also remember them using green lights too.  There were often times it really looked like a jump start had occurred only for Race Direction not to issue a penalty, and vise versa.  


 
povol
3719041397739520

The reason for the rule is obvious, you gain a competitive advantage and its dangerous. Lets be hypothetical. There is a 5 second penalty added :....:  for  a jump start. Jorge jumps the start  to get the lead. Using that lead, he dictates the race with the advantages his machine [a] has over the other machines [ B ] advantages, thus forcing machine b to alter its prefered strategy and lines,leading to additional fuel consumption or   even tire degradation. Bike [a] wins by 5.1 seconds  after bike 's  fuel computer cuts power in the last 5 laps because of altered strategy . If you can gain an advantage by breaking the rules, i would try it every race. As soon as the lights turn red, go. You will have anywhere from a 2 -5 second lead with no worries heading into turn 1 on the first lap. The possibilities are endless on what might happen in your favor if you chose to just bolt every race. On the dangerous side, imagine the carnage  that could have occured when he bolted then stopped. If you jump early, go, dont go 20 feet then bow up and stop. What if the lights had gone out right when he  decided he was going to bow up, it could have been a disaster.
Click to expand...



 


Ok now you are considering the options with analysis, this is progress.  It doesn't have to be a 5 sec penalty to buffer and deter any "competitive advantage" gained, it could be 10.  Something reasonable where the automatic penalty isn't so severe effectively taking out the rider from the race.  Im saying this for the sake of discussion, that is, some penalties could be rethought.  Honestly, I don't think the jump start penalty is a major issue, but I do think it could be adjusted, on the otherhand, I feel like torpedoes and punting riders is infinitely worse yet seldom if ever penalized.  I don't recall a jump start rider ever creating a melee on the first corner, sounds a bit like the republican voter suppression "reasoning" which claims 'voter fraud' to in-act some obstacle to voters.  But I won't argue the point, though I son't see why you would deduce a jump starter would cause a first turn torpedo any more than a non jump starter.  But since you are citing "safety" consider the safety aspect of a much faster rider faced with navigating a much slower field. 
 
Jumkie
3719051397754926

Fair, however, jump starts are in fact a decision made by race direction (humans).  That means it is certainly on the whim of the man making the decision.  Have you ever seen what appears like a jump start not penalized?  Its happened.  And the reverse is true, a penalty for which it appeared the jump start was questionable.  When a person has to make a decision to apply the penalty, it becomes arbitrary.  Lorenzo's was an extreme example.  Most are not so spectacularly obvious.  Keep in mind Pov, that the rules governing the start of a race have changed several times.  Do you remember in the 90s when you could roll as long as your back axel didn't cross the grid plain?  Also the procedures have changed, that means they the rules have arbitrarily evolved; I can't remember off hand exactly but I think I also remember them using green lights too.  There were often times it really looked like a jump start had occurred only for Race Direction not to issue a penalty, and vise versa.  


 


 


Ok now you are considering the options with analysis, this is progress.  It doesn't have to be a 5 sec penalty to buffer and deter any "competitive advantage" gained, it could be 10.  Something reasonable where the automatic penalty isn't so severe effectively taking out the rider from the race.  Im saying this for the sake of discussion, that is, some penalties could be rethought.  Honestly, I don't think the jump start penalty is a major issue, but I do think it could be adjusted, on the otherhand, I feel like torpedoes and punting riders is infinitely worse yet seldom if ever penalized.  I don't recall a jump start rider ever creating a melee on the first corner, sounds a bit like the republican voter suppression "reasoning" which claims 'voter fraud' to in-act some obstacle to voters.  But I won't argue the point, though I son't see why you would deduce a jump starter would cause a first turn torpedo any more than a non jump starter.  But since you are citing "safety" consider the safety aspect of a much faster rider faced with navigating a much slower field. 
Click to expand...


Not sure how you deduced that i deduced a jump start would cause a first turn melee. Read it again, i said if you just went ahead and jump started every race, you wouldnt have to worry about 1st lap 1st turn melee's
 
Jumkie
3718961397685805

.......................

But its ok for other limitations to exist that produce disparity for the riders and the bikes? (think rules)


Marc will not be troubled this year because there are only 3 other bikes that could possibly do that, and 2 of those 4 are disadvantaged by "significant limitations" produced by rules. Its not just the tires creating disparity. After all, they're all on the same tires (well not quite, but you get the picture....I think).
Click to expand...


 


I do not underestimate the importance of rules; however tires are the single major factor that can do or undo a rider or a bike. Precisely because of their paramount importance in racing, a level field should be guaranteed regarding tires (unless one want a "best tire" championship rather than best rider or best bike!).


 


I think the single supplier was a good idea, going in the right direction, BUT this blessed single supplier MUST guarantee a rich enough supply to cover the needs of the grid as a whole. If they supply only one basic type, there will always be players left in deep ...... 
 
J4rn0
3719091397826315

I do not underestimate the importance of rules; however tires are the single major factor that can do or undo a rider or a bike. Precisely because of their paramount importance in racing, a level field should be guaranteed regarding tires (unless one want a "best tire" championship rather than best rider or best bike!).

 

I think the single supplier was a good idea, going in the right direction, BUT this blessed single supplier MUST guarantee a rich enough supply to cover the needs of the greed as a whole. If they supply only one basic type, there will always be players left in deep ...... 
Click to expand...


 

I agree about the tires, but even if they were all given adequate tires, we'd see a similar finishing order we normally EXPECT to see now (Austin was wacky because the tires sucked).  Sure the tires failed to perform in this race, but what if the usual suspects would have had no tire issues?  The finishing order would have looked like this: Honda Factory, Yamaha Factory, Satellites, Factory 2, Production Racers, CRTesks. You say above this should not be a best tire championship, but do you really think if we eliminate the tire discrepancy that this would be a best "rider" championship?  No sir, not when the disparity is built into the series.  Its no different than what turn out to be in effect a faulty tire disparity at Austin that resulted in the wacky results.  So I'm with you that tires have certainly played a roll these last two races, especially at Austin, where Bstone's performance was atrocious (except for HRCs), but you propose that every rider should have adequate tires, yet the disparity of the machine wouldn't allow all a fighting chance anyway!

 

I was hoping Iannone could fight for the podium probably as much if not more than you. I rate him very highly, and I think if on equal footing he could bother Marc here and there (oh I know few would agree with me). Even if his tires had performed adequate, you'll never see him compete with Marquez, though I think Iannone has the talent and more importantly, the hunger, to do so.  So basically you are upset that the tires are holding back certain riders (I know you were bothered to see VR going backwards, but .... him, he's on a top 4 machine, no sympathy from me), but in reality this not the major problem for them.  After all, there is a spec tire in place and ALL the riders get to choose from the same lot (when actually based on their own category, and if anything, Iannone gets the best of that choice given the Ducatis can elect from all of the tire designations).  Anyway, I'm with you on the tire issue, but frankly what is the ultimate message in your position?  Is it that: they should ALL have adequate performing tires  (which the tires at Austin did not provide)?  Because my position is: they should ALL have a fighting chance for a win, period.
 
Jumkie
3719101397837150

 

I agree about the tires, but even if they were all given adequate tires, we'd see a similar finishing order we normally EXPECT to see now (Austin was wacky because the tires sucked).  Sure the tires failed to perform in this race, but what if the usual suspects would have had no tire issues?  The finishing order would have looked like this: Honda Factory, Yamaha Factory, Satellites, Factory 2, Production Racers, CRTesks. You say above this should not be a best tire championship, but do you really think if we eliminate the tire discrepancy that this would be a best "rider" championship?  No sir, not when the disparity is built into the series.  Its no different than what turn out to be in effect a faulty tire disparity at Austin that resulted in the wacky results.  So I'm with you that tires have certainly played a roll these last two races, especially at Austin, where Bstone's performance was atrocious (except for HRCs), but you propose that every rider should have adequate tires, yet the disparity of the machine wouldn't allow all a fighting chance anyway!

 

I was hoping Iannone could fight for the podium probably as much if not more than you. I rate him very highly, and I think if on equal footing he could bother Marc here and there (oh I know few would agree with me). Even if his tires had performed adequate, you'll never see him compete with Marquez, though I think Iannone has the talent and more importantly, the hunger, to do so.  So basically you are upset that the tires are holding back certain riders (I know you were bothered to see VR going backwards, but .... him, he's on a top 4 machine, no sympathy from me), but in reality this not the major problem for them.  After all, there is a spec tire in place and ALL the riders get to choose from the same lot (when actually based on their own category, and if anything, Iannone gets the best of that choice given the Ducatis can elect from all of the tire designations).  Anyway, I'm with you on the tire issue, but frankly what is the ultimate message in your position?  Is it that: they should ALL have adequate performing tires  (which the tires at Austin did not provide)?  Because my position is: they should ALL have a fighting chance for a win, period.
Click to expand...


 http://www.pieholed.com/2014/03/which-utopian-dreamer-are-you/
 
The only way they all would have a fighting chance to win is if every rider was on the exact same machine with the exact same tires, and each bike was tuned by the same mechanics. However, MotoGP is a constructor's championship as much as it is a rider's championship, and as such the playing field will never be truly level. 


 


This inequality exists in all sports, not just MotoGP. There have been plenty of great players in the NBA, for example, who never won a world championship because they didn't have the right team around them. The best players in the world, however, tend to get to a position where they can win championships. The same can be said of riders in MotoGP. 


 


Even if MotoGP was to become a spec series tomorrow, there probably wouldn't be all that much change. The middle of the grid would be closer to each other, sure, but at the top of the order the likes of Marquez and Lorenzo would still be pulling away. Tech can be equally distributed, but talent can't, and some riders just have more of it than others. 
 
rezonator636 said:
The only way they all would have a fighting chance to win is if every rider was on the exact same machine with the exact same tires, and each bike was tuned by the same mechanics. However, MotoGP is a constructor's championship as much as it is a rider's championship, and as such the playing field will never be truly level. 
 
This inequality exists in all sports, not just MotoGP. There have been plenty of great players in the NBA, for example, who never won a world championship because they didn't have the right team around them. The best players in the world, however, tend to get to a position where they can win championships. The same can be said of riders in MotoGP. 
 
Even if MotoGP was to become a spec series tomorrow, there probably wouldn't be all that much change. The middle of the grid would be closer to each other, sure, but at the top of the order the likes of Marquez and Lorenzo would still be pulling away. Tech can be equally distributed, but talent can't, and some riders just have more of it than others. 
Click to expand...

Your post outweighs your talent.
 

Similar threads

M
Where to sit in Austin?
Replies
2
Views
415
PRS717
P
Hollywood
COTA: Anyone Going This Year?
Replies
4
Views
627
missin44
M
P
COTA 2023
Replies
4
Views
393
PRS717
P
M
Can I sell my tickets for COTA?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Cutter
Cutter
T
The future of MotoGP, hybridization?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Hollywood
Hollywood

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top