Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

USC Billboard


neilfish2
 Share

Recommended Posts

It will not go up illegally.  An ad agency in Mobile is donating their time to refine the copy and rent the space.  All the $10,000 needs to do is rent the Bill Board; I think their goal is a month.  Trust me, for every USC alum in outdoor advertising in the area that will not touch the project, there will be several that will (alum or not).  First of, $10,000 is $10,000, unrented space is money that will never be recouped.  Second, after it is up, it will become a story.  It will be exposure that you could never buy.  This has nothing to do with the importance or validity of the message.  It is just one of those stories that will be news, some people will agree, some people will laugh, some people will scratch their head, but people will definitely see it.

 

1278697[/snapback]

 

 

 

Not true. Every piece of signage that goes up in the City of LA, or any City in or around LA has to be reviewed by the planning department. I guarantee they will put so much red tape around that process that whoever comes up with the $10k to pay for the space will spend months unraveling it. Hence my "good luck with that" initial statement.

 

I hate to toot my own horn here but I do this for a living and thus I know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not true.  Every piece of signage that goes up in the City of LA, or any City in or around LA has to be reviewed by the planning department.  I guarantee they will put so much red tape around that process that whoever comes up with the $10k to pay for the space will spend months unraveling it.  Hence my "good luck with that" initial statement. 

 

I hate to toot my own horn here but I do this for a living and thus I know what I'm talking about.

 

1278956[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That is just typical of the "left" coast. Those liberal idiots spew on and on about free speech, but when it hits home they don't want it to be said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is just typical of the "left" coast.  Those liberal idiots spew on and on about free speech, but when it hits home they don't want it to be said.

 

1278980[/snapback]

 

 

 

You couldn't be more wrong, Perch. It's the control-freak hard-line conservative bassturds (orginally developed in the Bay Area) that are the forerunners of the "entitlements" process in California and beyond. I could write a thesis here for you, if I had the time. :D

 

Edit: It has nothing to do with free speech. I re-read your statement and see what you're referring to. I'm referring to the fact that these clowns would have to go through an arduous process of red tape to get this sign approved, regardless of message. Because it's taunting in nature, I'm saying the amount of red (or let's call it crimson and gold) tape would be monumental.

Edited by darin3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NCAA had a system in place to recognize the National Champion.  Its called the BCS, and the game is the National Championship game.  SC was not in that game, it was between OU and LSU.  before the BCS, you have a point.  This is the same as saying a team that didnt make the playoffs deserved to be the SB Champ.  If you dont make the game, you can not be the Champ, its really that simple.  SC won 1 title, and led a press poll for another, that was not recognized by the governing party of the NCAA.

 

Its 7 yrs overdue for the AP to disappear as having anything to do with the NC, as we have a national championship game to determine the title

 

1278381[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

You have your opinion. Me and obviously many of the media have our own. Looks to me like in 2003 we had 2 national champions. And regardless of what anyone says... the coaches poll still decides the bcs national champion. The only difference is, they are contractually obligated to select the winner of the BCS Title game as #1. Imagine if the coaches voted how they wanted to vote? You're right, there wouldn't have been a split, USC woulda taken both polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have your opinion. Me and obviously many of the media have our own. Looks to me like in 2003 we had 2 national champions. And regardless of what anyone says... the coaches poll still decides the bcs national champion. The only difference is, they are contractually obligated to select the winner of the BCS Title game as #1. Imagine if the coaches voted how they wanted to vote? You're right, there wouldn't have been a split, USC woulda taken both polls.

 

1279594[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I think the NCAA recognizes LSU as the Champ. The AP recognizes SC. Thats not an opinion, that is a fact. Like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/history

Actually they recognize both. :D

 

1280181[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Who got the trophy that said National Champions, and who got the trophy that said AP National Champions. Nuff said. SC won 1 title, and the AP could vote for West Virginia, but that doesnt mean they were the best last yr. Its a f'n publication, its a joke and that is why the BCS was created to pit #1 vs #2 for a real Champion, not some media champion like SC proved to be. What if the AP voted for SC even after they lost to Texas.

 

 

In 2003, OU, LSU, and SC all had 1 loss and the BCS picked OU and LSU based on more than just 1 poll, and SC hadnt beat anyone worth putting them in that game. OU had beat 8 Bowl teams, 3 in the top 15, and put up 50 on 7 opponents.

 

 

FWIW, the Media and everyone not a Texas fan picked SC this yr to beat Texas, but it didnt happen, so how can anyone say SC would have beat LSU in 2003. They can't. But what can be said is LSU beat OU for the National Championship, in the national championship game. SC won a home game in the rosebowl vs a Athenay Michigan team, that would have lost by 2 Tds to LSU or OU as well. Hey if you can predict, so can I. :D

Edited by Sgt. Ryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only problem is, both polls had USC #1, and the Coaches Poll represents the result of the BCS game. Meaning, if it didn't, USC would have been unanamous #1. And, the BCS does not guarantee #1 vs #2. We've seen it in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004, where there is a lot of question as to whether or not we did see #1 vs #2.

 

I would agree with you that it is a true national championship, if it truly was, but it isn't. There is no such thing unless there is a playoff. Only 3 of the 8 years of the BCS has it come down to 2 undefeated teams, and there was no doubt about it. 1999, 2002, and 2005. Every other year, there has been red flags everywhere. 1998 Ohio State, Kansas State, and Florida State all had only 1 loss. FSU got the nod. 2000, Miami, Florida State, and Washington, again, FSU gets the nod. Don't even get me started on 2001, and that Big 12 lovefest. 2003 was an even bigger screwjob, and 2004, Auburn, Oklahoma, and SC, were all undefeated. Controversy everywhere. The BCS is nothing but a screwjob waiting to happen every year, and I'm happy that the NCAA continues to recognize the Assosciated Press National Champion. Because the coaches are sooooooo unbiased right sarge? They pay attention to all of the games? At least the AP is a diverse group from all over the country, and can take a lot more time to watch games. I'm not saying they are perfect, but I would trust them over some coach that has his team on the edge of a possible BCS slot, and votes teh team ahead of them down way below where everyone else has them, just to give his own team a better chance at getting the big pay day, for their school and conference *cough* Mack Brown *cough*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only problem is, both polls had USC #1, and the Coaches Poll represents the result of the BCS game. Meaning, if it didn't, USC would have been unanamous #1. And, the BCS does not guarantee #1 vs #2. We've seen it in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004, where there is a lot of question as to whether or not we did see #1 vs #2.

 

I would agree with you that it is a true national championship, if it truly was, but it isn't. There is no such thing unless there is a playoff. Only 3 of the 8 years of the BCS has it come down to 2 undefeated teams, and there was no doubt about it. 1999, 2002, and 2005. Every other year, there has been red flags everywhere. 1998 Ohio State, Kansas State, and Florida State all had only 1 loss. FSU got the nod. 2000, Miami, Florida State, and Washington, again, FSU gets the nod. Don't even get me started on 2001, and that Big 12 lovefest. 2003 was an even bigger screwjob, and 2004, Auburn, Oklahoma, and SC, were all undefeated. Controversy everywhere. The BCS is nothing but a screwjob waiting to happen every year, and I'm happy that the NCAA continues to recognize the Assosciated Press National Champion. Because the coaches are sooooooo unbiased right sarge? They pay attention to all of the games? At least the AP is a diverse group from all over the country, and can take a lot more time to watch games. I'm not saying they are perfect, but I would trust them over some coach that has his team on the edge of a possible BCS slot, and votes teh team ahead of them down way below where everyone else has them, just to give his own team a better chance at getting the big pay day, for their school and conference *cough* Mack Brown *cough*.

1280223[/snapback]

 

 

Which is why the BCS is better. 6 computers, 2 polls, quality wins, etc.

 

 

2003 BCS Champs LSU Tigers. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have your opinion. Me and obviously many of the media have our own. Looks to me like in 2003 we had 2 national champions. And regardless of what anyone says... the coaches poll still decides the bcs national champion. The only difference is, they are contractually obligated to select the winner of the BCS Title game as #1. Imagine if the coaches voted how they wanted to vote? You're right, there wouldn't have been a split, USC woulda taken both polls.

 

1279594[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I do not disagree with any thing that you have said. However, there is a point that is critical to me in this debate, which you do not discuss. It is a point that is rarely discussed by people who are on the side of recognizing the AP National Poll Champion (this wording is from the NCAA) as equal to the BCS Champion. (Please do not turn this into a debate on if the BCS is good or bad, the current discussion is since the BCS does exist, how does it fit into the current scheme of Div 1-A college football).

 

The stated purpose of the BCS is to determine a National Champion in D1-A football. This wording is found on both the BCS website and the NCAA website. I know that the NCAA also discusses the AP Champion on its website as well. That is not part of this argument.

 

My point is this:

 

The stated purpose of the BCS is to determine a National Champion in D1-A football. I believe that it is pretty clear that the unstated purpose of the BCS is to increase revenue for D1-A football.

 

I further believe that the creators of the BCS knew that by using the stated purpose (NC) they were guaranteed to accomplish the unstated purpose (cash), because of the well documented desire by many fans for a definitive, consensus National Champ in D1-A football. (please note that I did not claim that this desire was universal or even a majority).

 

So, who created the BCS? It was not the NCAA. The authority of the BCS lies in its contracts with the conferences. It has a contract with 11 Conferences. However, I personally find it silly to associate the creation or running of the BCS to the Mid-American, C-USA, Mountain West, WAC, or Sun Belt conferences. The history and structure of the BCS clearly indicate that the creators of and powers behind the BCS are the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, PAC-10 and SEC + ND (for brevities sack, in the future I will refer to these collectively as the “Big 66”).

 

In summation, it is my contention that the BCS was created by the “Big 66” to generate more cash. They used the desire of a large group of fans for a definitive, consensus National Champ in D1-A as a means to get more cash, while not putting in a true play-off, giving up too much control or sharing too much of the newly created cash. Based on this contention I find it very hypocritical, bordering on fraudulent for any of the “Big 66” to claim anything other than the BCS Championship as a National Championship. This would include Texas as well as USC, or any other member of the “Big 66”. Please be aware that I take every opportunity to communicate my displeasure to both the Administration of The University of Texas in general and the Sports Department specifically, that anyone at UT claims a National Championship for the 1970 season (I am happy to report that I have never received any indication that anyone I have communicated this to at UT cares what I think) 1970 is clearly a different circumstance; however I assure you that if UT ever claims a National Championship for finishing #1 in the AP, without winning the BCS Championship game (assuming the set-up of the BCS remains substantially unchanged), my protest will be louder. I might even put up a billboard in Austin. They are not as expensive or as well controlled in Austin as they are in LA.

Edited by rbmcdonald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing unless there is a playoff.

 

1280223[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I disagree with this statement. I personally would like to see a D-1A football, and a playoff system is clearly the primary means used in sports to determine a champion, but I think we need to clear what a play-off actually does. What a playoff does is use some formula generally a win loss record to determine which teams performed best during a "regular season" these teams are then matched in a tournament of head to head competitions, until only one is left. So all that a play-off does it tell you definitively who a tournament winner was, where the tournament was made up of what was hopefully the best teams from the group as a whole. Whither or not that is a true National Champion, depends on your definition of what a true National Champion is. Is it the team that played best from the beginning of the year until the end of the year? Is it the team that was playing the best on Jan 4? Is it the team that played best from November 1 to January 4th?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue, that if you're considered the best, you should be playing your best in crunch time. Which is why I think that bowls DO in FACT mean more than idiots like the sports reporters on sunday mornings think. College football has evolved to the current bcs forumula. I don't understand why the 8 (or in next years case) 10 bcs teams cant go at it in a single elimination tournament? Who wouldn't want to see Texas-Ohio State Part II? It would be every bit as good as part 1, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not disagree with any thing that you have said.  However, there is a point that is critical to me in this debate, which you do not discuss.  It is a point that is rarely discussed by people who are on the side of recognizing the AP National Poll Champion (this wording is from the NCAA) as equal to the BCS Champion.  (Please do not turn this into a debate on if the BCS is good or bad, the current discussion is since the BCS does exist, how does it fit into the current scheme of Div 1-A college football).

 

The stated purpose of the BCS is to determine a National Champion in D1-A football.  This wording is found on both the BCS website and the NCAA website.  I know that the NCAA also discusses the AP Champion on its website as well.  That is not part of this argument. 

 

My point is this:

 

The stated purpose of the BCS is to determine a National Champion in D1-A football.  I believe that it is pretty clear that the unstated purpose of the BCS is to increase revenue for D1-A football.

 

I further believe that the creators of the BCS knew that by using the stated purpose (NC) they were guaranteed to accomplish the unstated purpose (cash), because of the well documented desire by many fans for a definitive, consensus National Champ in D1-A football. (please note that I did not claim that this desire was universal or even a majority).

 

So, who created the BCS?  It was not the NCAA.  The authority of the BCS lies in its contracts with the conferences.  It has a contract with 11 Conferences.  However, I personally find it silly to associate the creation or running of the BCS to the Mid-American, C-USA, Mountain West, WAC, or Sun Belt conferences.  The history and structure of the BCS clearly indicate that the creators of and powers behind the BCS are the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, PAC-10 and SEC + ND (for brevities sack, in the future I will refer to these collectively as the “Big 66”).

 

In summation, it is my contention that the BCS was created by the “Big 66” to generate more cash.  They used the desire of a large group of fans for a definitive, consensus National Champ in D1-A as a means to get more cash, while not putting in a true play-off, giving up too much control or sharing too much of the newly created cash.  Based on this contention I find it very hypocritical, bordering on fraudulent for any of the “Big 66” to claim anything other than the BCS Championship as a National Championship.  This would include Texas as well as USC, or any other member of the “Big 66”.  Please be aware that I take every opportunity to communicate my displeasure to both the Administration of The University of Texas in general and the Sports Department specifically, that anyone at UT claims a National Championship for the 1970 season (I am happy to report that I have never received any indication that anyone I have communicated this to at UT cares what I think)  1970 is clearly a different circumstance; however I assure you that if UT ever claims a National Championship for finishing #1 in the AP, without winning the BCS Championship game (assuming the set-up of the BCS remains substantially unchanged), my protest will be louder.  I might even put up a billboard in Austin.  They are not as expensive or as well controlled in Austin as they are in LA.

 

1280698[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

And it still doesn't change the fact that the NCAA recognizes both LSU and USC as the 2003 National Champions. Personally I dont see what the big deal is. Most people can agree, that the BCS isn't the best method of making a national champion, nor is a poll for that matter.

Bottom line is the NCAA is recognizing both, so that argument can be put to rest. And Sarge, the NCAA officially recognizes LSU as the "BCS" Naitonal Champions. A trophy is merely an object, its the history book that truly matters, and 50 years from now kids will be looking up history of college football, and seeing a split national title in 2003. You don't like it because you know deep down Oklahoma didn't deserve to be in the Sugar Bowl, but all people know now is that there will be a debate between LSU and USC, Oklahoma is merely a forgotten team as far as 2003 is concerned. They're the team that got stomped in there final 2 games, by far superior football teams.

Edited by GWPFFL BrianW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're the team that got stomped in there final 2 games, by far superior football teams.

 

1280992[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

OU was 12 yards away from tying the score with 4 mins left 21-14. I hardly think they got stomped. Stomped is what happened to Iowa by Iowa St a weak Big 12 team.

 

Lets get real Brian, Iowa sucks, OU is back, SC is over, and Texas can enjoy the title, knowing they have no shot to defend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The score doesn't indicate how bad the game actually was. LSU dominated the game from the beginning to the end. LSU's offense just wasn't that great to make the score worse. Kansas State proved that Oklahoma had no defense, and LSU proved Oklahoma had no offense. End of story. And again, the history books will tell the story. Split national title in 2003. By then there will be a new trophy more than likely, and people will forget that LSU won the corporate sponsored Trophy, which is the bottom line of this onepeat website. It is a bunch of angry LSU fans for the most part crying about how the media forgot that they won the national championship as well. If the media doesn't matter, then why worry about what they say? I really don't think LSU was that great in 2003. They lost to Florida AT HOME! Iowa killed Florida in what was basically a home game for them that year. And according to you, Iowa sucks.

Edited by GWPFFL BrianW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The score doesn't indicate how bad the game actually was. LSU dominated the game from the beginning to the end.

1282094[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

For once get the F'n facts straight. D@mn, you just spew Athena, and hope it sticks like yoru analysis of the Rose Bowl. You were wrong about 5 times in your posts, yet you keep spewing your mouth.

 

Go back and look at the film. OU dominated the 2nd half. LSU's only pts were a Int for TD at their 5 yard line by DL Marcus Spears. OU gave up 14 pts in the 1st half, and dominated defensively the rest of the game, and were 14 yards from tying the game in the 4th, where the LSU defense was obviously gassed. OU then started throwing after gashing LSU right downt he field with the run, which was the final story fo the game. For once have a clue before you post dip Athena.

Edited by Sgt. Ryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said... LSU's offense wasn't that great. Put USC's offense in there. You think Oklahoma holds USC to 21? I don't think so. Leinart to Mike Williams all day long. LSU's defense started to wear down because there offense was mediocre at best. Kansas State proved that if you have any kind of running game, you could run all over that overrated Sooner defense. I mean Matt Mauck? LMAO. If there was ever a qb that was the definition of game manager, it is him. LSU's defense dominated that game, as evident by the fact that the Sooners only managed 14 points (With the great heisman qb at the helm). So no you get a clue dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LSU Total Yards: 312

Oklahoma total yards: 154

 

 

You're gonna try and tell me that it shouldn't have been worse than it was? Oklahoma had 52 yards rushing in the game on 33 attempts. Sorry, one good drive doesn't indicate to me that LSU's defense was on the ropes, and arguing about passing, when CLEARLY your running game as a whole was largely ineffective throughout the game, doesn't hold any water. LSU statistically dominated the Sooners, and like I said, LSU's offense wasn't that great. They had a very good defense, with an offense that managed games well, but still outgained the dreaded Sooner offense by a bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said... LSU's offense wasn't that great. Put USC's offense in there. You think Oklahoma holds USC to 21? I don't think so. Leinart to Mike Williams all day long. LSU's  defense started to wear down because there offense was mediocre at best. Kansas State proved that if you have any kind of running game, you could run all over that overrated Sooner defense. I mean Matt Mauck? LMAO. If there was ever a qb that was the definition of game manager, it is him. LSU's defense dominated that game, as evident by the fact that the Sooners only managed 14 points (With the great heisman qb at the helm). So no you get a clue dude.

 

1282217[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

White had surgery on his wrist after that game, which was fractured vs KSU, and wouldnt have played if it wasnt the NC Game. That was evident if you watched the game. Again, have a clue dude. I love it when spare ass punks like you and wildcat who routinely see pathetic football from your team judge those teams who actually play and win Championships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh so it was Whites injury? It wasn't because LSU was far superior or anything?  Gotcha. What was the excuse when Roberson and Sproles were running and passing all over you for 500 yards? Oh yeah they were believing there own hype. Nothing but excuses.

 

1282244[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I gave KSU all kinds of props, the worst game OU played in the last 5 yrs. They didnt give teh game away, KSU took it to them for 4 quarters, and Whites injury had nothing to do with that loss. But it certainly did the next game.

 

Again, get your facts straight tool, its embarassing having to correct you after every post. .

Edited by Sgt. Ryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave you the facts. Cold Hard facts. LSU dominated Oklahoma statistically, and won the game 21-14, and it shoulda been a lot worse if LSU's offense was better than mediocre. And if Jason Whites wrist was an excuse for losing the game, then I'm sorry, that's pathetic. LSU was simply the only good defense you faced all year long besides Alabama early in the year who you only beat by a touchdown, who had less offense than LSU. The Big 12 was weak/down/whatever you want to call it. Texas got stomped by Washington State, Kansas State got whacked around by Ohio State, and Oklahoma got beat by LSU. Big 12's 3 best all got whooped, proving that Oklahoma didn't face the stiff competititon that the Big 12 was known for having. Call it a down year. Call it whatever you wish, but the Big 12's 3 best weren't all that great after all when faced with top teams from other conferences much less 2 of those 3 games the Big 12 team was favored, so the "bowl games are about match ups" argument doesn't hold water. Oklahoma blitzed through a iffy conference, ran up the score on the likes of Texas A & M to make themselves look better in the computers, and got into the Sugar Bowl, which was absolute highway robbery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave you the facts. Cold Hard facts. LSU dominated Oklahoma statistically, and won the game 21-14, and it shoulda been a lot worse if LSU's offense was better than mediocre. And if Jason Whites wrist was an excuse for losing the game, then I'm sorry, that's pathetic. LSU was simply the only good defense you faced all year long besides Alabama early in the year who you only beat by a touchdown, who had less offense than LSU. The Big 12 was weak/down/whatever you want to call it. Texas got stomped by Washington State, Kansas State got whacked around by Ohio State, and Oklahoma got beat by LSU. Big 12's 3 best all got whooped, proving that Oklahoma didn't face the stiff competititon that the Big 12 was known for having. Call it a down year. Call it whatever you wish, but the Big 12's 3 best weren't all that great after all when faced with top teams from other conferences much less 2 of those 3 games the Big 12 team was favored, so the "bowl games are about match ups" argument doesn't hold water. Oklahoma blitzed through a iffy conference, ran up the score on the likes of Texas A & M to make themselves look better in the computers, and got into the Sugar Bowl, which was absolute highway robbery.

 

1282351[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Ou beat 7 bowl teams, and LSU escaped the SEC with 1 loss. Sc didnt play anyone and their SOS that year was terrible, and they had 0 quality wins, while LSU had 2, and OU had 2, beating top 10 teams Texas and Ok St at the time.

 

This could go on forever, as you dont know when to quit. You act as if everything you say is fact, when it is rarely even true, and for what its worth, Im done with the argument. LSU is the 2003 Champs in my mind, nothing you say will ever change it. The BCS got it right with the best 2 teams in my mind, and the game was compettive and could have gone either way. SC blew out a terrible Michigan team, who wasnt playing for a Championship, while they were supposedly playing for a piece of one. Sc would have lost to either team imo, and nothing you say will change my mind, so let it go dude, for once. I did, and Im done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No see, you're just a blind homer, that actually thinks Oklahoma was the best team in 2003 and 2004. You sit here and claim that I just present opinions as fact, when I bring up statistical evidence, or actually provide proof that indeed the NCAA recognizes both teams as champions. That's all I'm saying. That my friend IS a fact. It is also fact that LSU statistically dominated Oklahoma in the 2004 Sugar Bowl. And it is also fact that the top 3 teams in teh Big XII that year all got beat down by SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 10 teams respectavely. Those are the facts. You obviously don't like them, and that is understandable.

 

See sarge, the difference is, I really didn't care who won that game, nor did I really care who won last years game, but you're the blindest homer of them all, and hate it when I point that out to you with real facts. Sorry that upsets you, but I think you'll survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information