Recently I've been made aware of the struggles of some, when laying out deed descriptions against record maps.
They;ve read Wattles, and Brown etc, but still things just don't add up for them.
It is burdensome to have to explain each and every deed, its' intent and how to lay it out.
Is there a good book or article which explains that "intent" carries more weight than just merely "closing" the last course.
I. B. Happy
source to teach deed layout
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
If there are any currently published books that would do that, I'm not aware of them. A lot of good basic principles can be gleaned from Wattles, etc., but the Brown books seem to have drifted more to one author's personal opinion that surveyors should stick to the explicit terms of the deed rather than apply the body of law available to us to boundary exercises, and that we are merely technical support for wiser and smarter persons in the legal profession.
Many, perhaps most surveyors are predisposed to looking at deed layout as a primarily, if not entirely a mathematical exercise. They think of it in terms of an engineering problem, like staking calcs.
They need to be able to step out of this mindset and think more abstractly. What were the original parties trying to convey? What was the measuring technology readily available and used at the time the description was 1st written? Do you have any indications that distances were measured more accurately than directions or vice-versa? Are there physical indications of the actual bounds established by the original parties?
Establishing boundaries is a legal exercise supported by measurement and mathematics, not an engineering exercise to which some laws may apply.
If they can't break out of the engineering mindset, or the science of surveying, and step into the judgment, or art of surveying, keep them on construction calcs.
Many, perhaps most surveyors are predisposed to looking at deed layout as a primarily, if not entirely a mathematical exercise. They think of it in terms of an engineering problem, like staking calcs.
They need to be able to step out of this mindset and think more abstractly. What were the original parties trying to convey? What was the measuring technology readily available and used at the time the description was 1st written? Do you have any indications that distances were measured more accurately than directions or vice-versa? Are there physical indications of the actual bounds established by the original parties?
Establishing boundaries is a legal exercise supported by measurement and mathematics, not an engineering exercise to which some laws may apply.
If they can't break out of the engineering mindset, or the science of surveying, and step into the judgment, or art of surveying, keep them on construction calcs.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Sometimes I wonder about you
The short answer is NO!!!
Its called mentoring. Take your best and brightest and turn them loose on a project. But before anything gets staked or gets out the door,you have a sit down with them and discuss everthing from soup to nuts as it relates to the boundary issues. Keep doing this, provided that you see growth in their understanding of what it takes to do the job.
Every text on the subject is by nature general. In private practice, we deal with specific issues, that may or may not be covered in a books.
Ever work with someone chaining who on the 5th day of storm drain staking had no idea what they would be doing today?
It is the same with boundary work. Some folks get it others do not, so I would not try to force the issue, give the work to those who show the capcitiy and aptitiude for this type of survey work...
Its called mentoring. Take your best and brightest and turn them loose on a project. But before anything gets staked or gets out the door,you have a sit down with them and discuss everthing from soup to nuts as it relates to the boundary issues. Keep doing this, provided that you see growth in their understanding of what it takes to do the job.
Every text on the subject is by nature general. In private practice, we deal with specific issues, that may or may not be covered in a books.
Ever work with someone chaining who on the 5th day of storm drain staking had no idea what they would be doing today?
It is the same with boundary work. Some folks get it others do not, so I would not try to force the issue, give the work to those who show the capcitiy and aptitiude for this type of survey work...
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
I also have to be redundant and say that kind of work is very much experience based, and takes some time to grasp. I am sure most of us have changed how we resolve boundaries when we compare ourselves then and now.
There is also the aspect of monuments and occupation lines you measure and how they conflict with the deeds and record maps. This is a very important factor when determining intent. I think a lot of surveyors working today, at least where I am, seem to disregard monuments simply because they are not of record. I used to as well. This is how we are tested, so it is not surprising.
There is also the aspect of monuments and occupation lines you measure and how they conflict with the deeds and record maps. This is a very important factor when determining intent. I think a lot of surveyors working today, at least where I am, seem to disregard monuments simply because they are not of record. I used to as well. This is how we are tested, so it is not surprising.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
Evan, that is not really my point, but it would make for a good discussion.
But (when it comes to boundary resolution) don't you find that certain methods required for a correct answer would make for some bad judgment calls when we get out in the real world? It is not a matter of minimal competence in that respect. It is more of a mindset that is created early on that some like myself evolve from.
But (when it comes to boundary resolution) don't you find that certain methods required for a correct answer would make for some bad judgment calls when we get out in the real world? It is not a matter of minimal competence in that respect. It is more of a mindset that is created early on that some like myself evolve from.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Bryan,
I disagree with your premise, which implies that there is an "exam" way and a "real world" way to do things that are significantly different than each other.
Where you will find a difference is in the typical complexity of facts given.
In the real world, you will have several days or weeks to work out a solution to a boundary survey. In the real world you will find a spectrum of evidence from that which you will obviously accept or reject, to that which you will have to mull over, do more research or more field work to see if you can find evidence to either support or refute that which you are considering.
The State specific exam is four hours long. The examinees will not have time to pore over all of the evidence that we would in a "real world" survey. Plus, we have that pesky definition of what minimal competence looks like.
For these reasons, the complexity of the facts given in an exam problem are typically less than what you might commonly find in performing boundary surveys.
If one exercises sound judgment on "real world" surveys based on sound experience with and knowledge of statute and case law, and if one applies that judgment and knowledge to the exam problems as they would on the job, one should do quite well on the exam.
I would love to discuss this further, because it would be a good discussion. But it would be very difficult to do so outside of the exam development/grading environment without risking the necessary security of the exam.
So, will I see you at grading where we can discuss it further? ;-)
I disagree with your premise, which implies that there is an "exam" way and a "real world" way to do things that are significantly different than each other.
Where you will find a difference is in the typical complexity of facts given.
In the real world, you will have several days or weeks to work out a solution to a boundary survey. In the real world you will find a spectrum of evidence from that which you will obviously accept or reject, to that which you will have to mull over, do more research or more field work to see if you can find evidence to either support or refute that which you are considering.
The State specific exam is four hours long. The examinees will not have time to pore over all of the evidence that we would in a "real world" survey. Plus, we have that pesky definition of what minimal competence looks like.
For these reasons, the complexity of the facts given in an exam problem are typically less than what you might commonly find in performing boundary surveys.
If one exercises sound judgment on "real world" surveys based on sound experience with and knowledge of statute and case law, and if one applies that judgment and knowledge to the exam problems as they would on the job, one should do quite well on the exam.
I would love to discuss this further, because it would be a good discussion. But it would be very difficult to do so outside of the exam development/grading environment without risking the necessary security of the exam.
So, will I see you at grading where we can discuss it further? ;-)
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
Experience does seem to be the best mentor tool.
I've decided to hold class and go thru some of my best "worst cases"
with staff.
Evan is correct about the old engineering mindset where deeds were a mathmatical exercise reather than intent.
I also believe that it is diffucult to teach an office only person, how to visualize deeded intent.
"going so many feet up the creek to a ravine, thence going so many feet up the ravine to an old fence; thence along the old fence so many feet to an angle point; . . . "
one must visualize the creek, ravine and know the difference between an old fence and the new one. This excerpt of a real case, a 10 chain error was found in the distance along the old fence.
Without a good visualization, aerial photo study and field visit, the property owner may have been cheated out of a whole lot of land.
Not to mention the hyde of a former surveyor hanging on the fence with the coyote skins.
DMI said it . . . Mentor mentor mentor.
Now doesnt this bring us back to that learn edd trade/ profession ????
Good
"
u
I've decided to hold class and go thru some of my best "worst cases"
with staff.
Evan is correct about the old engineering mindset where deeds were a mathmatical exercise reather than intent.
I also believe that it is diffucult to teach an office only person, how to visualize deeded intent.
"going so many feet up the creek to a ravine, thence going so many feet up the ravine to an old fence; thence along the old fence so many feet to an angle point; . . . "
one must visualize the creek, ravine and know the difference between an old fence and the new one. This excerpt of a real case, a 10 chain error was found in the distance along the old fence.
Without a good visualization, aerial photo study and field visit, the property owner may have been cheated out of a whole lot of land.
Not to mention the hyde of a former surveyor hanging on the fence with the coyote skins.
DMI said it . . . Mentor mentor mentor.
Now doesnt this bring us back to that learn edd trade/ profession ????
Good
"
u
-
Ben Lund
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:07 pm
Bryan, I have to agree with you on this one.
First and foremost is knowing California law.
I liked reading Cuomo’s “Advanced Land Descriptions.” I felt like this helped me understand what Wattles was trying to teach me in his “Writing Legal Descriptions.”
As for Brown, I’ve read the 2nd and 6th Editions of Evidence and the Procedures. I found some benefit there.
Curtis Brown has written some great articles that have helped me namely, “Land Surveyor’s Liability to Unwritten Rights” and “The Professional Status of Land Surveyors.” I also enjoyed “What Every Lawyer Should Know About Title Surveys” (from Land Surveys, A Guide for Lawyers, 1987), “A Surveyor’s Responsibility and Possession Boundaries (Knud E. Hermansen), “The Great Dilemma or, When is a Fence Just a Fence (Mitchell G. Williams)
I feel like these references have given me a good base to make decisions from.
As for the notion that everything “boundary” can only be learned through experience or mentoring, I humbly disagree. You can find the same advice given in this thread included in these references.
I agree with the often used statements of “every situation is different” and “it depends.” At the same time the “art” of surveying is bounded by the legal statutes and common practice of land surveying. Ian has some great history on the origin and evolution of boundaries!
Cheers,
Ben
First and foremost is knowing California law.
I liked reading Cuomo’s “Advanced Land Descriptions.” I felt like this helped me understand what Wattles was trying to teach me in his “Writing Legal Descriptions.”
As for Brown, I’ve read the 2nd and 6th Editions of Evidence and the Procedures. I found some benefit there.
Curtis Brown has written some great articles that have helped me namely, “Land Surveyor’s Liability to Unwritten Rights” and “The Professional Status of Land Surveyors.” I also enjoyed “What Every Lawyer Should Know About Title Surveys” (from Land Surveys, A Guide for Lawyers, 1987), “A Surveyor’s Responsibility and Possession Boundaries (Knud E. Hermansen), “The Great Dilemma or, When is a Fence Just a Fence (Mitchell G. Williams)
I feel like these references have given me a good base to make decisions from.
As for the notion that everything “boundary” can only be learned through experience or mentoring, I humbly disagree. You can find the same advice given in this thread included in these references.
I agree with the often used statements of “every situation is different” and “it depends.” At the same time the “art” of surveying is bounded by the legal statutes and common practice of land surveying. Ian has some great history on the origin and evolution of boundaries!
Cheers,
Ben
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
Evan, I think we are kinda thinking on different levels of the same topic. I think the exam is fine at its goal per se, and do not really criticize it. I think in terms of minimal competence it is pretty good.
I understand your points, and do not really disagree with them.
My point is more of a basic concept of some boundary questions I would study back in the day. They seemed to be more geared to holding originals and calling off all other non-original monuments. At least that was my perception at the time. I definitely think there is a great deal of learning to do once you get the license and do a lot of boundary retracements.
And as I said initially, I think a lot of people today tend to do their ROS maps in a similar fashion - holding the originals only, calling non-record monuments off if they do not fit the prorated solution - which may be fine, but in other cases may be unwise.
I understand your points, and do not really disagree with them.
My point is more of a basic concept of some boundary questions I would study back in the day. They seemed to be more geared to holding originals and calling off all other non-original monuments. At least that was my perception at the time. I definitely think there is a great deal of learning to do once you get the license and do a lot of boundary retracements.
And as I said initially, I think a lot of people today tend to do their ROS maps in a similar fashion - holding the originals only, calling non-record monuments off if they do not fit the prorated solution - which may be fine, but in other cases may be unwise.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Bryan,
I agree with your points. Years ago, that was my perception of what the rule was and how we operated under the direction of the LS I was working for at the time.
Original or called for = hold, non-original or not called in the deed = reject in favor of the mathmagical position according to the cogo program, calculator, or abacus (OK, maybe not the last), and give a tie from the calc position to the perfectly good monument. No analysis needed, the rules seemed black and white.
But at the time, I was a little below minimal competence and my boss, in terms of boundary determination, was perhaps just a little above.
"I think a lot of people today tend to do their ROS maps in a similar fashion - holding the originals only, calling non-record monuments off if they do not fit the prorated solution - which may be fine, but in other cases may be unwise."
I agree.
I agree with your points. Years ago, that was my perception of what the rule was and how we operated under the direction of the LS I was working for at the time.
Original or called for = hold, non-original or not called in the deed = reject in favor of the mathmagical position according to the cogo program, calculator, or abacus (OK, maybe not the last), and give a tie from the calc position to the perfectly good monument. No analysis needed, the rules seemed black and white.
But at the time, I was a little below minimal competence and my boss, in terms of boundary determination, was perhaps just a little above.
"I think a lot of people today tend to do their ROS maps in a similar fashion - holding the originals only, calling non-record monuments off if they do not fit the prorated solution - which may be fine, but in other cases may be unwise."
I agree.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
Ben Lund
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:07 pm
I want to add this forum to my list of resources. The professionals who have posted on this forum have helped me reconcile the perceived ambiguities I sometimes find in my reading. The other side of the coin is reiterated in this forum and I appreciate that.
As for no-record monuments, to me, the “analysis” that Evan speaks of is a long list of potential scenarios that need to be examined. A checklist can be created to identify all of these circumstances.
I believe that the exam question is not asking whether the no-record monument falls within the error ellipse of the deed solution. Or whether there has been substantial reliance on the monument by adjoining owners. Or whether the monument is really an original monument set at the time of parcel creation. In my opinion, this is why examinees should throw out all monuments of unknown origin. And this is different from the real world.
As for no-record monuments, to me, the “analysis” that Evan speaks of is a long list of potential scenarios that need to be examined. A checklist can be created to identify all of these circumstances.
I believe that the exam question is not asking whether the no-record monument falls within the error ellipse of the deed solution. Or whether there has been substantial reliance on the monument by adjoining owners. Or whether the monument is really an original monument set at the time of parcel creation. In my opinion, this is why examinees should throw out all monuments of unknown origin. And this is different from the real world.
-
btaylor
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:33 pm
- Location: Foster City, CA
-
dmi
- Posts: 981
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
- Location: San Francisco
- Contact:
Mentoring
Well, I cannot just stand by and let the importance of mentoring, be pooh-poohed.
The best parallel I can draw is growing up without a farther. I grew up without a father around and for a long time I was not really aware of what a disadvantage I was at. Till, one day in the office when I was working for a second generation surveyor, whose dad had passed away a few short years ago said,"I wish my Dad were here so I could ask him what to do." At that moment I realized that I had missed a lifetime of opportunity of being able to ask my Dad what I should do and benefit from his experience. So from that I conclude, that anyone who has not been mentored, is a person who is NOT likely to understand what is missing from their education as a surveyor.
As far as boundary surveying goes, I keep my eyes open and my mind open and I continue to read and learn and accept mentoring from the old timers. Ther is just no other way to gain a more meaningful surveying education.
There is a reason why 4 licensed land surveyors have to sign off on work experience. This requirement helps insure that the new surveyor will have had a chance to be MENTORED IN THE PROFESSION.
I commend anyone who is thirsty for knowledge and continues their studies. But as I have said before, that most textbooks are general in nature. They have to be in order not to be out of date as soon as they are printed. The Brown series of books are designed to be used in colleges across the country, and believe me or not boundary surveying in California is different than in New York.
We need a basic understanding of the fundementals. We need to know the general rules, the general exceptions to the general rules, and when the generals do not apply at all. There is only one way to compliment and complete the training of a land surveyor and that is working under other surveyors.
The best parallel I can draw is growing up without a farther. I grew up without a father around and for a long time I was not really aware of what a disadvantage I was at. Till, one day in the office when I was working for a second generation surveyor, whose dad had passed away a few short years ago said,"I wish my Dad were here so I could ask him what to do." At that moment I realized that I had missed a lifetime of opportunity of being able to ask my Dad what I should do and benefit from his experience. So from that I conclude, that anyone who has not been mentored, is a person who is NOT likely to understand what is missing from their education as a surveyor.
As far as boundary surveying goes, I keep my eyes open and my mind open and I continue to read and learn and accept mentoring from the old timers. Ther is just no other way to gain a more meaningful surveying education.
There is a reason why 4 licensed land surveyors have to sign off on work experience. This requirement helps insure that the new surveyor will have had a chance to be MENTORED IN THE PROFESSION.
I commend anyone who is thirsty for knowledge and continues their studies. But as I have said before, that most textbooks are general in nature. They have to be in order not to be out of date as soon as they are printed. The Brown series of books are designed to be used in colleges across the country, and believe me or not boundary surveying in California is different than in New York.
We need a basic understanding of the fundementals. We need to know the general rules, the general exceptions to the general rules, and when the generals do not apply at all. There is only one way to compliment and complete the training of a land surveyor and that is working under other surveyors.
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
-
Coy Glasscock
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:50 am
- Location: Here in the Corner of Your Screen
Nothing beats hands-on experiance, but if it is reading you are looking for.
Its been about twenty years since I have seen it but there was a book by Darrell Dean. It was titled "Establishment of boundaries by unwritten methods", I remember it as a good book that discused the intent of what is written in a legal description. If you can find a copy (good luck) it may help.
Also I would have your people read "Interpreting Land Records" by: Donald Wilson. This is another good one discusses the intent of a legal description.
I'll keep an eye out for more. hope this helps.
Its been about twenty years since I have seen it but there was a book by Darrell Dean. It was titled "Establishment of boundaries by unwritten methods", I remember it as a good book that discused the intent of what is written in a legal description. If you can find a copy (good luck) it may help.
Also I would have your people read "Interpreting Land Records" by: Donald Wilson. This is another good one discusses the intent of a legal description.
I'll keep an eye out for more. hope this helps.
Coy J. Glasscock
-
Ben Lund
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:07 pm
Evan, I think Dane was referring to my post. And after rereading my post I can see where he inferred the pooh poohing. In my opinion, mentoring could be the single most important thing for land surveyors. Although, you can just as easily be mentored to do the wrong thing instead of the right. Mentoring with the backup from California law, books, common practice, etc is essential. Maybe I’m particularly sensitive about receiving garbage as advice.
I also see a difference in the mentoring that happens in a trade vs a profession. Professionals have a whole library of surveying references. If you don’t own a library of resources and depend solely on mentoring, you are doing yourself a disservice. I would not feel comfortable making a decision that cannot be backed up by California law, books, articles, other professionals, common practice, etc.
I have "Interpreting Land Records" but have not started my reading.
I also see a difference in the mentoring that happens in a trade vs a profession. Professionals have a whole library of surveying references. If you don’t own a library of resources and depend solely on mentoring, you are doing yourself a disservice. I would not feel comfortable making a decision that cannot be backed up by California law, books, articles, other professionals, common practice, etc.
I have "Interpreting Land Records" but have not started my reading.
-
PE_PLS
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:00 pm
"Establishment of boundaries by unwritten methods",
Can be found here:
http://www.ispls.org/Merchant2/merchant ... gory_Code=
Can be found here:
http://www.ispls.org/Merchant2/merchant ... gory_Code=
-
goodgps
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:32 pm
- Location: Modesto, Ca
Thanks for the book references and web link.
I will attempt to locate those books. Meanwhile I'm finding it useful to grab a cup of coffee go into the drafting area and just go over a couple of deeds with my staff.
We just (right now) found an error on a deed. I can "Mentor" staff as to the intent of the description and the ramifications of this error.
Hopefully this mentoring will avoid the wrath of "Evan the Terrible"
"good" times
I will attempt to locate those books. Meanwhile I'm finding it useful to grab a cup of coffee go into the drafting area and just go over a couple of deeds with my staff.
We just (right now) found an error on a deed. I can "Mentor" staff as to the intent of the description and the ramifications of this error.
Hopefully this mentoring will avoid the wrath of "Evan the Terrible"
"good" times
-
Coy Glasscock
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:50 am
- Location: Here in the Corner of Your Screen
Ran across this, just thought it interesting:
“Difference between Knowledge and Experience
When one has true knowledge, one has grasped the truth. Experience however is the direct perception of an event.
Experience can, if examined, lead to knowledge, but it does not depend upon it. Having said that, experience has to be assimilated through knowledge for it to make sense! Therefore it is also possible for someone to experience something and still be ignorant of it. Being involved with what is happen is one thing, having knowledge of it is another thing altogether. This is experience.
Knowledge is different. Knowledge includes experience while experience does not have to include knowledge. For one to have knowledge one must have experience. For one to have experience one does not need knowledge. Furthermore to have knowledge, what is experienced must be known for what it truly is.
Knowledge is critical as it can both contradict experience and resolve the seeming contradictions in experience.
To summarize, experience can lead to knowledge. Experience can be contradictory. Knowledge includes experience and can certainly contradict experience. True knowledge however cannot be contradicted. “
By Manoj Sharma
“Difference between Knowledge and Experience
When one has true knowledge, one has grasped the truth. Experience however is the direct perception of an event.
Experience can, if examined, lead to knowledge, but it does not depend upon it. Having said that, experience has to be assimilated through knowledge for it to make sense! Therefore it is also possible for someone to experience something and still be ignorant of it. Being involved with what is happen is one thing, having knowledge of it is another thing altogether. This is experience.
Knowledge is different. Knowledge includes experience while experience does not have to include knowledge. For one to have knowledge one must have experience. For one to have experience one does not need knowledge. Furthermore to have knowledge, what is experienced must be known for what it truly is.
Knowledge is critical as it can both contradict experience and resolve the seeming contradictions in experience.
To summarize, experience can lead to knowledge. Experience can be contradictory. Knowledge includes experience and can certainly contradict experience. True knowledge however cannot be contradicted. “
By Manoj Sharma
Coy J. Glasscock
-
E_Page
- Posts: 2141
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
- Location: El Dorado County
Coy, that seems like the literary version of a dog chasing it's tail. Kind of round 'n round.
But boiling it down to it's essence, to paraphrase, that knowledge is born of good experience of the intellectually curious, and that the experience of the intellectually incurious leads only to used up time, I agree.
Another way to look at that is that a person can have 10 years of experience, or they can have 1 year of experience 10 times over. It depends upon how they apply themselves during the experience, and what they take from it.
But boiling it down to it's essence, to paraphrase, that knowledge is born of good experience of the intellectually curious, and that the experience of the intellectually incurious leads only to used up time, I agree.
Another way to look at that is that a person can have 10 years of experience, or they can have 1 year of experience 10 times over. It depends upon how they apply themselves during the experience, and what they take from it.
Evan Page, PLS
A Visiting Forum Essayist
A Visiting Forum Essayist
-
Coy Glasscock
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:50 am
- Location: Here in the Corner of Your Screen