Comprehensive List of DC Universe Logo UPC Variants
12 12

1,388 posts in this topic

55,630 posts
1 hour ago, Bomber-Bob said:
15 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

At this point, there is no reason...none at all...why these books shouldn't be broken out in the census.

It's not that I'm against it, but I don't think very many of these get slabbed. At a glance, I don't see any on E-Bay. Most of the underlying books are usually not worth getting slabbed. Personally, I would never submit or buy a slabbed copy. 

Understood, but the amount slabbed shouldn't have any bearing on their notation. There are maybe as many people interested in these today as there were 30/35c variants in the early 90s. The real point is that they are different, and CGC should have a policy of notating that, whether or not there are people interested or not. 

Can you imagine if CGC existed when "nobody cared" about the 30/35s? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,801 posts
5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Understood, but the amount slabbed shouldn't have any bearing on their notation. There are maybe as many people interested in these today as there were 30/35c variants in the early 90s. The real point is that they are different, and CGC should have a policy of notating that, whether or not there are people interested or not. 

Can you imagine if CGC existed when "nobody cared" about the 30/35s? 

No argument. However, from past discussions with CGC about the census/Registry, it is not an easy task for them to implement. I lobbied, unsuccessfully, for some things in the past to no avail. They made me realize that so many of these 'would be nice' changes would require many man hours to implement, which they really can't spare. I guess all this data is nothing more than big spreadsheets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,630 posts
36 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

No argument. However, from past discussions with CGC about the census/Registry, it is not an easy task for them to implement. I lobbied, unsuccessfully, for some things in the past to no avail. They made me realize that so many of these 'would be nice' changes would require many man hours to implement, which they really can't spare. I guess all this data is nothing more than big spreadsheets. 

...and "it's too difficult" is a terrible, terrible excuse. If it's too difficult, your system is poor.

I've said this before: there are people out there would would voluntarily offer their time to help implement these things, or even work for slab credit. They need only ask the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,154 posts

mmm . . . slab credit. I think I'd gladly do some excel sheet work for slab credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126 posts
On 7/21/2018 at 2:22 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

My only concern is this: in the future, people will not recognize that the bullet and Zero Hour issues are exactly the same as the DCUs, produced in the same way, for the same intent, distributed the same way, packaged the same way, identical in every single way except the cosmetic symbols. They are part of the program, and I'm concerned that others won't make that connection.

To go with your analogy, it's like completing the left 2 inches of a puzzle, top to bottom, then neatly cutting off that section and putting it somewhere else. Someone coming along afterwards might never even know there was anything missing.

I understand your point: you're only concerned about these:

FullSizeRender.jpg?resize=300,140&ssl=1

...but there's a whole segment of that series that is getting lost in the shuffle, because they don't have that logo. 

And that has, as feared, led to others not acknowledging, or outright dismissing, the bullet and Zero Hour logos. Here's an example:

https://comicbookinvest.com/2017/08/25/dc-universe-upc/

Along with a host of other errors (such as all DCUs being REPRINTS...they are NOT, at least, not necessarily) in the body of the post, no mention of the ZH or bullets, and in the video linked, the speaker dismisses the ZH issue he has as "close, but no cigar."

Not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, I realize there are a billion more important matters in the world. But since we're discussing it in this thread, I think it would be bad scholarship to not at least acknowledge and include the ZH and bullet issues, since they are the exact same program as the DCUs.

PS. It appears to me, and I could be wrong, that the list that these "CBSI" people put on their post is merely a repetition of the list here, yet the article "author", someone named "Topher", says that certain people did a "ton" of work assembling said list. I don't doubt that other people are perfectly capable of research, but when you google "DC Universe logo", this thread...which predates the "CBSI" blog post by nearly three years...is the first result to come up.

Is it possible the latter-day list as assembled completely independently of this thread...? Of course. Is it likely...?

Doubtful. 

If this thread was consulted, credit ought to be acknowledged to Revat, Mysterio, Kirk, et al. 

EDIT TO ADD: looks like someone linked this thread in the comments thread, and they then acknowledge that. Good.

God I really despise posts like this.  Did you read the article?  Credit was given to many sources including online forums such as this.

.  The bullets were not " dismissed " and if you bothered to read the comments they are discussed there. Subsequent articles also mention bullets and the fact that another article would be written exclusivity about them.

The info here amounts to a list which helps but in no way means that Revat and others deserve credit for the comprehensive article published at CBSI. 

 

Personally I have been collecting and researching DCUs since long before the threads at CGC.

 

The point...credit WAS given and the bullets were discussed.

 

Screenshot_2018-08-28 DC Universe Logo UPC Variants Comic Book Speculation and Investing.png

Edited by MrWeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,801 posts
4 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

...and "it's too difficult" is a terrible, terrible excuse. If it's too difficult, your system is poor.

I've said this before: there are people out there would would voluntarily offer their time to help implement these things, or even work for slab credit. They need only ask the community.

I think they would readily admit the system is 'poor' and outdated. They probably have an old DOS system for data input. How could the community 'help' without physically being there, hands on ? Sometimes simply putting more people on a project does not help. Anyway, I don't feel like debating this. As I said, the DCU is a worthy candidate but I just don't think it will happen. Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,630 posts
18 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

God I really despise posts like this.  Did you read the article?  Credit was given to many sources including online forums such as this.

.  The bullets were not " dismissed " and if you bothered to read the comments they are discussed there. Subsequent articles also mention bullets and the fact that another article would be written exclusivity about them.

The info here amounts to a list which helps but in no way means that Revat and others deserve credit for the comprehensive article published at CBSI. 

 

Personally I have been collecting and researching DCUs since long before the threads at CGC.

 

The point...credit WAS given and the bullets were discussed.

 

Screenshot_2018-08-28 DC Universe Logo UPC Variants Comic Book Speculation and Investing.png

Is everyone just angry because of the weather, or what...?

Of course I read the article. That credit was given in the comments, not the body of the article, AFTER it was pointed out by "Obnoxio" that this thread existed, which the manager/whatever of CBSI made a snarky retort. I read the article again, and still see no mention of the Zero Hour issues or the DC bullet issues, which were all part of the same program. So they're mentioned in another article. And? They're not mentioned in this one, despite being part of the same program.

Being "discussed in the comments" has no meaning; it's not in the article itself.

Are you one of those people there?

The problem with articles such as this is that when there is already competing information on the web, already published, without acknowledgement, it gives the appearance of "copying and pasting"

I've been collecting and researching DCUs since long before this thread, too...but I didn't do any of the heavy lifting here of compiling and publishing the information. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,630 posts
18 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

I think they would readily admit the system is 'poor' and outdated. They probably have an old DOS system for data input. How could the community 'help' without physically being there, hands on ? Sometimes simply putting more people on a project does not help. Anyway, I don't feel like debating this. As I said, the DCU is a worthy candidate but I just don't think it will happen. Nuff said.

There are lots of ways for the community to help. No need to debate it. When enough of the customers of CGC want it, it will happen. Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126 posts
35 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Is everyone just angry because of the weather, or what...?

Of course I read the article. That credit was given in the comments, not the body of the article, AFTER it was pointed out by "Obnoxio" that this thread existed, which the manager/whatever of CBSI made a snarky retort. I read the article again, and still see no mention of the Zero Hour issues or the DC bullet issues, which were all part of the same program. So they're mentioned in another article. And? They're not mentioned in this one, despite being part of the same program.

Being "discussed in the comments" has no meaning; it's not in the article itself.

Are you one of those people there?

The problem with articles such as this is that when there is already competing information on the web, already published, without acknowledgement, it gives the appearance of "copying and pasting"

I've been collecting and researching DCUs since long before this thread, too...but I didn't do any of the heavy lifting here of compiling and publishing the information. 

Wrong.  The bullets were not mentioned in the article on purpose and left for another article.  Credit was given to online resources at the end of the article, before the comments were published.  The research goes waaaayyyyy beyond CGC and the list here.

As for your " problem "  a list on these boards does not require CBSI to credit specific contributors to a list.  Lists are everywhere! 

And yes being discussed in the comments does matter!  Did you write the article?  No.  Do you presume to know the intent of the writer?  You sure reach alot and make a lot of assumptions RMA.

If CBSI wanted to steal credit from CGC they would have deleted any comments related.  They did not.  The bottom line is ya don't get named credit for compiling a list.  CGC was lucky to get mentioned at all by name.

Edited by MrWeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,027 posts
1 hour ago, Bomber-Bob said:

They probably have an old DOS system for data input.

:roflmao:That can't possibly be correct . . . can it? :whatthe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,801 posts
50 minutes ago, divad said:

:roflmao:That can't possibly be correct . . . can it? :whatthe:

I wouldn't be surprised. It was probably developed in the late 90's. I'm sure they have newer architecture for the graders but all the census and Registry stuff is probably legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,801 posts
1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

When enough of the customers of CGC want it, it will happen. Nuff said.

Hasn't worked so far with the Newton Rings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,630 posts
1 hour ago, MrWeen said:

Wrong.  The bullets were not mentioned in the article on purpose and left for another article.  Credit was given to online resources at the end of the article, before the comments were published.  The research goes waaaayyyyy beyond CGC and the list here.

The bullets, Zero Hour, and DCU are all part of the same program. "Saving" it "on purpose" for "another article" is bad scholarship.

Credit was given to generic "online sources" in the article. Woohoo!

1 hour ago, MrWeen said:

As for your " problem "  a list on these boards does not require CBSI to credit specific contributors to a list.  Lists are everywhere! 

There is no problem with lists...the problem is when things are already published, someone takes that information, tweeks it a little, then publishes it themselves as if it is "original research."

That USED to be call "plagiarism." 

If the list already exists, published by others...then it is a requirement to NOT be considered plagiarism to GIVE CREDIT...IN THE WORK ITSELF...to that which is already published.

It's like someone claiming they "discovered" something by making more people aware of it.

meh

1 hour ago, MrWeen said:

And yes being discussed in the comments does matter!  Did you write the article?  No.  Do you presume to know the intent of the writer?  You sure reach alot and make a lot of assumptions RMA.

"Writing the article" and "knowing the intent of the writer" has nothing to do with any claim you're trying to make here. A comments section is, by definition, a SEPARATE section from a published article, and not PART of that article. You sure reach "alot" and make a lot of assumptions, Ween.

1 hour ago, MrWeen said:

If CBSI wanted to steal credit from CGC they would have deleted any comments related.  They did not.  The bottom line is ya don't get named credit for compiling a list.  CGC was lucky to get mentioned at all by name.

Who said they wanted to "steal credit?" Being sloppy and not giving proper credit where it belongs is just as bad. They had to be "reminded" to give credit. 

Your perspective is backwards. CGC isn't "lucky" to be mentioned by name. It's the other way around: CBSI and whomever wrote that article owes a DEBT to this thread, which they address after the fact, in a comments section, as "oh, uh, yeah, totally, we got all our info from the CGC thread, so, uh...yeah."

meh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126 posts
30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The bullets, Zero Hour, and DCU are all part of the same program. "Saving" it "on purpose" for "another article" is bad scholarship.

Credit was given to generic "online sources" in the article. Woohoo!

There is no problem with lists...the problem is when things are already published, someone takes that information, tweeks it a little, then publishes it themselves as if it is "original research."

That USED to be call "plagiarism." 

If the list already exists, published by others...then it is a requirement to NOT be considered plagiarism to GIVE CREDIT...IN THE WORK ITSELF...to that which is already published.

It's like someone claiming they "discovered" something by making more people aware of it.

meh

"Writing the article" and "knowing the intent of the writer" has nothing to do with any claim you're trying to make here. A comments section is, by definition, a SEPARATE section from a published article, and not PART of that article. You sure reach "alot" and make a lot of assumptions, Ween.

Who said they wanted to "steal credit?" Being sloppy and not giving proper credit where it belongs is just as bad. They had to be "reminded" to give credit. 

Your perspective is backwards. CGC isn't "lucky" to be mentioned by name. It's the other way around: CBSI and whomever wrote that article owes a DEBT to this thread, which they address after the fact, in a comments section, as "oh, uh, yeah, totally, we got all our info from the CGC thread, so, uh...yeah."

meh

 

You are assuming the writers took the list from here.  I'm pretty sure there was nothing remarkable about that list.  You want there to be but there just isn't.  It's only a list compiled by many people. 

Saving the bullets for another time is not, as you say " bad scholarship " That is simply your opinion and at this point just a weak one.

The list here is generic and again is only a list.  You can plainly see the effort  went way beyond what was offered here and elsewhere. Even so CGC and others were credited.  I'm not sure what else you want?  Go give yourself a  Barry Horowitz style pat on the back after a loss. That's pretty much all I ever see from you.

tenor.gif.72e5cece564ead2f5a7ceba4cf36e469.gif

I'm pretty sure you are now a grammar nazi too!  Look at the spelling of a lot a few words later.  Is is correct?  Answer: Yes.  You know you are desperate when you have to go the typo route! Here I'll do it for you!

"And yes being discussed in the comments does matter!  Did you write the article?  No.  Do you presume to know the intent of the writer?  You sure reach alot and make a lot of assumptions RMA."-Mr. Ween

 

" It's like someone claiming they discovered something by making people more aware of it "  Ummmmm the article never claims they discovered anything.  In fact the authors encourage others to contribute for the benefit of the community.    Even your trolling is getting old!

The comment section is not different from the article when the writers are commenting!  You just can't admit your didn't bother to read the comments.  Have some courage to admit fault.

I see no comment in that article that "reminded" CBSI to give any credit.  Your lies and warped comments prove your intent is to smear a good article designed to help collectors.  But because it happens in a place you loath your goal is to besmirch the webpage.  That is just sad sir.

And no CGC IS lucky to be mentioned at all by CBSI.  Your assumptions are sad as your responses.  Nice fake, erroneous quote. too!

"oh, uh, yeah, totally, we got all our info from the CGC thread, so, uh...yeah."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MrWeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,630 posts
55 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

You are assuming the writers took the list from here.  I'm pretty sure there was nothing remarkable about that list.  You want there to be but there just isn't.  It's only a list compiled by many people. 

You're not paying attention: it doesn't matter where "the list" came from; it matters where it was published first. I'm not sure how you know what I "want there to be."

You have been gone for months, and you come back to blitch about this...?

lol

55 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

 

Saving the bullets for another time is not, as you say " bad scholarship " That is simply your opinion and at this point just a weak one.

Sure, except that it's correct. They're all part of the same program. It's bad scholarship to not even mention the bullets or Zero Hours. Same program. 

55 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

The list here is generic and again is only a list. 

Nobody is talking about "just the list." You DO KNOW there's an entire article there, don't you...?

55 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

You can plainly see the effort  went way beyond what was offered here and elsewhere. Even so CGC and others were credited.  I'm not sure what else you want?  Go give yourself a  Barry Horowitz style pat on the back after a loss. That's pretty much all I ever see from you.

...after the fact.

....in a COMMENTS section.

And no, the effort didn't go "way beyond" what is offered here. Have you read THIS thread...?

55 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

" It's like someone claiming they discovered something by making people more aware of it "  Ummmmm the article never claims they discovered anything.  In fact the authors encourage others to contribute for the benefit of the community.    Even your trolling is getting old!

That's right...that's why I used the word "like." "Like" doesn't mean "the same as."

You have an odd understanding of what trolling is, considering this back and forth was initiated by you.

:popcorn:

55 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

The comment section is not different from the article when the writers are commenting!  You just can't admit your didn't bother to read the comments.  Have some courage to admit fault.

Comment sections are, by definition, not part of a published article. Nice try, though! It is true, however, that I can't admit "your" didn't bother to read the comments....that darn your, he never reads anything!

"Have some courage to admit fault." lol If you did some research, you'd notice that I REFERRED to those comments in the very post you quoted which started this silly back and forth.

Kinda hard to refer to comments in the comments section if I didn't read the comments....dontcha think...?

Oops. Color you embarrased! :blush:

55 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

I see no comment in that article that "reminded" CBSI to give any credit.  Your lies and warped comments prove your intent is to smear a good article designed to help collectors.  But because it happens in a place you loath your goal is to besmirch the webpage.  That is just sad sir.

Lies...? You mean, like "your didn't bother to read the comments", despite the fact that I referred to those comments which I'm not supposed to have read...? Those kinds of lies...?

lol

Obnoxio
 
Quote
 
 
...that's the comment in question.
It's not a good article. It's got errors, the most glaring of which is calling all the DCUs "reprints." There's zero evidence to suggest they are ALL, or even MOSTLY, reprints. The ones that are...like the Death of Superman issues, or the Green Lantern #36, #51, etc...are CLEARLY NOTED as reprints. The rest of them, especially as we got further into the program? There's NO evidence to suggest these weren't printed at the same time as the first printings, because it would have been cheaper for DC to do so.
 
Another error: they say "the last known 20 pack was from 12/96." That is wrong. By that time, the bricks were 10-packs, not 20.
 
So, no. It is not a "good" article. It's an ok article.
 
55 minutes ago, MrWeen said:

And no CGC IS lucky to be mentioned at all by CBSI.  Your assumptions are sad as your responses.  Nice fake, erroneous quote. too!

"oh, uh, yeah, totally, we got all our info from the CGC thread, so, uh...yeah."

lol

Whatever you say. ;)

 

Edited by RockMyAmadeus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126 posts
55 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're not paying attention: it doesn't matter where "the list" came from; it matters where it was published first. I'm not sure how you know what I "want there to be."

You have been gone for months, and you come back to blitch about this...?

lol

Sure, except that it's correct. They're all part of the same program. It's bad scholarship to not even mention the bullets or Zero Hours. Same program. 

Nobody is talking about "just the list." You DO KNOW there's an entire article there, don't you...?

...after the fact.

....in a COMMENTS section.

And no, the effort didn't go "way beyond" what is offered here. Have you read THIS thread...?

That's right...that's why I used the word "like." "Like" doesn't mean "the same as."

You have an odd understanding of what trolling is, considering this back and forth was initiated by you.

:popcorn:

Comment sections are, by definition, not part of a published article. Nice try, though! It is true, however, that I can't admit "your" didn't bother to read the comments....that darn your, he never reads anything!

"Have some courage to admit fault." lol If you did some research, you'd notice that I REFERRED to those comments in the very post you quoted which started this silly back and forth.

Kinda hard to refer to comments in the comments section if I didn't read the comments....dontcha think...?

Oops. Color you embarrased! :blush:

Lies...? You mean, like "your didn't bother to read the comments", despite the fact that I referred to those comments which I'm not supposed to have read...? Those kinds of lies...?

lol

Obnoxio
 
 
 
...that's the comment in question.
It's not a good article. It's got errors, the most glaring of which is calling all the DCUs "reprints." There's zero evidence to suggest they are ALL, or even MOSTLY, reprints. The ones that are...like the Death of Superman issues, or the Green Lantern #36, #51, etc...are CLEARLY NOTED as reprints. The rest of them, especially as we got further into the program? There's NO evidence to suggest these weren't printed at the same time as the first printings, because it would have been cheaper for DC to do so.
 
Another error: they say "the last known 20 pack was from 12/96." That is wrong. By that time, the bricks were 10-packs, not 20.
 
So, no. It is not a "good" article. It's an ok article.
 

lol

Whatever you say. ;)

 

"your" pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126 posts
57 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're not paying attention: it doesn't matter where "the list" came from; it matters where it was published first. I'm not sure how you know what I "want there to be."

You have been gone for months, and you come back to blitch about this...?

lol

Sure, except that it's correct. They're all part of the same program. It's bad scholarship to not even mention the bullets or Zero Hours. Same program. 

Nobody is talking about "just the list." You DO KNOW there's an entire article there, don't you...?

...after the fact.

....in a COMMENTS section.

And no, the effort didn't go "way beyond" what is offered here. Have you read THIS thread...?

That's right...that's why I used the word "like." "Like" doesn't mean "the same as."

You have an odd understanding of what trolling is, considering this back and forth was initiated by you.

:popcorn:

Comment sections are, by definition, not part of a published article. Nice try, though! It is true, however, that I can't admit "your" didn't bother to read the comments....that darn your, he never reads anything!

"Have some courage to admit fault." lol If you did some research, you'd notice that I REFERRED to those comments in the very post you quoted which started this silly back and forth.

Kinda hard to refer to comments in the comments section if I didn't read the comments....dontcha think...?

Oops. Color you embarrased! :blush:

Lies...? You mean, like "your didn't bother to read the comments", despite the fact that I referred to those comments which I'm not supposed to have read...? Those kinds of lies...?

lol

Obnoxio
 
 
 
...that's the comment in question.
It's not a good article. It's got errors, the most glaring of which is calling all the DCUs "reprints." There's zero evidence to suggest they are ALL, or even MOSTLY, reprints. The ones that are...like the Death of Superman issues, or the Green Lantern #36, #51, etc...are CLEARLY NOTED as reprints. The rest of them, especially as we got further into the program? There's NO evidence to suggest these weren't printed at the same time as the first printings, because it would have been cheaper for DC to do so.
 
Another error: they say "the last known 20 pack was from 12/96." That is wrong. By that time, the bricks were 10-packs, not 20.
 
So, no. It is not a "good" article. It's an ok article.
 

lol

Whatever you say. ;)

 

so you found 1 error and a possible error.  Hmmmmm that's not that much man considering the length of the article.  And the clown's comment does not do what you say it does.  It in no way reminds anyone to give CGC credit!  It's only a link.  I don't see him " reminding" anyone to give credit.  Hes just adding to the request of the writers and providing more infromation for collectors.

See if you can find the grammer errors!  I've add more for your investigatory pleasure ya Nazi,

Correcting grammar is the last bastion of the desperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55,630 posts
4 hours ago, MrWeen said:

Correcting grammar is the last bastion of the desperate.

Or the first bastion of the annoyer of those who take themselves way too seriously...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,202 posts
19 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:
19 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

No argument. However, from past discussions with CGC about the census/Registry, it is not an easy task for them to implement. I lobbied, unsuccessfully, for some things in the past to no avail. They made me realize that so many of these 'would be nice' changes would require many man hours to implement, which they really can't spare. I guess all this data is nothing more than big spreadsheets. 

...and "it's too difficult" is a terrible, terrible excuse. If it's too difficult, your system is poor.

I've said this before: there are people out there would would voluntarily offer their time to help implement these things, or even work for slab credit. They need only ask the community.

A few thoughts came to mind on this...

I’ve lobbied successfully for at least one registry addition: the blacked out price variant of JIM #76. Others weren’t so successful. Obviously adding ~300 of these to the registry would require a serious overhaul. Such an overhaul might seriously irritate other collectors who don’t care about these variants, but would now feel compelled to seek them out. Of course, this would also go a long way towards publicizing them to a broader section of the collecting community. 

As for the software, they sure didn’t mind overhauling the boards (basically against the wishes of ALL of its users) and successfully migrated a ton of data over here. It could be done for the registry, if and when it becomes too expensive to maintain whatever legacy system they’re still running. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,126 posts
9 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Or the first bastion of the annoyer of those who take themselves way too seriously...

Well you are right there I sometimes come to :baiting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
12 12