Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thevioletsunflower

'Old World Witchcraft' by Raven Grimassi

Recommended Posts

Perspective. If she is close to or a part of ABW or something like it she will get more out of the book than someone who has no interest in it IF the book goes that route. Reviews are great but who the reviewer is is also important. From her perspective things are going to look differently then from Michele's or Jevne's because of the difference in their beliefs and practices.

 

I have no argument with that in general. And using this logic, I'm curious, about something, If an author writes a book on Traditional Witchcraft that is close to or "spot on" to your personal beliefs and practices, and you write a positive review, should people minimize your thoughts because you're agreement with the author? I don't mean that is a snarky way, I'm just puzzled about how you look at reviews.

 

Certainly not everything in Grimassis' book is going to click with every reader. But I think that constructive criticism of a book is valuable as is the view of those who find themselves not objecting. I believe that one problem for the book is that Grimassi sees Wicca differently than some other people do, and he doesn't regard certain elements as being exclusive to or definitive of Wicca. Those who do will mistake the book as Wiccan and dismiss it's Old Craft elements, which is unfortunate. As Grimassi says - finding something Wiccan in a witchcraft book seems to be like finding a fly in ones soup. The whole thing gets tossed despite the fact that it's not fly soup. Probably not the best analogy, but it's what came to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which elements are you referring to? I'm curious because I haven't really seen anything in there yet that I haven't read about or heard of before. Granted I'm not finished reading it yet..

 

 

Yes, I imagine that not having completed the book could cause one to miss elements in it. The elements that I regard as "Old Ways" versus Wiccan, are found in chapter four, but more so in chapter five. Ideas such as "Shadow" (the organic memory of the earth) and working with the blood thorn teachings are not something I've seen in Wicca books. If you have read about these concepts in other books, I'd love to know the titles so I can check them out. Thanks!

 

 

I haven't fully grasped the ABW concept, but if I had to guess, (which I do at this point). It would seem that he is attempting to form a new branch of Neo Paganism.

 

 

I think it's important to note that Grimassi's book isn't about ABW. That system is briefly presented by him to illustrate a point, and is only pertinent to one part of one chapter. I find it very curious that some people seem to want to force the book into that little speck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I imagine that not having completed the book could cause one to miss elements in it. The elements that I regard as "Old Ways" versus Wiccan, are found in chapter four, but more so in chapter five. Ideas such as "Shadow" (the organic memory of the earth) and working with the blood thorn teachings are not something I've seen in Wicca books. If you have read about these concepts in other books, I'd love to know the titles so I can check them out. Thanks!

 

There are discussions about various meanings of the Shadow, organic memory of the earth, connecting to various plants with blood (including roses) all over this forum. Also these are not going to be new concepts to anyone who's read the works of Chumbley, Schulke, Nigel Pennick, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

 

However, I've only read three books about Wicca in my life and that was almost a decade ago, so if you're saying these concepts are new in the context of books about Wicca, then yes I agree based on my limited experience. But I didn't think this was supposed to be a book about Wicca and therefore wasn't comparing it to such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I imagine that not having completed the book could cause one to miss elements in it. The elements that I regard as "Old Ways" versus Wiccan, are found in chapter four, but more so in chapter five. Ideas such as "Shadow" (the organic memory of the earth) and working with the blood thorn teachings are not something I've seen in Wicca books. If you have read about these concepts in other books, I'd love to know the titles so I can check them out. Thanks!

 

 

 

It would seem to me that "shadow" "or organic memory of the earth" is just a new way of saying or referring to the "enchanted earth" or" the reenchantment of the earth" which is something that the Druids have been writing about and teaching for a very, very long time.

 

This also speaks to plant communication, which the Druids have also been teaching for a very long time, so I suppose I left the Druid path out above when I speculated that RG seems to be attempting to combine a few paths into one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are discussions about various meanings of the Shadow, organic memory of the earth, connecting to various plants with blood (including roses) all over this forum. Also these are not going to be new concepts to anyone who's read the works of Chumbley, Schulke, Nigel Pennick, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

 

However, I've only read three books about Wicca in my life and that was almost a decade ago, so if you're saying these concepts are new in the context of books about Wicca, then yes I agree based on my limited experience. But I didn't think this was supposed to be a book about Wicca and therefore wasn't comparing it to such.

 

Thanks for the info. Being new to this forum I'm naturally not up to date on previous posts. But I'm looking around, so please bear with me. I've heard things about Chumbley and Schulke, but I'm not familiar with Nigel Pennick.

 

It would seem to me that "shadow" "or organic memory of the earth" is just a new way of saying or referring to the "enchanted earth" or" the reenchantment of the earth" which is something that the Druids have been writing about and teaching for a very, very long time.

 

This also speaks to plant communication, which the Druids have also been teaching for a very long time, so I suppose I left the Druid path out above when I speculated that RG seems to be attempting to combine a few paths into one.

 

I'm not a Druid, nor have studied them, so I can't offer an informed opinion about how whether or not there's a comparison regarding Shadow. What I can say is that Shadow is the absorbed energy of all living things that died on earth. Their "memory" is contained beneath the land. Ancestral memory flows in and out of Shadow, but exists in its own "dimension" as well. I add that so as not to be misunderstood about the totality of Shadow as a concept.

 

In my tradition, rocks are the "bone memory" of the earth, and this is where plants come in as extractors of minerals from the earth. In my tradition, and seemingly in what Grimassi writes, Shadow is something more expansive than an "enchanted earth" concept, but then again perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by the term. But as to "communication with plants" - I think we're talking about the "one truth spoken by many" which is confirming rather than undermining in terms of antiquity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And using this logic, I'm curious, about something, If an author writes a book on Traditional Witchcraft that is close to or "spot on" to your personal beliefs and practices, and you write a positive review, should people minimize your thoughts because you're agreement with the author? I don't mean that is a snarky way, I'm just puzzled about how you look at reviews.

 

It's important to note I am not minimizing Raseena's review (I hope I spelled that right) I a simply stating that because she is from that or a similar tradition her views on the book are likely going to be different from my own. That being the case yes, I do think that if say Aloe were to come out with a book that very closely resembles my take on things people should take that into account when they red my review. This is why when I offer my take or review on anything I offer a disclaimer of sorts similar to what Michele and Aloe offered when they said something along the lines of "I am reading this through my lens".

 

Certainly not everything in Grimassis' book is going to click with every reader. But I think that constructive criticism of a book is valuable as is the view of those who find themselves not objecting.

 

Agreed.

 

I believe that one problem for the book is that Grimassi sees Wicca differently than some other people do, and he doesn't regard certain elements as being exclusive to or definitive of Wicca.

 

I have been thinking the same thing. But I am simply not sure that I agree with Grimassi's take on Wicca. I am not saying I disagree because I haven't thought it through enough quite yet but I am leaning that way.

 

As Grimassi says - finding something Wiccan in a witchcraft book seems to be like finding a fly in ones soup. The whole thing gets tossed despite the fact that it's not fly soup. Probably not the best analogy, but it's what came to mind.

For me it sets off more of a red flag then anything else. I won't knock Wicca completely because, hey, if it works for you fantastic! But it doesn't work for me so I don't want to spend money on a book with more than a little bit of Wicca infused here and there and nothing much to offer besides. This is not to say I don't think books with some Wiccan elements can be beneficial. I certainly don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's just that the rest of the book better have at least something to offer that I can't find elsewhere in something that has far more to offer me. Meaning why get Old World Witchcraft if I can get another book that has OWW's good elements but without the Wiccan bits thrown in? Not saying this is the case with OWW just throwing out a loose example.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me it sets off more of a red flag then anything else. I won't knock Wicca completely because, hey, if it works for you fantastic! But it doesn't work for me so I don't want to spend money on a book with more than a little bit of Wicca infused here and there and nothing much to offer besides. This is not to say I don't think books with some Wiccan elements can be beneficial. I certainly don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's just that the rest of the book better have at least something to offer that I can't find elsewhere in something that has far more to offer me. Meaning why get Old World Witchcraft if I can get another book that has OWW's good elements but without the Wiccan bits thrown in? Not saying this is the case with OWW just throwing out a loose example.

 

I understand where you're coming from here. I don't think it applies to the book in question because to me it's not "Wicca in witches' clothing" and it does have some new material that's of value. But in general, I get you, I do. Perhaps at some point you may read the book and decide for yourself. Or you can wait for the movie. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so you aren't a part of one of RG's various traditions. This book is just the first you have seen that goes really well with what your path.

 

I mean as far as I know you and your sister in spirit talked about these sorts of things a long time ago, and then years later she spoke of them to RG, and then he wrote a book about it.

 

However, what is more likely is that because you had an advance copy of his book, and you have been working with his techniques for a while now, that is why what you have shared on the board about your practice matches the book so well. I was just misunderstanding the connections because I had missed that you have been trying out his techniques since before the book came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puts me off, personally, that the material is heavily influenced by Roman and/or judeo-christian interpretations of what Witches supposedly used to do. Get the impression that the author is trying to shove the round peg of Traditional Witchcraft into the square hole of wicca.

 

 

It's noteworthy that the author begins the book pointing out that it's not a work on Traditional witchcraft. He informs the reader that it's about what he calls "Old World" witchcraft, and that defining that is the point of the book. Yes, he does include material from southern European sources but not exclusively and there are many references to other regions of Europe and the British isles. His mention of judo-Christian interpretations appears in order to counter them, which I believe is a service to us all.

 

 

Skimmed my way to Page 151 . . .

 

Was momentarily interested, based on the author's introduction implying that he was going in a new direction with this book, but I'm not seeing anything ground-breaking or enlightening here. Same ol' wicca stuff with a few Trad terms thrown in for good measure.

 

Yes, skimming a book is always ripe for missing key points and misunderstanding the work at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so you aren't a part of one of RG's various traditions. This book is just the first you have seen that goes really well with what your path.

 

I mean as far as I know you and your sister in spirit talked about these sorts of things a long time ago, and then years later she spoke of them to RG, and then he wrote a book about it.

 

However, what is more likely is that because you had an advance copy of his book, and you have been working with his techniques for a while now, that is why what you have shared on the board about your practice matches the book so well. I was just misunderstanding the connections because I had missed that you have been trying out his techniques since before the book came out.

 

Nicely cleared up, thank you. But I must add that Rasenna was not originally introduced to these concepts, so no, we didn't share this in the past. Her path is Italian witchcraft, which is different in many ways. The history with Grimassi is that he worked with Old Ways people (my teachers among them) over the years, and they introduced him to the working with the concepts he's written about now (some years later). Advance copies went out as a courtesy from the author and Publisher to various individuals, and have been circulated from there down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's noteworthy that the author begins the book pointing out that it's not a work on Traditional witchcraft. He informs the reader that it's about what he calls "Old World" witchcraft, and that defining that is the point of the book. Yes, he does include material from southern European sources but not exclusively and there are many references to other regions of Europe and the British isles. His mention of judo-Christian interpretations appears in order to counter them, which I believe is a service to us all.

 

Yes, skimming a book is always ripe for missing key points and misunderstanding the work at hand.

 

I don't think I missed anything. You seem passionate enough about the author's work for me to give it a glance, but I have never found his work appealling personally, and nothing in this book changed my mind in that regard. It's a matter of personal preference, really. In all fairness, I'm practicing a very specific Path, so I am not looking for the same types of information and/or guidance that others might be looking for in a book. Those others may very well find something of value in it as they are starting a Path. It's just not for me.

 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I missed anything. You seem passionate enough about the author's work for me to give it a glance, but I have never found his work appealling personally, and nothing in this book changed my mind in that regard. It's a matter of personal preference, really. In all fairness, I'm practicing a very specific Path, so I am not looking for the same types of information and/or guidance that others might be looking for in a book. Those others may very well find something of value in it as they are starting a Path. It's just not for me.

 

J

 

Not a problem. You're certainly entitled to your perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I have read this book carefully through a few times. I have a few opinions about it as a stand alone piece. I have not read any other books by this author, but I have read a few articles in almanacs.

 

This book is not a great book for seekers, I will explain three reasons why I suggest this. First, it is written in an inconsistent style and order. Parts are written an academic style exploring various pagan points of view and making conjecture about how incompatible records should actually be read as compatible. There were quite a few valuable nuggets of lore, but they would be easier to follow if read alone without the authors confusing commentary.

 

with seemingly contradictory instructions on plant use throughout. In a few spots the author suggests not using any of the plants or methods described. Then he goes onto describe loose methods of working with those same plants. The methods he describes are unsafe. One such suggestion is informing a belladonna plant. Connecting to a plant involves touching it and tracing it's leaves. Later he describes using ashes from dangerous plants and taking care not to breath the matter in because it is poison, but then he describes putting the ashes on a plate and drawing with you finger in them. A few times here and there he mentions that you shouldn't use the plants he is telling you how to pick touch and use, however the unsafe instructions far outweigh the few admonishments, and sometimes the admonishments are in different chapters from the instructions for use. I am not being over cautious here, as no doubt my betters will agree, one should not be stroking these plants. To make it worse the gathering and stroking should he suggests always be done at night on a dark moon. I can just see a seeker stroking foxglove in pitch-black night alone--their little bunny heart stops and no one finds them til the next morning, tragic!!

 

My third reason for not suggesting this book to seekers is that it is too complex with too many tools. The author sets out saying there will be few tools, but he does not keep that promise. I stopped trying to count at 13. Sure supposedly all you need is the motor and pestle, but most the instructions call for many more.

 

I think a few fans of Schulke, Chumbley, Cochrane, and Feri may like this work as a compliment to their prior research because they will see explorations of concepts from those traditions explained in a straight forward manner and their backgrounds in that material will help them fill in the gaps in RG's material. This book helped me get some CS and CoTC material I had previously struggled with. If you are already familiar with herbs and poisons, you can patch in your safety knowledge where it is lacking in this book.

 

I don't think the author intended the book to be this disorganized. I suspect he had edited some inner circle material for this and it got choppy in places and was not completed. Perhaps he hit a deadline and was rushed. Perhaps even the kindle edition is lacking and the print version may be better.

 

I give this book two stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I have read this book carefully through a few times. I have a few opinions about it as a stand alone piece. I have not read any other books by this author, but I have read a few articles in almanacs.

 

This book is not a great book for seekers, I will explain three reasons why I suggest this. First, it is written in an inconsistent style and order. Parts are written an academic style exploring various pagan points of view and making conjecture about how incompatible records should actually be read as compatible. There were quite a few valuable nuggets of lore, but they would be easier to follow if read alone without the authors confusing commentary.

 

with seemingly contradictory instructions on plant use throughout. In a few spots the author suggests not using any of the plants or methods described. Then he goes onto describe loose methods of working with those same plants. The methods he describes are unsafe. One such suggestion is informing a belladonna plant. Connecting to a plant involves touching it and tracing it's leaves. Later he describes using ashes from dangerous plants and taking care not to breath the matter in because it is poison, but then he describes putting the ashes on a plate and drawing with you finger in them. A few times here and there he mentions that you shouldn't use the plants he is telling you how to pick touch and use, however the unsafe instructions far outweigh the few admonishments, and sometimes the admonishments are in different chapters from the instructions for use. I am not being over cautious here, as no doubt my betters will agree, one should not be stroking these plants. To make it worse the gathering and stroking should he suggests always be done at night on a dark moon. I can just see a seeker stroking foxglove in pitch-black night alone--their little bunny heart stops and no one finds them til the next morning, tragic!!!

 

My third reason for not suggesting this book to seekers is that it is too complex with too many tools. The author sets out saying there will be few tools, but he does not keep that promise. I stopped trying to count at 13. Sure supposedly all you need is the motor and pestle, but most the instructions call for many more.

 

I think a few fans of Schulke, Chumbley, Cochrane, and Feri may like this work as a compliment to their prior research because they will see explorations of concepts from those traditions explained in a straight forward manner and their backgrounds in that material will help them fill in the gaps in RG's material. This book helped me get some CS and CoTC material I had previously struggled with. If you are already familiar with herbs and poisons, you can patch in your safety knowledge where it is lacking in this book.

 

I give this book two stars.

 

 

This part is a real turn off for me. Good review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - can be seen as defamation of character which is agains the rules
Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - can be seen as defamation of character which is agains the rules

His wife needed a new hot tub!!!

 

He was rushed :)

 

The editor was fighting with his wife over his mistress, there was lots of rain, and there was the deadline!! It's called a job.............deadhorse.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Posted · Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - post contains personal stuff that could be seen as libelous
Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - post contains personal stuff that could be seen as libelous

His wife needed a new hot tub!!!

 

He was rushed :)

 

The editor was fighting with his wife over his mistress, there was lots of rain, and there was the deadline!! It's called a job.............deadhorse.gif

 

Brigid, you caught me in one of my better flaws, being a tad to generous. I wouldn't have suggested the rushed editing if I hadn't noticed a few other inconsistencies (not such dangerous ones though). In parts he would say to use a skull figure ( perhaps he meant a resin one like I have?). And in most parts it just said to use s human skull. I think the clean-up of this book was incomplete. I have seen it before in small press books, but not found it to be as detrimental to my reviews before. Usually a book only loses half a star for bad editing, but this one lost 2 for it issues in my rating system.

Share this post


Link to post

Brigid, you caught me in one of my better flaws, being a tad to generous. I wouldn't have suggested the rushed editing if I hadn't noticed a few other inconsistencies (not such dangerous ones though). In parts he would say to use a skull figure ( perhaps he meant a resin one like I have?). And in most parts it just said to use s human skull. I think the clean-up of this book was incomplete. I have seen it before in small press books, but not found it to be as detrimental to my reviews before. Usually a book only loses half a star for bad editing, but this one lost 2 for it issues in my rating system.

 

Well, thank you for your honest review, I won't be buying the book now. Nothing new under the sun, only misinformation.

 

It's the Occult book industry!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for your review, Sara.

A friend lent me the book so it was no trouble. I love reading and reviewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In parts he would say to use a skull figure ( perhaps he meant a resin one like I have?). And in most parts it just said to use s human skull.

 

Odd, because what I find in the book are multiple references to using a "skull figure" or a "representation" of a skull. Searching inside the book on Amazon - pages 146, 153, 164, and 165 (the other references to a skull are in context with it being an aforementioned representation). The only references to a real skull appear to be in context with the symbolism of entities who hold them in some manner.

 

You mention the author encouraging physical contact with toxic/chemical plants. I note on page 210 that he writes: "To be clear, I am instructing you not to touch, ingest, or inhale any part of the plants included in the book. Use only the plant seals. If you believe anything I say about the magic of plants, then also believe in my warning and comply in accord".

 

It seems clear that instructions on how to work with the physical plants is meant to inform the reader about the system itself. Without that the book would fall short of informing the reader about its subject matter. Then the author would be criticized for not putting that in. But he goes to the trouble of creating plants seals in order to avoid contact with the material plant. The book is, after all, about the Old Ways view, which includes the manner of working with plants in a magical system. That can't be delivered without talking about "hands on" matters.

 

Edited to remove off topic subjects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet, in the plant seals section he suggests digging up the same plants and touching their roots to the seals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - off topic
Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - off topic

Odd, because what I find in the book are multiple references to using a "skull figure" or a "representation" of a skull. Searching inside the book on Amazon - pages 146, 153, 164, and 165 (the other references to a skull are in context with it being an aforementioned representation). The only references to a real skull appear to be in context with the symbolism of entities who hold them in some manner.

 

You mention the author encouraging physical contact with toxic/chemical plants. I note on page 210 that he writes: "To be clear, I am instructing you not to touch, ingest, or inhale any part of the plants included in the book. Use only the plant seals. If you believe anything I say about the magic of plants, then also believe in my warning and comply in accord".

 

It seems clear that instructions on how to work with the physical plants is meant to inform the reader about the system itself. Without that the book would fall short of informing the reader about its subject matter. Then the author would be criticized for not putting that in. But he goes to the trouble of creating plants seals in order to avoid contact with the material plant. The book is, after all, about the Old Ways view, which includes the manner of working with plants in a magical system. That can't be delivered without talking about "hands on" matters.

 

 

 

This seems like an unnecessary comment that attacks the character and integrity of the author. Why be so snarky?

 

I wasn't being snarky, I was being realistic. This man makes a living as an author correct? He runs on deadlines correct? His family or wife or whatever are used to the money generated by his living, he HAS to make his deadline or he won't get paid.

It' wasn't intended towards this particular writer, but was a generalization to the occupation itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted · Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - off topic
Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - off topic

Yet, in the plant seals section he suggests digging up the same plants and touching their roots to the seals.

 

Yes, I think that revealing the actual ways is an important element of informing the reader about the Old Ways, which again is the point of the book. Obviously, though, the admonishment against actually making contact with the plant is the author's strongest communication. I think that one would have to want to miss his message in this context in favor of, oh, what might that be?

 

I wasn't being snarky, I was being realistic. This man makes a living as an author correct? He runs on deadlines correct? His family or wife or whatever are used to the money generated by his living, he HAS to make his deadline or he won't get paid. It' wasn't intended towards this particular writer, but was a generalization to the occupation itself.

 

And the bit about where you say that his editor and wife fought over his mistress is just part of your generalization about making a living as an author, and is a generalization of the occupation, really? That's being realistic and not snarky? Wow...

Share this post


Link to post
Posted · Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - contains personal off topic subjects
Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - contains personal off topic subjects
And the bit about where you say that his editor and wife fought over his mistress is just part of your generalization about making a living as an author, and is a generalization of the occupation, really? That's being realistic and not snarky? Wow...

 

Now that's some snark right there! So I suppose the question could be posed to you, ST. Why the snark? I am also wondering why the defensiveness.

 

If you haven't read the book and are suspicious of it you're making assumptions and, therefore, are not valid in your concerns.

If you've only read a bit of the book you can't possibly comment because you haven't read the whole thing and therefore don't know what it's really about.

If you have read the entire book and are critical you are mistaken in your criticisms and obviously didn't read it "right".

 

 

Essentially the vibe I am getting is nothing but a glowing review will do for you. Why is that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted · Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - contains personal off topic subjects
Hidden by spinney, October 25, 2011 - contains personal off topic subjects

Now that's some snark right there! So I suppose the question could be posed to you, ST. Why the snark?

 

 

It's snarky to point out that someone's not being forthright, really? Interesting though, that you have no comment about the remark made about the editor and wife arguing over the mistress. May I assume you're ok with that remark, but not with it being questioned?

 

I am also wondering why the defensiveness.

 

If you haven't read the book and are suspicious of it you're making assumptions and, therefore, are not valid in your concerns.

If you've only read a bit of the book you can't possibly comment because you haven't read the whole thing and therefore don't know what it's really about.

If you have read the entire book and are critical you are mistaken in your criticisms and obviously didn't read it "right".

 

No, not at all. If you'll honestly look at my replies, I correct statements that misrepresent the book by offering quotes and page numbers that are about what's actually said. I don't believe that trying to keep the record straight is being defensive on my part. I feel it's the proper thing anyone should do.

 

Essentially the vibe I am getting is nothing but a glowing review will do for you. Why is that?

 

 

I have no problem with someone finding problems with the book, or not liking the book. It doesn't change my world in the slightest. What I have a problem with is when people misrepresent what's written when they critique a book. I've got a thing for facts and don't like them ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...