Whats The Forums Opinion Of Mad Dog?

hey Burnhamwow, I'm on my second bucket full myself. Better keep the rolaids handy.

Sooner or later people will realize that the problem is not with the knives. Kevin makes excellent $150 knives. If some want to pay $300-900 for them, why should we care? It's all hype IMHO. You can get much better knives from Allen Blade, the Jones Brothers,etc. as far as I can see. But why do people get worked up about those that buy McClung's knives? As long as they're not spending my money, I could care less what they buy. And exactly how many people do we have here on bladeforums that live off the land or have to fight off bad guys with their knives? Face it, most of the Mad Dogs and similar knives are bought by armchair commandos and will never be put to the test anyway. And for the real combatants among us, remember what Marcinko said when asked about knife fights-"if I'm in a knife fight I already f***ed up cause I should have shot the bastard".

------------------
Dave (Phil.4:13)
I Can Do All Things Through Him Who Strengthens Me
 
Not2Sharp,

Certainly I am no Martial Artist, nor a weekend warrior, nor do I even want to play one on teevee. I wanted a high-end fighting knife because, well, I didn't have one. I have other high-end knived for various purposes, some of which I use and some not. But I wanted a high-end knife because, God forbid, I should ever be in a situation where I must actually use it, that I can have absolute confidence in it. And that is my ultimate problem with Mad Dog. All questions regarding customer service etc. aside, the knives themselves are a big question mark to me.

Mad Dog markets the TUSK, ATAK, and Panther as three knives that are designed for very different types of use, yet they are all essentially the same modest quality steel using the same tempering processes to nearly the same very high hardenss levels. I studied enough physics in college, and I have done enough independent study since then, to know that that is a very ambitious thing to do, even with some of the wunder-shteels out there now. But O-1? I beleive Steve Harvey said elsewhere in this thread that what Mad Dog was trying to do was a compromise, and that O-1 was the best steel to fulfill MD's needs. My point is, why compromise. Why not use the most durable, impact resistant steel for the utility knife, the hardest edge-holding steel for the fighter, and so on?

Now, no one really needs expensive fighters to chop wood. Everybody knows you get an HI Ang Khola for that
smile.gif
. But even for a camp knife/axe/hatchet/whatever, they ain't cheap. There are certainly cheaper knives out there that will do the job. And more expensive ones. I settled on the HI AK because it seems to be the best. So in answer to your question, I really have no idea what the ideal performance envelope would be for an MD. And which MD? You might think the Panther would be THE ideal fighter. Certainly Mr. McClung thinks so. But Cliff and Jim were raising a little dust earlier on debating the relative stresses on fighters and so on. Again, why the questions? Nobody is debating whether CPM-3V or A2 is tough or resilient enough for a fighter. So use one of those.

Now, let me state that I did in fact seriously consider getting a Mad Dog. It really does sound like a great knife. And certainly I would like to own a Mad Dog Panther. I would like to feel what Jim March (I think it was Jim. Forgive me if it wasn't, but I can't find the quote right now) described as sex in steel. But that desire is negated by the doubts I have, as well as the price tag.

Many people own Mad Dog knives and are very happy with them. And I, in turn, am happy for them. They got what they wanted, and it fulfills their needs and desires in a tool. I have other tools which also make me happy with they way they feel and perform. Isn't the knife universe a grand place
smile.gif
!
 
Spark; a hermetically sealed vault is unnecessary. I keep my Mad Dogs in my sock drawer, however the sock drawer has an inert gas environment, humidity control and a Tuf-Glide spray system.
wink.gif


Seriously, I wish all of you would stop buying Mad Dogs, so that Kevin could decrease his two years of back orders, and finish the customs I have on order.

Put your money where your mouths are you prevaracating closet MD admirers!
 
Hi All,
This might just be mixing apples and prunes, but with all this Rabid Puppy stuff surfacing once again.... I called a friend of mine that owns an ATAK and he came over with the thing. Now this is supposed to be a SUPPER DUPPER COMBAT ULTRA FIGHTER capable of beheading sabretoothed chipmunks, etc. Well, we put the thing up against that old Buck Special that I carried and used lots for various things in yhe 'Nam without much care given to it, but it's still here.
We went head to head or was that butt? No matter, for all "Practical purposes" the only place the ATAK at $300+ beat out the Buck was in whacking away at old Christmas trees. Mostly 'cuz it was longer and heavier. At the time that Buck cost me less than $20 at the PX. When we moved into stuff like cutting wire the Buck left the MD in the dust.
Now as for whacking $50-$75 will get you a "Villager" Khukuri from Himalayan Imports that will leave both in the dust.
Net result seems to be: For less than $100 you can get everything the MD's are good for without the hype. Not to mention the imbarassment of telling someone how much you shelled out for that Rabbid Puppys wonder weapon.
smile.gif

Dan
 
Well, I guess then there is no argument. MD knives are good for stabbing and slicing people. We all agree on this.

MD knives are not tough in ANY way and WILL break rather EASILY. We ALL agree on this.

MD claimed the tusk to be a utility tool. We all know it's not.

The issue is claims made that are not true. Cliff would not have done his test if claims were not as fantastic as they literally were.

Steve, I don't think you even read my posts. No were did I say the HC doesn't offer corrosion resistance. IF you read my posts and go back to the locked MD thread well over a year old, where I made my point and referenced three HC providers as sources, you will see what I am saying. I understand that you most likely haven't read my postings or don't much care because Cobalt obviously is some joe blow who has no idea what he is talking about.

If you only knew...

 
Steve :

You can't imply that Mad Dog is hiding a flaw in his design in the form of shoulders for the guards without implying the same thing about almost every custom knife with a guard I've ever seen
Click to expand...

I said it was ironic given his attitude about the choil. To spell it out - when MD was questioned about why he makes such an extended choil he refused to answer just stating "because I want to". After this came up repeated times he finally stated that it was because the knife would be weakened if the transition was more abrupt and he would obviously not do that. NamViet questioned this policy and asked the simple question of relevance. Yes it would be weaker but would this be significant especially considering the strain would be focused on the prying point? Kevin again refused to deal with this and just took the position of wanting to have absolute durability - based on this attitute - it is ironic that he then puts a structural weakness right below it when there are far more stable/durable designs the Busse Basic being a direct example.

As for the HC, yes it is for looks, MD himself stated this on his form explaining that he switched from the Teflon coating because it was getting scratched up and people were complaining about the looks - not the function - the appearance. The HC process that MD used is abrasion resistant however as Cobalt explained in detail that is not the deciding factor in selecting a coating for corrosion resistance.

TomF:

Nobody is debating whether CPM-3V or A2 is tough or resilient enough for a fighter.
Click to expand...

Actually McClung is, if you read his article on steel selection he states that A2 is too brittle and if you give it enough cross-section to have the required durability then it will cut very poorly. I would guess then he has never handled one of Reeves blades or thinks that are fragile or poor cutters or both.

Dan :

When we moved into stuff like cutting wire the Buck left the MD in the dust.
Click to expand...

In what way, ease of cutting or durability?

Cobalt :

if claims were not as fantastic as they literally were.
Click to expand...

Of course not. This is one of the most important points. I never would have bought the knife if the products were being described two years ago as they are now. Currently MD has stated - I am not in competition with Busse, we make very different knives (paraphrase, post on Knifeforums). Yet when I was interested in the TUSK it was made very clear to me by McClung, the dealer and every single poster I discussed the matter with (except Aubrey Moore), that the TUSK was the directly better knife than the Battle Mistress and that no compromise was made in regards to strength/durability.

In fact every single question I asked was answered with a performance statement far beyond what I needed. Can you pry with them - of course a 200+ lbs Navy Seal jumped on his. Can they take hard impacts - of course they have been shot. Even the spine hammering that MD calls abusive I discussed on his forum long before I did it - with no reservations made by him - or from anyone else that is currently taking such a hard line against it. MD's policy on this - so what- he has no responsibility to inform you that what you are discussing is abusive.

The most important point was made above, when debating the "worth" of the blades, consider its performance compared to others in its class and its reliability - can you depend on it to perform as it is described.

-Cliff


[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 04-20-2000).]
 
I sense a lot of pent up emotions being vented here. Could this be the MD thread to end all MD threads? A final purge?!

Nah...bird fly, cows moo and mad dogs bite.
smile.gif
Time for another Guiness I guess.

One thing, though. I think I'm actually learning something from this thread. Some interesting technical information here.

Every silver lining has its cloud...or something like that.


------------------
Hoodoo

The low, hoarse purr of the whirling stone—the light-press’d blade,
Diffusing, dropping, sideways-darting, in tiny showers of gold,
Sparkles from the wheel.

Walt Whitman
 
I must throw my oar in the water here concerning testing and the subsequent evaluation of testing. The whole idea of testing is to either compare one object to another, or to compare an object to a set of defined standards. The only way to make an accurate comparison is to test every one of that particular item (testing the entire population). This is usually not feasable due to cost, availability, or the destructiveness of the test. Since we cannot test the entire population, statistics were born to give us confidence that results of testing a lesser number was close to the same as if we tested the whole population. The larger the number of items we test out of a population, the more confidence we have that the results represents those of the whole population. The fewer the items tested the less confidence we can expect that we have captured the flavor of the whole lot. In most of the testing on this and other forums, the number of items tested is one--or two at the most! This should give us "no" confidence that we really know the quality of the item. There are so many variables during manufacturing that we cannot statistically say we know much of anything about an item.

Now I can hear Cliff saying (forgive me Cliff), "but I tested two TUSKs, not one, and they both behaved the same!" A meaningful sample would probably have to be around 30 knives, picked at random from across the many times that knife was produced. I don't expect anyone to do that. It's too expensive. But testing one or two knives just isn't good procedure to determine the viability of a maker or product. It only reveals the characteristics of that one individual knife! Even if Cliff or someone else broke the tips off of 5 TUSKs or BM's or something, it still wouldn't be enough to give us a comfort feeling.

So my advice here is quit reading something into something that ain't there. This type of testing is similar to that done by "Consumer Reports." TV's are too expensive to test lots of so they test one! It really means nothing.

You do a lot of good testing but draw faulty conclusions. They seem plausable but statistically they are not. Meaningful evaluation of testing is done with analysis of variance done on a good test design. None of this is represented in the testing done on this forum.

Bottom line, I hear a lot of conclusions made about makers and knives that are just not true or supportable.

Bruce Woodbury

[This message has been edited by bruce (edited 04-20-2000).]
 
Sorry James. I didn't mean to set off any alarms.

Cobalt,

There are persons whose posts I do make a point of not wasting my time with, but you are most definately not one of them. Your contributions are a great asset to this community. Your posts on the subject of hard chrome have been extremely interesting and informational. (late edit - [I did make my previous post prior to reading your most recent post, though. I was replying primarily to Cliff, and I didn't intend any disregard]).

However, your knowledge would be of even more value if it came along with reasonableness instead of radical overstatements like the following:

"MD knives are not tough in ANY way and WILL break rather EASILY. We ALL agree on this."

No, we all do not.

Cliff,

Thanks to you and Cobalt. I see where you were coming from on the coating issue. I have yet to experience the capillary problem myself though.

The guard shoulders do not represent a weakness. The tang is full thickness at that point, and there is a greater weakness in front of that area. If prying stress is applied more or less uniformly along the spine, the stress will be concentrated where the blade goes from being beveled to being full thickness, i.e. at the plunge cut.

Hoodooo,

"One thing, though. I think I'm actually learning something from this thread. Some interesting technical information here."

Good news. That is why I still think hashing this topic out is worth while. It is a controversial topic, with good points to be made all 'round, as long as flying saucers are entirely left out of it.

Bruce,
Right.



[This message has been edited by Steve Harvey (edited 04-20-2000).]
 
Many ...many years ago, I decided to try to go entreprenurial. One of the small businesses I operated was a high-end steak house.

For about $20 you were served a premium lunch. Obviously at that price level we were very concerned with quality control, and took some pain to please everyone. One day a customer came in and placed an order. He was unhappy so we cooked his order again. He was still unhappy so we took a third shot at it (by this time we had two waiters, 2 cooks, and three other staff members under a microscope).

Fortunately, my very experienced head cook turned up; took a quick look at table, asked to see the order, and suggested we prepare it in an entirely different way (entirely wrong that is). The customer was happy with the result - actually became yet another regular.

We pulled the head cook over and asked him to explain. Easy he said; "I know that guy. He doesn't know what he wants, but I know what he likes."

So what's wrong with the Maddog knife? The performance specifications don't matter. If somebody is happy with them, then power to them.
 
Bruce - 2 points.

1. Kevin McClung is not Buck Knives. Mad Dog has admittedly made around 6000 knives total during his career.

Testing 30 TUSKs would be impractical - it'd be .5% of ALL the knives Mad Dog has made, and probably 5% of all of the TUSK's he's made... if he's even made 600 of them. Anyone want to place odds on the actual number of TUSK's that have been made?

The fact that Cliff broke the first, then broke the second that Kevin McClung personally sent should speak volumes. It tells me that a Significant Sample was tested and failed miserably - especially since the second one was hand picked. With a price tag like that, the first one shouldn't have failed at all, much less the second.

2. What does this testing prove? Statistically speaking, not much, I'll agree with you. What's more interesting are the side effects of the testing.

What has been proven conclusively is that someone can't keep their stories straight regarding just what is and isn't real, what's hype and what's reality - especially when repeatedly questioned.

The "notched tang" incident should put everyone's doubt's to rest on that. Remember, the latest word from TacTec (who helps make the blades) was that they were for CNC purposes, (something we postulated since the start), directly contradicting the earlier claims that they meant the knife was a stolen reject.

We've seen a lot of backpedalling, contradictory statements, and flat-out untruths coming out, and all told I agree with those reaching for the popcorn - it's an interesting show.

Steve - just one comment regarding the earlier "epoxy rivet" remark. Strictly speaking, the fact that the epoxy rivet doesn't go past the interior surface of the G10, there isn't any mechanical advantage to having it. The only time it comes into play is if there is a bonding failure between the coating and tang, or coating and handle, and by that time, the knife is screwed.

If the "rivet" extended into the G10, then yes, I could see your argument. Unfortunately, when I removed the blade from the handle on the ATAK, the epoxy seperated cleanly from the G10 - it didn't "become one" with it, otherwise the G10 would have broken before the epoxy did. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. About half of the epoxy stayed with the G10, the other half stayed on the hard chrome, and there was no G10 on the detached tang, so there clearly wasn't a 100% union
biggrin.gif


I feel that this is a vapor "feature", kind of like saying "Handle's Included!" The hole in the tang's primary purpose is so that the knife can hang from something while being Hard Chromed. If the Epoxy Rivets worked so well, then adding 1 or 2 more probably would only add to it's security, right?

But, this is an easily solved problem - machine flanges into the handle and tang and that way there's solid lockup between the epoxy and tang, and epoxy and handle. Solid lockup all around, solid mechanical backup to prevent steel / coating failure from affecting the knife.

Personally, I'm thinking that someone has basically painted themselves into a corner - there's been so much invested in declaring that Hard Chrome and O1 are the mostest bestest ever that they can't change steels and coatings without losing face and being forced to recant what they've been preaching.

It's a lose - lose situation. Either stay with the same steel and coating and keep up the hype, and continue taking grief for it when it doesn't live up to the hype;
or choose a different one, and take grief for switching. There's no way to make an omelete without breaking some eggs.

Again, my personal opinion - I feel that MD should switch steels and coatings and construction, and weather the storm. At least it would show that he's aware of the shortcomings and is making an effort to use the best materials and methods.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here
 
Cliff,
The wire we were cutting was 10ga. Cu. 3 wire Romex. We were laying the cable on a 4x4 setting the knife edge on it and whacking the spine with a plastic mallet. My pal gave up after we each took two whacks (4 cuts) using the MD, 'cuz it was starting to look like a Spyderco. We did about 10 tries each with the old Buck (I think in those days they were using 440C) and there was some edge rolling and one verrrry slight nick, but that was it.

We didn't do all kinds of rope cutting till the edges went dull or stuff like that, we were just using the knives in a way that some might use them in a days work. By the way, I've got several of the old Gerbers with the cast Al. handles and hard chromed blades. Dayum good knives, if all but very butt heavy. Wish I could find some more of them. They were ergonomic and they would have had that ATAK begging for mercy.

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan K (edited 04-20-2000).]
 
Steve, I know that the statement that I nade was off the wall and that's because I was trying to make a point. The reason for these discussions is that there is a difference in opinions. We don't all agree. Those statements were not in answer to you but to another poster.

Since I don't own an MD I will not make absolute statements on strength. I will leave it to those that have tested the knives to do that. There is quite a bit of testing to prove both sides of the strength issue as far as the ATAK is concerned, not the TUSK and other large blades, however. The seal tests pitted the ATAK against other popular knives of the time and then Hilton recreated those tests, if I'm not mistaken. In fact I have been trying to find the site of those test results and have not been able to. If you know were they may be, please let me know.
 
spark

You Said
"Personally, I'm thinking that someone has basically painted themselves into a corner - there's been so much invested in declaring that Hard Chrome and O1 are the mostest bestest ever that they can't change steels and coatings without losing face and being forced to recant what they've been preaching.
It's a lose - lose situation. Either stay with the same steel and coating and keep up the hype, and continue taking grief for it when it doesn't live up to the hype;
or choose a different one, and take grief for switching. There's no way to make an omelete without breaking some eggs".

I think your assessment is correct! My conclusion is the following.
Is mad a good knife - Yes
Can it be improved - Yes
Will it be improved - probably not
Should Cliff keep using and abusing - YES
testing and customer feed back is how to evaluate and improve any product. the new Busse is a good example.
Will I sale my atak-2 - no
Will I sale my saxon - if I can

Griffin

 
Bruce, 2 MD Tusks failing is a big issue. Expecially when these knives are touted for serious utility. I say "Failing" because these knives did not just break, they failed miserably. They broke under relatively mild strain compared to most testing.

Some people say that impacting the spine led up to the damage on one of the knives. Well, the only way that the impacting of the spine would have affected the strength of the blade is if there were any inclusions in the steel(little voids that cause stress risers within the steel) or micro stress cracks along the temper lines of the steel. Then the knife would break along those areas. I'm sure there are more options to this, but failure was either due to improper processing of the steel or... improper processing of the steel, whether it be from to high a hardness level and differential from spine to edge or inclusions/stress fractures or some other unknown side effect of his unknown processing.

If you read how the Charpy testing is done you will see their use of a notch or stress riser to do testing at low and safe impact forces. That's right, all those fancy notches and holes can be the downfall of any knife if not properly relieved(and I don't mean pain relief).

I think the big issue has always been attitude. If you have people telling you that things are failing, it is important to be objective and look at your process to see what may be going wrong. But when you consider yourself "His Eminence" you are not about to bow to the peons and listen to ant advice, like lower the Rc and get rid of the HC and screw or rivet handles in place to a full size tang. Gee, hasn't this been done before.
 
I have read every Maddog thread that has been generated here and on KFC. I don't care for all of the name calling but I know that I am going to learn a lot about knives.It seems to be in the heated threads that the most useful info is dispensed.I have never owned,touched,or even wanted to own a Maddog.That is why I have never posted on a Maddog thread.If I have no experience with something, I try not to give my opinion on it.That's why I'm pissed at being drawn into this.
smile.gif

Bruce,
Besides the never ending search for the perfect steel, Cliff's testing does one other thing that I feel is very important and relevant to all of us.It shows us what type of customer service to expect from a maker.Like most of us, I am very big on customer service.I don't care if they were nice to me before I bought it.I want to know how they will treat me if a problem arises.Bad knives slip out of every makers stock.Some more than others.The real issue is how they deal with the person who received that knife.I make very few knife purchases during the year.Therefore, I read voraciously about the company I plan to purchase from.I want to know how good a product they sell, but I'm even more concerned with how they treat their customers after the sale.I just received an RTAK from Newt Livesay.I spent a lot of time researching about his product and his customer service.I read almost nothing but good comments.I have yet to read about him not trying to help someone resolve their customer service issue.They may not be 100% happy with the outcome,but he tries his best to resolve the issue.I am eager to find out about Cliff's RCM.I am sure Newt will take care of him.
How does Maddog take care of his customers?I won't comment since I don't own one of his knives, but there is enough info out there for anyone to draw upon.
Cliff doesn't need me to defend his testing.I wouldn't be able to do him justice, and I'm sure you will be getting a reply from him soon anyways.I just wanted to point out one of the often overlooked benefits of his testing.

Take care,
Jim

edited for grammar

[This message has been edited by HUNTER3897 (edited 04-21-2000).]
 
Hunter3897, no one needs to defend Cliff's testing. It isn't the quality of the testing I spoke about. It is the quantity, and the conclusions drawn therefrom.

Spark, it doesn't make any difference the percentage of a population you test, be it .5 or 5. Testing one out of five is 20% but isn't enough. A small population still requires a significant number of test subjects. Now, as you know more about a population, such as all the knives of a type were made in a single batch, or by a single person, from a single bar of steel, etc. you gain confidence in reducing the test sample size, but never to one or two--ever! Breaking two TUSK points does not tell you a thing, especially if the test method was not standardized--and I don't remember just how Cliff performed the test, perhaps he did exactly the same thing both times--I guess Cliff will have to tell me, or I may have to look further back in the forums.

Whoever above--forgive me for not quoting your name--had a good point about customer service. However, if Consumer Reports purchases a washer and dryer and tests it to destruction, Hot Point probably is not going to replace it. Usually warrantees do not cover the commercial use of a product intended for a consumer. I think there is plenty of gray area here still between Cliff and Mad Dog. I don't think all the issues and possibilities have been "thunk" up yet.

This whole thread has enlightened me to a concept I have seen before. Most people here are branded either a Mad Dog lover or a Mad Dog hater! No one is allowed to be neutral. If you challenge a point by someone who uses it to support Mad Dog, you must hate him. If you challenge a point by someone who appears to be his foe, you must be a Mad Dog supporter! I think much of what has been said has been said not so much to support or tear him down, but to soften the harshness of a few zealots.

I own a Ruana, several Randalls, a few Camilli (plural for Camillus, I think) some Benchmades, Spydercos, a Chris Reeve Sebenza, and a bunch of Victorinox Swiss Army knives--as well a others. I don't think Mad Dog has made the perfect knife, none of my knives are perfect. They are just good knives for a fair price, or I wouldn't have bought them. I think some here are vocal about MD's ego. Yes, he has one, but I think the whole package (ego, knife quality, following, CTT, etc.) is self limiting. He will continue to sell knives to people who like them, and will be passed over by those who don't. So be it. I can tell you that all the owners of MD knives are not members of the CTT, or even read all those threads about it. I don't. I belong to a church and knives are not a part of it. But boys will be boys, they're just trying to find a little comradery. We all do it in our own way. Some belong to fraternaties, some to regiments, some to churches, some to more than one of these, as I do. They are not, and will never, take over the world of knives. It is just too diverse.

Now I feel better--just all hold hands and sing, "We are the World."

I too have learned much from this thread, a lot of it has been good technical information, mingled with a lot of passion. Spark, does this thread hold any kind of a record for length, with or without getting locked?

Regards,

Bruce Woodbury
 
Well Bruce, if you want to offer up $9,000 for 10 TUSK's, I'll be more than happy to put each one of them through the exact same tests, every time. I'll get it as precise as I possibly can. Until then, I think the testing Cliff did is about as good as it's going to get.

But, with the TUSK being touted as the be all to end all in utility knives, able to withstand anything you throw at it, - or to be exact
Ideal for all heavy tasks from cutting trees and brush for building a sniper hide to skinning your elephant in Africa, the T.U.S.K. can do, and has done, it all.
Click to expand...
the fact that both of them broke under moderate stress (at best) leads me to believe that something is terribly wrong with the design as a whole, and possibly the techniques used to make them at a minimum.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Mad Dog's knives embody some good ideas and some bad ideas in a package that needs improving. The blade geometry is fine. The handle ergonomics and material are fine.

The steel needs some work. Or the RC process. Or both.
The tang / handle joining needs some work.
The blade coating needs some serious work.

If Kevin McClung would make these changes, he wouldn't hear a peep out of me regarding his knives. Customer service, promotion, and all the hype are other matters...
biggrin.gif
but if people are willing to buy into the total package, goody for them.

But $900 for a piece of 01 with G10 handles that might or might not fail isn't what I'm willing to pay.

I'm just waiting for the day that someone comes out with a nice 3V, D2 or A2 blade with G10 handles and a good heat treat - for $200-250. They probably wouldn't be able to keep them in stock for long....
biggrin.gif


Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top