- 2,939
- 1,400
I'll fix
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Dressrosa Size Calc
- Thread starter KingTempest
- Start date
- Status
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #42
I appreciate it
Stefano4444
He/Him- 6,253
- 5,411
Seen to me both USklaverei and KimTempest's methods are relatively accurate, other to give similar results.
Guess all it depend by what method we prefer to use, pixerscaling between characters/objects or via timeframe.
Guess all it depend by what method we prefer to use, pixerscaling between characters/objects or via timeframe.
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #45
Bump
- 15,454
- 15,480
Ok King, can you argue for why we should use your version of the calc over the current version?
I need some concrete reasons from both sides so I can side with whichever side I think is best
I need some concrete reasons from both sides so I can side with whichever side I think is best
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #47
Fair
My version uses less pixelscaling and a stated timeframe, and I've subtracted a ridiculously high number from the timeframe to account for other quick events.
It's consistent with another version that was found in this thread.
Damage's version uses more pixelscaling with scans that have gotten over 3 different results ranging from 20km to 50km using the same exact panels.
- 15,454
- 15,480
Ok for those reasons, I agree with King’s method for now, unless Damage’s side can bring a counter argument
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,998
I know I'm not a Calc Group Member, but...
I had a somewhat heated conversation with USklaverei on other social media, but we've come to an agreement about it, so I thought it'd be relevant to this topic as well, which is why I'm commenting here.
About USklaverei and Damage's calculations using the boat as a basis, I do find some flaws with the Pixelscaling from both sides.
About the boat, which Damage did.
Sunny seems to be waaay further away than the boat scaled, which is either due to Oda being bad with perspective, or due to the fact Sunny is in fact, further away from the screen than the boat in question, which would make the Pixelscaling very inflated.
But the biggest problem comes from the next step, both USklaverei and Damage do that.
They use the boat, in the forest, to measure the shore. Usk, Damage
The problem is, the distance between the end of the forest and the sea is AT LEAST A FEW HUNDRED METERS.
Look here at my example, the boat's position vs where it's being measured.
It seems to be not that much, but it is, a few hundred meters at MINIMUM, and it definitely screws the perspective and the scaling over.
I had a somewhat heated conversation with USklaverei on other social media, but we've come to an agreement about it, so I thought it'd be relevant to this topic as well, which is why I'm commenting here.
About USklaverei and Damage's calculations using the boat as a basis, I do find some flaws with the Pixelscaling from both sides.
About the boat, which Damage did.
Sunny seems to be waaay further away than the boat scaled, which is either due to Oda being bad with perspective, or due to the fact Sunny is in fact, further away from the screen than the boat in question, which would make the Pixelscaling very inflated.
But the biggest problem comes from the next step, both USklaverei and Damage do that.
They use the boat, in the forest, to measure the shore. Usk, Damage
The problem is, the distance between the end of the forest and the sea is AT LEAST A FEW HUNDRED METERS.
Look here at my example, the boat's position vs where it's being measured.
It seems to be not that much, but it is, a few hundred meters at MINIMUM, and it definitely screws the perspective and the scaling over.
- 18,922
- 13,943
I have seen inaccuracy in almost all the calc's on One piece and mostly about sizes... tho us humans can't be perfect, but we can try. I feel like people need to work/calc together behind the scenes or in a thread, Otherwise It will always be revised and people will argue without fully knowing how they calc things and stuff which takes up unnecessary time arguing. by calcing together, youll know more about things and feel like everything will work quicker but... thats what I think
- 31,588
- 28,049
When I've finished gathering scans for Dressrosa and done some double-checking of things, I will post my counter-argument here if I think it's worth continuing the discussion.
- 31,588
- 28,049
Okay - I'm currently analyzing quite a few gathered scans together to see what conclusions I can draw regarding the overall size of Dressrosa and some key landmarks.
I've also found something that may impact the calc for the bridge's length, but I'm double-checking that first. I'll leave a proper post on that point tomorrow when I'm more sure of it.
I've also found something that may impact the calc for the bridge's length, but I'm double-checking that first. I'll leave a proper post on that point tomorrow when I'm more sure of it.
- 31,588
- 28,049
Alright; finally got some time.
This isn't an argument in favor of my own previous calcs of Dressrosa's size but a critique of KingTempest's method in the OP.
It seems to me that a calc is being relied on for the length of the other side of the bridge between Dressrosa to Green Bit (beyond the broken part of it) because the length of it is unknowable otherwise. After rereading the manga I've found these two scans here and here, which show the portion of the bridge beyond the broken section.
If we go by the method of assumed values for timeframe and Caeser's speed, this comes out to be a little over six kilometers for that length of bridge but we can see from the two visuals up above by the sets of thicker iron pillars on the sides of the bridge (of which there is about 12 or 13) that the distance is nowhere near that big. A quick comparison of the gap between two thicker pillars is enough to confirm that for us.
If we just had the one scan of the length of the bridge, I'd understand it being questionable but we have two consistent scans showing the length of the bridge and it does not support the calced figure for that portion of the bridge in KingTempest's calc. Even if those small sections of the bridge were a hundred meters long each, they wouldn't come close to the calced figure in the calc in the OP.
This isn't an argument in favor of my own previous calcs of Dressrosa's size but a critique of KingTempest's method in the OP.
It seems to me that a calc is being relied on for the length of the other side of the bridge between Dressrosa to Green Bit (beyond the broken part of it) because the length of it is unknowable otherwise. After rereading the manga I've found these two scans here and here, which show the portion of the bridge beyond the broken section.
If we go by the method of assumed values for timeframe and Caeser's speed, this comes out to be a little over six kilometers for that length of bridge but we can see from the two visuals up above by the sets of thicker iron pillars on the sides of the bridge (of which there is about 12 or 13) that the distance is nowhere near that big. A quick comparison of the gap between two thicker pillars is enough to confirm that for us.
If we just had the one scan of the length of the bridge, I'd understand it being questionable but we have two consistent scans showing the length of the bridge and it does not support the calced figure for that portion of the bridge in KingTempest's calc. Even if those small sections of the bridge were a hundred meters long each, they wouldn't come close to the calced figure in the calc in the OP.
- 15,454
- 15,480
Damage brings up a solid point, what other scans do we have of the bridge? I would like to take a look at a bunch of them before making up my mind
- 31,588
- 28,049
Aside from the two up above the only other ones I can find is this shot, which is a bit less consistent because it's actually even shorter than the other two scans up above; only being eight bridge sections long instead of twelve.
Then there's this overhead shot which is used for the calc in the OP. It's a little difficult to make out but we can roughly see just over a dozen bridge sections on there too though as I said the level of the detail is difficult to make out.
Those are the only shots I can find so far of that part of the bridge.
I'm not suggesting we automatically pick up one of the other calcs instead, but we have multiple shots of that section of the bridge that we don't need to calc using Caeser for it.
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #56
The second scan was used for a calc above and brought very similar results to my calculation
Most already know, but I'll post here too, I did my own calculation for Dresrossa (I took advantage and put all the calculations involving since the current accepted ones are a complete mess)
One Piece: Dressrosa Size + Calc AP
vsbattles.fandom.com
This wouldn't make sense at all because it wouldn't even take them 10 minutes to get to the other side of the bridge via the showings of these visuals
With these visuals it contradicts the size of the bigass ship that we see in Green Bit which is well over 100 meters in height.
Quick calculation.
Nico Robin's Height: 1.88 m
Nico Robin's Height: 68.9 px
Width between Thick Pillars: 493 px
Width between Thick Pillars: 13.451959361393 meters
Using that times 13 and you get 174.875471698 meters.
This contradicts the size of the Marine ships, which you calculated only a small portion of the height to be 58.468452895419 meters, already over 1/3rd the size of the bridge (meaning that the height of the bridge is longer than/relative to the size of the broken part of the bridge). So unless you wanna tell me it takes a quarter of an hour to walk through the height of a Marine ship, this is wrong.
This contradicts the timeframe it took to travel that distance on the bridge. Even if they walked at 1.78816 meters per second, which is a lowball considering that most of the bridge they ran and the rest of it was via air balloon, plus these are superhumans, they would finish the broken part of the bridge in less than 2 minutes by walking, even though it almost took them 30 minutes to get there via air balloon, which is far superior to walking.
This contradicts the speed and size of the thousand sunny where the height of the ship is 1/3rd the size of the bridge, they should've taken seconds to get there, but instead they took a very long period of time.
This contradicts every single calculation we've done for the size of Dressrosa.
Even if you wanna say it's 200 meters or something because of perspective, that makes no sense.
I understand your argument, but it's flawed.
With that size then a marineship would dwarf the size of the broken bridge, which we clearly see isn't the case.
Even with that scan, we would be able to see the people on the island, which we don't see.
- 31,588
- 28,049
That's why I don't think relying on the 30 minute figure is reliable. The conversations and fights could have taken longer than 5 minutes, and there is also a time-cut between the group standing at the end of the bridge watching the Fighting Fish being dragged away and Caesar transporting them across.
I get why the method for calculating Caesar would be preferable but I don't agree with the interpretation that it must have taken them nearly half an hour to cross the distance by that method.
The battleship is further away from the viewer than the bridge is, so it will appear smaller.
I don't think we have any direct one-to-one shots of the battleship next to the bridge.
Also, someone further up in the thread pointed out a potential issue with scaling the Sunny fo the battleship.
I agree; but I think many of the calculations done in the past were faulty and they're not the subject of this thread.
I've found more evidence that may suggestion the scale of Dressrosa itself is a lot smaller than what some of our calcs have suggested, but I wanted to get this point out of the way first; that there are multiple visuals that contradict the calc in the OP.
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #58
Based on nothing when Oda has made full on fight scenes with even seemingly longer instances around 5 minutes (Zoro vs Ryuma) or his chapters worth seconds (Alabasta bomb).
With the largest downplay possible they could've taken up 20 minutes.
Walking for 10 minutes contradicts your size.
Walking for 5 minutes contradicts your size.
Walking for 2 minutes contradicts your size.
Your size is not consistent in the slightest.
That doesn't justify a 30 minute gap in time and saying that less than 2 minutes was used to travel the bridge.
We can see ships in the ocean next to the bridge, and the width of those ships (which is objectively larger than that small portion the size of the sunny) is thinner than the bridge's width.
In your scan we see the part that was calculated to be almost 60 meters.
That part is undeniably thinner than the width of the bridge.
So unless that width of the bridge takes up 1/3rd of that distance, it's wrong.
The same exact person said (with proof) that the small portion of the beach is over a few hundred meters, and it's definitely less than a quarter of the length of the broken bridge.
You were bringing up other calculations earlier to counter my size to say that it's inconsistent, and now they're faulty?
Come on now.
Hasn't it been discussed several times that stated distances via speeds are better than visuals?
Even your own scans contradict each other while my distance is consistent with another calc, and the size is not contradicted except for inconsistent visuals that even the author can't get consistent.
- 31,588
- 28,049
It's not solely them travelling on the bridge; there's also them after they're on the island and before we get the figure of the time, and whatever they were doing in the cut between them at the end of the bridge and them travelling via Caesar.
There's a lot being glossed over here.
Actually the end of the bridge itself appears to be thinner than the battleship in this shot.
Also; have you considered it is possible that the battleship itself is what is inconsistent there, not the bridge? Another thought; what if we could compare the battleship to Dressrosa itself, would that help? I may have something for that.
I was referring to the general trend of the calc's results in comparison to the much larger figure you started off with in your calc. I wasn't saying that makes every calc done in the past valid.
One inconsistency that makes it appears even smaller, not larger.
I can't help but read this as "The size is not contradicted except for those visuals that contradict it and they don't count."
What do you expect to contradict it if not visuals of the bridge itself that you're calculating?
That should be case by case, depending on how solid the figures are and what the visuals are like. In this case, I don't trust the Caeser calc.
Also, like it or not, your method relies on visuals too. Throwing in a calc doesn't make it the most valid method possible if the results or method of that calc are questionable.
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #60
You're acting like they just had a war in that timeframe.
When we see them after, they just got there. Then they traversed the island and did even more than what they did prior to the 14 minutes left mark, and it was only 1 minute that was taken.
They had full conversations and walked large distances and only 1 minute was taken up.
And your trying to tell me that even shorter events were longer?
Oh wow, another inconsistency with visuals
And this argument would be flawed regardless if your shutting down your calcs.
That's like using a bad calculation for an AP feat that you admit is flawed and using it as justification for an outlier, when the calc isn't even good.
And other "inconsistencies" from other calcs that make it relative in size.
The size is not contradicted except for those visuals that contradict each other and they don't count because they're not even consistent with each other.
Another speed, another size, a stated size, a stated distance, a stated timeframe, another distance found with the same method that contradicts this one, a range of an attack that is larger than this, etc.
Not visuals that are inconsistent with one another.
Damage, this calculation is consistent with another.
All your proof against it isn't even consistent with each other.
My method uses the minimal amount of visuals than any calculation of Dressrosa and Green Bit on this wiki and it's based on a timeframe.
Yours is based on a picture when another picture can contradict it.
- 31,588
- 28,049
What full conversations? The conversations they had were prior to the 15 minute figure, then it cuts to them having walked into the jungle after a minute. Not whole conversations happening between the 15 mins and 14 mins figures.
I'm not pretending they had a whole war there; I'm just saying there's not enough evidence to show that it took them nearly all the 30 mins to travel by hot-air Caesar balloon.
It's art dude. You can't expect 100% machine-like consistency so sorry, but I'm not taking this as a serious argument.
Your figure from your calc is just another piece of evidence among other pieces of visual evidence. You say "These visuals are inconsistent with each other" is no different than "This calc is inconsistent with these visuals." In this case, the visuals are closer to each other than they are to the value you've calced so I'm more inclined to trust the majority of evidence than a single calc.
It doesn't matter that the images aren't perfectly consistent because if that's what you're asking for then you will never get that on VS Battles.
Unfortunately we don't have stated distances. Wish we did. It would make it a whole lot simpler.
What we do have to work with is multiple visuals of that portion of the bridge being much smaller than 6 km.
Now, even if you want to argue "These visuals aren't perfetly consistent with each other", so what? Not one of them comes close to the 6 km figure that you've calced so in that sense, each of them are consistently well below 6 km. Can you deny that? Even if the visuals aren't perfect (because they never will be), they are still consistently well below the calced figure, which is what I think is relevant here.
That doesn't necessarily make it correct if there is more evidence that refutes it.
You were lambasting visuals being inconsistent and irrelevant here, and now you're saying that a visual-based calc supports your calc so that makes it okay.
And yours is based on a calc when multiple pictures can contradict that?
What makes the action of calcing the distance sacred? Especially when you have to assume speed & time. The exact figures aren't directly given to us in this case.
EDIT: I think we might be starting to go a little back-and-forth here and I'm running low on time. I will post tomorrow, or the beginning of next week, with my findings from other visuals of Dressrosa.
- 2,939
- 1,400
Now only next month
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #63
?????
They clearly just travelled a large distance and they're deep in the Green Bit forest after doing what, breathing?
They obviously talked during the walk into the forest, they obviously walked deep into the forest (noted by Usopp shivering after 1 minute of walking, which shouldn't be the case)
Caesar travelled a 17500 meter tall (above water) Elephant and had no issues.
But you wanna say that Caesar basically struggled with a 200 meter bridge in a few minutes and I should take it at face value?
There is not nearly enough evidence to show that there's more than 5 minutes was taken up.
You calculated Dressrosa's size with a picture and got 17 km.
Somebody else used the exact same pictures as you and got 50 km.
I don't expect 100% machine-like consistency, which is why I'm not complaining over Marineford.
I expect a reasonable margin of error, not bullshit like that.
Your visuals are inconsistent with EVERYTHING.
2 hundred meter broken bridge which doesn't make sense.
Bridge with 12 pillars. You blink and then it has 8 pillars. That's what I'm talking about inconsistent.
You mean the bullshit pictures that contradict given sizes of other objects?
My point is not that the visuals don't counter mine.
My point is that the visuals are all different and they each give ridiculously different results.
And if your evidence is, with all due respect, dogshit, then the evidence cannot be used.
If you want to ignore the fact that it's a visual calc, then I will use the visuals calculation to support my own.
If you don't, then I won't.
And stop bringing up the fact that my calc uses visuals.
There is 1 page that show the comparison of Dressrosa and Green Bit that we can calculate and there is 1 page that shows the comparison of the bridge to Green Bit. One each, not like the half dozen panels showing green bit compared to the bridge.
These are what I'm using for my calculation. The ONLY PICTURES that we are given, not random pictures that have other frames that can be used.
There are several pages that show different sizes for Green Bit which you and everyone else calced to have dozens of kilometers in difference for the end result. I'm not using those.
I used a stated timeframe with a reasonable assumption and a method of travel to find the bridge, then I used scans that weren't contradicted by any other scans to find the size.
You and others used panels that are contradicted by everything on the earth to get varying distances.
Your point of "well we have visuals that are lower" every single visual that you have that is astronomically lower is inconsistent with everything.
Your main point was a 200 meter bridge which is inconsistent. You didn't counter that.
Next you brought up other visuals of the bridge to Mitch and you brought up how the other proof was inconsistent with each other.
"Multiple pictures" that are contradicted by below
If you had visuals that showed that it was massively under and they weren't contradicted by anything, fine.
With your scans, your advocating for a couple thousand meters wide dressrosa, and your advocating for a few hundred meter bridge which is barely above the size of a marine ship which is contradicted by everything.
You were the same person preaching about how there are different levels of assumptions.
We have a timeframe and I subtracted a reasonable time from it.
We have a method of travel and I found the average speed from it.
If it's another finding of the bridge being the size of a few ships, then it'd be best not to see it.
You went on a 24 hour hiatus and found proof of a 200 meter bridge.
Please check to see if your visuals aren't the size of a marine ship before you try to use it as an anti-distance.
- 31,588
- 28,049
As I said I won't be able to post until tomorrow at least but before I go off for tonight, can I ask that you just chill out Tempest?
You don't like or respect my arguments? Fine, but you don't need to use such an aggravating tone by repeatedly calling things "bullshit" and "dogshit". It's a step away from insulting the person you're supposed to be debating with.
You're not arguing in good faith if you're arguing like this and it's unbecoming of a member of staff. I expect this kind of language from brand new users to the site and it's not encouraging for a healthy debate.
I don't think you'd appreciate it if I said "Your calc is dogshit and it shouldn't be used." That's not on.
Also I don't go on "24 hour hiatus" just to dig up evidence. I have a busy life and can't spare a lot of time just for this revision in particular.
You don't like or respect my arguments? Fine, but you don't need to use such an aggravating tone by repeatedly calling things "bullshit" and "dogshit". It's a step away from insulting the person you're supposed to be debating with.
You're not arguing in good faith if you're arguing like this and it's unbecoming of a member of staff. I expect this kind of language from brand new users to the site and it's not encouraging for a healthy debate.
I don't think you'd appreciate it if I said "Your calc is dogshit and it shouldn't be used." That's not on.
Also I don't go on "24 hour hiatus" just to dig up evidence. I have a busy life and can't spare a lot of time just for this revision in particular.
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #65
Sorry for the disrespect and the ignorance from my side, but I'm frustrated that every time I open up this website, I'm looking at a downgrades based on bad evidence which has flaws.
Who said I don't respect your argument? Even if an argument is horrible I say "I respect it, even though I disagree with it", you can ask everybody on this wiki that I've argued with that I say that.
I respect your argument, I don't respect your evidence.
Your evidence is a 200 meter bridge that's inconsistent with everything, which leads to misinterpretations of my argument, and you genuinely used that as an argument, I'm not gonna smile cause of that.
My position of staff does not make me prone to being frustrated, or should I quote where you spazzed on Arslan above?
Me saying an argument is bs is saying the argument is bs. I'm not trying to be rude, I just genuinely don't agree with your argument or your evidence.
Who said I don't respect your argument? Even if an argument is horrible I say "I respect it, even though I disagree with it", you can ask everybody on this wiki that I've argued with that I say that.
I respect your argument, I don't respect your evidence.
Your evidence is a 200 meter bridge that's inconsistent with everything, which leads to misinterpretations of my argument, and you genuinely used that as an argument, I'm not gonna smile cause of that.
My position of staff does not make me prone to being frustrated, or should I quote where you spazzed on Arslan above?
Me saying an argument is bs is saying the argument is bs. I'm not trying to be rude, I just genuinely don't agree with your argument or your evidence.
- 16,991
- 12,131
Attacking the argument itself is fine, Attacking the user on the other hand isn't becoming of a staff member, and from what I can see King wasn't being needlessly aggressive nor was he remotely directing insults to you Damage. He even said "with all due respect your evidence is bullshit." he could probably be a tad nicer but he didn't act out of line. No need to act like there's any disrespect between users here.
anyway, I also prefer using King's calculation of Dressrosa. Damage himself brings up some solid points, but it seems like King's are a bit more detailed, and with contradictory scaling of the bridge in comparison to Navy Fleets I'd say King's is the more reliable of the two calculations.
anyway, I also prefer using King's calculation of Dressrosa. Damage himself brings up some solid points, but it seems like King's are a bit more detailed, and with contradictory scaling of the bridge in comparison to Navy Fleets I'd say King's is the more reliable of the two calculations.
- 31,588
- 28,049
I get that frustration. Happens to me a lot but I try to control the language I use on the forum itself.
I didn't mean to imply it made you prone to that. I warned Arslan strongly but I didn't swear at him.
@LordGinSama; I'm not calling out KT on his "disrespect", just on how he is responding to his opponent on the thread and the language he's using.
As you said, there are nicer ways of saying what he was saying.
I accept KingTempest's post that there was no harm intended, but I think what I'm asking isn't too much to take into account either.
- 31,588
- 28,049
There's more arguments to be made too. I'm not making these purely to try and convince KingTempest.
- 16,991
- 12,131
I get where your coming from, and I agree being more civil is the way to go about this. I also agree with Purgy on asking more calc group members, this affects a large chunk of the verse so we should preferably get it dealt with sooner than later.
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #71
Regardless of the argument, I apologize. My language was inappropriate and I'll try to relax
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,100
- 6,037
This thread should be closed for 24hrs till everyone is cool and in the right head to argue
- 31,588
- 28,049
I'll leave that up to King if he wants to close it temporarily. I'll be asleep for the next 8 - 9 hours.
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #74
Probably for the best, I'll close it for now
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #75
Just reminding everyone of this thread, bump, I'll reopen it for now
- 31,588
- 28,049
Thank you. There is a little something I've been working on as a proposal to the wiki which relates to this that I will post later today because I don't want to hold this up any longer than it has to be (my own revisions are delayed by this too).
- 21,492
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #77
Bump
- 31,588
- 28,049
I was hoping to get more Calc Group Member input in my other thread but what is there so far may have to be enough. I'll prepare my next response for this thread for tomorrow while waiting 1 more day to see if anyone has any more input over there.
- 11,141
- 14,180
After looking at both calcs, I can say that using less panels for repeated pixel scaling is better, but then that is also balanced out by using an extra assumption about wind speed. As far as calcs go, I think both are valid.
A supporter of Tempest's calc can make an argument that the assumption is reasonable and since the calc uses less repeated scaling, it's preferable.
A supporter of Damage's calc can make an argument that his result isn't contradicting anything as the extra factor of assumed wind speed can just be inconsistent and the wind's speed and direction could be different on any given day.
It's better if you ping calc members to see what they think, along with @DontTalkDT.
A supporter of Tempest's calc can make an argument that the assumption is reasonable and since the calc uses less repeated scaling, it's preferable.
A supporter of Damage's calc can make an argument that his result isn't contradicting anything as the extra factor of assumed wind speed can just be inconsistent and the wind's speed and direction could be different on any given day.
It's better if you ping calc members to see what they think, along with @DontTalkDT.
- 31,588
- 28,049
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
