Kodak 5300, or 5500 Canada

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rene Lamontagne
  • Start date Start date
Can you explain why you are posting in ALL CAPS? Is it the
computer/terminal you are using?

I have been on this newsgroup for years and the only person I know of
that posted in this manner was Measekite.

Art
 
Arthur said:
Can you explain why you are posting in ALL CAPS? Is it the
computer/terminal you are using?

I have been on this newsgroup for years and the only person I know of
that posted in this manner was Measekite.
Click to expand...

Yep...he's back!!!
Frank
 
Art,
I am not measkite. If you look at all my posting, I have never
belittle anybody. That is not my personality. The reason I write in
all Caps, is because I work for the government. Government documents
in my office are all caps. So I don't even acknowledge the
difference. However, sometime I use all caps to respond to a
posting. That way the 'reader' can distinguish the difference.

If you want, you can email me a personal email and I will give you my
phone number. However, if you don't have free long distance, then I
can call you.

Measerkite it having the time of his life because it appears he want
to be associated with me... which is really upsetting me.

I keep the facts and my opinions separate. Also, I never let emotions
affect my posting. That's because in my field, I'm trained that way.

Stan
 
[email protected] wrote:

Art, I am not measkite. If you look at all my posting, I have never belittle anybody. That is not my personality. The reason I write in all Caps, is because I work for the government. Government documents in my office are all caps. So I don't even acknowledge the difference. However, sometime I use all caps to respond to a posting. That way the 'reader' can distinguish the difference.


I think that makes sense.  I like all CAPS.


If you want, you can email me a personal email and I will give you my phone number. However, if you don't have free long distance, then I can call you. Measerkite it having the time of his life because it appears he want to be associated with me... which is really upsetting me.


Do not frolic and tip toe in the tulips just yet.


I keep the facts and my opinions separate. Also, I never let emotions affect my posting. That's because in my field, I'm trained that way. Stan



Can you explain why you are posting in ALL CAPS? Is it the computer/terminal you are using? I have been on this newsgroup for years and the only person I know of that posted in this manner was Measekite. Art
 
(e-mail address removed) wrote:


------------stupid crap deleted-------------

Get real meashershithead! You're not fooling anyone.
Be very careful about saying you're working for the government. Home
land security just might be interested in your activities.
They're only an email away.
Frank
 
measekite wrote:


-------delusional html diatribe deleted---------------

Stop posting in html!
Frank
 
Hi Stan,

You did seem to fall into a bit of an unintentional trap, it would appear.

Measekite often changes his email address, and as you may know, he has
an illogically strong connection with promoting OEM inks. He also had
the (ultimately annoying) habit of posting in all caps when he was at
work... perhaps he works for the government as well, I don't know.

On the internet people consider caps the same as yelling or strong
emphasis, but for me it is just more difficult to read than a mix of
upper and lower cases.

So, your postings have appeared to have a "Measekite-like" quality, and
that might just be "accidental misfortune".

In spite of this (I almost never respond to Measekite's postings, under
any name, and in fact, I have his known addresses filtered out of my
email) I have tried to answer you queries and concerns honestly, from my
personal experience and empirical testing.

I may take you up on the call confirmation at some point, should the
interchange sound suspect, but for now I will take you at your word, and
assume you are someone else.

I will assume your cause is legit, but I still have the same concerns
about the success of filtering the responses accurately, based upon the
issues I brought to your attention.

Art
 
Just in case you are debating if you should buy this Kodak printer, I
will give you 1 link that is against the Kodak printer. Note that
these claims are from Kodak's competitor.... Epson. Then I will give
you 8 links that talks overall positive of the printer. Then you
decide....


1 NEGATIVE ARTICLE ABOUT KODAK PRINTER
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5706



8 POSITIVE ARTICLES ABOUT KODAK PRINTER
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/resources/streaming/KodakEasyShare...

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/1441/10580/11170&pq-locale=en_US

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2090449,00.asp

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/06/kodak-enters-the-desktop-printer-m...

http://reviews.cnet.com/multifunction-devices/kodak-easyshare-5300-al...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2121643,00.asp

http://www.trustedreviews.com/printers/review/2007/06/08/Kodak-EasySh...

http://www.printerspot.com/reviews/kodak/es5300-review/index.php





Also, I wrote Kodak a letter regarding Epson negative claims and here
is there response......................

Greetings ,

Thank you for your recent visit to the Kodak Web site and question
about
the Kodak EasyShare 5300 All-in-One Printer.

If you read the article to the end, it says "This is one study that
users can safely ignore."
Robert L. Mitchell's blog

For more reliable information, please visit the following URL for the
QualityLogic Ink Yield Test Report. QualityLogic is a provider of
leading edge QA and QC test tools and services for the imaging and
telecomunications industry.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/1441/10580/11170&pq-locale=en_US

We are glad to be of service and are here for you if you need us in
the
future. If you do, please include any previous e-mail.

Regards,

Deb S.
Kodak Information and Technical Support
 
Art,

That's okay. I learned a very valuable lesson. NEVER ENDORSE
MEASERKITE.

Regarding the upper caps and lower caps. As stated originally, my
work required me to write in uppercase all the time. That's how legal
documents are typed. So I don't acknowledge when I write in uppercase
anymore. However, I got a few complaints, and now I'm learning.

I'm still convinced that Measerkite works for Canon. That's the only
thing that makes since. Either that, or Measerkite owns a lot of
stock in Canon. I don't see why anybody would be so adamant in
promoting OEM ink. I can understand why somebody would spend a
lifetime promoting stuff like...'mother's against drunk drivers', anti-
abortion, and anti-war. However, somebody who spend a lifetime
promoting 'anti-after market ink' is unusual. There has to be some
type of financial interest.

Yes, you can still email me, and we can talk on the phone...
Anytime. Also, yes, I go by my real name. My first post I did,
somebody made this big deal that my opinion is not reputable because I
didn't go by my real name. So since then, I've always went with my
real name.

Stan
P.S. Measerkite, I'm sure your boss at Canon is very proud of you.
You are doing a great job at shooting down anybody who talks positive
about after-market ink.
 
Just in case you are debating if you should buy this Kodak printer, I
will give you 1 link that is against the Kodak printer. Note that
these claims are from Kodak's competitor.... Epson. Then I will give
you 8 links that talks overall positive of the printer. Then you
decide....


1 NEGATIVE ARTICLE ABOUT KODAK PRINTER
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5706
Click to expand...
YOU FORGOT THIS LINK:

www.pcworld.com

While is does not favor the Kodak it does not say it is bad either. But
it infers that Epson and Canon are better and rated higher and if you
use the best paper the ink costs are not so low. So if you want the
best quality that Kodak can deliver then the savings is not as great as
claimed.
 
[email protected] wrote:

Art, That's okay. I learned a very valuable lesson. NEVER ENDORSE MEASERKITE. Regarding the upper caps and lower caps. As stated originally, my work required me to write in uppercase all the time. That's how legal documents are typed. So I don't acknowledge when I write in uppercase anymore. However, I got a few complaints, and now I'm learning. I'm still convinced that Measerkite works for Canon. That's the only thing that makes since. Either that, or Measerkite owns a lot of stock in Canon. I don't see why anybody would be so adamant in promoting OEM ink. I can understand why somebody would spend a lifetime promoting stuff like...'mother's against drunk drivers', anti- abortion,


Why would anyone want to restrict a womans right to choose what is best for herself.


and anti-war. However, somebody who spend a lifetime promoting 'anti-after market ink' is unusual. There has to be some type of financial interest. Yes, you can still email me, and we can talk on the phone... Anytime. Also, yes, I go by my real name. My first post I did, somebody made this big deal that my opinion is not reputable because I didn't go by my real name. So since then, I've always went with my real name. Stan P.S. Measerkite, I'm sure your boss at Canon is very proud of you. You are doing a great job at shooting down anybody who talks positive about after-market ink.


Maybe I am the boss.


On Jun 21, 6:33 pm, Arthur Entlich <[email protected]> wrote:



Hi Stan, You did seem to fall into a bit of an unintentional trap, it would appear. Measekite often changes his email address, and as you may know, he has an illogically strong connection with promoting OEM inks. He also had the (ultimately annoying) habit of posting in all caps when he was at work... perhaps he works for the government as well, I don't know. On the internet people consider caps the same as yelling or strong emphasis, but for me it is just more difficult to read than a mix of upper and lower cases. So, your postings have appeared to have a "Measekite-like" quality, and that might just be "accidental misfortune". In spite of this (I almost never respond to Measekite's postings, under any name, and in fact, I have his known addresses filtered out of my email) I have tried to answer you queries and concerns honestly, from my personal experience and empirical testing. I may take you up on the call confirmation at some point, should the interchange sound suspect, but for now I will take you at your word, and assume you are someone else. I will assume your cause is legit, but I still have the same concerns about the success of filtering the responses accurately, based upon the issues I brought to your attention. Art [email protected] wrote:



Art, I am not measkite. If you look at all my posting, I have never belittle anybody. That is not my personality. The reason I write in all Caps, is because I work for the government. Government documents in my office are all caps. So I don't even acknowledge the difference. However, sometime I use all caps to respond to a posting. That way the 'reader' can distinguish the difference.



If you want, you can email me a personal email and I will give you my phone number. However, if you don't have free long distance, then I can call you.



Measerkite it having the time of his life because it appears he want to be associated with me... which is really upsetting me.



I keep the facts and my opinions separate. Also, I never let emotions affect my posting. That's because in my field, I'm trained that way.



Stan



Can you explain why you are posting in ALL CAPS? Is it the computer/terminal you are using?



I have been on this newsgroup for years and the only person I know of that posted in this manner was Measekite.



Art
 
Art,

That's okay. I learned a very valuable lesson. NEVER ENDORSE
MEASERKITE.

Regarding the upper caps and lower caps. As stated originally, my
work required me to write in uppercase all the time. That's how legal
documents are typed. So I don't acknowledge when I write in uppercase
anymore. However, I got a few complaints, and now I'm learning.

I'm still convinced that Measerkite works for Canon. That's the only
thing that makes since. Either that, or Measerkite owns a lot of
stock in Canon. I don't see why anybody would be so adamant in
promoting OEM ink. I can understand why somebody would spend a
lifetime promoting stuff like...'mother's against drunk drivers', anti-
abortion, and anti-war. However, somebody who spend a lifetime
promoting 'anti-after market ink' is unusual. There has to be some
type of financial interest.

Yes, you can still email me, and we can talk on the phone...
Anytime. Also, yes, I go by my real name. My first post I did,
somebody made this big deal that my opinion is not reputable because I
didn't go by my real name. So since then, I've always went with my
real name.

Stan
P.S. Measerkite, I'm sure your boss at Canon is very proud of you.
You are doing a great job at shooting down anybody who talks positive
about after-market ink.
Click to expand...
(snip)
Stan - I think that MK is driven by at least two motives.

One is that he wants to be known as an authority on something - probably
anything! He used to claim that he was a Stanford MBA graduate and that he
was a programmer. Most of the "advice" he gives, other than about OEM inks,
is taken directly from product evaluations in magazines or other sources,
and he virtually never gives them attribution. To the uninitiated newbie he
appears to have come by this knowledge by personal experience with a
product.

The second motive, I firmly believe, is akin to a compulsive gambler who
continues to lose but has to keep coming back for the "action." He "fishes"
for someone who tries to counter his comments logically and keeps the
dialogue, often taunting or putting down, going as long as the responder
will continue. It is amazing to me that, in the face of so many
participants who identify him for what he is, he stays on the newsgroup with
the same old garbage. This is similar to the youngster who acts up in class
and is continually repremanded. He perceives any and all attention, even
the most negative, as desired attention - like the needy child who takes
positive "strokes" amd negatives "strokes" all as desired and needed
attention.

I'm sure that he truly believes that OEM inks are superior to the
aftermarket products, but his lack of experience with any but OEM inks
doesn't qualify him to be as vitriolic in negating the use of any but his
beloved OEM.

OR, in plain language, he just gets off on being our obnoxious troll!
 
([email protected]) said:
Art,

That's okay. I learned a very valuable lesson. NEVER ENDORSE
MEASERKITE.

Regarding the upper caps and lower caps. As stated originally, my
work required me to write in uppercase all the time. That's how legal
documents are typed. So I don't acknowledge when I write in uppercase
anymore. However, I got a few complaints, and now I'm learning.

I'm still convinced that Measerkite works for Canon. That's the only
thing that makes since. Either that, or Measerkite owns a lot of
stock in Canon. I don't see why anybody would be so adamant in
promoting OEM ink. I can understand why somebody would spend a
lifetime promoting stuff like...'mother's against drunk drivers', anti-
abortion, and anti-war. However, somebody who spend a lifetime
promoting 'anti-after market ink' is unusual. There has to be some
type of financial interest.

Yes, you can still email me, and we can talk on the phone...
Anytime. Also, yes, I go by my real name. My first post I did,
somebody made this big deal that my opinion is not reputable because I
didn't go by my real name. So since then, I've always went with my
real name.

Stan
P.S. Measerkite, I'm sure your boss at Canon is very proud of you.
You are doing a great job at shooting down anybody who talks positive
about after-market ink.
Click to expand...


This brings to mind German composer Richard Strass' Golden Rules for
Conductors

http://www.grahamnasby.com/misc/musichumour_strauss-10-golden-rules.shtml

some of which were pithily summed up by British conductor Sir Thomas
Beecham, who warned his students never to glance at the trombones. "It
will only encourage them", he said.

Measerkite is a trombone.

Brendan
 
Why I endorsed the Kodak 5100, 5300, & 5500 printer that everybody
hates!!!

FACT: Kodak will be selling their OEM ink fo $10.00 for black and
white, $15.00 for tri-color. They will also have a combo (color/
black&white) for $21.99 (bestbuy.com). These ridiculously low prices
is for Kodak OEM ink. Of coarse you will need to buy a new printer
such as the Kodak 5000 series, starting at $149.00.

WHY PRINTER COMPANIES HATE KODAK (FACT): The major printer companies
(Canon, Epson, HP) hate this printer because it's going to cause a
price war on the ink. Printer companies in general don't make much
money on printers, and sometime lose money when they sell printers.
However, they make a lot of money on the ink. An article in CNET NEWS
stated, "Printing is HP's most profitable business and it relies
heavily on customer purchases of its ink cartridges, which offer much
better profit margin than the actual printing hardware." (http://
news.com.com/8300-10784_3-7-0.html?keyword=ink+cartridges) Epson even
did a very negative article about the Kodak printer and accused them
of having poor tank efficiency. The ironic thing is Epson is
notorious known for poor ink tank efficiency. (http://
www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5706).


WHY AFTER-MARKET INK COMPANIES HATE KODAK (FACT): If Kodak sells this
ink for so cheap $21.99 for the tri-color and black&white, the after
market ink companies are going to have a hard time competing. The
price that Kodak is selling their 2 pack for $21.99 is cheaper then
most after-market ink. The last time I paid for an 'after-market
combo HP 56 and 57' was about $25.00.

WHY PEOPLE ON THE BULLETIN BOARDS HATE THIS PRINTER (THEORY): I have
come to believe that this bulletin board is run by people that have a
financial interest in either the 'printer companies that charge a lot
for OEM ink' or the 'after-market ink companies'. Therefore, you
will find a lot of post that hate me in general, because I'm endorsing
an item that will cause both companies to lose money: the major
printer companies and the after market ink companies. This thread
will not be moderated, and you will see people bashing me on the
following post. However, watch how they bash me. Can they back up
their Opinions with Facts?

OPINION: I totally endorse this printer since you will be saving a
lot of money on ink. However, this is still not the cheapest way to
go. If you actually refill your ink cartridges yourself (I'm not
talking about buying after market ink cartridges) then you will still
be saving more money then this Kodak printer. However, if you are
sick and tired of refilling, then you got to take a look at this
printer.

Here's are some link to do some research on yourself.....

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/resources/streaming/KodakEasyShare...

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/1441/10580/11170&pq-locale=en_US

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2090449,00.asp

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/06/kodak-enters-the-desktop-printer-m...

http://reviews.cnet.com/multifunction-devices/kodak-easyshare-5300-al...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2121643,00.asp

http://www.trustedreviews.com/printers/review/2007/06/08/Kodak-EasySh...

http://www.printerspot.com/reviews/kodak/es5300-review/index.php


(No, I don't work for Kodak. I don't even own this printer yet.
However, I do hope that Kodak might consider giving me this printer
for free since I wrote such a positive article about them. Kodak, if
you are interested in donating a 5000 series printer to me, please
send me a email to my mailing address.)
 
Frank,

sorry that this article is going to cause lost business to hobbicolors
ink.

Stan
 
Three comments.

1) I would prefer to hear from someone who owns the Kodak printer(s) as
to how they feel about it, rather than someone digesting only the news
releases.

2) You need to speak with your ISP about the "fact" that some of your
postings are being repeated 3 times.

3) Below, complete with header and date, is my comment about the Kodak
Allinone printers you are so ga-ga on. It was the first posting
regarding the printers on this newsgroup, to my recollection:
 
Greetings Stan,

I am not sure if the article is real but I doubt that the information is
correct. Kodak uses technology that is quite advanced and innovative in how
ink is created and used. I know we provides excellent results and Kodak
printers do indeed use less ink.

I will not be getting into any discussions with Measekite on this but will
say that Kodak is doing well and our customers are quite happy. It seems to
me that it would be counter productive to leave ink in a cartridge so you
could sell more ink at the same cost? The creation of the high quality ink
used by Kodak is costly to manufacture, and it simply does not make sense to
leave ink in a cartridge and then hope to sell more of the same ink? I doubt
any manufacturer would do this. It would cost Kodak or anyone else too much
money in the end. Seems foolish to leave more than a third of the ink in a
cartridge.

I will be glad to help if you have any questions but will not argue with
Measekit for obvious reasons.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



KODAK,

IF YOU ARE READING THIS CAN YOU CONFIRM IF THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS
TRUE. I STILL WANT TO BUY YOUR PRINTER, BUT NOT IF THE INK EFFICIENCY
IS THAT POOR.

STAN

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5706
Click to expand...
Ink jet cartridges not good to the last drop -- so what?
By Robert L. Mitchell on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 11:26am
Click to expand...
In the latest salvo in the ink-jet consumables war, Epson has
commissioned a study with TÜV Rheinland that purports to show that
competitors' cartridges leave more ink in the tank when they're
supposedly empty. Like most vendor-funded studies, however, the
purpose here appears to be to create a marketing smokescreen in the
ongoing ink wars.
Click to expand...
Epson singled out Kodak's 5300, which I just completed testing, as an
example. Kodak claims its lower ink cartridge costs give users a lower
cost per page than do competitors' ink-jet printers. Epson claims that
its printers are more efficient in consuming the ink in its cartridges
- and claims that Kodak's 5300 was the least efficient in its tests,
using just 36% of the ink before telling the user the cartridge was
empty.
Click to expand...
This led Ken Fisher at ARS Technica to post a blog entitled Study:
Inkjet printers are dirty lying thieves.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this ties into an interesting phenomenon I witnessed while
testing the 5300. During one test I ran I printed black and white
pages until the out of ink message appeared on the display. I opened
up the cover to replace the cartridges and then closed it again when
my phone rang. To my surprise, the out of ink message went away and I
was able to print a few more pages before it reappeared. (My review of
the 5300 versus HP'sC5180 should be up on Computerworld's Web site
this week).
Click to expand...
Charlie Sorrel at Gadget Lab also picked up on the Epson announcement
and suggested a way around the efficiency issue. He writes that "...If
you can live with the mess, the cheapest (and some say best quality)
way to go is with bottles of ink and a specially adapted printer head.
The archival inks from Lyson, for instance, can be around 1/10th the
price of a cartridge..."
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, however, this focus on ink tank efficiency
takes the user's eye off the ball. The study, commissioned by Epson,
is marketing spin in that it diverts attention away from cost per page
to the more esoteric efficiency of individual cartridges. But who
gives a damn how much ink is left in the cartridge if at the end of
the day you can print more pages for less money?
Click to expand...
PC Pro gets it right in its story, Kodak inkjets doomed to failure,
says Epson, noting that "..Epson was reluctant to discuss specific
page yields and costs at its launch event.." but instead focused on
the "'ecological outcome" of wasting what PC Pro rightly refers to as
"a few millilitres of unused ink."
Click to expand...
 
Ron Baird wrote:

Greetings Stan, I am not sure if the article is real but I doubt that the information is correct. Kodak uses technology that is quite advanced and innovative in how ink is created and used. I know we provides excellent results and Kodak printers do indeed use less ink.


This is not a forsale or a public relations forum for your company. 


I will not be getting into any discussions with Measekite on this but will say that Kodak is doing well and our customers are quite happy. It seems to me that it would be counter productive to leave ink in a cartridge so you could sell more ink at the same cost? The creation of the high quality ink used by Kodak is costly to manufacture, and it simply does not make sense to leave ink in a cartridge and then hope to sell more of the same ink? I doubt any manufacturer would do this. It would cost Kodak or anyone else too much money in the end. Seems foolish to leave more than a third of the ink in a cartridge.


If it is true that the ink is costly to mfg then can you imagine what kind of crap ink the relabelers are selling so cheap?


I will be glad to help if you have any questions but will not argue with Measekit for obvious reasons. Talk to you soon, Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... KODAK, IF YOU ARE READING THIS CAN YOU CONFIRM IF THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS TRUE. I STILL WANT TO BUY YOUR PRINTER, BUT NOT IF THE INK EFFICIENCY IS THAT POOR. STAN



http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5706







Ink jet cartridges not good to the last drop -- so what? By Robert L. Mitchell on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 11:26am







In the latest salvo in the ink-jet consumables war, Epson has commissioned a study with TÜV Rheinland that purports to show that competitors' cartridges leave more ink in the tank when they're supposedly empty. Like most vendor-funded studies, however, the purpose here appears to be to create a marketing smokescreen in the ongoing ink wars.







Epson singled out Kodak's 5300, which I just completed testing, as an example. Kodak claims its lower ink cartridge costs give users a lower cost per page than do competitors' ink-jet printers. Epson claims that its printers are more efficient in consuming the ink in its cartridges - and claims that Kodak's 5300 was the least efficient in its tests, using just 36% of the ink before telling the user the cartridge was empty.







This led Ken Fisher at ARS Technica to post a blog entitled Study: Inkjet printers are dirty lying thieves.







Perhaps this ties into an interesting phenomenon I witnessed while testing the 5300. During one test I ran I printed black and white pages until the out of ink message appeared on the display. I opened up the cover to replace the cartridges and then closed it again when my phone rang. To my surprise, the out of ink message went away and I was able to print a few more pages before it reappeared. (My review of the 5300 versus HP'sC5180 should be up on Computerworld's Web site this week).







Charlie Sorrel at Gadget Lab also picked up on the Epson announcement and suggested a way around the efficiency issue. He writes that "...If you can live with the mess, the cheapest (and some say best quality) way to go is with bottles of ink and a specially adapted printer head. The archival inks from Lyson, for instance, can be around 1/10th the price of a cartridge..."







At the end of the day, however, this focus on ink tank efficiency takes the user's eye off the ball. The study, commissioned by Epson, is marketing spin in that it diverts attention away from cost per page to the more esoteric efficiency of individual cartridges. But who gives a damn how much ink is left in the cartridge if at the end of the day you can print more pages for less money?







PC Pro gets it right in its story, Kodak inkjets doomed to failure, says Epson, noting that "..Epson was reluctant to discuss specific page yields and costs at its launch event.." but instead focused on the "'ecological outcome" of wasting what PC Pro rightly refers to as "a few millilitres of unused ink."







Certainly companies such as Kodak have no incentive to leave ink in the tank that could be consumed, since it would make product look less cost effective than it would otherwise be. Ink cartridge efficiency is really in internal manufacturing issue.







This is one study that users can safely ignore. Robert L. Mitchell's blog
 
Back
Top