Steorn - Summary 2
The revolution started in Ireland.
In August 2006, Steorn, a small Dublin company, placed a one-page advert in The Economist. In effect, it said:
We have done the impossible. Prove us wrong.
That impossible thing was the production of free energy using a device that sounded very like a perpetual motion machine. If true, it would change the world and shake physics to its core. Frustrated at being ignored by the scientific establishment, Steorn admits that it was a publicity stunt designed to get scientists mad and make them want to prove them wrong. It worked. Thousands applied to test the technology and by December that year, they had 22 who were qualified and motivated to rip the claim apart. They are ‘the jury’. Driven entirely by its members, they would determine the how, where, with-whom, with-what, and how-long of the process. No matter the results, they are bound by contract to report to the public on a date yet to be determined – the so-called, Validation Day. Sean McCarthy, Steorn’s CEO, says that he has no doubt whatsoever what they will find.
Although there are parallels with both recent and historical claims that turned out to be bogus or mistaken, Steorn’s behaviour does not follow the pattern of scam artists gone by. Indeed, it is difficult to come up with a reasonable framework that would account for their actions if one were to start from the common sense position that they are lying or mistaken. Most observers now doubt any theory that has Steorn profiting from an illegal misrepresentation of their claims.
For a start, the company is privately funded and needs no more money to complete the process to its conclusion. It does not seek and will not accept offers of investment until after validation. It will sell nothing and will not enter into commercial agreements regarding future licensing deals. It has vowed that, once commercial operations begin, licensing will be inclusive – the company will not be bought out by a large corporation but will sell its technology to small and large concerns on an equal-access basis. Targeting a narrow market, McCarthy states that they have no wish to profit from those who cannot afford to pay for licences. To that end, the business model is designed to help the world benefit from their technology without raping it as they do so. Running alongside the profitable arm of selling licences to, for instance, the mobile technology sector, will be an ethos, mechanism and structure designed to spread the reality of free energy around the world with as few barriers to entry as possible. Individuals and groups working on humanitarian projects will pay Steorn nothing and a training database will be on-line ready to teach anyone with an interest exactly how to make it happen. A private developers’ club (SPDC), recruited from over 200 members of the global community, is working with Steorn to ensure that this database is ready and that when the doors open a small army of trained ‘seeds’ will help propagate the benefits to as many people in as short a time as possible. As I write this, a pilot project is under way somewhere in Africa to pump water to needy people. This is a symbol, in my opinion, of Steorn’s philosophy and a tiny example of the change that is set to cascade throughout the planet - all this as Steorn’s investors profit by selling their technology to a developed world desperate to free themselves from the tyranny of burning oil.
I hope they become fabulously wealthy.
To be continued…
In August 2006, Steorn, a small Dublin company, placed a one-page advert in The Economist. In effect, it said:
We have done the impossible. Prove us wrong.
That impossible thing was the production of free energy using a device that sounded very like a perpetual motion machine. If true, it would change the world and shake physics to its core. Frustrated at being ignored by the scientific establishment, Steorn admits that it was a publicity stunt designed to get scientists mad and make them want to prove them wrong. It worked. Thousands applied to test the technology and by December that year, they had 22 who were qualified and motivated to rip the claim apart. They are ‘the jury’. Driven entirely by its members, they would determine the how, where, with-whom, with-what, and how-long of the process. No matter the results, they are bound by contract to report to the public on a date yet to be determined – the so-called, Validation Day. Sean McCarthy, Steorn’s CEO, says that he has no doubt whatsoever what they will find.
Although there are parallels with both recent and historical claims that turned out to be bogus or mistaken, Steorn’s behaviour does not follow the pattern of scam artists gone by. Indeed, it is difficult to come up with a reasonable framework that would account for their actions if one were to start from the common sense position that they are lying or mistaken. Most observers now doubt any theory that has Steorn profiting from an illegal misrepresentation of their claims.
For a start, the company is privately funded and needs no more money to complete the process to its conclusion. It does not seek and will not accept offers of investment until after validation. It will sell nothing and will not enter into commercial agreements regarding future licensing deals. It has vowed that, once commercial operations begin, licensing will be inclusive – the company will not be bought out by a large corporation but will sell its technology to small and large concerns on an equal-access basis. Targeting a narrow market, McCarthy states that they have no wish to profit from those who cannot afford to pay for licences. To that end, the business model is designed to help the world benefit from their technology without raping it as they do so. Running alongside the profitable arm of selling licences to, for instance, the mobile technology sector, will be an ethos, mechanism and structure designed to spread the reality of free energy around the world with as few barriers to entry as possible. Individuals and groups working on humanitarian projects will pay Steorn nothing and a training database will be on-line ready to teach anyone with an interest exactly how to make it happen. A private developers’ club (SPDC), recruited from over 200 members of the global community, is working with Steorn to ensure that this database is ready and that when the doors open a small army of trained ‘seeds’ will help propagate the benefits to as many people in as short a time as possible. As I write this, a pilot project is under way somewhere in Africa to pump water to needy people. This is a symbol, in my opinion, of Steorn’s philosophy and a tiny example of the change that is set to cascade throughout the planet - all this as Steorn’s investors profit by selling their technology to a developed world desperate to free themselves from the tyranny of burning oil.
I hope they become fabulously wealthy.
To be continued…
Labels: steorn summary mccarthy humanitarian jury spdc science
posted by Paul Story at
18:40
20 Comments:
If it works and they don't need investment why validate it. Why not just start selling products. Drop it into a car, or a power plant or whatever and just start doing business.
Paul a couple of minor nits here:
* It is up to a claimant to prove their claim against established scientific beliefs. It is not up to the scientific community to reprove established beliefs by spending time disproving the claims of every claimant who pops up.
Steorn insist that they have privately proven their CoE violating device to academics, but the witnesses refuse to go on record. Steorn doesn't offer any verifiable evidence that they either attempted the claimed proof, or that they succeeded.
Steorn might have helped their own credibility here by doing such things as detailing the method behind the proof they say they offered. But Steorn have chosen not to. Assuming that Steorn did try to prove to some academics as they say they did: Maybe what Steorn think is proof is. Maybe it isn't. Steorn leaves it all opaque. Steorn complains that "science" won't take them seriously. But we really have only Steorn's word that they have done anything reasonable to convince "science" of Steorn's truly extraordinary claims.
* Demanding that others "prove them wrong" isn't a new twist. Free energy bunko artists like Dennis Lee and Joseph Newman. Things have gotten interesting when various persons have tried to take those gentlemen up on their challenges.
Where Steorn spent money on an expensive ad in "The Economist", Dennis Lee has filled stadiums and produced infomercials.
* The most unique thing I find about Steorn seems to be that internet forum and private developers' club they set-up. But according to one now banned poster, maryyugo, Carl Tilley supposedly had a forum that like Steorn began open, and then was progressively censored.
As an aside, I think as a writer you might appreciate Dennis Lee for his bravado and shameless promotion of sheer fantasy. These days Dennis has sort of a religious revival theme going. He's busy thumping Bibles and telling people he can double their mileage by sticking a rod up a muffler.
Hi Anon,
If they simply started selling products, they would ramp up very slowly. At first no one would believe them, but after a while and a few sales the trickle would (maybe) grow to a healthy stream and then a flood. However, Steorn is not a manufacturer. That takes special expertise. It's not what they are good at. To make a really big splash, they need to get dozens or hundreds or even thousands of manufacturers, big and small, around the world doing what they do best - spending their own money and making it by the bucket load for Steorn's investors.
As soon as they reveal the 'blueprint' the clock starts ticking until someone finds a better way of doing what Steorn has done. They have to make best use of that short window. IMHO their strategy is genius.
lol
Hi fpg,
Well the argument about whether Steorn should conform to the scientific method when they are not scientists is not one I can be bothered with now. People can judge for themselves if McCarthy & Co know more about business than their detractors. I personally don't care as much about that particular bun-fight as I do about the potential good that such an invention can do for the world and all of us in it.
Steorn is risking their own (investors') money and not yours or mine. I bet they know what they're doing better than you or me.
I'd trust them before I'd trust many of their determined attackers.
Ultimately, all that matters is validation. We shall see.
Paul, your parting shot to anon is that you think Steorn's business plan is genius. Are you formally trained or experienced in business? Is that maybe something you did before becoming a writer?
I kind of think anon has a point. If Steorn put working product on shelves I think it would be a matter of days before they couldn't keep up with demand. Steorn doesn't have to build anything. There are these companies who do all the manufacturing for you.
If Steorn's only got a short market window it would make a lot more sense for Steorn to flood the product with their own product and make hay while sun shines so to speak than to try and license. It takes a lot of time to negotiate licenses. Big manufacturers are cut-throat. If they think there is a way around a license they won't buy one. From my experience, any big manufacturer that sees the window is small won't bother obtaining a license.
Paul as a writer and not an engineer perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that the scientific method is standard practice for engineering research and development.
Steorn insist that they have for four years tried and failed to get people to believe them. In the meantime they haven't generated a single dollar of license or product revenue from the Orbo. That's not what most business people would call success.
Assuming as you do that Steorn have what they claim that's four years of missed market opportunity. That's four years of missed returns for their investors by the people you say have a business plan that is genius.
If as anon suggested they built ( or had someone build for them ) and sold product that would be very different. If they had defensible intellectual property then once the market responded, other manufacturers would have been hungry to license.
You might wish to consider whether your derision is misdirected.
Hi fpg,
You could be right. Perhaps it would only be days before they could not keep up with demand. And there's the rub. They have a few million Euro. Let's say they pick a generic product to give it more chance of selling widely. Let's be generous and say they had 10m of the 14m left. If they spread that too thinly, they would lose it all. Imagine they went for a cell phone battery or laptop unit. Too many different types. How about a universal power strip with domestic sockets for the house? How long do you think it would take them to design, prototype, redesign to manufacturing standard, get it through safety checks in multiple countries, packaging, marketing, distribution and sales channels. Let's say it would sell for a high price initially. Say $1,000US. Retail costs will take around 50% unless they sell directly from their site. Let's say they do this and costs are kept to 20%. Let's say they defy all past experience and every other business cost excluding manufacturing is kept to 20%. If they pay a manufacturer to make them on their behalf then they still have to pay their own Steorn staff and all other costs. At small volumes they would not make that much margin on the $600, but at mass market they would make a fortune. Let's say they can make a million units for $100 each. That rakes them a cool $500m profit.
But, damn. They haven't got $100m to pay the costs, so they can only make 100,000 units. That means the cost per unit goes up - say to $200 and they only make $400 on a 10,000 initial run. Now they can't keep up with demand but at least they have some money and can borrow more.
Pretty good you might say. But much of the above is wishful thinking. Risking everything on a single product or small range of products is dangerous. So much can go wrong and the profit potential is not likely to be as much as that stated in my example.
All of the above would take years and you have one product. As you roll it out - all that time - you are working in a linear fashion, spending all your money as you do so. It really isn't smart unless you are already a manufacturer with a known market and lots of money behind you (perhaps billions).
Compare this with keeping things nice and simple. They work quietly and diligently under the radar until they think they are close to being ready. They prepare a campaign so that on launch day there will be no doubters left. They then licence the technology to a thousand manufacturers who will all work in parallel on Steorn's behalf, using their money instead of Steorn's.
I know who I would rather take business advice from.
As far as I can tell, some people are just determined to pick holes for the sake of it.
I may be a writer, but I spent a number of years as an engineer, researching and building quadrupole mass spectrometers and a similar time in the sputtering industry. I have a physics degree and fully understand the scientific method.
Once again, you are entitled to your opinion and you are giving it politely and intelligently for which I appreciate, but again we will simply have to agree to disagree. We will know soon enough if your analysis of what Steorn should have done is better than their own.
Paul as to the issue of funding and feeding an aggressive manufacturing, distribution, and sales ramp, there are professionals who know how to deal with this. One tends to find them either through the venture capital markets or large established companies.
Over here we have technology incubators where small inexperienced companies get a chance to learn, grow, and connect with the resources they need. Some of the biggest companies are sponsors of these incubators. Often those larger companies either buy from, license from, or outright buy out the start-ups that show results. An interesting contrast to Steorn is that most of these start-ups work at remaining in stealth mode as long as possible to keep a competitive R&D edge. Steorn could have gone such a route and had the likes of Cisco, 3M, or GE behind them. These are companies that can take volume from zero to a million units a month in just weeks.
So the bottom line is that the limitations you ascribe to Steorn's choices are really either the result of Steorn's own decisions or never really existed. If Steorn really has the "Fire 2.0" technology they claim they have had for four years and still haven't gotten it to market it is difficult for me to see that as anything short of one of the biggest business blunders in history.
At the end of the day whether it is science and engineering, or business, results are what count. Four years out and what we don't have is: A world rocked by "Fire 2.0", or any returns for investors in Orbo. Can that failure to deliver really be fairly regarded as business genius?
Once again true, regarding incubators etc, but the point is redundant. They have chosen their route and it appears 'genius' to me.
With respect to the four year span This is somewhat disingenuous. They tripped over an anomalous effect four years ago. They did not have Fire 2.0 then, as you suggest.
Anyone who has worked in engineering and/or science truly understands the time scales involved in R&D. Sean has said often in the public forum that they expect to have the big guns turn on them when they open their doors. They will have spent years designing prototypes, testing their hypotheses, rebuilding and redesigning based on new findings. This is a tiny company with limited staff, not GEC with billions to spend. They will have taken each step with great caution before moving on. They are likely to have patented the best methods and designs they could find until things ground to a crawl as they saturated their ideas and resources.
In the end, they chose their route instead of coming to you for advice. Perhaps they will live to regret it, but I doubt it.
I think we've saturated this conversation. I am second-guessing Steorn's reasons for doing what they're doing. It makes sense to me, but it is only an opinion - as valuable as yours.
Thanks for sharing it.
'throw us a bone' vs. critical thinking.....
In point of fact, Steorn has not followed the typical pattern in terms of its marketing. Actually, if it were compared to a usual tech start-up, we would have no other conclusion to draw other than that they are either a lame scam or a diversion tool for another marketing scam altogether....
However, in maintaining a prudent, slow and scientific testing process, they are gaining very much needed credibility...as a company. If they sold out to Sony, Toshiba, Ford or Toyota, control over the use of this technology would be lost to them..not even the most anal corporate legal hawk can deny this!
They are building up to a moment from which to gather a critical mass of scientific, not public, appeal. And it will be science, not the market, that just might ultimately have the first digs at what happens with this thing...Bravo.
I am not an Engineer, but an economist with an MBA in international trade so maybe I am not technically qualified to discuss Steorn. However, I believe there are two questions which are on everyone’s lips: is the Steorn claim true and if so can we make money out of it? I will answer each in turn.
Is the Steorn claim true? We simply cannot tell on the surface if it is true, I remain sceptical but open minded, but there are a few points which militate against them. When you actually read the material which Steorn have released to the public you realise one critical fact which is overlooked by most on this forum. They have not yet created a free-standing machine that will produce free energy. They have claimed that a wheel driven around a configuration of magnets produces extra energy. The weakness is that Steorn are putting in energy, the machine is actually plugged in. Hence, the entire claim revolves around a measurement of energy in and energy out. It is simply a number which they claim is higher than it should be. That’s it, it is a theoretical claim, not a practical one. If the process works why not simply produce a machine that rotates perpetually?
I firmly believe they are not scam artists – it is a legitimate company. Rather, I suggest, it is most likely that they are dedicated and talented people who have simply made a mistake and cannot see the wood for the trees – many great scientists have done this. My wife who is an engineer and works in the area of electrical power distribution says spurious, illogical and ambiguous readings occur frequently in complex systems. And quite often it is impossible ever to find out why. Ten people can study something and never see the obvious – and in many cases it is combination of multiple errors. But that is not my field, suffice it to say errors occur.
The most significant point against them is that almost one year since their claim they have not created a free standing machine using this technology. In fact if you read their website and listen to the press releases you come up with the stark fact that they are having problems doing so. Up to one month ago they were suggesting that they were 80 to 90 percent close to finalising a free standing rotating machine – but this of course is the crux of all these claims. Lots of people are 99% close to such a machine, even 99.9% - the key is that tipping piece of energy that will continue the rotation of the machine perpetually i.e. over-unity machines. They cannot do this. This clearly suggests, but does not prove, that that they have been dealing with a measurement error all along. Considering the magnitude of their claim it is the only logical conclusion a rational person can come to. If you are going to challenge fundamental laws then a high standard of proof is required.
Steorn now tell us that such proof will be produced in July in London. So we at least have a clear timeline. In less than five weeks we will know the truth. I believe that during this five week period the following of two things will happen (a) they will start to put the date back and claim some “last minute glitches” or the unavailability of a site etc. or (b) what they will produce in London is not a free standing machine but the original machine with a meter on one end with power going in and a meter on the other end measuring energy out. In effect they will just give us what they have based all their suppositions on. But that will not be enough as it will only prove they cannot produce a free-standing machine.
If either a or b happens then we know they will be having difficulty converting their theory into a free standing perpetual machine. This will clearly suggest that their theory was wrong – even if no one knows why it is wrong. The proof of the pudding is in the proverbial eating, and with no pudding on the table Steorn will lose credibility swiftly. These are descent people who believe in their technology, but have many others down through history. But if they cannot produce a free standing machine after one year then their theories are worthless. Sorry to be so blunt, but many people have wasted time on this and we need a “show me the money” moment with Steorn. I really earnestly hope this technology works. However, the fact remains that this whole hype involves a wheel that is connected to a powered electric motor and when current is applied it turns! The rest is theory.
To be honest there is probably another scenario as well as the two above – which is that they produce a free-standing battery machine such as Mr. Richards has been demonstrating on the Internet and for talking about for the last twenty years. I know nothing of this technology, but the inclusion of another power source just leads to the potential for more problems with measurement. If the technology works then hook up the machine to a generator and power the wheel going around that way and take any surplus energy and use it to generate electricity for light bulbs. Just strip out every power source and demonstrate the technology.
You might think at this stage that I am sceptical and you are right. I believe they are honest people who have convinced themselves of something that is not true. This will dawn on them slowly as they fail to produce a free-standing machine. However, I am also aware that the significance of what they are suggesting and that they are putting their reputations on the line. This deserves that 1% of reasonable doubt is given to them. And if there is only a 1% chance that this is true, then it deserves further attention as it will change the world as we know. Although, disrupt might be a better word in some cases. This is an area I do know about so read the following if you are interested in profiting from this or just curious about it.
How much will it change the world? I believe it will change the world like nothing before has – the reformation, industrial revolution, World War II all rolled into one will pale by comparison. Why is this? Well if everyone can produce clean energy and power our homes without Oil or Gas then the demand for this produce will plummet – even assuming demand remains for mobile internal combustion engines such as cars. Russia, The Middle East and other oil producing areas will be economically obliterated almost overnight. The Middle-Eastern countries have nothing but oil; they produce nothing else and have wasted the Billions we have given them over the last sixty years building palaces and buying weapons to fight each other. They realised they oil may run out in 40 years but few plan that far ahead in these countries. But they have never considered that demand would drop rapidly within a period of months. With the oil/cash pipeline turned off their societies will collapse, as will Russia’s and other main producers, e.g. Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria etc This poses great dangers to the West because desperate countries do desperate things when they are in the corner – Russia has nuclear weapons and maybe Iran does as well. If they will kill one dissident in London with Polonium for insulting their president what will they do when their cash is taken away? I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but self-preservation is a powerful instinct. There will be knock on effects throughout out our economies – oil companies will be serious affected so hitting pension funds and other indexed funds. If people can power their houses from a unit in the basement they will simply disconnect from the Grid – this will impact power and utility companies; again hitting pension funds.
On the good side every single Western will become wealthier overnight. We currently exchange vast amounts of resources with these countries for oil and gas. That will end overnight and so we will be able to divert these to more productive sources. Every single one of us in the West will profit immediately. And the biggest bonus of all, the Greens will shut up about Global Warming (I am the only person sick to death of them moaning on about it!)
So how do I really profit? Well it is simple – in fact incredibly simple. You don’t need to invest in Steorn to make pots of cash – in fact you cannot invest in Steorn. But even if you could I would not recommend it as shares would be expensive and if the technology fails then the price would fall 100%. The real key is to speculate on certain commodities and country specific index. How? Open a spread-betting account and prior to the public exhibition of the technology begin to bet. A couple of grand will get you a full spread-betting account and allow you to speculate on the rise and fall of various items. Here are some examples; the most obvious is to short (bet on it falling) oil and gas futures, or on companies like Shell, or on national stock markets like Venezuelans or Nigeria. The easiest choice is to short oil or gas. It is a reasonably safe bet because all you are exposed to is the normal risks associated with the market. You might lose 10 or 20% if oil suddenly rises because of other factors – or you might even gain 10 or 20% if it falls for other reasons. The key is that Steorn is not factored in to the price of oil or gas as no one believes it works; assuming they even heard about it. So if in July the demo is a flop then the price of oil will not rocket, but if it is a clear success then oil and gas will fall. Same thing with the jury results – the market has not factored in Steorn. So, normal market fluctuations aside, you are getting a free ride with this bet. You have potentially significant information which the rest of the market does not have or is ignoring. As I said I am very sceptical, but such a huge potential impact cannot be ignored.
Hi Anon,
Good to hear from you and I'm pleased to read a view from a different perspective.
On the have they/haven't they side:
Unless you have been obsessively pouring over this thing for months, it is easy to misinterpret certain 'facts' as told by Steorn. If the picture was as you paint it, I would have moved on a long time ago. However, you probably have a life and that is a good thing.
I think the key here is the difference in what we mean by stop/start technology and continuous motion. When Sean/Steorn talks of stop/start he is doing so in the way we might describe the motion of a watch escarpment, pendulum or piston engine, not something that moves, stops and has to be prodded into life again. They have clearly stated that their machines run continuously without input energy and can drive a useful external load. They go so far as to state energy densities (0.5W/cc).
They are so clear on this that, to me, they cannot be mistaken. This is a crucial factor in determining my view on their claims.
When he talks of being 80%-90% the way to continuous motion technology, he is saying that they have figured a way for it to spin continuously instead of thump, thump or tick-tock. The key factor here is that, in an engineering sense, the machine should be easier to manufacture (my supposition) and more reliable (look how complex other stop/start technologies are in order for them to operate smoothly) and perhaps, more importantly, the fact that it is not having to jerk around, so to speak, means that it is more efficient and therefore has a greater power density. Sean has confirmed this in the Steorn public forum. This is extremely significant.
On the economic front, I bow to your expertise and appreciate the fresh voice. It is an area I intend to talk about later and will come back and read your comments when I do. I have the feeling that when some people see this whirly thing (my description based on supposition) in the London demo, it will look pretty insignificant (unless Steorn has done something really creative). In that case, it will not be immediately obvious to some the import of what they are seeing. I agree with you that everything changes.
Before anyone shorts oil or bets their house, however, I should make one observation. No one knows the reaction the demo will spark. My guess is that it will be significant, but it might not. They are not going to release the blueprint at that stage so unless it is so obviously OU (lifting huge weights or driving a power-hungry machine in a way that no trick could do) then it will simply cause a lot of hot air to be thrown around (or none) until Validation Day. In that scenario, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how the markets might react, if at all.
Thanks
Hi freebird,
I agree with you. Let's hope we are right - for the good of us all.
Anonymous, one other minor point. The demo has been confirmed by Sean to be starting on the first week of July. That means it's not five weeks that they have until the promised deadline, but a mere eleven days.
So if they're going to push back or cancel the demo, they'd better do it pretty quickly.
I love the way Paul Story and the economsit guy are thinking. Very entertaining read.
This post has been removed by the author.
Hi Ronan,
The Steorn Private Developers' Club will become a hub for people around the world to access information and training. After validation, Steorn expects people, from individuals to corporations, to be battering down their door for licences and knowledge. There will be a nominal fee (don't know how much) for on-line access and there will be enough detail for anyone with the resources to go right ahead and build an Orbo.
Current members came from people who had been following this stuff on the Steorn public forum. If you were willing to sign an NDA (non disclosure agreement) you were in.
Under the NDA, we are guinea pigs for the training modules, helping them to quality check them etc.
Membership is closed at the moment, but who knows, this is Sean McCarthy's ball - keep an eye on the forums or here. He recently opened up membership for a short period.
As to what we get out of it? I can't speak for others but as validation day approaches (whenever) we will have completed the training ahead of the rest of the world - that is a compelling reason on its own.
The place is also filled with smart people. It is fun.
If I were to guess Steorn's ultimate goal for the SPDC it would be to help spread their technology like wildfire around the world once the doors are open. They have a strong humanitarian leaning and the SPDC is a perfect base from which to bring this thing to the less fortunate even as it informs big business.
Thanks, anon (I think).
Hi nlesuel,
Exactly. With July almost on us, Steorn is running out of time to show us what they've got or come out with this excuse certain people are expecting.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home