# Red Alert for RedWeek?



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

(I use the site www.quantcast.com for a lot of interesting stats - you might too.)

Just checked RedWeek’s traffic – things seem to be heading towards the toilet; could it be the broken promises of their exchange system stuck on stupid?  


MyResortNetwork.com seems to be bouncing back but is still just 1/3 the volume of RedWeek.  

II seems to be hurting too but is bouncing back.  

RCI and II now seem to be tied; I thought RCI was twice as big as all the other exchange companies combined?  Trouble in paradise?

Marriott Vacation Club International seems screwy to me.  Could it be the new web site?

WorldMark seems to be bouncing back too.  

Westin seems to be on a roll (low numbers though)

Wyndham

*Look at VRBO and you might see something very interesting...*

Recap:

Redweek – 105k folks per month
MyResortNetwork – 31k folks per month
II – 330k folks per month
RCI – 436k folks per month
MVCI – 29k folks per month
WM – 136k folks per month
Westin – 4.4k folks per month
Wyndham - 60k folks per month
*VRBO – 1.8M folks per month* (Almost TWICE of ALL the above)


You can post your own timeshare organization and compare it to the above.


----------



## buceo (Aug 18, 2008)

I'd think the reduced ts rental-site traffic (redweek in particular) is from high air fares and an overall poor or at least cautious economy. People are not planning their usual winter vacations.

Is VRBO more for property owners renting many weeks a year (year round owners) than it is for ts owners?  Seems the VRBO listing fee is quite high.  Is VRBO used for ts weekly rentals?  That VRBO graph is amazing.

Great site, thanks!


----------



## mlsmn (Aug 18, 2008)

From Quancast's website
 "Only Quantcast combines directly measured audience data with panel-based estimates"

They are guessing
 the only way to know what the traffic is to have embeded codes on all the pages of a website.

I have 3 friends who have websites -all say Quantcast numbers are highly inaccurate. All too low.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

buceo said:


> I'd think the reduced ts rental-site traffic (redweek in particular) is from high air fares and an overall poor or at least cautious economy. People are not planning their usual winter vacations.
> 
> Is VRBO more for property owners renting many weeks a year (year round owners) than it is for ts owners?  Seems the VRBO listing fee is quite high.  Is VRBO used for ts weekly rentals?  That VRBO graph is amazing.
> 
> Great site, thanks!



I can only guess to what these numbers really mean - soft economy, global warming, flying saucers, etc - who knows.

However, the 50% reduction in RedWeek's volume just seems very high; I guess it could be nothing to worry about but then I have no RedWeek Points that I need to worry about either.

VRBO represents vacation usage without putting up one single dollar - their volume is astonishing compared to the rest of the list I looked up.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

mlsmn said:


> From Quancast's website
> "Only Quantcast combines directly measured audience data with panel-based estimates"
> 
> They are guessing
> ...



True, but what data is available to refute their numbers?

It's like Zillow - I reference it all the time and these are guesses too.  However, what alternatives are there?  In the case of the real estate I track they are spot on.

Unless there are other sources I'll use Quancast since the sites I track are spot on too.

If you look up TUG you'll see 21,600 folks per month and TUG states 29,122 members.  Seems to make sense to me.


----------



## bnoble (Aug 18, 2008)

Curious, and worth discussion over a beer, but perhaps not much more.

I'm also not sure what scoring system you use, but ~30% higher is not "almost tied" in my book.

I'm not surprised by VRBO.  I'm guessing vacation home rental is more mainstream than timeshare.  Just going by my own anecdotal experience, I know far more people who have rented homes than timeshare units.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 18, 2008)

that site isnt even close to being accurate.


----------



## buceo (Aug 18, 2008)

PerryM said:


> I can only guess to what these numbers really mean - soft economy, global warming, flying saucers, etc - who knows.



Oh sure you do, flying saucers and global warming don't have anything to do with rentals this year so that leaves the soft economy.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

*Tug's stats*

I haven't a clue to the folks who visit TUG a month - however the following stats were generated for TUG:

50/50 Male/Female - seems right
58% of the folks are 50+ years old - seems right
94% Caucasian - seems right
76% have no children to go along with the 50+ years old - seems right
40% make $100k per year - seems right
49% have a college degree - seems right
25% are Masters' degree or higher - seems right

50% of visits are by Addicts - seems right
31% are regulars - seems right
19% are passers-by - seems right

If I knew nothing about TUG those stats would seem to fit the average timeshare owner in the USA.

Look at the list of other web sites that this audience visits:

timeshareforums.com 2932.5x
tug2.com 2246.1x
tug2.net 2159.1x
timeshareadventures.... 454.7x
myresortnetwork.com 449.6x
streettalkblog.com 439.7x
holidaygroup.com 234.0x
redweek.com 227.2x
sellmytimesharenow.c... 170.0x
vacationtimeshareren... 150.3x
timesharehotdeal.com 99.9x
thetimesharebeat.com 90.8x
rci.com 67.7x
skyauction.com 48.1x
intervalworld.com 

This seems right on target.

I have no facts to challenge the volume count however....


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 18, 2008)

PerryM said:


> True, but what data is available to refute their numbers?
> 
> It's like Zillow - I reference it all the time and these are guesses too.  However, what alternatives are there?  In the case of the real estate I track they are spot on.



Considering your past posts touting the investment value of real estate (such asc ondo hotels in Florida and Las Vegas about two years ago), that statement doesn't really build much credibility in my eyes.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

buceo said:


> Oh sure you do, flying saucers and global warming don't have anything to do with rentals this year so that leaves the soft economy.




Look at Kayak.com  on the Traffic tab with ALL TIME data and you'll see that folks are busy planning trips - vacation and business.

So much of what we think we know from the Drive-By Media is just wrong when you look up other sources.  I believe the trend the economy is just fine and on November 5 all this baloney will suddenly disappear and America will once again be just right...


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> If that's part of the same real estate philosophy that led you a couple of years ago to espouse to us the investment value of condo hotels in Florida and Las Vegas, I think I''ll pass on that Kool-Aid.



It's a great time to buy real estate and hold 5 years right now.  Everything cycles up and down except for one thing - timeshares - they never seem to cycle down.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 18, 2008)

PerryM said:


> It's a great time to buy real estate and hold 5 years right now.  Everything cycles up and down except for one thing - timeshares - they never seem to cycle down.



The thing with cycles is that you need to sell at the top and buy at the bottom.  You've done a pretty fair job of advising people to buy at the peaks.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 18, 2008)

this site gets 5x that many visitors in a month.

isnt the first time a thread like this has popped up.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The thing with cycles is that you need to sell at the top and buy at the bottom.  You've done a pretty fair job of advising people to buy at the peaks.




Sadly I have little impact on our out of control government - the one that strong-armed the lending institutions into approving folks without ANY proof of income and encouraged teaser ARMs to boot.

2 years ago you could simply supply a water or gas bill and then sign a document stating you make $1 M and the lending institutions accepted that.  Again, everything cycles up and down.

Look at the mess Fannie Mae and Friddie MaC are in - I'm responsible for this?

Our government caused the housing bubble and as it bursted the politicians stand around saying "what happened?" .

Don't hold me responsible for a government gone insane....


But I can make a prediction that is 100% accurate - these cycles will grow larger and larger as the government causes the crashes and then rushes in to "fix" the problem which will simply cause another larger problem.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 18, 2008)

PerryM said:


> Sadly I have little impact on our out of control government - the one that strong-armed the lending institutions into approving folks without ANY proof of income and encouraged teaser ARMs to boot.
> 
> 2 years ago you could simply supply a water or gas bill and then sign a document stating you make $1 M and the lending institutions accepted that.  Again, everything cycles up and down.
> 
> ...



Ahhhh, Perry.  I've been doing investing for 30 years.  I've done a pretty good job of avoiding tops.  Condo hotels in Florida and Las Vegas were pretty clearly at a peak a couple of years ago, regardless of any government action or inaction.  It was just greedy pigs feeding at the trough.  Just like every other bubble in history.

It had all of the elements of tulip-bulb frenzy.  And there you were telling people what a great investments they were. Of course you're not responsible for Freddy Mac.  But the fact is that you were advising people what great investment opportunities right at the peak of the market, while Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae were still (seemingly) in wonderful shape and posting record earnings.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 18, 2008)

you believe in horoscopes too?  =)

just think for a minute as to how this company could possibly ascertain such information about gender, age, wealth, etc from every person on the internet traveling to every site on the internet.

"just because its on the internet doesnt mean its true"


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Ahhh h, Perry.  I've been doing investing for 30 years.  I've done a pretty good job of avoiding tops.  Condo hotels in Florida and Las Vegas were pretty clearly at a peak a couple of years ago, regardless of any government action or inaction.  It was just greedy pigs feeding at the trough.  Just like every other bubble in history.
> 
> It had all of the elements of tulip-bulb frenzy.  And there you were telling people what a great investments they were. Of course you're not responsible for Freddy Mac.  But the fact is that you were advising people what great investment opportunities right at the peak of the market, while Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae were still (seemingly) in wonderful shape and posting record earning.



I'm not sure if our wonderful government will ever investigate the fiasco they caused - it was all hidden from the public and still is.  It is/was the largest fraud in human history and it is still unfolding.  This all lead the market to go up, the consequences of this fraud caused the market to go down.

Again don't hold me responsible for a corrupt government who causes all of this, I can only look at the facts and render a decision - if those facts are full of fraud I can't be held responsible.  I understand that folks got burned - call your congressman/woman and ask for an explanation (good luck).


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> you believe in horoscopes too?  =)
> 
> just think for a minute as to how this company could possibly ascertain such information about gender, age, wealth, etc from every person on the internet traveling to every site on the internet.
> 
> "just because its on the internet doesnt mean its true"



True, but it opposite applies "just because its on the Internet doesn't mean its false".

I think that web site can be used for a lot of useful information - trends are certainly one of them.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Aug 18, 2008)

PerryM said:


> It's a great time to buy real estate and hold 5 years right now.  Everything cycles up and down except for one thing - timeshares - they never seem to cycle down.



Perry,

Nice to see you back posting.  We have had lots of disagreement over the past year.  Nothing personal.  Just a difference of opinion about the market.

I think we are converging our views.  I agree with your call here about Real Estate.  Now is the time to buy, not sell.  I've been waiting for this time to come for about 5 years.  

Jim


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 18, 2008)

how so...there is nothing accurate about the information.

you are free to make any observation you wish, however drawing conclusions based on worthless information wont really accomplish much.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> how so...there is nothing accurate about the information.
> 
> you are free to make any observation you wish, however drawing conclusions based on worthless information wont really accomplish much.





Look at YouTube - does it not describe YouTube to the T?

Until something eclipses QantCast I'll defer to their analysis.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 18, 2008)

id suggest using some common sense given my previous comments regarding demographics.

It is simply not possible to collect all the facts they put on the site.  no way, no how, zip, squat, zero % chance.

Even the owners of the sites themselves cannot collect that information from a web browser....yet you believe some ambiguous rating site can do this externally?

however as stated before, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> id suggest using some common sense given my previous comments regarding demographics.
> 
> It is simply not possible to collect all the facts they put on the site.  no way, no how, zip, squat, zero % chance.
> 
> ...



I'm sure every web site owner disputes their analysis - the web site owner probably knows the answers and normally does not disclose them.  Short of sending over a SWAT unit to drag the information out of the owner I think QuantCast has done an excellent job on the 100+ sites I've investigated at least.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

*Light bulb question....*

Question: how many politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?


Answer: a simple majority....


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 18, 2008)

I am pleased that your sampling of the .000000000000001% of the 8+ BILLION or so websites on the internet is accurate to your satisfaction.

the stats for the only site listed that can provide actual facts to prove those numbers wrong.....are wrong.

so as a gambling man...im going to bet that the numbers for most if not all other sites...are wrong.

or we could go out on a limb and just post that tugbbs.com is the only inaccurately reported website on the internet.

tough choice there =)


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 18, 2008)

8 billion...just imagine the database size required to collect, store and update all that information, for each individual site, and present it to a user in a relatively quick fashion.

yea...right.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 18, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> I am pleased that your sampling of the .000000000000001% of the 8+ BILLION or so websites on the internet is accurate to your satisfaction.
> 
> the stats for the only site listed that can provide actual facts to prove those numbers wrong.....are wrong.
> 
> ...





TUGBrian said:


> 8 billion...just imagine the database size required to collect, store and update all that information, for each individual site, and present it to a user in a relatively quick fashion.
> 
> yea...right.



Well Google puts Quantcast at 872,000,000 hits  That's a number so big it almost scares me.  Hell, George Bush (both) only have 45,500,000 hits.

They must be doing something right...

P.S.
Here is their White Paper on how they try to capture unique visitors to a site.

Basically they have snuck 1.4 billion cookies (as of June '08) into just about every PC that connects to the Internet - your PC has one.  They also have affiliates that supply them with unique hits to bolster their estimate.

Sounds like these folks are serious and have spent years getting ready for this - to dismiss them willy-nilly seems to be unwise.  But I don't have a bone in this fight.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 19, 2008)

PerryM said:


> Well Google puts Quantcast at 872,000,000 hits  That's a number so big it almost scares me.  Hell, George Bush (both) only have 45,500,000 hits.
> 
> They must be doing something right...



And you know that number is accurate because ....????  As nearly as I can tell Perry from this post and others, your basic train of logic is:

_"If it seems right to Perry, it must be right.  If it doesn't seem right to Perry, it's probably faulty."_​
You know, that's just not very Perry-suasive.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 19, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> And you know that number is accurate because ....????  As nearly as I can tell Perry from this post and others, your basic train of logic is:
> 
> _"If it seems right to Perry, it must be right.  If it doesn't seem right to Perry, it's probably faulty."_​
> You know, that's just not very Perry-suasive.



Good grief - I don't look for conspiracies under every rock.  I take Google at it's word.

Feel free to disagree with Google if you want...you have more information than they do?

P.S.
I get a kick out of Tug - present facts and folks argue about them - present rumors and folks elaborate them.  It's a real kick.


----------



## Jbart74 (Aug 19, 2008)

Basically they have snuck 1.4 billion cookies (as of June '08) into just about every PC that connects to the Internet - your PC has one.  




My PC most certainly does NOT have one.  I pay good money to make sure of that.

Just my 2 cents on an issue that I have enjoyed reading about.  Thanks for the giggles!

jb


----------



## PerryM (Aug 19, 2008)

Jbart74 said:


> Basically they have snuck 1.4 billion cookies (as of June '08) into just about every PC that connects to the Internet - your PC has one.
> 
> 
> My PC most certainly does NOT have one.  I pay good money to make sure of that.
> ...



I just did a Yahoo cookie scan and sure enough there was Quantserve.com which redirects to QuantCast.com.  Zapped it.  I do a scan about once a month and I'll be looking for QuantCast


----------



## Holly (Aug 19, 2008)

PerryM said:


> Look at YouTube - does it not describe YouTube to the T?
> 
> Until something eclipses QantCast I'll defer to their analysis.




Check out www.compete.com

This is what I do for a living, and I am intimately familiar with Quantcast and their methodology.  If a site is "quantified", it means that they have put a tag on their site that Quantcast can read.  THOSE stats are pretty accurate.  Others are just guessing.

Compete uses a panel of 2M in the US...some recruited, some data are purchased through ISPs.  They constantly enumerate and weight the data to project to the online population.  You can download a toolbar that will analyze sites as you surf as well.  

All of the major wireless carriers and handset manufacturers, online travel bookers, financial institutions, and search marketers, pay Compete a lot of money to do deep competitive analytics for them.  Compete.com gives a lot of topline information away for free.  

Compete is part of TNS Media, the second largest global research firm behind AC Nielsen.  They are public on the London Exchange, and have offices in 23 countries.  Quantcast is a VC backed startup with some promise.  However, the site has to put the tag on for it to work, and many do not want to do that.

Hope that helps.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 19, 2008)

PerryM said:


> Well Google puts Quantcast at 872,000,000 hits  That's a number so big it almost scares me.  Hell, George Bush (both) only have 45,500,000 hits.
> 
> They must be doing something right...
> 
> ...




This is just laughable at this point, reminds me of a discussion I had awahile back regarding posting a poll about the sun rising in the east.

"snuck 1.4 billion cookies"

you seriously cannot possibly believe this right?  That 1.4 billion computers all have a super secret file loaded on them to retrieve this data un-knowingly by said company without 1.4 billion permission slips?  

However even accepting this ridiculous statement as fact, there is no "cookie" that can retrieve your gender, wealth, age, political views, etc etc by being loaded on your computer.  

What does it do sample your DNA from the mouse?  

Hack into your tax software and read last years return?


You are seriously out there on this.  so much so the discussion has turned laughable.  Ill send you a tin foil hat!

:rofl:


----------



## PerryM (Aug 19, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> This is just laughable at this point, reminds me of a discussion I had awahile back regarding posting a poll about the sun rising in the east.
> 
> "snuck 1.4 billion cookies"
> 
> ...




I did a Yahoo Anti-spy and found the cookie placed there by QuantCast - zapped it.  Visited Yahoo and this site and the weather channel and the QuantCast cookie is back!

I'm not here to defend QuantCast simply use there free stats which benefit me personally.

If you don't believe them then supply a demonstrated example where they are that far off base.  Then I'll put on my aluminum helmet again.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 19, 2008)

I did in my very first and second posts...but you choose to ignore it because it proves you wrong.

please tell me again how they determine your age, sex, income, etc etc from this magical cookie  lol


----------



## PerryM (Aug 19, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> I did in my very first and second posts...but you choose to ignore it because it proves you wrong.
> 
> please tell me again how they determine your age, sex, income, etc etc from this magical cookie  lol




I'm assuming that this information is proprietary and protected by NDAs.

Just like II's and RCI's super secret Trading Power formulas - I profit from them many times during the year too yet I don't declare them wrong.


If I can find 10 web sites that are 180 degrees off base then I'll question their results - my 100+ investigations were right on target as far as I can determine; in terms of demographics and traffic.  But I've been wrong in the past and probably in the future too.

To summarily dismiss a company who placed 1.4 B cookies out there and sells their services demonstrates to me that ignoring them would be foolish - and I get to benefit from it for free!


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 19, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> I did in my very first and second posts...but you choose to ignore it because it proves you wrong.
> 
> please tell me again how they determine your age, sex, income, etc etc from this magical cookie  lol



Brian - Welcome to Perry's World!!!!

In Perry's World, any facts that are contrary to Perry's opinions are disregarded as irrelevant and unsupported.  Conversely, all suppositions that are consistent with Perry's opinions become facts.  Because anyone who holds a view that differs from Perry's is clearly unenlightened, in Perry's World the opinions of such people can and should be disregarded.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 19, 2008)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Brian - Welcome to Perry's World!!!!
> 
> In Perry's World, any facts that are contrary to Perry's opinions are disregarded as irrelevant and unsupported.  Conversely, all suppositions that are consistent with Perry's opinions become facts.  Because anyone who holds a view that differs from Perry's is clearly unenlightened, in Perry's World the opinions of such people can and should be disregarded.



I'm not sure why you single me out and go out of your way to denigrate me - I'm assuming that you feel better singling out fellow timeshare owners to debase.

You might seek more help than I can give you - just a suggestion.

P.S.
This is just a silly discussion about a web site - I have my opinion and others have theirs.

I see no reason to get all worked up over this web site.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 19, 2008)

PerryM said:


> I'm assuming that this information is proprietary and protected by NDAs.
> 
> Just like II's and RCI's super secret Trading Power formulas - I profit from them many times during the year too yet I don't declare them wrong.
> 
> ...




the foolish part is beliving there are 1.4billion cookies out there sending this information to the company unknowingly to the computer users as I have tried to point out, yet you continue to take it at face value for no apparent reason other than it tells you what you seem to want to hear.

Why you continue to argue this point is beyond me....all I am trying to do is interject some common sense so that others dont take obviously inaccurate information at face value.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 19, 2008)

PerryM said:


> I'm not sure why you single me out and go out of your way to denigrate me - I'm assuming that you feel better singling out fellow timeshare owners to debase.



I apologize if you feel like I am singling you out, however you are the one who continues to ignore my facts and argue with me over the issue.  In my first two replies I didnt post anything more than a simple answer to inform you (and anyone else who might read your post) that the information on that site is EXTREMELY inaccurate.

You continue to walk the line and disagree while arguing your side...yet somehow I am singling you out?



> You might seek more help than I can give you - just a suggestion.



Help for me is not required, I used to work in this field prior to taking over.  I might know a thing or two.  or I could be off my rocker.

However the fact remains that the stats you posted for TUG specifically...are so ridiculously wrong...as to not even warrant further discussion...as well as given the information they claim to gather from a "secret cookie on 1.4billion machines" also makes on question the legitimacy of any information provided there.




> P.S.
> This is just a silly discussion about a web site - I have my opinion and others have theirs.
> 
> I see no reason to get all worked up over this web site.



I would completely agree.


----------



## PerryM (Aug 19, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> the foolish part is beliving there are 1.4billion cookies out there sending this information to the company unknowingly to the computer users.
> 
> as I have tried to point out, yet you continue to take it at face value for no apparent reason.
> 
> Why you continue to argue this point is beyond me....all I am trying to do is interject some common sense so that others dont take obviously inaccurate information at face value.



Well, I'll defer to QuantCast until articles appear that overwhelmingly document their results.  That's my viewpoint.


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 19, 2008)

more power to you...good luck with your plan.  (darn we dont have a "cheers beerchug" smiley...ill have to work on that)


----------



## PerryM (Aug 19, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> I apologize if you feel like I am singling you out, however you are the one who continues to ignore my facts and argue with me over the issue.  In my first two replies I didnt post anything more than a simple answer to inform you (and anyone else who might read your post) that the information on that site is EXTREMELY inaccurate.
> 
> You continue to walk the line and disagree while arguing your side...yet somehow I am singling you out?
> 
> ...




I wasn't referring to you!?


----------



## TUGBrian (Aug 19, 2008)

my apologies then...I interpreted that wrong.

(ill remove that post and your quote if you want)


----------



## PerryM (Aug 19, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> my apologies then...I interpreted that wrong.



I'm going to bow out of my own thread - this has gotten way out of hand over nothing.

Bye


----------



## bnoble (Aug 19, 2008)

> I did a Yahoo Anti-spy and found the cookie placed there by QuantCast - zapped it. Visited Yahoo and this site and the weather channel and the QuantCast cookie is back!


This tells you only that one of those three sites partners with QuantCast, and so placed a cookie.  It doesn't tell you which one, and if sites do not participate, the cookie has no bearing.  The cookie can't interpose on your browser's clickstream unless a site your browser visits invokes it in some way.

You might know something about timeshare, Perry, but you don't know squat about the World Wide Web.  I can't say anything about QuantCast's results, but I can tell you that this 1.4bn cookies is pretty much meaningless except for the sites that are active partners.


----------



## e.bram (Aug 19, 2008)

HEY, TUGBrian used to be a shrink. A psychiatrist(MD) or just a psychologist.

Anyone know and will tell?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Aug 19, 2008)




----------



## ausman (Aug 19, 2008)

e.bram said:


> Anyone know ?



No, and I don't care. What does it matter what we do or did. We are on a timeshare site, and here TS knowledge matters.


----------

