|
KetTarma posted:They don't want you to apply on your own as then the headhunter would not get paid. And this is another reason I hate recruiters. They BS the candidates into thinking the job is easy, they BS the employer into thinking the candidate is highly skilled. This works until the two parties meet and they both realize at about the same that the recruiter has taken them both for a ride. this is a generalization based on my personal experience interviewing recruitment company identified candidates.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Seems like my recent experience. Recruiter called me to talk about a couple of openings. Asked me about salary requirements, politely declined to give one. Asked me three more times after I made clear I'm not telling him a number. Then tells me about a couple of openings, and tells me to check out the company websites to learn more about them. First of all, haha, second of all, the jobs were way over my head, third of all, the companies all have online applications and I don't know why I'd use him anyway. So far I've found internal recruiters to be very competent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
I'll tell you why you wouldnt apply online. /**ANECDOTE ALERT**/ I talked to the hiring manager for the utility plant I applied to an internship at during a job fair at my college. She said I should've applied for an internship based on my resume and skills but that they'd already selected the interns for this year. I told her that I did, in fact, apply. There was an awkward silence. "Oh, well we got about 1100 resumes submitted online and we were only looking for 20 candidates. Half of those selected were returning interns so don't feel bad!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Omgbees posted:And this is another reason I hate recruiters. They BS the candidates into thinking the job is easy, they BS the employer into thinking the candidate is highly skilled. I'm sorry for picking on you, but this is such an over-generalized, counter-intuitive and counter-factual statement that there's very little merit to it. I realize you're basing these statements on personal experiences, but in reality, the recruiter has really nothing to gain by lying to either party in any situation. Actually, I've been meaning to speak up about this issue for a while now, given the bias evident in this thread towards non-contract recruiters. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing exactly what contingency recruiters (aka "headhunters") are implicated of doing on their end on your end as well; that is, your end as the prospective candidate. The fact is, a recruiter wants to place a candidate in a position. No matter what their angle is, that recruiter doesn't make a dime over any (minimal) salary they're paid for the time they spend trying to get a candidate placed with a company. They are incentivized to use their time to place the best candidates available in the most suitable jobs, whether the agency that employs them are on retainer or are independent. Your job as the prospective candidate is to throw your resume against the wall, so to speak, towards every recruiter within (digital) earshot, because the more opportunities and choices you have, the more empowered you are as a job-seeker. A recruiter lying to a candidate about the nature of a job is one thing. If you, as a candidate, can't parse how challenging a job may or may not be, when a recruiter is describing a position to you, directly, you have two options: decline the opportunity, or proceed, and seek more information in an interview with the potential employer. This is your choice. It's your responsibility to make it. I will always advise job-seekers to schedule either a phone interview or an in-person interview whenever it is feasible, with the in-person interview taking precedence for obvious reasons. You never lose anything from taking an interview request; worst case scenario is that you don't get the job, which is exactly the same as if you declined to interview for it in the first place, or were declined for a interview yourself. It's as or more likely that if you were sourced as a candidate for a job that you weren't qualified for, it's the fault of the hiring manager(s) or HR department that wrote the job specs for being vague and/or misleading about the qualifications or duties entailed. Don't assume malice when negligence or mere ignorance would suffice for an explanation, in other words. Secondly, lying to a client is a ludicrous practice, and no recruiting agency or agent would do so because of how incestuous the recruiting community is. The best networkers pass the word around the most efficiently. If a recruiter intentionally misrepresented a candidate hoping to earn a commission, they would quickly be found out, at least by the interview stage if not sooner, and would shortly thereafter end up discredited within the recruiting community, among both individual recruiters, as well as both recruiting agencies and their clients. Word of mouth spreads quickly. If such a disingenuous recruiter worked for a mid- or large-sized recruiting firm, they'd almost certainly be fired as a result of all the ill-will that would have engendered with the client company, and with the collective pool of potential client agencies as well. Finally, I want to say that contingency recruiting as a practice isn't inherently malicious, but it is definitely the subjectively speaking "worst case scenario" for any job seekers. That being said, it's generally far better of a situation than the horror stories I'm sure are being taken as "business as usual" for many readers of the thread. The quality of recruiting agencies in any area will always be dictated by the demand for jobs to be filled. In an area with a constant mixing of the supply of talent, recruiting agencies will always be more professional and more trustworthy, simply because the amount of competition from their peers in that area will ensure that any lapses in judgment will translate into lost revenue and a poor reputation. In areas that are more stagnant and/or in which jobs are more scarce, risky behavior on the part of sourcing consultants will have a lower cost to potential benefit ratio; or, in other words, they have much less to lose. Recruiters are quite mobile, especially from areas with fewer jobs available into areas with more jobs available. The bottom line is that you, you as the candidate, need to take the job that best suits your wants and needs at any one time, based on your own best judgment. There is no worthwhile reason to value a relationship with a recruiter that takes you outside your comfort zone as far as potential job-seeking goes, but at the same time, it's also your job to make them aware of when they're doing that. Don't ever turn down any opportunities without asking questions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
I'm the one who brought the distinction up, and I do think its important to at least be aware of. There are certainly good recruiters who work on contingency. The problem is that at least from what I've observed the bad ones are the ones you hear from the most. They don't really understand their industry and they cast a really wide net for applicants because they suck at screening. So you need to be aware that the person calling you out of the blue and telling you that you are a shoe-in for a job may in fact be a moron. Reputation is a big deal for established headhunters, but I suspect most of those guys leave the industry pretty quickly because they aren't having a lot of success. Moral of the story: be aware of who you are dealing with and be suspicious if they don't really know what they're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:I'm the one who brought the distinction up, and I do think its important to at least be aware of. There are certainly good recruiters who work on contingency. The problem is that at least from what I've observed the bad ones are the ones you hear from the most. They don't really understand their industry and they cast a really wide net for applicants because they suck at screening. So you need to be aware that the person calling you out of the blue and telling you that you are a shoe-in for a job may in fact be a moron. A recruiter who is casting a wide net is doing his job correctly. He needs to cast a wide net to succeed at his job. Now, he may conduct an awful phone interview with you because he needs to talk to 200 people a day, has a thick foreign accent that is almost unintelligible, and does not consider it necessary to ever ask you more than three questions, but that will sort itself out on his end without any more hassle in your direction. I've dealt with plenty of recruiters who suck rear end, and talk a big game about finding me a position and then disappear even after I try to call them back. They're lovely, whatever. Even they did not BS on me on an interview; if they didn't have an interview to get me, I didn't get one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Man, I am finding it hard to build up connections. I am at 38, and I have some 20 or 30 other invites sent, but at this point I am having a hard time finding anyone else to invite. I am not a recluse or anything, I wonder what I am doing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Did you go to university or work a job? You can search by school or business to find people you know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
I just started requesting connections with people at companies I'm interested in working for. Recruiters obviously always accept connections, but you'd be surprised how many people in other positions will accept requests out of the blue. It helps if you share the same position. From those who accept my connections, I'm working on "cold" emailing them just to get a conversation started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Doghouse posted:Man, I am finding it hard to build up connections. I am at 38, and I have some 20 or 30 other invites sent, but at this point I am having a hard time finding anyone else to invite. I am not a recluse or anything, I wonder what I am doing wrong. A good first step is to join Stairmasters if you haven't already, and send connection requests to everyone in the group. That'll get you pretty well started as the group has HiroProtagonist fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Infinotize posted:Seems like my recent experience. Recruiter called me to talk about a couple of openings. Asked me about salary requirements, politely declined to give one. Asked me three more times after I made clear I'm not telling him a number. Then tells me about a couple of openings, and tells me to check out the company websites to learn more about them. First of all, haha, second of all, the jobs were way over my head, third of all, the companies all have online applications and I don't know why I'd use him anyway. If the recruiter isn't internal, there's really little reason to keep your salary requirements a secret. Also you should always Google and check out a company instead of taking a brIef 5 min conversation as all you need to know to apply. Lastly, recruiters' jobs are to get your resume in front of eyeballs, why use blackhole online applications? I hate recruiters but I disagree with all your advice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:A good first step is to join Stairmasters if you haven't already, and send connection requests to everyone in the group. That'll get you pretty well started as the group has Really? Goons are cool with this? Wow. That's super useful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
It's not like facebook where you look at your friend requests. In LinkedIn no one gives a poo poo. I went from 20 connections to 550 in three weeks and I only had one guy message me, "Do I know you?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
RisqueBarber posted:It's not like facebook where you look at your friend requests. In LinkedIn no one gives a poo poo. I went from 20 connections to 550 in three weeks and I only had one guy message me, "Do I know you?" It was probably me. We wouldn't be in a networking group of goons if we didn't want to be LinkedIn connections with goons though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Doghouse posted:Really? Goons are cool with this? Wow. That's super useful. If they're joining Stairmasters, they must be. It sounds like you're trying to be snarky, so just in case that's not what you intended, it actually is quite difficult for goons unfamiliar with LinkedIn to network effectively. Trying to build a network without any common ground is quite difficult.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:If they're joining Stairmasters, they must be. I'm a little confused at who is taking the piss in this thread now, because IIRC you or someone else did not recommend goon networking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:If they're joining Stairmasters, they must be. I was not being snarky
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I'm a little confused at who is taking the piss in this thread now, because IIRC you or someone else did not recommend goon networking. I recommended not posting your LinkedIn account on the forums or SA user name on LinkedIn unless you wanted the two to be publicly associated. Currently nobody knows who anyone else on LinkedIn is on SA and vice versa unless they did that. It's not a terrible thing but most people probably wouldn't want to do that. I never said anything about networking with goons in general, unless I'm horribly mistaken. Doghouse posted:I was not being snarky No problem, I was just aware of the possibility and it's tough to tell sometimes. HiroProtagonist fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:I recommended not posting your LinkedIn account on the forums or SA user name on LinkedIn unless you wanted the two to be publicly associated. Currently nobody knows who anyone else on LinkedIn is on SA and vice versa unless they did that. It's not a terrible thing but most people probably wouldn't want to do that. I never said anything about networking with goons in general, unless I'm horribly mistaken. And now I'm going to be paranoid and delete my username from the 'it's okay to send me invites' thread. It's still okay to send me invites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
I had mine in there until the group was no longer admin approved invites 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
RisqueBarber posted:It's not like facebook where you look at your friend requests. In LinkedIn no one gives a poo poo. I went from 20 connections to 550 in three weeks and I only had one guy message me, "Do I know you?" I have generally given up on trying to prevent this thread from consisting of only lovely advice. But I do want to point out that the point of LinkedIn is the exact opposite of this mindset. As I posted earlier, you gain zero utility, and if anything have a negative impact, from adding random people that aren't actually part of your network. Linkedin exists to leverage your network, not to create a pretend one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
What negative impact is that? edit: Thoguh posted:Option 1: You are only adding people you are actually connected with, and so are your connections. You get ahold of your first level contact and ask them if they can help put you in touch with person number two. Since they know both of you they contact person number two and put you in touch. Person number two was put in contact with you via someone they actually know so are actually open to talking with you. This is real networking and after meeting them they might be happy to help you find a job. Or maybe you find out the job isn't for you. Either way you now have a new, real connection. I went back and looked at your earlier posts. I think there is more to gain from having more connections than less. Despite spamming connections, (which is what I did) I now get way more views on my profile, come up in more searches, and have more people I could message in case I need a referral. If I ever do need to message one of my random connections, there is no reason for them not to help me because the connection mutual. Why would they think I'm an rear end in a top hat if they accepted my connection to begin with? RisqueBarber fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I have generally given up on trying to prevent this thread from consisting of only lovely advice. But I do want to point out that the point of LinkedIn is the exact opposite of this mindset. As I posted earlier, you gain zero utility, and if anything have a negative impact, from adding random people that aren't actually part of your network. Linkedin exists to leverage your network, not to create a pretend one. I don't want to start this debate again because I don't think it's going to be any more productive than the first time, so this is going to be the only reply I post on this subject. I wrote the OP because the techniques I was using worked. I've gotten every job I've ever had save one by applying those techniques, so I don't think it's fair to argue that there's a negative impact, unless you think finding employment is a negative impact; nor do I feel that it's fair to call networks like mine "random" or "pretend" ones, considering that I successfully and repeatedly found employment as a direct result of building that network, with both a specific goal in mind and using a logical, reasoned approach, through the methods I described and explained the reasoning behind in the OP , to the best degree I was able to at the time. The OP was written for the sole reason of wanting to help other goons. My word is not by any means gospel, and you are more than free to disagree with me. I would however appreciate it if you refrained from calling it lovely or implying it's bad advice because you disagree with it. The efficacy or utility of those techniques is not in doubt--res ipso loqitur. If you or anyone else would like to point out holes in or refinements to those methods, I would consider that to be very helpful and constructive. I would most likely also put those points in the OP as well to make it even more useful to others. I would like for this thread to remain open and productive. I am concerned that if this derail starts again that the resulting discussion is going to going to draw the tender loving attentions of the mods. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please be considerate and try to not contribute to the potential closing or gassing of my first and so far only OP. Thanks. 
HiroProtagonist fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I have generally given up on trying to prevent this thread from consisting of only lovely advice. But I do want to point out that the point of LinkedIn is the exact opposite of this mindset. As I posted earlier, you gain zero utility, and if anything have a negative impact, from adding random people that aren't actually part of your network. Linkedin exists to leverage your network, not to create a pretend one. I'll bite. I'm curious as to how what you're describing leverages your network in any way, shape, or form. I'm also curious as to how many people you've hired through LinkedIn, or how many jobs you've gotten through LinkedIn, because your approach seems counter-intuitive, at best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Sarcasmatron posted:I'll bite. From the first page of the thread, a post that exemplifies what LinkedIn exists for. TheLizard posted:I could be a walking advertisement for Linkedin. Two years ago, I applied for a job and passed the phone interview with HR. While I was doing my research on the company, I went to their LinkedIn page and noticed that I had a first degree connection. Odd, I thought. I didn't think I knew anyone there. That is it. That is what I've been bringing up. Leveraging your network. And being able to because your LinkedIn network is actually your network. And also not being banned from being able to add people due to to many people clicking "I don't know this person" when they see your connection request. Which is what would happen to people if they followed the advice of this thread. What is being suggested here is a very specific way to use LinkedIn that is very questionable and is only useful in certain industries. But it is being presented as being a broad way for everyone to use the tool. There is even a derogatory term for what is advocated in this thread "LinkedIn Open Networker". If the OP wants to tell people how to do that then that is fine. But don't pretend that is the standard way to use LinkedIn. Or the way that it should be used outside of the OPs specific industry and situation. Basically I view this thread like somebody in YLLS starting a thread about weightlifting and then making the discussion exclusively about doing curls in the squat rack. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
You seem to be doing the same thing you're accusing the OP of: there's no ONE TRUE WAY to use LinkedIn. To refer to LIONs as a universally derogatory term is specious at best, and a bit dated given LI's definition: http://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1146. Again, I'm curious as to how many people you've hired or jobs you've gotten through LinkedIn, as the post you're quoting is at best an edge case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Sarcasmatron posted:You seem to be doing the same thing you're accusing the OP of: there's no ONE TRUE WAY to use LinkedIn. LI's definition of a LION also says "Don't network with people you don't actually know." If someone could kindly explain the benefit of having hundreds of contacts that you have no professional or personal relationship with whatsoever, that would be great. Name Change fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
Is it so hard to imagine? Any thread of connection is better than none. Unless of course you hate goons, in which case you shouldn't even be posting. Ever heard of goonerocity? "Hey random goon, you don't know me but I noticed you posted position abc on the xyz job board. It sounds like a great fit for my background and I've recently been looking to take the next step in my career. I was hoping you could tell me more about your company before I apply. I'll be in your city on business next week, think we could grab a beer?" If I received a message like this after posting a job, I'd certainly be willing to at least meet the person for a beer if they looked like a decent fit for the position. Specifically because they're a goon; I may not be willing to help a completely random person. Depending on how the beer goes I might even mention something to HR. That's just one example, there are probably thousands more. Use your imagination. You don't even have to have a 1:1 connection with the person in the above scenario, since LinkedIn will tell you if you have groups in common with a person. Thing is, it only tells you common groups if you click on the profile. By being a connection it will simply show the person as a 1st level connection. It's up to you -- not sure why it's even worth debating in this thread (again) since it's not like we control your LinkedIn profile. You can set it up however you want. zmcnulty fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 11:11
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:LI's definition of a LION also says "Don't network with people you don't actually know." I think that information is contained within the OP. There's no doubt that a large network of people you have professional relationships with is better than a large network of people you have never met. But if having a large network makes you more accessible to other LinkedIn members (particularly recruiters), then there's no doubt that a large network of people you don't know is better than no network. While you can't ask anyone in your network for anything, you still show up in more search results. This method isn't as relevant for people who already have developed professional networks, unless they want to make a major shift outside their network such as moving overseas or changing industries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:LI's definition of a LION also says "Don't network with people you don't actually know." You can message one of them and develop a personal or professional relationship. It's not that hard. If you can write a coherent and compelling email, they'll probably respond. Hell, sometimes I have a random question about my field so I'll randomly message someone on my contacts list. Usually they'll respond. "Hey, I saw that you're the lead peanut taster for Peanut Co. I have a strong interest in the peanut tasting field and was wondering if you had any thoughts on getting certified as a honey roasted peanut taster. I would appreciate any feedback on that idea as I am very passionate about advancing my peanut tasting abilities" (I haven't had breakfast yet)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
I've been coming up in searches more often, and people have been checking out my profile more than usual. This is a steady increase, and it's thanks to advice gained here, so once again, thanks. There's a discussion in the Stairmasters group for non-computer types, but a lot of you posting there are still involved in science, engineering, or legal professions. Are there any creative types here? Writers, designers, people used to public performance? If so, we could start a new discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry too much. Linkedin is not serious business even though it's trying so hard to be. It's just a game to exploit like anything else. If you get banned (has anyone ever heard of anyone getting banned from linkedin?) life will go on and you won't be missing much. You could also set up another account... Sancho fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Considering that some days in class I'll spend an entire lecture inviting random people to connect, I don't think you can get banned for that. I've also never gotten locked out from inviting people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:I recommended not posting your LinkedIn account on the forums or SA user name on LinkedIn unless you wanted the two to be publicly associated. Currently nobody knows who anyone else on LinkedIn is on SA and vice versa unless they did that. It's not a terrible thing but most people probably wouldn't want to do that. I never said anything about networking with goons in general, unless I'm horribly mistaken. Other than yourself of course. We know all about who you are.And to echo some of the above, the usefulness of Linked In to me is from people approaching me for jobs. The best way to do that is to be a 3rd degree connection or in a common group with a recruiter that's actively searching to fill positions. And that's why while I won't go out of my way looking for people to add, I'll accept any invite that comes my way and watch those sweet-sweet "Your profile has been viewed 28 times in the past 3 days" and "You have shown up in search results 124 times in the past 3 days" numbers increase. Invariably when a recruiter does contact me, I'll add them and send a stock message of, "Thank you for contacting me, I'm not interested in relocating at this time but would be interested in hearing about any opportunities in CITY NAME." Chances are nothing comes from it, but those recruiters have other recruiters as connections and I just increased my 3rd degree to a recruiter count by a poo poo-ton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 14:17
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Other than yourself of course. Heh, well I couldn't avoid that. But at least Google searches on either my name or my forums handle won't bring up the other. I'm fine with that, at least. Anyone doing a serious background check or something will find a ton of links, but they probably would anyway even if I was trying to be incredibly secretive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
There was some discussion recently about searching for a job in a new location, but I don't think it was resolved. What's the best way to express interest in cities you don't currently reside?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
schmagekie posted:There was some discussion recently about searching for a job in a new location, but I don't think it was resolved. What's the best way to express interest in cities you don't currently reside? I think the discussion was resolved, but at least on my end it was being done through PMs. Basically though, there's a couple different ways to go about it, depending on what the locations are and what the field you're in/are looking to be in is. There are some professional organizations with regional chapters as separate or sub- groups that each have their own jobs board. You could also do a search for "recruiter" and restrict it to the city or region you'd prefer, then connect with all of them and send them a short message letting them know you're looking for a job in that area. You may not get replies or immediate interest, but if you see them looking at your profile then you can rest assured that they then have your information on file and will let you know if something comes up. Do try though to only send connection requests to recruiters working for the right companies and aren't in completely different fields, however. It's not terrible to do that, because recruiters do hop between jobs somewhat regularly, but if you're interested in getting a job within the next year it's probably not likely that they'll switch into a position with a companies or client in a timely enough manner. You can also try putting (in bold, eye-catching letters) a statement at the top of your profile saying something to the effect of "I'm looking for a job in [CITY], please contact me if you have any open needs in that area" in addition to the above.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
KetTarma posted:Considering that some days in class I'll spend an entire lecture inviting random people to connect, I don't think you can get banned for that. I've also never gotten locked out from inviting people. Yeah I agree. If you try to invite someone to connect and get a prompt asking for their e-mail address it's either because A) they changed their profile so you must provide an e-mail address to connect or B) you already sent them an invitation and they haven't responded. I sent out ~600 invites over 3 or 4 days and I started getting a captcha but that's all I've noticed. Besides the captcha and sometimes forgetting who I had already invited I haven't seen any problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Rad R. posted:There's a discussion in the Stairmasters group for non-computer types, but a lot of you posting there are still involved in science, engineering, or legal professions. Are there any creative types here? Writers, designers, people used to public performance? If so, we could start a new discussion. Fire one up - I know there are a few.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Cool. So, if you're a creative professional, join our (new) discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 13:12
|
|