Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
LovesLife

Why I love NZ

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

OK, I'm inspired by the other sort-of negative-sounding thread in this forum about NZ to write about a few of the things that I love about the country. I love it enough that my family and I moved here about two years ago.

-- The birds. I never missed the birds in the US until I came here. The sounds they make are wonderful. Plus, they keep the insect population down.

-- Of course it's beautiful. Parts of the US are pretty too, but NZ has an extremely long, scraggy coastline and a wide variety of terrain, from the fjords in the south to glaciers to volcanoes in the north.

-- The people. Friendly, honest, hard-working, fun-loving. People actually say hello when you pass them on the street. Employees at the local retail stores, banks, etc, remember me, say hello, and are actually pleasant.

-- The legal system. A contract and all of the disclosure forms to buy a house is only about 4 pages long, vs. 100+ pages in California. Lawyers are reasonably priced. Lawsuit awards are not obscene (I heard about a guy who was riding his motorcycle and got hit by some woman; the guy was awarded something like $1000 to fix his bike plus two weeks lost wages; no million-dollar "damages")

-- Very low property taxes (about 0.2% per year for me)

-- Reasonably-priced utilities (electricity is about US$0.10 per KWH, from hydroelectric, vs. about twice that in California)

-- No inheritance taxes

-- Prostitution is legal

-- Legal for women to go topless in public

-- Gambling is legal

-- Drinking age is 18

-- No big racial issues or distractions (other than a little Maori stuff, but that's mostly on the north island; I live in the south)

-- No capital gains taxes (including on your house)

-- Value personal property rights

-- Inexpensive basic medical care (yes, it's socialized, which is bad, but it seems to work OK for basic stuff); most prescriptions are free, a general practitioner doctor visit is about US$15, emergency care is no-cost -- just hope you don't need anything substantial like surgery... Although they do have a parallel private system, which can be a big help.

-- Anti-nuclear. Unlike the other post, I think that's a good thing. The problem with nuclear spills / mistakes / accidents is that it can take a million or more years before the area becomes safe again. Would you want the waste in your back yard?

-- Clean-and-green. Clean air, clean water, unlike California, which is extremely pollution-filled these days.

-- Kiwis value repair and re-use. It's very different from the throw-away consumerism in the US.

-- Kiwis are strongly in favor of personal responsibility. They pretty regularly march on Parliament when government starts to go astray.

-- They have a political party with an Objectivist foundation (Libertarianz). OK, almost no one has heard of them. But, still, it exists, and existence is a prerequisite for growth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a wonderful place and I've always wanted to visit, however...

Free prescriptions and no-cost emergency care in a Socialized medical system is a falacy. Certainly you see that you are taxed to pay for those "free" services. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been interested by New Zealand, and even thought I could move there. I'm from Florida and love warm weather, but I can't stand the people there. From your description, NZ sounds pretty wonderful! I don't particularly care for it being anti-nuclear since that seems like a great source of energy which we have the technology and historical knowledge necessary to control responsibly. Nuclear power is all over France and we never hear of them having serious problems. I never even hear of them having minor problems. And naturally, I don't care for the socialized medicine. But much of the rest sounds rather great.

My greatest worry, though, is that I wouldn't be able to do my work. I'm a philosopher, and New Zealand philosophy departments are not world-renowned. There are perhaps two or three philosophers on the island who are influential elsewhere. If I moved there, I'd have to do it more or less as a retreat. ... On the other hand, if a bunch of objectivist, egoist, capitalist academics started moving to New Zealand's beautiful beaches, it could create something of a culture... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds nice. I have a couple of questions:

1. Are you allowed to invite me over to hang out , let's say forever, or is that a no-no in your country? In other words, what type of immigration policy does NZ have?

2. Are you about to ban the Internet, like your cousins to the south just did?

3. How do you know a nuclear spill lingers for millions of years? There has never been one in the West, despite countries like France getting 25% of their energy, or more, from nukes. There are hundreds of plants everywhere, have been for decades, and yet all the backyards are nice and clean, wine and cheese and body-odor everywhere:). So why should I worry about my back yard? Especially since one of your windmills could topple over and kill me at any time, or the dams could break.(it's certainly more dangerous than a nuclear plant)

4. I don't particularly value repair and re-use either (except when it makes sense-which is rare). What would happen to someone like me in NZ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-- Of course it's beautiful. Parts of the US are pretty too, but NZ has an extremely long, scraggy coastline and a wide variety of terrain, from the fjords in the south to glaciers to volcanoes in the north.

I can attest to this. One of the things I absolutely loved whilst travelling round NZ, was the wide variety of Terrain, how you can find yourself in thick forest one minute, and barren rocky mountains the next, before plunging into a valley and coming out at a Volcano by a beautiful, warm, sunny beach.

-- The people.

I dunno so much about this. Wherever I stayed, people weren't much unlike back home - especially the kids. A bunch of rude, emo dweebs, especially in the more urban areas.

-- No big racial issues or distractions (other than a little Maori stuff, but that's mostly on the north island; I live in the south)

Having spent more time on the North Island than the south (I was in NZ for about a month overall), I can attest to the perverse amount of Maori stuff. When I was in Auckland, I stayed with a girl and her family, and the girl was training to be a teacher. I read through one of her manuals, as well as an outline of all the modules you could take. A vast majority of them were either devoted to, or had a significant aspect of, cultural sensitivity. There are classes dedicated to teaching Maori, and teachers are expected to respect the Maori culture - and I don't mean, not make fun of Maori, I mean speak a basic level of it and be 'culturally sensitive' to what their beliefs are. This is a great example of what Ayn Rand described in 'The Voice of Reason' in her essay on Balkanisation, in which a state is nominally united but culturally divided (and I don't just mean, 'Some people like Monet and some don't').

Furthermore, NZ has never really clearly defined this whole Maori land and legal rights thing like the US did. The US unequivocably declared its land as the land of those who made productive use of it, not as some quasi-owned state in which people could move from place to place, at sometime having ownership over land and at other times not. I forget what the contract is called, but it's that one that declares the Maori own the NZ land and the 'Colonists' are just tenants of the land, having moral and legal leasehood. I understand that it's treated now, for the most part, as if the non-Maori own their land in the individual-rights way, but that contract still exists and is treated as a legitimate standard to which Maori people can appeal to have land seized and to have various rights arbitrarily granted them.

-- Anti-nuclear. Unlike the other post, I think that's a good thing. The problem with nuclear spills / mistakes / accidents is that it can take a million or more years before the area becomes safe again. Would you want the waste in your back yard?

How dangerous and unmanageable do you think nuclear waste is?

-- Clean-and-green. Clean air, clean water, unlike California, which is extremely pollution-filled these days.

For someone like me, that stuff isn't all that important 80% of the time, but when it comes to leisure, yeah, that is nice. However, although California is not as 'clean and green' as New Zealand, it has a GDP 14 times that of New Zealand

, and as Dr P said, if you don't like the smog, you don't have to live in California, but don't complain that your monetary standard of living is lower. Hence I think this 'Clean and green' point is moot, since it's really a matter of what is more valuable to you: a large income or a dip in the lake.

-- Kiwis value repair and re-use. It's very different from the throw-away consumerism in the US.

What do you think is bad about this redundancy-ethic? After all, during the 19th century, the United States grew at a massive state on this whole idea of constant innovation, of throwing out the bad in place of the new, and I heard it worked out pretty nicely.

-- Kiwis are strongly in favor of personal responsibility. They pretty regularly march on Parliament when government starts to go astray.

I can't believe this entirely true in a country that bans companies from taking responsibility for their production energy, that treats healthcare as a social responsibility.

-- They have a political party with an Objectivist foundation (Libertarianz). OK, almost no one has heard of them. But, still, it exists, and existence is a prerequisite for growth...

Do you think a political party is a prerequisite for our growth? Why? Do you not think cultural growth is more important, as this will create the demand, by voters, for their statesmen (who must be voted in, by the way) to reflect their demands?

Edited by Tenure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Free prescriptions and no-cost emergency care in a Socialized medical system is a falacy. Certainly you see that you are taxed to pay for those "free" services.

Yes, of course. Nothing is really "free" in the true sense. I meant "free" as a shorthand for "you don't pay anything at the time of use; the costs are paid through taxes instead, even if you don't use the services." The way I look at it is that I'm paying taxes instead of insurance premiums.

I don't particularly care for it being anti-nuclear since that seems like a great source of energy which we have the technology and historical knowledge necessary to control responsibly. Nuclear power is all over France and we never hear of them having serious problems. I never even hear of them having minor problems.

Well, of course the French are notorious for suppressing newsworthy stories. However, nuclear spills have been reported in Japan. And of course there's Chernobyl.

And naturally, I don't care for the socialized medicine.

Me either. The bad definitely outweighs the good in the long run for most people, but that doesn't mean that there aren't good aspects to it (things like not having to deal with insurance companies).

My greatest worry, though, is that I wouldn't be able to do my work. I'm a philosopher, and New Zealand philosophy departments are not world-renowned. There are perhaps two or three philosophers on the island who are influential elsewhere. If I moved there, I'd have to do it more or less as a retreat.

So in order for you to find work, someone who is influential elsewhere would already have to be here? It's not possible for you to make a name for yourself? I often find that the lack of competition is a very enabling thing. My personal experience with jobs in NZ is that they are readily available, provided that you're willing to adjust your pay expectations. The city where I live has a large college community; higher education is very much valued.

Sounds nice. I have a couple of questions:

1. Are you allowed to invite me over to hang out , let's say forever, or is that a no-no in your country? In other words, what type of immigration policy does NZ have?

Anyone can come to NZ and stay for up to 6 months without doing anything special. Beyond that, you need to apply for either residency or a long-term work permit. NZ has what they call the "skilled migrant" program -- basically, if you can get a job here, they'll let you in, provided you're under 55 and in reasonably good health.

2. Are you about to ban the Internet, like your cousins to the south just did?

Cousins to the south? You mean Antarctica? I didn't know they had much Internet there.

The Internet in NZ is wide-open, with no threats along those lines that I've heard about. One quirk is that NZ doesn't have "unlimited" Internet; all ISPs have caps on the amount of data transferred, over which they charge an additional fee.

3. How do you know a nuclear spill lingers for millions of years?

The primary nuclear fuels have very long half-lives. The half-life of Uranium 235 is 700 million years. Plutonium 239 has a half-life of "only" 24,000 years.

There has never been one in the West, despite countries like France getting 25% of their energy, or more, from nukes. There are hundreds of plants everywhere, have been for decades, and yet all the backyards are nice and clean, wine and cheese and body-odor everywhere:). So why should I worry about my back yard? Especially since one of your windmills could topple over and kill me at any time, or the dams could break.(it's certainly more dangerous than a nuclear plant)

Do you say that based on your belief, or on actual knowledge? How do you know how clean they are? By listening to the industry's news releases? What about the waste products? Leaks clearly aren't impossible: there have been plenty of them in the press, and who knows how many more that were never made public.

4. I don't particularly value repair and re-use either (except when it makes sense-which is rare). What would happen to someone like me in NZ?

You would find that living that way is much more expensive than in the US, both because of import costs and relatively expensive weekly trash service. There is also a much larger market for used stuff. If you were too blatant about your level of waste, you would probably draw comments from locals, though not intervention or anything like that.

I dunno so much about this. Wherever I stayed, people weren't much unlike back home - especially the kids. A bunch of rude, emo dweebs, especially in the more urban areas.

The north island, which includes the two largest urban areas (Auckland and Wellington) is in many ways almost a different country; it's a very different place than the south island. I don't care for that area nearly as much.

How dangerous and unmanageable do you think nuclear waste is?

Well, one microgram of Plutonium can cause cancer, so that's pretty dangerous in my book. Given the long half-lives of the waste products, I'm not convinced that long-term storage is even possible, much less proven. So that makes is pretty unmanageable too.

For someone like me, that stuff isn't all that important 80% of the time, but when it comes to leisure, yeah, that is nice. However, although California is not as 'clean and green' as New Zealand, it has a GDP 14 times that of New Zealand

, and as Dr P said, if you don't like the smog, you don't have to live in California, but don't complain that your monetary standard of living is lower. Hence I think this 'Clean and green' point is moot, since it's really a matter of what is more valuable to you: a large income or a dip in the lake.

Low pollution is about much more than a "dip in the lake." It impacts your lungs, in particular. There's good evidence to suggest that it can significantly shorten lifespan, especially for the susceptible (one of my kids has lung problems, for example). California might have a GDP 14 times that of NZ, but it also has a population 8 times as big -- and a big chunk of that GDP comes from government contracts, basically leeching off of the rest of the country.

Also "large income" is relative. What do you spend that income on? What kind of lifestyle do you want to have? Those are also important factors.

What do you think is bad about this redundancy-ethic? After all, during the 19th century, the United States grew at a massive state on this whole idea of constant innovation, of throwing out the bad in place of the new, and I heard it worked out pretty nicely.

For one thing, with NZ being an island nation, imports are relatively expensive and result in an out-flow of currency reserves. Re-use is therefore often less expensive. Also, land fills are filling up already. If waste continues at high rates, new areas will need to be claimed for landfill. Also, not all trash encourages innovation. Packaging, for example.

I can't believe this entirely true in a country that bans companies from taking responsibility for their production energy, that treats healthcare as a social responsibility.

Yes, that's true. Kiwis seem to draw the line between caring for the sick, indigent or disabled and things like accidentally spilling hot coffee on yourself. There would never have been a million dollar award for a case like that in NZ, as there was in the US. More likely, the case would have been dismissed, with the judge saying: "be careful next time!"

Do you think a political party is a prerequisite for our growth? Why? Do you not think cultural growth is more important, as this will create the demand, by voters, for their statesmen (who must be voted in, by the way) to reflect their demands?

No, I don't think a political party is needed for our growth. Yes, I agree that cultural growth is (much) more important. I only pointed out Libertarianz because I thought it was an interesting side-note; the growth I was referring to was of the party, not Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uranium 235 may have a long half life but it's so weakly radioactive (unless it is fissioning!) that it doesn't matter much.

Basically the longer the half-life the weaker the radioactivity. Although it would take 10,000 years for nuclear waste to go completely "dead" radioactivity wise, the vast majority of the radiation is gone in much less time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is it legal for women to go topless, like a few private beaches? :D:P Oh Boobs on Bikes? That is an annual event in currently two cities, where this porn guy gets some of his ladies to ride down some streets on motorbikes with no tops on. He needs special permits to do that, its normally quite illegal to do that...

Anti-nuclear a good thing? Not when its ignored as a viable means of solving NZs majo power crisis. Which is exactly what is happening.

Clean and green. Sure....far, far, far too green...most Kiwis would job their limbs off to keep NZ clean lol. OK, thats not unique to NZ, but Green is quite powerful in NZ, even compared to most countries.

No big racial issues? I live in Auckland, and there at least there is a lot of racial issues, I know a lot of people that have racial prejudices against Asians for instance, and whom blame them for all sorts of troubles. NZ is far less racially aware than say USA but it has plenty of Raciasm. By the way, the Maori Party and its silly favortism of Maori, and how it advocates "Native privelages"? Pretty racist if you ask me...

Libertarianz..hmm...Ive meet a few of the key members of this party, they dont seem that Objectivist to me...more like Kelly followers, though Im sure they are some genuine members in there. And they are far far far too quiet really, you never really hear them speaking out for their cause unless maybe you listen to Perigo on the radio..but I beleive he is one of those Kelly boys that does Oism more harm than good.

The medical system is a JOKE. Slow, inefficent, expensive (not so much for the patients directly, but for all the taxpayers...) etc. Want surgery? Well if your not dying I hope you dont mind waiting a few months to a few years...

I could go on..but I havent the time now.

But having bitched...you are right its a pretty place, and great if you want an Outdoor Expereince. Not the best place to live the rest of the time though..

Edited by Prometheus98876

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uranium 235 may have a long half life but it's so weakly radioactive (unless it is fissioning!) that it doesn't matter much.

I know a doctor who worked with people who were exposed to depleted uranium at the "dead tank farms" in Iraq, where they put tanks that have been destroyed by A-10s and other DU-based anti-tank weapons. That's U-238, which is even "weaker" than U-235 (and has a much longer half-life). It turns out that almost everyone who came in contact with that stuff even a little bit gets very sick, in spite of tons of safety precautions. She told me about some people who were just downwind and got sick; they were never even in direct physical contact. Or look at the people living around Chernobyl: lots of cancer, birth defects and other disasters.

So it might not matter to you much, but it definitely matters to others. And, more to the point, the level of risk in the event of a spill is non-zero -- and once spilled, it is basically impossible to ever completely clean it up.

I live in Auckland

As we would say in the States: Dude! That's your problem. It's not NZ as a whole that's bad. It's the big cities. Your mind has been warped. Get out of Auckland. I would never live there; I'm not even interested in going for a visit. The SI is where it's at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks LovesLife, any false impressions I have picked up from watching "Flight of the Conchords" have been corrected!

You're thinking of Australians ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know a doctor who worked with people who were exposed to depleted uranium at the "dead tank farms" in Iraq, where they put tanks that have been destroyed by A-10s and other DU-based anti-tank weapons. That's U-238, which is even "weaker" than U-235 (and has a much longer half-life). It turns out that almost everyone who came in contact with that stuff even a little bit gets very sick, in spite of tons of safety precautions. She told me about some people who were just downwind and got sick; they were never even in direct physical contact. Or look at the people living around Chernobyl: lots of cancer, birth defects and other disasters.

Is this chemical toxicity or radiation causing these issues? I was only talking about radiation. I have no doubt that breathing uranium vapor or dust is a really *bad* idea. (Such would not likely be an issue at a waste storage facility, at least once the stuff is put to bed. Furthermore we should be reprocessing the U-235 and making new fuel rods out of it instead of throwing something like 90% of it away.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is so few people are killed in nuclear accidents, and they are so rare, that this technology is the safest and cleanest energy source in the world: opposition to it on these grounds is irrational, and it leads me to assume that NZ has been exposed to even more environmentalist propaganda than other western countries.

You cannot cite minor spills that may have been concealed by companies, and ignore the fact that no one dies in these hypothetical accidents. In the mean time, thousands die in coal mines, in dams bursting, etc. By what criteria are nuclear plants so dangerous?

As far as Chernobyl being a deterrent, you're right: we should not build plants based on Soviet designs, and then leave a communist system in charge of the Safety Department. But that also applies to every single human endeavor (submarines, children's toys, etc.), not just nuclear plants. It's an argument against communism, not nuclear power.

And for the record, "I know a doctor who worked in Iraq" is not acceptable scientific evidence. If you want to prove that depleted uranium warheads are dangerous to our soldiers, you need to come up with scientific studies that prove it, not hearsay and Internet noise, or B movies about Gulf War Syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know a doctor who worked with people who were exposed to depleted uranium at the "dead tank farms" in Iraq, where they put tanks that have been destroyed by A-10s and other DU-based anti-tank weapons. That's U-238, which is even "weaker" than U-235 (and has a much longer half-life). It turns out that almost everyone who came in contact with that stuff even a little bit gets very sick, in spite of tons of safety precautions. She told me about some people who were just downwind and got sick; they were never even in direct physical contact. Or look at the people living around Chernobyl: lots of cancer, birth defects and other disasters.

So it might not matter to you much, but it definitely matters to others. And, more to the point, the level of risk in the event of a spill is non-zero -- and once spilled, it is basically impossible to ever completely clean it up.

As we would say in the States: Dude! That's your problem. It's not NZ as a whole that's bad. It's the big cities. Your mind has been warped. Get out of Auckland. I would never live there; I'm not even interested in going for a visit. The SI is where it's at.

Yes it is my "problem" I suppose, but why point that out? As for my mind being warped, I dont think so. In Auckland the problems might be more noticeable, but they are hardly unique to Auckland. If anything, your the one that grossly misrepresents NZ and acts like your mind is warped, as many of your claims are demonstrably false, exaggrating things or missing the point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't believe this evaluation. NZ has quite a bit of socialism. Not to say there aren't good thing about it. I value much of their Western culture, but postmodernism and socialism have a way of crushing liberty and making life more difficult.

Regarding nuclear power, there is no safer or more efficient source of power. In fact, as designs improve they become safer all of the time. We are missing out big time in the States by not using it. In fact, unregulated it would be supremely low cost and could easily power all of our electricity needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pitching in her on the Nuclear side again, the 'birth defects' thing regarding Chernobyl is actually false:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/0...cts-should.html

Skip down to number 4.

Chernobyl was a terrible incident, but the aftermath of it is blown way out of proportion. If the NZ government would be running the plants, like the Soviets were running there's, then definitely, NZ should not have nuclear power - but that's a problem with Socialism, not nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just pitching in her on the Nuclear side again, the 'birth defects' thing regarding Chernobyl is actually false:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/0...cts-should.html

Skip down to number 4.

Chernobyl was a terrible incident, but the aftermath of it is blown way out of proportion. If the NZ government would be running the plants, like the Soviets were running there's, then definitely, NZ should not have nuclear power - but that's a problem with Socialism, not nuclear power.

Chernobyl is also a bad example. The Soviets ran that plant recklessly with a massive power density, well beyond what Western plants use. We’re talking the difference between a baby behind iron bars and a gorilla behind a spider web. Not only that, but in the vast majority of American plants the coolant is the fuel, so that if you lose the coolant, then the reaction shuts down. Not so with Chernobyl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it is my "problem" I suppose, but why point that out? As for my mind being warped, I dont think so. In Auckland the problems might be more noticeable, but they are hardly unique to Auckland. If anything, your the one that grossly misrepresents NZ and acts like your mind is warped, as many of your claims are demonstrably false, exaggrating things or missing the point...

Sorry; you're right. What I said didn't come across as I intended (tone is hard to communicate on a forum like this). Let me try again:

This thread was intended to be about my personal experience and opinion. You are clearly seeing things from a different perspective than me. My perspective is as someone who lived in California most of his life, and who now lives on the south island. I've been to the north island several times, and found it to be very unpleasant in many ways; I would never want to live there, and I'm sympathetic with anyone who does and who also finds it unpleasant. I'm not saying NZ doesn't have its problems -- there's no place in the world that doesn't. I'm just choosing to focus on the bright side. At the moment, I'm finding the change to be a very pleasant one.

Honestly, I don't believe this evaluation. NZ has quite a bit of socialism. Not to say there aren't good thing about it. I value much of their Western culture, but postmodernism and socialism have a way of crushing liberty and making life more difficult.

Yes, NZ has some socialism. So do most countries in the world, and those that don't have fascism, totalitarianism or communism instead. California is in many ways much more socialist than NZ. I also found California to be much more oppressive and less free in almost every way compared to NZ.

Regarding nuclear power, there is no safer or more efficient source of power. In fact, as designs improve they become safer all of the time.

I didn't intend to turn this thread into a debate about nuclear power. I'm not trying to convince anyone else that it's not safe. The point is that based on the sum of my life's experience: education (Chem/Biology), work (I used to work at a National Laboratory), what I've read, the people I've spoken with, etc, the conclusion that I've reached is that it isn't safe enough yet, particularly on the waste disposal and transport side. I'm not saying that it won't ever be safe, but I am happier at the moment with no nuclear material anywhere near me.

Edited by LovesLife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't intend to turn this thread into a debate about nuclear power. I'm not trying to convince anyone else that it's not safe. The point is that based on the sum of my life's experience: education (Chem/Biology), work (I used to work at a National Laboratory), what I've read, the people I've spoken with, etc, the conclusion that I've reached is that it isn't safe enough yet, particularly on the waste disposal and transport side. I'm not saying that it won't ever be safe, but I am happier at the moment with no nuclear material anywhere near me.

It's very safe. The record speaks for itself. It's not safe if used haphazardly, but that's true of a lot of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...