Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How evil is Toohey compared to Gail Wynand?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I recently read "The Fountainhead." One question has been bugging me that maybe someone here could help clear up. After Roark finishes talking about the evil of the second handers to Wynand, he thinks to himself that he didn't mention the even greater evil that is the power-abuser, ie Wynand. Could someone explain what is meant by this/why this is the case, according to objectivism? What are the degrees involved here, and how important are they? Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toohey was pure evil.

Toohey knew exactly what he was doing throughout the course of events in The Fountainhead. He sought to destroy greatness by destroying valuation. He knew fully what greatness was, and used that knowledge for the express purpose of destroying it. Toohey was seeking power for the sake of power, not really for the sake of doing something with it, but he was in no way ignorant of his own actions. He choose to be evil.

Wynand on the other hand was ignorant. He was a person who could have been Roark, but lacked full knowledge of his actions. Wynand possessed many of the same qualities that Roark had - his will to succeed, his passion for his work, his total refusal to take "no" for an answer. However, Wynand was also a power-seeker who didn't intend to do anything in particular with his power, whereas Roark's abilities were always used for a specific purpose. Not until the end did Wynand try to use his paper for a cause HE believed in, only to discover that his circulation tanked and that he didn't have the power he thought he did.

Objectivists recognize that seeking power for the sake of power ultimately results in a person like Toohey. Power seekers give orders, and if that order is completed, then they'll just reverse themselves to exercise their power again. The only power that people should seek is the power to pursue and accomplish a rational goal; not power over others, but only power over oneself. That statement describes Roark, but it doesn't describe Wynand, even if Wynand did have many other admirable qualities.

In summary, Toohey is the anti-Roark. He is pure evil, and the embodiment of altruism taken to it's full and logical conclusion. Wynand made a big mistake, but he doesn't choose to be evil. He doesn't really choose to be anything. Wynand was merely rewarded for giving people what they wanted. His voice was never included in the Banner - it was just populist trash, whereas Roark is rewarded for pursuing his own vision for his own satisfaction.

Did I miss anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still mulling over whether or not Toohey is more evil than Jim Taggart. I admit I haven't yet read FH but from what I gather from other sources, Toohey could grasp the way reality worked and used this knowledge to make long-range plans in pursuit of a definite -but evil- goal. Taggart not only resented reality but also his own mind for perceiving it. He was basically a sentient mass of cancer cells that had no ambition other than to gloat over a mountain of corpses before starving to death.

But I guess there is no real difference between the two villains other than the levels of disgust they inspire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you give an example from well known events in public affairs or history?

I was paraphrasing something that Ayn Rand said herself, but now I can't remember where. I thought it might have been in The Fountainhead itself, or maybe in The Virtue of Selfishness but I'll be damned if I can find it. I've been trying for the last half hour.

At any rate, I never did attempt to relate the idea of "power for power's sake" to any actual events because I understood the idea without a concrete illustration. I can imagine a slave driver ordering a slave to haul a pile of bricks from one place to another and then deciding he liked them better where they were originally. For that matter, I can imagine a young boy's older brother using his physical size to do the same thing.

When it comes to governments and individuals in positions of power though, some kind of rationalization is needed. Indeed, Rand spoke specifically of Soviet Russia's need to spend a ton of money on propaganda to placate the masses. When exercising power for power's sake, I don't imagine you'll get away with it openly on a national scale (unless you've got a very large personal army, ie. any dictator), but behind some flimsy rationalization all you've got is a person who takes actions without enough thought because he can. He may not literally reverse himself, but he will never be satisfied. People pursuing power for power's sake never can be. If your power accomplishes it's avowed purpose (whatever it's claimed to be), then what happens? A person pursuing a purposeful goal would be satisfied. A person pursing power would find something else to put his power to use, and the goal never really was the purpose at all.

That's what power seekers are. When people dream of power apart from the power to do SOMETHING, then the something merely becomes rationalization for the real goal: power as an end in itself. If you want to find concrete examples though, I would look at the records of dictators as I hinted at earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was paraphrasing something that Ayn Rand said herself, but now I can't remember where. I thought it might have been in The Fountainhead itself, or maybe in The Virtue of Selfishness but I'll be damned if I can find it. I've been trying for the last half hour.
Okay, so not a claim that you were prepared to substantiate yourself.

At any rate, I never did attempt to relate the idea of "power for power's sake" to any actual events because I understood the idea without a concrete illustration.
Such a method of drawing conclusions from what one can imagine as opposed to what one has observed is pretty non-Objectivist, no?

I can imagine a slave driver ordering a slave to haul a pile of bricks from one place to another and then deciding he liked them better where they were originally. For that matter, I can imagine a young boy's older brother using his physical size to do the same thing.
Sure, we can all imagine various things. So the point you were making is as to what you can imagine. Of course, if that is the standard, then lots of claims by many people about a lot of things may be admitted (perhaps properly so, but does that conform to Objectivist epistemology?). Edited by Hodges'sPodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so not a claim that you were prepared to substantiate yourself.

Such a method of drawing conclusions from what one can imagine as opposed to what one has observed is pretty non-Objectivist, no?

Sure, we can all imagine various things. So the point you were making is as to what you can imagine. Of course, if that is the standard, then lots of claims by many people about a lot of things may be admitted (perhaps properly so, but does that conform to Objectivist epistemology?).

What's your problem? His point was obviously that authoritarians are indifferent to accomplishing objectives and this tends to manifest in incoherent, contradictory directives with no thought behind them. A perfect real-world example is Obama's health care plan.

Edited by Mister A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so not a claim that you were prepared to substantiate yourself.

Such a method of drawing conclusions from what one can imagine as opposed to what one has observed is pretty non-Objectivist, no?

Sure, we can all imagine various things. So the point you were making is as to what you can imagine. Of course, if that is the standard, then lots of claims by many people about a lot of things may be admitted (perhaps properly so, but does that conform to Objectivist epistemology?).

My first post was to answer the original poster's question about The Fountainhead. I was using information available in that work, and answering it in the context of that work. Let's get that straight. I am repeating things that Rand said herself, and as soon as I find the statement I paraphrased if it is not in fact in The Fountainhead itself, I'll post the reference. This is me being generous because that is in fact not even necessary. Is is very much an Objectivist principle to denounce power for power's sake and that IS explicitly said in The Fountainhead and was mentioned in the OP's post. If you want to argue that fact, you won't be doing it with me because I did not originate the claim. The OP asked a question about Rand's work, and I am replying in that context. When I repeat a statement made by someone else, it is not my job to defend it, only to present it accurately and in context, which I have.

I did not look for concrete examples to illustrate the concept because I was satisfied that I understood it. It is of no consequence to me what you need to be satisfied yourself. Quite likely some concrete examples were included with the concept when I formed it but I didn't retain them, only the concept. In demonstrating it for your benefit, I proposed an off-hand illustration of the slave driver who orders a slave to move a heavy load around needlessly. This does not mean that I imagined something from out of nowhere and then formed a concept around it. It means I had the concept originally and then imagined something that would illustrate it. Let's get that straight too. The concept was not the product of imagination. The imagined scenario was the product of the concept, and imagination is perfectly serviceable in that respect. Atlas Shrugged is a fictional story, but the concepts and ideas are all very much legitimate.

I think that addresses your complete misunderstanding. To end, I have a very specific question I'd like to ask you: what, if anything, do you object to in my earlier posts? What are you trying to demonstrate here?

edit: Thank you Mr. A

Edited by C20710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His point was obviously that authoritarians are indifferent to accomplishing objectives and this tends to manifest in incoherent, contradictory directives with no thought behind them. A perfect real-world example is Obama's health care plan.
Whatever the merits of those assertions, his original assertion that I asked about was more a more specific one; then I had questions about how his followup relates to Objectivist epistemology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is is very much an Objectivist principle to denounce power for power's sake and that IS explicitly said in The Fountainhead and was mentioned in the OP's post. If you want to argue that fact, you won't be doing it with me because I did not originate the claim.
But, whatever my thoughts about what you just mentioned, I did not undertake to argue it. Rather, I was interested in a particular claim you made, as I mentioned it.

The OP asked a question about Rand's work, and I am replying in that context. When I repeat a statement made by someone else, it is not my job to defend it, only to present it accurately and in context, which I have.
I thought you might have been making a claim that you personally support as well as merely reporting what Objectivists in general hold. If on the other hand, you were merely reporting something that Rand said somewhere, of course, I wouldn't ask you to explain her epistemological context for her.

I did not look for concrete examples to illustrate the concept because I was satisfied that I understood it. It is of no consequence to me what you need to be satisfied yourself. Quite likely some concrete examples were included with the concept when I formed it but I didn't retain them, only the concept. In demonstrating it for your benefit, I proposed an off-hand illustration of the slave driver who orders a slave to move a heavy load around needlessly. This does not mean that I imagined something from out of nowhere and then formed a concept around it. It means I had the concept originally and then imagined something that would illustrate it. Let's get that straight too.
Then as long as that is acceptable epistemology, quite fine. There are many claims (even broad generalizations) that people may make though they are unsure whether they know of even a single (not just imagined, fictional, or hypothetical) instance to support the claim. Perhaps that is a legitimate basis for making such claims, especially when bolstered by the ability to cite hypothetical examples. I'm not inclined to argue for or against such a view. I was just wondering how it squares with Objectivism.

what, if anything, do you object to in my earlier posts? What are you trying to demonstrate here?
Whatever my views on your earlier posts, I did not claim to refute them; merely I was interested in the particular claim that I mentioned. Edited by Hodges'sPodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, ok, to contrast Wynand and Keating...

Well the exact line Roark says in the book is "I haven't mentioned to him the worst second-hander of all - the man who goes after power". He also says to Wynand just a few lines earlier "that you weren't born to be a second-hander".

Roark is saying that strictly as second-handers are concerned that Wynand is guiltier than Peter (and he doesn't know it). But I don't think that second-handing alone is the only criterion for evil. I assume that's why you mentioned Toohey in your thread title, because Toohey is not just a vicious second-hander but he's fully aware of it and fully intent on destroying Roark (and all greatness as witnessed in his various social clubs of mediocrity).

Let me take a shot at contrasting Wynand and Keating alone though. Wynand, though a second-hander, is innovative, self-directed and hard-working. His second-handedness is recognized in the fact that he does seek power over others. This is illustrated much earlier on when you read about the idealistic people that Wynand bullied into working for him only to have them do jobs that were in full opposition to their beliefs, eventually breaking their spirits. Now lets look at Peter Keating. Keating lacks all of Wynand's positive attributes. All the notable buildings ascribed to Keating were done by Roark, and everything else he did was mediocre rehashes of old designs. He is not innovative - he copies Roark. He is not self-directed - he is motivated by fame and greatness in the eyes of others. And he's not particularly hard working, except for when he works hard to cover up his inadequacy. Peter is a complete flop but not as bad a second-hander as Wynand. Wynand has a lot of great attributes but the abuse of his power repulses Roark.

My take on it is that Roark respects Wynand a lot more because he could have been a much greater man, whereas Keating couldn't have been. I think it's fair to say this: Wynand started out worse than Keating but ended better than Keating. Wynand's pursuit of power and abuse of power is worse than Keating's wormy second-handing, ie. his desire to be valued by others rather than to value himself. In the end though, Wynand tries his best to defend a value of his own: the defense of Roark (though he tries to do it through the power he thinks he has over others through his paper). He also discovers about himself what an ugly thing his pursuit of power was, and presumably it destroys him (I know in the movie, he kills himself - I wondered about that in the book).

Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically power means the ability to violate the rights of others. The man who derives his self-esteem from exercising power (over others) is in fact 'selfless' in the purest sense. The 'value' of power does not originate from his own soul, but rather from the souls of others. If they didn't exist, he would have nothing. Hence the man who seeks power is the greatest second hander of them all.

Keating does not desire power - he wants other values like wealth, respect, fame, a beautiful wife, without understanding or earning them. He can fools others into thinking he deserves those values, but he can't fool himself and consequently always suffers from low self-esteem. Put another way, the 2nd hand nature of all the values he supposedly possesses, makes it impossible for him to generate self-esteem on their basis.

I don't really think it's a question of who is more evil - the salient point is Wynand's self-esteem is far more fragile than Toohey's. Wynand thinks power is all he needs, but he's catastrophically wrong. Toohey understands Wynand's catastrophe in advance. Toohey understands everything, and uses that knowledge to manipulate people around him. But really Toohey is ultimately the most cursed because Wynand collapses then gets back up and presumably starts to lead an enlightened life - Toohey on the other hand will never be content, because he's too good at manipulation, too entrenched in the game of altruism (if i remember correctly at the end of the novel he moves onto greener pastures and starts up his old tricks). Nobody can crush Toohey... he'll just slowly crush himself over a lifetime.

As such I think we need to draw a line between 2nd-handedness and actual evil. It's is immoral to be a dictator even if 'benevolent' but it's EVIL to commit genocide, run a secret police force, etc etc

The Fountainhead is not about 'evil' in terms of heinous deeds, it looks at the psychology of altruism and 2nd-handedness. Atlas Shrugged goes on to make that connection between the psychological root cause and the public atrocity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add something for Hodge's as well that I didn't include in my last post:

I'm glad to see you heeled the hostility. Anyways, I spent my free time today thinking about your question so I'll say what I came up with. We were talking specifically about the pursuit of power, yes? If so, my position is that the information is available in the concepts involved, without the need to cite a specific historical example.

This all began because I mentioned a trait reflected in the character Toohey, namely the pursuit of power for power's sake. If a person's goal is power for power's sake and that is his only goal, it stands to reason that any stated goal is just a rationalization to throw people off the scent. I would be inclined to suggest that all dictatorships and all religious conflicts fall into that category. The people involved MAY be sincere about their stated goals, but never forget the means they pursue: power (physical force) over others. I quote Rand directly when I say "the most dreadful butchers were the most sincere".

Anyways, the denunciation of seeking power for power's sake IS a belief that I do hold, and I hold it based on the deduction made from the concepts involved. I see no error in my logic, but if there is one, I want to know about it.

Additionally, you are quite right in saying that imagining something fully impossible based on objective observation of the facts of reality and then forming a concept based on that fantasy is wrong. If a deduction is made based on a concept that in turn is based on a scenario that can't realistically be conceived of in reality then you should throw it out as mystical nonsense, but there's nothing wrong with a deduction made from legitimately formed concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see you heeled the hostility.
What hostility?

If a person's goal is power for power's sake and that is his only goal, it stands to reason that any stated goal is just a rationalization to throw people off the scent. I would be inclined to suggest that all dictatorships and all religious conflicts fall into that category. The people involved MAY be sincere about their stated goals, but never forget the means they pursue: power (physical force) over others. I quote Rand directly when I say "the most dreadful butchers were the most sincere".
Again, whatever the merits of that analysis, my question regarded something more specific you claimed.

Anyways, the denunciation of seeking power for power's sake IS a belief that I do hold, and I hold it based on the deduction made from the concepts involved. I see no error in my logic, but if there is one, I want to know about it.
Whether there is an error in the way you've made any particular claims depends on one's notion of error. But my question was not really as to error but rather as to how the formation of your claim squares with Objectivist epistemology. But if 'error' in your view means 'contradicts Objectivist epistemology' then my question does regard error per se.

Additionally, you are quite right in saying that imagining something fully impossible based on objective observation of the facts of reality and then forming a concept based on that fantasy is wrong.
But I didn't say that.

If a deduction is made based on a concept that in turn is based on a scenario that can't realistically be conceived of in reality then you should throw it out as mystical nonsense, but there's nothing wrong with a deduction made from legitimately formed concepts.
To begin, I'd wish to understand whatever distinction Objectivism makes between concepts and propositions, then to see whether the remark of yours that interested me expresses a proposition or a concept, though, of course, this is not to say that propositions are unrelated to concepts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe my problem is that I don't understand the question. Instead of trying to guess, could you ask it again? I can't promise I'll answer right away, but I'll try to in the next couple of days.

edit: on another note, I'd like to quote the forum rules, under "forum etiquette":

Use a letter writing style. Separate paragraphs by a blank line. Do not use a nested quotes style, i.e., quote from above post and your comment; another quote from above post and your next comment, etc.

This doesn't relate to the essence of your questions and comments, but it's damn irritating.

Edited by C20710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Use a letter writing style. Separate paragraphs by a blank line. Do not use a nested quotes style, i.e., quote from above post and your comment; another quote from above post and your next comment, etc."

This doesn't relate to the essence of your questions and comments, but it's damn irritating.

Perhaps my posts are not appearing in your browser as they appear to me. What is your specific complaint? At least as my posts appear in my own browser, they do conform to the suggestions you quoted above. Is your complaint that I don't insert a blank line between formatted quotes and my following comment? If so, that is to tighten wasted space and is a formatting that certain other posters use as well; and I have never seen a complaint regarding their formatting, nor, for that matter, regarding my own. Edited by Hodges'sPodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like this:

You quote me

Then add a line here.

Then you do it again

And write something else.

And so on

And so forth.

"Do not use a nested quotes style, i.e., quote from above post and your comment; another quote from above post and your next comment, etc.

I'm not posting again for a couple days at least. The thread's already been derailed enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The follwing quotes do have surrounding explanation by you. I assure you that I'm not attempting to take you out of context, but rather I'm trying to be concise in presenting my re-asking of my question"

"Power seekers give orders, and if that order is completed, then they'll just reverse themselves to exercise their power again."

"I never did attempt to relate the idea of "power for power's sake" to any actual events because I understood the idea without a concrete illustration."

"Quite likely some concrete examples were included with the concept when I formed it but I didn't retain them, only the concept."

So, you made a pretty wide generalization about power seekers and their thoughts (their reasons) - particularly that they reverse themselves for the purpose of exercising their power again. That claim (by the way, it seems to me to be not a mere concept but also an expression of a proposition, indeed a claim) struck me as especially interesting. So, I asked what empirical evidence you have for the claim. However, your response indicated that you weren't making the claim yourself, but rather reporting a claim made by Rand. So I accepted that.

But then you went on to explain your own concept formation about this particular subject. Part of your explanation included that it is "quite likely" that your concept was formed from concretes but that you don't recall them. That led to my comment:

"There are many claims (even broad generalizations) that people may make though they are unsure whether they know of even a single (not just imagined, fictional, or hypothetical) instance to support the claim. Perhaps that is a legitimate basis for making such claims, especially when bolstered by the ability to cite hypothetical examples. I'm not inclined to argue for or against such a view. I was just wondering how it squares with Objectivism."

And that was pretty much my question, just as I posted it. I was wondering how your description of your concept formation that leads to your assertion of a generalization about power seekers squares with Objectivist epistemology. And, of course, this is a question that may be addressed by whomever wishes to address it.

Edited by Hodges'sPodges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that even though the forum rules state that posts should be written in letter format, everyone on here replies in "nested quote" responses. Even the moderators do it.

As long as the writing is clear and the formatting logical, there shouldn't be any problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do not use a nested quotes style
I didn't use nested quote formatting. Nested quote formatting is quote within quote. As far as I can tell, what irritates you is that I don't add a blank line between the quote and my reply, though my reply is well demarcated by the fact that it is outside the box of the quoted matter. Anyway, I mentioned that this is a method used by certain other posters too (among them at least one veteran at this site of many years) and I have never previously seen any complaints about this. My posts are perfectly readable. You see what I've quoted in a box and then my comment immediately below that quote box. (I departed from that in my previous post only because the situation is somewhat different.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the quote - it was from Galt's Speech of all places. Really I should have known. As follows:

"Destruction is the only end that the mystics' creed has ever achieved, as it is the only end that you see them achieving today, and if the ravages wrought by their acts have not made them question their doctrines, if they profess to be moved by love, yet are not deterred by piles of human corpses, it is because the truth about their souls is worse than the obscene excuse you have allowed them, the excuse that the end justifies the means and that the horrors they practice are means to nobler ends. The truth is that those horrors are their ends.

"You who're depraved enough to believe that you could adjust yourself to a mystic's dictatorship and could please him by obeying his orders — there is no way to please him; when you obey, he will reverse his orders; he seeks obedience for the sake of obedience and destruction for the sake of destruction. You who are craven enough to believe that you can make terms with a mystic by giving in to his extortions — there is no way to buy him off, the bribe he wants is your life, as slowly or as fast as you are willing to give it in — and the monster he seeks to bribe is the hidden blank-out in his mind, which drives him to kill in order not to learn that the death he desires is his own.

Ok, so let me try to lay this bag of snakes out straight. In the same speech just one page earlier Rand talks about mystics quite a bit. The mystic is the second-hander, the one who chooses the authority of others, the one who chooses to believe rather than to think.

"His surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be, through some means forever denied to him...When a mystic declares that he feels the existence of a power superior to reason, he feels it all right, but that power is not an omniscient super-spirit of the universe, it is the consciousness of any passer-by to whom he has surrendered his own...He feels he must leash them in order to live. To control the consciousness of others becomes his only passion; power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind".

So that's Rand's take on power-lust, and I do agree with it. I guess it's clear now why I didn't have a concrete example to give from real life - the quote was taken from a work of fiction, ironically the same work of fiction I referenced in my first response to you. As far as applying a real-life example though, I thought of a good one from Capitalism: "The Cashing-In: The Student Rebellion". It's about the student rebellion at University of California at Berkeley in 1964. The University had banned political activity - specifically , the recruiting, fund-raising and organizing of students for political action off-campus on a certain strip of ground adjoining the campus. Claiming their rights had been violated, the rebels rallied thousands of students under the title of the "Free Speech Movement". They staged sit-in protests and other acts of physical force such as assaults on the police and the seizure of a police car for use as a rostrum. Time to bang out another quote:

"The spirit, style, and tactics of the rebellion are best illustrated by one particular incident. The University administration called a mass meeting, which was attended by eighteen thousand students and faculty members, to hear an address on the situation by the University President, Clark Kerr; it had been expressly announced that no student speakers would be allowed to address the meeting. Kerr attempted to end the rebellion by capitulating: he promised to grant most of the rebels' demands; it looked as if he had won the audience to his side. Whereupon, Mario Savio, the rebel leader, seized the microphone, in an attempt to take over the meeting, ignoring the rules and the fact that the meeting had been adjourned. When he was - properly - dragged off the platform, the leaders of the F.S.M. admitted, openly and jubilantly, that they had almost lost their battle, but had saved it by provoking the administration to an act of "violence" (thus admitting that the victory of their publicly proclaimed goals was not the goal of their battle).

Ok, so here we have an example of something I said earlier about rationalizing the pursuit of power for power's sake. To quote myself from earlier: "When people dream of power apart from the power to do SOMETHING, then the something merely becomes rationalization for the real goal: power as an end in itself". And that's pretty much bang on. The something in this case was the FSM's publicly stated goals, which when met prompted the rebel leader to grab the power back by prolonging the rebellion in the name of things like "'idealism' and 'commitment' to political action" (pure rationalization).

To tidy up as quickly as I can, it is things like this that help you to form the concept of the power-seeker. And the concept of power itself - specifically coercive power - is derived from observing a kind of relationship between men. When you see that one man is bigger than another and can use his size to boss the smaller one around, that is what you would call coercive power. When you see a group of men have an army or a secret police force that can be used to boss around an even larger but disunited and disarmed group, that is also what you would call coercive power. Strictly speaking though, you can abstract from the concept of power alone because the concept implies that there is a person who has power over one or more other people. Realizing that a person can choose anything as a goal, when you suggest power as a goal, the only logical conclusion is that you will end up with a person who does anything he needs to to retain the power. It may not manifest itself literally as a reversal of position. In the case of the student rebellion what happened was that as soon as the first set of demands were met, another set of demands were made, and so on.

To the best of my knowledge, this squares with Objectivist epistemology just fine.

Oh, and I guess I lied about holding off on posting. Like a moth to the flame I guess.

Link to comment
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...