Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
McGroarty

What's the deal with the Kelley Objectivists?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This last paragraph goes right to the heart of why yours and the TOC opinion is immoral and wrong. It explicitly says that perfection and complete and accurate knowledge is impossible which objectivism completely rejects.

Isn't Objectivism supposed to be capitalized? You just made a mistake. Does that mean you're immoral, and guilty of willful evasion? I really don't think you are, but it seems like you would be arguing that you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought about this some more and realized that an "honest mistake" is what Kelley is trying to excuse. But, what is the difference between an honest mistake and a dishonest mistake?

I assume that you will agree a "dishonest mistake" is deception. If an "honest mistake" is not deception, you would correct yourself when discovering the error.

Does the person correct himself upon discovering his error? If not, it is a "dishonest mistake" or deception.

Did you correct yourself on those items that prevented you from getting an A or did you deceive yourself by saying the teacher doesn't like you (or any other excuse)?

You're right, of course, that if I had not corrected myself, it would not be an honest error, and I would have been guilty of evasion. Still, I'm convinced that the vast majority- if not all- of the mistakes that people make are honest ones. For the most part, people will admit their mistakes if they are shown proof of them. Of course, proving them can be exceedingly difficult most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand's philosophy need no "interperating." The idea that a reader might "interpret" her writings was anathema -- so she worked and reworked them slavishly. We reap the reward of the beautiful clarity she has left as her legacy. She always said exactly what she meant in detail and with logical precision.

Perhaps "interpreting" is the wrong word to use here. "Understanding" would be a better word, I think. I didn't mean that her philosophy has different meanings for different people, all I meant was that knowledge of it doesn't come automatically. You have to think about out, and apply your intelligence to the task at hand. I have seen many, many negative reviews of Rand's work that left me wondering if the person had even read her books. Of course they had, the real problem was that they didn't understand what she was saying.

Edited by pi-r8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, proving them can be exceedingly difficult most of the time.
Why do you have to prove the obvious? Why would someone require you to prove the obvious?

Man is conscious. Their argument is dismissed, did they correct themselves? I say this assuming they saw the millions of arguments on the issue covering this point.

I meant was that knowledge of it doesn't come automatically. You have to think about out, and apply your intelligence to the task at hand.
All you have to do is prove the contradiction. If they fail to reach the higher level abstractions, they failed to identify the contradiction and those that followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, many times mistakes are not obvious, especially to the person making them. For example, it's obvious to me now that there's nothing wrong with making money, but before I read Atlas Shrugged that was not obvious to me. Many people will persist in believing themselves to be correct even though they are clearly mistaken, and that's why I said that it can be extremely difficult too prove them wrong.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean in your second paragraph, though. Are you saying that there is just one single contradiction that must be proved in order to understand all of Objectivism, and nothing else is required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that TOC'ers in general cannot grasp is the fact than someone who is evil is some respect is not necessarily an evil person overall. In other words: how much evil is enough in order to warrant cessation of trade/alienation? The whole idea of "tolerance" is to allow people to be "Objectivist" without feeling a need to alienate their existent friends/family. The fact is, they don't have to, they are just confused about what it means to morally judge someone.

Passing a moral judgement on the act of a person as "evil" does not necessarily mean that one must severe all ties with that person and have no further contact. For one thing, there are various degrees of "evil". For another, I have never met anyone who was wholly evil -- Elsworth Toohey is a fictional character.

If someone willfully lower-cases Objectivism, knowing they should not, this does not put them in the same category as a murderer. It is not a serious enough offense to cause someone to be unworthy of being a trade partner. If someone lies to you about how you look, this doesn't mean they intend to cheat you out of all your money.

Most people are heavily compartmentalized. They will hold one premise in one context, and its opposite in another context never realizing the contradiction. This means that the evils they do in one context don't necessarily indicate they will make evil actions in another context.

TOC'ers seem to want to be able to drop the context of any particular trade and be able to say "in all contexts, person A is evil (or good)". You cannot do this, and the attempts to do it have led Kelley and his "followers" down their erroneous path.

I trade with churches and a newspaper all the time. I own an ISP and I sell them Internet access. Are their ideas evil? You bet. Does that mean I shouldn't take their money? Not a chance! Why? Aren't I helping them to further their evil ideas? Isn't my network being used to transport evil ideas? It most certainly is.

The thing is, those evil ideas did not originate from my mind. Further, I am not in the business of selling ideas. I am an ISP, not a philosopher. Those ideas would still be there and still being sold whether I refused to trade with them or not. The important thing here is the context. I provide Internet service. How it is used (within the limits of the law and without harming anyone's network) is neither my concern nor my responsibility.

Another example: motorcycling. I have been known to go motorcycling with people who are Christians, or socialists, or feminists, or whatever else. Are they evil for being those things? You bet. Does that mean that we can't enjoy a good motorcycle ride? Not a chance. Despite whatever evils they may support, we still share a common interest and my relationship to them is limited to that interest only.

So my advice is: get over it. Actually keep all moral decisions contextual instead of insisting on dropping it in some vain attempt to make the work you must do with your mind simpler. The metaphysically given facts of human consciousness and volition and their relationship to the concept of "context" don't permit any way for you to do so. There is no "magic test" to decide if someone is "fundamentally" evil or not. The question of good/evil is as contextual as anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This last paragraph goes right to the heart of why yours and the TOC opinion is immoral and wrong. It explicitly says that perfection and complete and accurate knowledge is impossible which objectivism completely rejects.

Objectivism should have been capitalized here, I made a mistake that I just corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people will persist in believing themselves to be correct even though they are clearly mistaken, and that's why I said that it can be extremely difficult too prove them wrong.
Why do they persist in denying the obvious? What motive could that be? I bleive it was Spinoza that said evil is the abscenece of knowledge. This person does not have knowledge and insist that they do. What is the motive for contradicting reality?

When I am confronted with a contradiction, I always think about it. Why does a person do the opposite of thinking about it by insisting that a contradcition is correct?

Is the motive that they think they are always right? Omnipotent? Smarter than you? Etc. All of which lead back to the same place. To maintain an incorrect belief, they force their minds to contradict reality. They are putting their consciousness before existence.

If they are not to blame, who is? Is the person in question just a helpless soul or a rational being acting irrationally? If it is a rational being acting irrationally, we have answered the question - they are immoral.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean in your second paragraph, though.  Are you saying that there is just one single contradiction that must be proved in order to understand all of Objectivism, and nothing else is required?
You implied that the learning process takes times, so there is a lag between discovering the error and understanding the error.

I did not think that the lag has anything to do with the issue. If I prove to you that existence preceedes consciousness once, the resst shall follow if you think about it consistently. The amount of time is irrlevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TomL made some interesting points. I think, on the whole, I agree with him. Good and evil in a person aren't absolutes, but that shouldn't prevent us from passing judgement on certain acts or thoughts as evil.

But, I don't see TOC as trying to label people as "in all contexts, evil/good." To be honest, I see that more from ARI. This is what Peikoff once said about Alan Greenspan:

"Now my next item pertains to Alan Greenspan; the Federal Reserve chairman with whom I was friendly in the fifties, and who is widely known as a one-time follower of Ayn Rand; a supposed pseudo, or quasi-objectivist. Something occurred in my copy of the New York Times last week which made me decide it is necessary to set the world straight on Alan Greenspan, once and for all. So when we return from this break, I'm going to tell you why, if I were the Pope, and I had the power of excommunication, I would now formally excommunicate Alan Greenspan from any connection with Objectivism. If I were the Pope (which I am not), and if he really said what they say he did. I'll be back."

He said that because, according to a NY Times ad, Greenspan supported affirmitive action. Peikoff didn't even bother to learn the context of the quote. It turned out that the only "affirmtive action" Greenspan supported was for businesses to not be racist in their hiring practices. Nevertheless, Peikoff was ready to denounce Greenspan completely because of something he may have said on one issue. He urged all objectivists to sever all ties with him and have no further contact.

Wheras Kelley says "What I object to is not moral judgment per se but the blanket condemnations that some Objectivists issue without adequate evidence."

Therefore, based on the facts as I know them, it seems as though Kelley is more in accordance with your ideas on good and evil than Peikoff is.

So my advice is: get over it.  Actually keep all moral decisions contextual instead of insisting on dropping it in some vain attempt to make the work you must do with your mind simpler.  The metaphysically given facts of human consciousness and volition and their relationship to the concept of "context" don't permit any way for you to do so.  There is no "magic test" to decide if someone is "fundamentally" evil or not.  The question of good/evil is as contextual as anything else.

Good advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not think that the lag has anything to do with the issue. If I prove to you that existence preceedes consciousness once, the resst shall follow if you think about it consistently. The amount of time is irrlevant.

I wish that were true, but I think you're overestimating people's intelligence. Can you honestly claim that understanding the primacy of existance would be enough to allow you to deduce all of Objectivism? In principle it can be done, but I don't know anyone other than Rand herself who's smart enough to do it. I certainly couldn't, and I very, very much doubt that the average man on the street could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen Diana's Hseih's site before.  ...  Frankly, I think a lot of her criticisms are just nitpicking of specific articles on the TOC website.
So it's not significant that the now Executive Director of TOC publishes op-eds which appease religion, advocate altruism, and so on? That's just "nitpicking"?!? What would they have to do to worry you, advocate mass murder in Ayn Rand's name in a NY Times op-ed?

Of course, my analyses of TOC op-eds are not dissections of the philosophical primaries involved (although I've done that elsewhere, at least on some points). They do not directly address the subjectivism of the open system, the skepticism of tolerance, and the pragmatism in Kelley's views on sanction. However, they are illustrations of those philosophic primaries. And they are important illustrations, in that they provide any reasonably knowledgeable Objectivist with a damn good reason to shun TOC completely, even if they don't yet understand how they connect to the complex philosophy advocated in _Truth and Toleration_.

She gives a lot of reasons for her condemnation of TOC, but I'm not convinced by them.  ... The only rather important philosophical difference I saw was the old open vs. closed system, toleration vs. condemnation debate, and on that I simply disagree with her position.
You do realize that you've basically said nothing here, right? Unless you give reasons for your disagreement, substantive reply is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, I don't see TOC as trying to label people as "in all contexts, evil/good."  To be honest, I see that more from ARI.  This is what Peikoff once said about Alan Greenspan:

"Now my next item pertains to Alan Greenspan; the Federal Reserve chairman with whom I was friendly in the fifties, and who is widely known as a one-time follower of Ayn Rand; a supposed pseudo, or quasi-objectivist. Something occurred in my copy of the New York Times last week which made me decide it is necessary to set the world straight on Alan Greenspan, once and for all. So when we return from this break, I'm going to tell you why, if I were the Pope, and I had the power of excommunication, I would now formally excommunicate Alan Greenspan from any connection with Objectivism. If I were the Pope (which I am not), and if he really said what they say he did. I'll be back."

He said that because, according to a NY Times ad, Greenspan supported affirmitive action.  Peikoff didn't even bother to learn the context of the quote.  It turned out that the only "affirmtive action" Greenspan supported was for businesses to not be racist in their hiring practices.  Nevertheless, Peikoff was ready to denounce Greenspan completely because of something he may have said on one issue.  He urged all objectivists to sever all ties with him and have no further contact.

:confused::confused::confused:

Why would you quote Peikoff's "radio teaser" but not quote what he said when he got back from the break? How do you know that Peikoff didn't "bother to learn the context" of the quote? What was the quote?

Given the shallow context that you have provided, businesses should be allowed to be racist in their hiring practices and suffer the negative consequences that result. And if the context you provided is correct, it would more than justify the things that Dr. Peikoff said (at least before he broke for commercial, since you left me in the dark about what he said after).

No Objectivist supports affirmative action on any level, if Greenspan does and people connect him with Ayn Rand, it should be made very clear that Greenspan is not an Objectivist.

All that being said, how does this Peikoff/Greenspan example you provide lead to your conclusion that as ARI labeling "people as 'in all contexts, evil/good.' "? Peikoff didn't say that Greenspan was evil, he said that he not be connected with Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's where I found the Peikoff quote:

http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/peikoff/green.html

He doesn't really say anything too substantial after the teaser, which is why I omitted that. He does insult Mr. Greenspan in many ways, however. While he doesn't actually use the word "evil," I think it's fair to say that that's how he thinks of Mr. Greenspan. I think you can judge for yourself, from the context of Mr. Greenspan's speech, whether or not he really advocates affirmative action.

Diana- I do realize that I did not make any real arguments against your position. I was not really trying to convince anyone, I simply wished to state my opinion on what I see as being the central rift between TOC and ARI, without being bogged down in a debate that I didn't think would ever end. But, since that appears to be where this thread is moving anyways, I will do so now.

I've already explained why I think we should tolerate those with opposing viewpoints, rather than condemning them as evil. That's half of it. The other half, which is probably the most divisive, is the open vs. closed system question.

Knowledge, as I'm sure you will all agree, is hierarchical. It begins with a few, fundamental axioms, upon which all the rest is based. Logic allows us to make deductions of higher level knowledge based upon what we already know to be true.

Objectivism is no different from any other kind of knowledge in this respect. It begins with recognition of the three axioms of existance, consciousness, and identity. After those come the basic perceptions and the laws of logic. Using these fundamentals, Ayn Rand built the system of Objectivism. She deduced it.

However, she did NOT create it. Did Newton create the laws of motion? Did Copernicus create the motion of planets around the sun? Did Darwin create evolution? Of course not! The truths of Objectivism would still be just as true even is she had never lived, just as the laws of motion would still hold if Newton had not lived.

Suppose Ayn Rand had never escaped from Russia. Suppose she was shot and killed before she ever began writing. Someone, eventually, would have discovered Objectivism. To be sure, it probably would have taken a long time for a philosopher as intelligent as her to come along and do it, but it would have happened. It was not a random act of creation, but the identification of true facts of reality. It probably would have been called something else, and written differently, but all the important facts would be the same.

I do not think that there is any more validity to calling Objectivism a closed system than there is to calling physics a closed system. Sure, it was discovered by a person who is now dead. But if we understand the fundamental principles behind her discovery, there is no reason to think that we cannot go on to make further discoveries with it.

Ayn Rand felt that a woman president would be an abomination, and that homosexuality was a disgusting aberration. No doubt she felt that Objectivism proved these things. But, to the best of my knowledge and logical reasoning, it proves exactly the opposite. What are we to conclude from this? If Ayn Rand herself disagreed with Objectivism, what should we do? Should we amend Objectivism to being whatever Ayn Rand said, and throw out its logical structure? No! Instead, we should realize that, for all her brilliance, Ayn Rand was not infallible. She did not posess unlimited knowledge, and she did not know everything there is to know about Objectivism.

As long as I maintain the roots and structure of Objectivism, I will be an Objectivist, even if that means I must occasionally disagree with Ayn Rand. The same goes for David Kelley. If we limit ourselves to only rewriting what has already been written, than we doom Objectivism to an early grave. If you want Objectivism to become truly influential, you must allow it to grow.

Or should we, as Wesley Mouch in Atlas Shrugged recommended, stop and rest, to free ourselves from the burden of keeping up with an ever-changing world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pi-r8, be careful with how you're defining "Objectivism." What may seem to you to be disagreement with other Objectivists may in fact be a matter of equivocation. The word "Objectivism" is used here to describe Ayn Rand's philosophy. The essential attribute used to form the definition is that the philosophy was created by Ayn Rand. The fact that the philosophy is also true is a non-essential to the definition. "Objectivism" is not defined as "all that is true"- it is defined as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand." Therefore, when somebody here says something like "Ayn Rand knew everything there is to know about Objectivism," he is not implying that she was omniscient. Rather, the person is commenting on her understanding of the set of ideas that she herself formulated, integrated, and named.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish that were true, but I think you're overestimating people's intelligence.  Can you honestly claim that understanding the primacy of existance would be enough to allow you to deduce all of Objectivism?  In principle it can be done, but I don't know anyone other than Rand herself who's smart enough to do it.  I certainly couldn't, and I very, very much doubt that the average man on the street could.
I speak form myself. It would allow me to do it if I chose to think about it. As for other humans, I infer the same.

The issue is that I would chose to think about it. The discussion was toleration for those that chose not to think about it. That is immoral, and it has no relation to how long it takes to form the correct abstractions to understand. They rejected it at the beginning. The time is irrelevant since they rejected the first step.

Edited by slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's where I found the Peikoff quote:

http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/peikoff/green.html

He doesn't really say anything too substantial after the teaser, which is why I omitted that.  He does insult Mr. Greenspan in many ways, however.  While he doesn't actually use the word "evil," I think it's fair to say that that's how he thinks of Mr. Greenspan.  I think you can judge for yourself, from the context of Mr. Greenspan's speech, whether or not he really advocates affirmative action.

He doesn't really say anything too substantial except for giving a reasonable explanation of why he doesn't like Greenspan anymore, not all of which had to do with the affirmative action quote. And he prefaced his remarks by saying that he wasn't sure of the context of the quote. But go ahead and leave that out because it doesn't support your point.

I've seen the website that you quoted that article/essay/rant from before and frankly it's ridiculous. The guy has an entire website dedicated to the slander of Objectivism and prominent Objectivist intellectuals. I'm surprised that he hasn't registered the domain name ihateari.com. Why take anything he has to say seriously? It's like quoting a Republican about the Democratic party, or more accurately, a Libertarian about Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cole said of Objectivism: "The essential attribute used to form the definition is that the philosophy was created by Ayn Rand. The fact that the philosophy is also true is a non-essential to the definition.".

How can truth be non-essential? Especially to a rational person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not read "non-essential to the definition?" The comment was not a blanket statement about truth as such, but about the significance of the truth of Objectivism to the definition of the term Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IN HIS LAST PARAGRAPH, Kelley states that Ayn Rand's philosophy, though magnificent, "is not a closed system." Yes, it is. Philosophy, as Ayn Rand often observed, deals only with the kinds of issues available to men in any era; it does not change with the growth of human knowledge, since it is the base and precondition of that growth. Every philosophy, by the nature of the subject, is immutable. New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system—its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch—is laid down once and for all by the philosophy's author. If this applies to any philosophy, think how much more obviously it applies to Objectivism. Objectivism holds that every truth is an absolute, and that a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system. [...]

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence state the "official" doctrine of the government of the United States, and no one, including the Supreme Court, can alter the meaning of this doctrine. What the Constitution and the Declaration are to the United States, Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's other works are to Objectivism. Objectivism, therefore, is "rigid," "narrow," "intolerant" and "closed-minded." If anyone wants to reject Ayn Rand's ideas and invent a new viewpoint, he is free to do so—but he cannot, as a matter of honesty, label his new ideas or himself "Objectivist."

Objectivism is not just "common sense"; it is a revolutionary philosophy, which is a fact we do not always keep in mind. Ayn Rand challenges every fundamental that men have accepted for millennia. The essence of her revolution lies in her concept of "objectivity," which applies to epistemology and to ethics, i.e., to cognition and to evaluation. At this early stage of history, a great many people, though bright and initially drawn to Ayn Rand, are still unable (or unwilling) fully to grasp this central concept.

Why is this even a discussion? This article seems to pretty well answer all questions. Beyond what is said here, is there something else you (pi-r8) don't understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I responded to some of these posts, by my reply got moved to the trash can.  I'm, um, not really sure why.  You can read it there though.

I'm reading it right now and I can see right off it is in the trash b/c you're talking trash. Gratuitous profanity and inane accusations are generally not tolerated here. Try to think (and write) like an adult and you will avoid the garbage can.

If I can find anything in your post content wise to respond to I will, I've only just briefly looked.

[edit-I see there's only one post so I deleted plurals]

Edited by Dominique

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(first off mods-is it ok for me to pull content like this out of the trash? if not please delete)

pi-r8-you wrote

Cole and Dominque- I ask again, does Objectivism refer simply to the sum of what Ayn Rand said, thought, and wrote? Note that if this is true, it has no logical structure whatsoever, and the best way to understand Objectivism is to memorize everything she ever wrote. The answer I received earlier, which I agree with, is that Objectivism is simply a philosophy which she wrote ABOUT. Earlier I explained why I felt that it was discovered, not created. It's essential characteristic is objectivity. Again, I ask, is it possible to call yourself an Objectivist If you disagrees with her views on, for example, homosexuality? She felt that Objectivism forbid homosexuality, I (and most other Objectivists that I know of) find nothing objectively wrong with it. Do I side with Rand, or with the logical principles which she laid out? I know where my loyalties lie.

The sentence that intrigues me in that section from "Fact and Value" is "New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system—its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch—is laid down once and for all by the philosophy's author." It seems like he's admitting that more can be added to a philosophy, as long as the essence of it is preserved. Why can't we preserve the essence of Objectivism- objectivity- and add to it on the matter of politics, or esthetics, or some other nonessential part?

To answer your first question-Yes. Objectivism is only and can only be what Ayn Rand laid out. Further interpretation is more along the lines of processing her data, but it's her system. You can't just tweak her ideas and call it Objectivism, basically it's like trademark infringement. Call it pi-r8ism or Kelleyism, but it isn't Objectivism. Peikoff has the respect and proper behavior to be clear in all his works that he is merely *interpreting* HER philosophy. Whether or not the system is true does not void her patent on the system.

The great thing about Rand's system is that it doesn't need to be memorized, and you are mixing up following her preferences with following her principles. I don't concern myself with her personal likes and dislikes any more than a passing intrest in someone I admire, but her principles-her philosophy is policy, and that is immutable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

Knowledge, as I'm sure you will all agree, is hierarchical.  It begins with a few, fundamental axioms, upon which all the rest is based.  Logic allows us to make deductions of higher level knowledge based upon what we already know to be true.

Objectivism is no different from any other kind of knowledge in this respect.  It begins with recognition of the three axioms of existance, consciousness, and identity.  After those come the basic perceptions and the laws of logic.  Using these fundamentals, Ayn Rand built the system of Objectivism.  She deduced it.

[...]

It is true that knowledge is hierarchical, and that the Objectivist metaphysics begins with axiomatic concepts, but it is NOT true that Objectivism was or can be _deduced_ from those.

Objectivism is an _inductive_ philosophy, not a deductive one. At every step of the way from "existence" to the most abstract concept in the philosophy, new observations of reality are brought in, and _have to be_.

Failure to grasp this leads inevitably to rationalism and an inability to understand the philosophy. Believing that Objectivism is an open system and that David Kelley is an advocate of Objectivism are examples of that.

Mark Peters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objectivism is an _inductive_ philosophy, not a deductive one. At every step of the way from "existence" to the most abstract concept in the philosophy, new observations of reality are brought in, and _have to be_.

Failure to grasp this leads inevitably to rationalism...

Very well said. (Or, as they say on Slashdot, "mod parent up! +1 insightful.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, Apparently swearing isn't allowed at all on this forum. I'll avoid using any in the future.

Man, this is frustrating, because I really don't think our views on this are all that different. I agree that induction is necessary, and that's why I included basic perceptions as one of the building blocks of Objectivism. I also agree that, to be Objectivist, you must follow Objectivist principles. I guess I just don't see why no one but her can do that. If Peikoff's writings are Objectivist, then why not Kelley's, or mine?

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...