Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Slapping N. Branden

Rate this topic


 thenelli01

Recommended Posts

I don't know what this is referring to, or when I required you to be an expert in law. I don't know what my being "happy" with something you've said (whatever it is) has to do with anything. If I've critiqued something you've put forward, there was probably a reason beyond whether or not it made me smile.

Here:

"Freely choosing to mess up your life"? "[T]he expectation to be left alone in return"?

This language is so general, and vague, I have to imagine that it'd wind up allowing for just about anything. We're talking about the initiation of the use of force, remember, which Rand had Galt refer to as "the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive."

But you would attempt to justify just such a thing because, when someone "freely chooses to mess up your life," they lose "the expectation to be left alone in return"?

 

And obviously I was using the word "happy" NOT literally. Even literal wording requires an evaluation of conversational context, so... I'm gonna keep writing like I write.

 

I asked for an explanation for the apparent moral imperative (and, I haven't been assuming the worst of you, so please, enough with the condescension for supposedly insulting you with a (non-)Kant reference) of "don't initiate force" because all this talk of "Rand. said. it." is a floating abstraction of nonsense unless the reasons behind the statements are crystal clear. So far in this thread, I don't think they are. But, you did provide an explanation, which is getting somewhere:

 

I should prefer a phrasing closer to "one may not morally initiate force," or something like that. Doesn't that sound closer to what I've been saying? Closer, in fact, to Rand's own words on the subject? (Though I do find your use of "imperative" to be touchingly desperate, could you please save the Kantian bs for the kiddies who might be impressed with a poisoned well?)

In a nutshell, if I wanted to try to pare down the Objectivist Politics (which Rand elaborated upon at some length, mind) into one statement of "why?", I guess it would be because men must be free to pursue their own ends, according to their individual use of reason, without the threat of being hurt or detained or killed or otherwise forcibly punished. The means to do this, and thereby create a society based on persuasion and reason rather than force or the threat of force, is to remove physical force from men's dealings. Thus to initiate the use of force is also to strike a blow against the foundation of that which allows for civilized society and individual ethical reasoning/action, to say nothing of opening the door for specific retribution... (If a jilted or otherwise hurt lover strikes her ex, and gets struck in return, I don't know whether she has much of a leg to stand on in crying foul.) Thus we proscribe this initiation, reserving force for objective retaliation.

Nothing seems wrong with this statement, until you start asking what is to be done about situations of harm between individuals where it is not possible to involve the court, or objective law? In other words, what trumps the principles of society? I don't think it's just "emergencies." Regular, real-life encounters between individuals could easily turn sour, and could easily not be "righted" within the court system. I mentioned a simple example in a previous post.

 

These two seem to contradict each other, and I point it out because it (seems to be) you demonstrating that "don't initiate force" isn't so easily cut-and-dry.

If Rand and Branden had agreed beforehand that she may slap him, that might be worth talking about, and I'd be tempted to agree that it's fine. But let's be careful here of potential implication.

If I beat my wife sufficiently that she comes to believe she deserves it, and speaks in my defense, I don't think this mitigates the immorality of my actions.

And no, Branden's opinion is not material as to whether or not Rand acted morally in hitting him.

 

I wish others would do likewise. I would like to see the quotes in which Rand said that it may at times be appropriate to initiate the use of force. Let's put it all out there, so we can evaluate and attempt to integrate it.

Yes, exactly. But the emphasis is on evaluate, not just point out what she said.

 

I trust the people I'm talking to, to have the necessary context. That said, I think that these quotes are clear enough to not require much in the way of extensive critical commentary. I believe that they "speak for themselves" quite well.

Nothing really "speaks for itself," especially complex concepts. All ideas require mulling.

 

When we understand that your phrase "decide to deal with things yourself" means use retributive physical force, this becomes quite a statement.

Based on "time constraints" and your "chance of winning in court," you believe it moral to bypass the criminal justice system altogether and take matters in your own hands? This is quite a departure from my view, and certainly from Objectivism, as I understand it. This breach will not be resolved over the course of a single thread.

Well, we can certainly try in a thread.

 

It is moral to bypass the criminal justice system if said system isn't working, or can't work for some life circumstance -- but then by definition it wouldn't be part of the justice system anyway. As I said before, a risk you take is retribution from the court yourself, but I don't think it's necessarily immoral to not use the court. I don't see it wrong to say, "I believe the court is necessary for society at large, and society is beneficial to me. I want a court system. However, this person has seriously compromised my life, and the court is going to do nothing. He deserves punishment, and I'm going to try to administer it. [Or, I'm going to get back what was taken from me.]" If that means using physical force, so be it.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if someone else has already clarified the facts, I've only skimmed the thread. Someone wrote that Branden committed fraud by lying to get sex. Read the biography, here's the timeline: Rand and Branden had a sexual affair between 1955 and 1958, it ended because of the depression she went into following the publication of Atlas Shrugged. Around 1967 she started pressuring him to resume the affair. By then he was divorced from his first wife and was in a secret relationship with his soon-to-be second wife. At this point Branden lied to Rand, denying the relationship he was in and claiming that he had all kinds of other issues that were preventing him from resuming the affair. He denied that her age was one of the issues. This went on for a year or so, during which, no doubt, he put her through hell. Finally he told her (in writing) that her age was the issue. Then Barbara told Rand the truth. Then came the slapping incident.

Tangentially, I'd like to point out that in Atlas Shrugged Rearden slaps Francisco over Dagny. I only bring this up in that it reflects Rand's attitude towards face slapping in high voltage emotional contexts.

FWIW I give Rand credit for not trying to scratch his eyes out or going after him with a kitchen knife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible we're actually on the same page on this, and are just getting caught up in the language to describe it. But let's see. :)

Both "direct" and "indirect" force are "force" in Rand's usage, but that doesn't completely map onto what a physicist thinks of, when he thinks of "physical force." That's partly why some people don't either understand or agree that fraud is actually an instance of force (albeit "indirect").

My understanding was that force, the way she uses it, is the same concept as the "force" in physics. The way Ayn Rand uses it is to apply it in the context of individual rights.

 

i.e. Individual rights can be violated only through the initiation of physical force (same force in physics), but not every use of force violates individual rights.

 

 

Tackling a person in a football game (according to the rules) is not an example of an initiation of force, or a retaliation, or a use of force of any kind according to Rand's meaning. Tackling someone in a supermarket parking lot because they had accidentally sent their cart into your bumper, is.

 

Yes, it is a use of force according to Rand's meaning, just not the TYPE of force that she was against. The first one is certainly force (by Ayn Rand's definition), the second one is force as well applied to the context of individual rights: namely, man's right to his life - his right to use his mind and choose his own values, as opposed to someone using force to negate that ability (and his ability to survive).

 

Ayn Rand:

 

"There are only two fundamental methods by which men can deal with one another: by reason or by force, by intellectual persuasion or by physical coercion, by directing to an opponent’s brain an argument—or a bullet."

 

Helping someone to commit suicide, with mutual consent, by pouring a lethal dose of poison in their tea, is not a use of force. Murdering someone by pouring that same dose into their tea, without their knowledge, is a use of force. Collecting voluntary taxes is not a use of force. Collecting obligatory taxes, though the mechanism may otherwise function identically in terms of physical actions and et cetera, is.

 

The first isn't force against the mind (it is consented), the second is.

 

(same for the next two cases).

 

 

The difference between these sets of examples is not that force exists and is used in all cases but is somehow "uninitiated" in some. It is that there are two separate (though related) ways of using the term "force": as a scientist does, and as Rand does.

Here's a quote from Rand that may (or may not) help:

 

When Rand speaks of "the barring of physical force from social relationships," she does not mean eliminating physical contact.

If two boxers engage each other in sport, via "voluntary, uncoerced agreement," then they are fulfilling Rand's statement here. Although in their match, "physical force" has quite obviously not been barred in the sense of the physicist, it *is* barred in the sense that Rand intends.

 

She means barring physical force (same in physics) on the mind. She even states it in the quote you provided.

 

"The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement."

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The initiation of force is immoral according to Objectivism. The slap was therefore immoral. Objectivism doesn't play favorites by considering who initiated force and whether or not we like them and want to overlook their use of force.

 

My initial reaction to slapping someone is this sort of answer here. There is no particular reason to slap a person, at least in order to accomplish something reasonable. Why resort to even minor violence in reaction to non-force? Usually slapping goes with immoral actions, but not as a response to the control that initiation of force accomplishes! Lying, harming "honor", disrespect, etc, seem to go with slapping. So I can't really see what good a slap is except as an emotional impulse. Overall, I see it as immoral, a sign of emotionalism, like corporal punishment.

 

At the same time, slapping someone isn't particularly forceful. No one is bruised, it seems like a brief sting, no damage to your ability to act according to your thinking. As far as force is concerned, I question that it's really an initiation of force. To take Rand's meaning of force initiation as subverting reason, I'm not sure a slap qualifies. A slap still seems irrational even if it isn't initiation of force, though.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going wider than the initial topic, the Rand and Branden thing, it's interesting how there are three distinct "immoralities" that have arisen here.

 

First, to quote Rand: "The only real moral crime that one man can commit against another, is the attempt to create by his words

or actions, an impression of the contradictory, the impossible, the irrational, and thus shake the concept of rationality in his victim".

(Though she didn't mention force, but I suppose didn't have to. This alone is illuminating, often implicit in her novels, but seldom explicitly stated -as here- is her rational code applied to 'other people'.)

 

To try to separate and clarify the 3  "immoralities", I see-

 

A. the immorality of acting on emotion or subjective whim.

B. the immorality of lying

C. the immorality of using physical intervention.

 

1) A, B and C are all contrary to rational selfishness, each a particular kind of breach between one's consciousness and reality. Immoral for oneself - by the standards of this 'self-centric' immorality, foremost, pre-conditional to it becoming 'other-centric', and impacting on other individuals...

2) B and C - following that, are attempts to thwart another person's consciousness - and/or to deny them the rightful physical outcomes of their independent actions.

3) C - additionally, is the only one that has objective and concrete criteria, so the only one that must be an individual rights offence.

 

These elements of immorality may be isolated this way but they all have a common stem. I believe.

Also, deceit and force to and against others reduce down to one and the same thing - since there is no split between a man's mind and his body. Though to reiterate, initiation of force alone, is physically manifest and is therefore the only objective crime.

 

Circling back again to The Slap:  by the principles of rational egoism (naturally) one could judge both AR and NB of temporary moral breach, but does it disturb anyone? Not me, for sure.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single slap between lovers is not an example of a violation of the NIF principle in the O'ist sense. The morality of the use of force, or an instance of physical contact is to be judged contextually. In the context of the interactions between the individuals invovled.

A slap may be acting on emotion or whim and therefore an irrational action , which according to O'ism is immoral. But it can also be an example of not inapproriate contact given the nature of the type of interaction(s) between lovers. The context of a lovers' relationship is based on emotion,responding to and generating emotive responses from and to each individual in the relationship. It may be irrational(contextually) and therefore perhaps immoral , but it is not a violation of the use of force in the sense , or for the 'same reasons' , as randomly slapping strangers on the street.

I do not see that equating the two examples is anything other than an out of context, rationalistic approach to viewing a particular example of physical contact, notwithstanding the indentification of the specific people involved. Meaning my argument is not meant or formulated as a defense of AR, I think as the OP stated using this incident is at the very least problematic , given the personalities it invovles , making it less than hypthectical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if someone else has already clarified the facts, I've only skimmed the thread. Someone wrote that Branden committed fraud by lying to get sex. Read the biography, here's the timeline: Rand and Branden had a sexual affair between 1955 and 1958, it ended because of the depression she went into following the publication of Atlas Shrugged. Around 1967 she started pressuring him to resume the affair. By then he was divorced from his first wife and was in a secret relationship with his soon-to-be second wife. At this point Branden lied to Rand, denying the relationship he was in and claiming that he had all kinds of other issues that were preventing him from resuming the affair. He denied that her age was one of the issues. This went on for a year or so, during which, no doubt, he put her through hell. Finally he told her (in writing) that her age was the issue. Then Barbara told Rand the truth. Then came the slapping incident.

Tangentially, I'd like to point out that in Atlas Shrugged Rearden slaps Francisco over Dagny. I only bring this up in that it reflects Rand's attitude towards face slapping in high voltage emotional contexts.

FWIW I give Rand credit for not trying to scratch his eyes out or going after him with a kitchen knife.

 

There are also a few other points to keep in mind:

 

Branden had learned and absorbed his views on romantic love and sexuality from Rand, and when he was discovering flaws in the theory by living them, he was facing the very confusing situation of being mentored and counselled by Rand on the subject while she was not practicing them herself (by remaining married to her husband.) By the same standards which Rand was using to condemn Patrecia as being unworthy of Branden, Frank should have been judged to be even more unworthy of Rand.

 

Branden was giving Rand very strong hints and attempting to gauge her reaction, to get her used to the idea of his loving someone else, and to carefully navigate a way to avoid her anger at his preferring a beautiful, happy, enthusiastic young lady to the depressed old woman that Rand had become. In reading Rand's own journal entries, it's clear that Rand sensed that Branden was very attracted to Patrecia, and that Rand was jealous of it. She encouraged Branden to have a brief affair with a younger woman so as to "jump start" him sexually for her. And Branden then tried to convince Rand that Patrecia was the perfect "jump starter," but Rand forbade it. It seems that she only wanted him to be "jump started" by women who he wasn't interested in -- in other words, women who were not a realistic threat to Rand's romantic goal of hanging on to Branden as a lover.

 

So, it wasn't a situation in which Branden outright deceived Rand, but one in which he was dropping hints and trying to resolve the problem with a lover who was inappropriately acting as psychological counselor to someone with whom she was having an affair. Branden was in a position of vulnerability --Rand had the power to destroy his career, and his having been mentored by Rand on the subject of romantic love and sex meant that he was disarmed intellectually from recognizing the conflict of interest that she had in acting as his counselor when he was dealing with the results of her theories not meshing with reality.

 

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're discussing a woman of amazing character who's not here to tell her side of the story.

 

A person's character has nothing to do with judging any of their actions to be immoral. Their character, or their having behaved morally for 99.999999% of their lives, has no bearing on whether or not they misbehaved in one specific circumstance. It is illogical to cite a person's character in judging whether or not her slapping someone was immoral according to her own philosophy. It is anti-Objectivist to cite character in such a situation.

 

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single slap between lovers is not an example of a violation of the NIF principle in the O'ist sense. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it is an example of the violation of the non-initiation of force principle. Force is force.

 

As Tyler (DonAthos) has already explained, if Rand felt that she had been wronged by Branden to the point that he deserved retaliatory force, then she had recourse to the legal system. That is the proper means of obtaining justice according to Objectivism. One doesn't get to take matters into one's one hands when one feels wronged, because people, including Rand, can be mistaken and misguided by their emotions, and therefore issues involving force must be arbitrated by outside, independent parties.

 

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial reaction to slapping someone is this sort of answer here. There is no particular reason to slap a person, at least in order to accomplish something reasonable. Why resort to even minor violence in reaction to non-force? Usually slapping goes with immoral actions, but not as a response to the control that initiation of force accomplishes! Lying, harming "honor", disrespect, etc, seem to go with slapping. So I can't really see what good a slap is except as an emotional impulse. Overall, I see it as immoral, a sign of emotionalism, like corporal punishment.

 

At the same time, slapping someone isn't particularly forceful. No one is bruised, it seems like a brief sting, no damage to your ability to act according to your thinking. As far as force is concerned, I question that it's really an initiation of force. To take Rand's meaning of force initiation as subverting reason, I'm not sure a slap qualifies. A slap still seems irrational even if it isn't initiation of force, though.

 

So if someone were to slap you around, you wouldn't consider it to be the initiation of force?

 

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What romantic relationship involves a contract of any sort? And no matter how many internet sites claim whatever, nobody really knows what went down in this particular, personal scenario except the parties involved, in person. The only worthwhile conversation to be had is to be based on a hypothetical.

No. We have Rand's own journal comments on the subject. We can see how she inappropriately acted as a psychological counselor with someone with whom she was having an affair, and on the counseling was on the subject of the affair. We can see that she was aware that Branden was attracted to Patrecia and was searching for Rand's permission, but that Rand was not doing what was in Branden's best interest, or even in her own, but rather she was pursuing what she wanted, consequences be damned.

Additionally, you didn't address my comments on Branden's having had the right to tell mislead Rand according to Peikoff's notion of "privacy lies." Branden didn't owe Rand any information on the subject of his relationship with Patrecia, at least not according to Peikoff's theory of which lies are morally acceptable. So, the reality is that Branden was actually being virtuous in dropping major hints to Rand about Patrecia and trying to let her down gently.

 

 

Objectivism doesn't accept gray morality, but since Objectivism doesn't espouse omniscience, we can deduce that it "accepts" (as if there's anything else to do but accept...) moral gray areas which have no clear course of action. "Initiation of force" isn't some mandated creed to be followed blindly. A lied-to lover for decades has been greatly wronged. This is the moral gray area I was referring to, where a lot of shit goes down and it isn't clear what should be done about it.

First of all, what you said here is false. Rand wasn't lied to for decades.

Second, even if she was lied to, and Peikoff is wrong that Objectivism accepts "privacy lies" as being moral, Rand still didn't have the right to use force against Branden. She only had the right to pursue legal action against him via the court system.

Objectivism isn't anarchism or vigilantism. And the Objectivist morality isn't about degrees of force -- a small amount of initiated force doesn't cease to be force. Objectivists aren't excused from practicing the same morality that they demand that everyone else practice. Force is force, just as theft is theft whether it's a penny or a thousand dollars.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if someone were to slap you around, you wouldn't consider it to be the initiation of force?

 

J

 

I would say it's IoF. I'm expressing doubts, though. If a slap doesn't cause any wound or bruise, can you really call it the same sort of force as punching someone? Does a slap actually coerce a person any more than vocal condemnation?

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say it's IoF. I'm expressing doubts, though. If a slap doesn't cause any wound or bruise, can you really call it the same sort of force as punching someone?

Does it have to be the "same sort of force as punching someone"? How did you arrive at "punching someone" being the standard by which to judge whether or not something qualifies as force? How did you conclude that a wound or a bruise was required in order for a physical strike or blow to count as force?

Confining someone to a padded prison cell doesn't cause any wounds or bruising, and is therefore not the same sort of force as punching someone, so therefore it's not force by your reasoning?

 

Does a slap actually coerce a person any more than vocal condemnation?

Are you saying that an act of force has to have the intention of coercing someone in order to be considered true force? If a person gets his jollies by bitch-slapping random people, but has no interest in using the slapping to coerce them into doing anything, then that's perfectly moral to you?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context is king... but the Objectivist Ethics and Politics provide certain absolutes within the context of human interaction and society. So long as all of the parties involved are human (and I think so?), and so long as we're dealing with "force" and not mere romantic symbolism, or "free speech," or such (which is the only real bone of contention, imo), then we have context enough to assess the situation without trying to further sort out the sordid details of their affair-turned-sour. He (or she) who initiates the use of force is in the wrong to do so, full stop.

Or as Rand would have put it, when calm and reasonable:

 

You may continue to discuss the underlying issues under the banner of "context," if you choose, but I consider the above to hold that discussion as "inappropriate" in this case.

 

An absolute oblivious to context is a dogma.  When you induct a principle it is an absolute but as a principle it is also an abstraction.  It requires context to tie it to realty so you can apply it as needed to that situation.  A principle is "Don't fake reality to someone else to gain a value", not "don't lie".  You have to interpret the principle in context to the actual event.  Or to put it another way, apply the principle to the circumstance.  Or how about apply the abstraction to the concrete.    

 

Principles are facts of reality designed to further your life by allowing you to grasp large amounts of information in a small package and project it into the future (i.e. see consequences).  But they don’t do your thinking for you – you have to determine the critical points and apply them as needed.  

 

Obviously, a women wronged and slapping someone is neither the initiation of force (and in this case there is a case for fraud to boot), and even if it was it’s certainly not within the context of theft or murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the reality is that Branden was actually being virtuous in dropping major hints to Rand about Patrecia and trying to let her down gently.

First of all, what you said here is false. Rand wasn't lied to for decades.

The reality is that the people, relationships, and circumstances were complicated, everything happened decades ago, and you were not involved. The morality of everyone involved depends on a lot of context we can't be sure about. We can guess, based on word-of-mouth or whatever, and arrive at some likely conclusions. But the best we can do is say, "Maybe some of this happened." Either way, I'm not sure why anyone dwells on it, especially when the only reason we care at all is because we're interested in Rand's great ideas. The details of Rand's life doesn't say anything about the validity of her ideas. All this attention on her supposed mistakes in her personal life is just like the pointless Objectivist spats that are always going on. "I don't agree with his/her decision. Now I'm going to tell everyone about it and project my negative evaluation onto things it doesn't belong."

 

 

Second, even if she was lied to, and Peikoff is wrong that Objectivism accepts "privacy lies" as being moral, Rand still didn't have the right to use force against Branden. She only had the right to pursue legal action against him via the court system.

Objectivism isn't anarchism or vigilantism. And the Objectivist morality isn't about degrees of force -- a small amount of initiated force doesn't cease to be force. Objectivists aren't excused from practicing the same morality that they demand that everyone else practice. Force is force, just as theft is theft whether it's a penny or a thousand dollars.

This isn't directly addressing that I wrote before, unless you're not addressing me at all. The bit about anarchism is a straw man, after I wrote earlier that not using a court system is accompanied by risk of court action. It would be better if you'd read what's actually written instead of assuming. "A small amount of initiated for doesn't cease to be force" isn't responding to my comments' context of first having been wronged in some real way by another person, in the form of lies or some other real loss. And "Force is force" and "theft is theft" is just more ignoring that same context. It's not doing any good telling only your philosophic conclusions when what's being discussed is moral grey areas. As in, "Here's the principle, but I can't for the life of me figure out its application in this scenario."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also a few other points to keep in mind:

I presented an abbreviated version of the facts only to rebut the claim that Branden used fraud to get sex. Actually, he lied to avoid sex, and the (attempted) fraud, if any, was in trying to hide the truth long enough for his book to come out with her introductory essay and endorsement.

I think for purposes of this thread, the topic being the slapping incident, it suffices that Rand was at her emotional limit, whether she was right to be or not, and the farthest she went in the actual use of violence was a few slaps. If challenged on it she may very well have explained herself on terms like "this far but no further", and even referenced the Rearden/Francisco scene. I'm not going to try defending this as a principle, however.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is right and wrong. Then there is having rights and violating them. If the latter couple meant the same as the former couple, we could do without the latter two concepts.

 

Having a right by A against an act by B is a standing potential for making right by B’s act a subsequent act of A against B that would be wrong without the prior act by B. That is the meaning of rights and their violations in terms of right and wrong, a meaning that does not render having a right and violating a right replaceable by the concepts of the simply right and simply wrong.*

 

Having a right against a battery, such a slap, means that one in response is right to take some act that would otherwise be morally or otherwise wrong. It means one has the moral or other social perogative, for example, to slap back. One could also go to court for battery, and if not laughed out of court, be told sweetly that the law has no cure for trifles.

 

In the realm of trifles, a “violation of a right” and even a “moral wrong” remains a trifle. Objectivist ethics is not Catholic ethics. How are moral values distinguished from other chosen values in the Objectivist ethics? The answer is given early on in Rand’s “The Objectivist Ethics,” and to call such a slap a moral wrong in these reported circumstances is obscene in terms of this theory of ethics.

 

To call it an initiation of force, of the character of force initiations undergirding individual rights, is likewise obscene. It is a trivialization, a degradation, of that principle as it undergirds our rights not laughable out of court.

Edited by Boydstun
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...