Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Discussing non-Objectivist opinions on OO.net

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Because in that situation though you thought you were applying Objectivist principles, you were not, you were being told and demonstrated why you were not, and you continued to press on. You are bringing an apple into a discussion about the consistency of oranges here.

Hold on - How is misapplication of O'ist principles a reason to restrict someone to use the debate forum only?

(I disagree I misapplied principles of Objectivism, and disagree you showed it, but that's beside the point.)

I agree that later on I was rude, and you were right taking actions against me about that - but that only.

I am saying this only to allow focus on the main point that bothers me;

I see no justification for restricting someone to debate forum just because they misapply principles of Objectivism.

A person coming here interested in spreading propaganda, without using reason, is not the same as someone who makes a mistake in applying principles of Objectivism. I think it is clear from the other posts here that misapplying Objectivism is not by itself enough to restrict someone to the debate forum (on some topic).

And this is my question - is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because in that situation though you thought you were applying Objectivist principles, you were not, you were being told and demonstrated why you were not, and you continued to press on. You are bringing an apple into a discussion about the consistency of oranges here.

I've been reading this thread and I just can't get hold of the following problem.

From one side, nobody on this forum can claim to speak for Objectivism nor officially state that a certain idea comes from Objectivism. All that we can do here is quote Ayn Rand or Peikoff, and on that basis in very limited cases, we can say that X does or doesn't belong to Objectivism.

From another side, it is implied that at least some forum members are capable of speaking for Objectivism and are capable of explaining Objectivism to others on such a proficient level that if the other person doesn't get it then "pressing on" is not allowed and seen as a bad thing.

It's either-or: either some members here are in the position to speak for Objectivism or they are not.

Now, I presume, most people (on this thread) think that no one here can speak for Objectivism. (Assumption 1)

If so, how can somebody claim with certainty that person A was explained Objectivism correctly by somebody on this board?

To me, this is a plain contradiction to Assumption 1.

--------

My own view on this issue is that on this board you should only judge honesty in regards to trying to understand Objectivism.

If you see a person is dishonest and just posing or trolling, by all means one has to ban that person to prevent the collapse of the board.

However, an honest disagreement with Objectivism in a form of "chewing" an idea from Objectivism should not be a problem.

A side note: Leonard Peikoff speaks on his course "Understanding Objectivism" that he had huge problems with Objectivism; that it took him years to correctly understand it. And yet if a student of Objectivism comes to this board and has the same problems (without the benefit of Ayn Rand's personal explanations), then moderators will be come down on him hard for the purpose of keeping the forum pure of non-Objectivist views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West, Could you concretize a bit what you mean by things that do not "reflect" Objectivism? Do you mean things that are antithetical to Objectivism? Or even things that one might reach, using Objectivism as a launching pad?

My take is that Objectivism is the core philosophy as propounded by Rand. So, for instance, when people here have discussion about how exactly a free-economy's roads would be financed, or how tax can be replaced by voluntary donations, they are almost always (i.e. after the first brief sentence about Rand's statement on the subject), no longer discussing Objectivism, but rather the things they extrapolate therefrom. You can extend this example to so many threads: about music and sports and business and current day politics and in each and every one of those case one will be outside the province of Objectivism. Basically, the majority of the forum will go away.

We would end up with a forum where we might have each topic framed as a study group on (say) a chapter in Rand's book. There's nothing wrong with a forum like that; indeed, it might even be a useful thing. However, that definitely is not what this forum is or has been. A huge part of what OO.net is, is a place to discuss things that people are extrapolating from their reading of Rand, and doubts that they have about Rand's philosophy, and their own take of how they would apply Rand's philosophy, and -- in not a small measure -- to meet other people of similar mind.

I'm not trying to build up a straw man here. I'm just trying to understand what you in particular -- no one else -- mean by "reflect" Objectivism in the post above. I'm just trying to understand if you're suggesting that the forum be radically changed to be more like a book study-group, or if you're speaking of something else.

Do you mean examples like I mentioned should be disallowed, or do you mean that the forum should not be used as a platform to actually attack Objectivism and propound contrary ideas?

I'm late in replying, as much discussion has gone on since my last reply, but what I meant by not "reflecting" (I could have chosen a more specific term) Objectivism is that which is antithetical to Objectivism, and not an application of Objectivism to that which is outside of the realm of the philosophy. Yes, the forum should not be used as a platform to attack Objectivism and propound contrary ideas.

With what has been said prior to this post, I don't think I really have much to add--I just want to be clear on the rules at this point.

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on - How is misapplication of O'ist principles a reason to restrict someone to use the debate forum only?

(I disagree I misapplied principles of Objectivism, and disagree you showed it, but that's beside the point.)

It is understood that you disagreed. However, as a matter of having moderators AT ALL, someone has to ultimately make a decision about what is or is not applicable to the focus of this board.

It was not SIMPLY the misapplication of O'ist principles, it was the charge that you were not applying them at all, even though you thought you were. Again, I understand that you don't agree with that judgement.

Nonetheless, as I said above, someone has to make a decision and I, as well as the other moderators and admins, do so under the auspices or correction of the site owner, GreedyCapitalist. There is no point to having moderators if they are not capable of coming to some conclusions which sometimes involve interpreting what is or what is not Objectivism.

If so, how can somebody claim with certainty that person A was explained Objectivism correctly by somebody on this board?

To me, this is a plain contradiction to Assumption 1.

See my response above to Ifat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... for the purpose of keeping the forum pure of non-Objectivist views?
No, this is not the intent of the rules. As David said in his last post, keeping views "contrary to Objectivism" off the forum -- is not the primary intent of the rules. The primary intent is to facilitate intellectual exchange between Objectivists/students of Objectivism.

Trolls who post with an intent to disrupt are obviously out. So, forget those for now.

I do not know how many people here are familiar with the older newsgroups -- alt.philosophy.objectivism and humanities.philosophy.objectivism -- that pre-dated web-based forums. The noise is so high on those groups that it is difficult to have a sane conversation. People who deliberately sabotage discussions are one factor. Rudeness is another. However, there is a much larger problem: earnest people who are simply too different in their thinking. Picture inviting earnest witch-doctors to a forum that is discussing medicine.

For instance, there is a group who think of themselves as "Christian Objectivists". A while ago, a member from here posted something on their forum, and some of them came over here to discuss things. Some OO.net members were interested in engaging them. Naturally, confronted with the idea that someone could be a "Christian Objectivist" some were eager to probe and argue, to figure out what went wrong! That kind of thing really does not hurt, until it starts to be widespread. If widespread, it gets tiresome; and, to many members, it is of no interest. Imagine that one ended up with a large number of members who thought of themselves as "Christian Objectivists". Too many discussions would go off on a tangent, re-visiting basics. Now, into this mix, throw a few more variants -- like some conservatives and some libertarians. Too many discussions would morph into debates about basics. The few members who relish these fights would enjoy it; others would tire of it.

It is definitely not the intent of OO.net to be a primary venue to debate general philosophy, nor to continually revisit topics that most members consider closed. However, in no way does this mean that such topics or expressions of disagreement are out of bounds.

OO.net is young and has had moderators come and go. Also, we moderators learn from past experience. So, admittedly, the de-facto rules have changed over time. If one looks at this sub-forum, one will also find that every year or so, we also have a thread like this one, where we chew (a "Christian-Objectivist" might say "soul-search") on the forum's rules and intent. When doing so, we might find that some things we're doing are not serving the intent -- and we can change.

However, the intent remains: to facilitate intellectual exchange between Objectvivists/students of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a very important thread, primarily due to the fact that the URL of this website forum contains the word objectivism, and there is an implication at least, that this website is Objectivism as presented online -- i.e. on the web. After reading the rules and participating for a long while, I can see that the intent of oo.net is not to present Objectivism per se, but rather to provide a form for Objectivists or those interested in Objectivism. In that sense, I think intelligent students of Objectivism or long term knowledgeable people with regard to Objectivism ought to be the moderators, because no one else would even know what is and what is not an aspect of Objectivism; and I think the moderators do a good job in that regard. Sometimes I think the only way to make such a form better would be to pre-moderate it, such as what Harry

Binswanger does with HBL.

The problem, as I see it, is that at times the moderators are too lax with regard to letting posters speak their own minds, when it is known that the poster is speaking out against some aspect of Objectivism -- i.e. see all the treads regarding free will or the nature of perception as the given or introspection as the given. Insofar as something is truly self-evident, then there is no room to debate it. However people are permitted to speak their minds against the senses, against free will, and against introspection. I don't have a big problem with this forum in that regard, because I don't have to participate in those threads unless I choose to do so, but at some point, I think an excellent adherent to Objectivism has to say enough is enough.

Unfortunately, some aspects of oo.net have a bad reputation because it is difficult to tell the players -- i.e. who is oo.net sanctioning or not sanctioning? And if someone new to Objectivism and new to online forums comes across these types of posts and there are no flag warnings that the poster's counter-point to Objectivism has been made and it is clear and doesn't need to be continually pounded into the reader as if oo.net is saying that view is an OK position.

At some point one of the moderators has to come out and say that this position is unsupportable and that it will not be permitted, or the noise to signal ration becomes too high; which may drive off those who actually are serious about Objectivism because he can't tell the players from the played. I understand that Objectivism can have a very high learning curve, but if you are consistently wrong, then somebody needs to come out and say that. Normally, the poster with the non-Objectivist or anti-Objectivist stance is argued with a bit and then is pointed tom other threads discussing the same issue or they are asked to read more on Objectivism. This is all good and well and depends on the integrity of the moderators.

It's not an issue of the moderators being "all knowing" about Objectivism, and thus having to supply the answers, but to the extent that the moderator understands that a certain stance is against the Objectivist views, then I think something ought to be said. It usually is said, from my vantage point of being a ready user of oo.net, but sometimes it goes on and on for quite some time before that happens.

In other words, I would say that one is not at fault if he is aiming for higher standards, as some in this thread are calling for. I don't necessarily mean to delete such posts, because they can be good learning exercises, but letting someone continually post who is not understanding the Objectivist views might be leading to too much background noise. As some have pointed out oo.net is not a free for all discussion of anything, which is good. It's more open than HBL, but it is also not pre-moderated, and I'm not sure you can have it both ways; but higher standards requires curtailing some of the people posting who are continually not presenting Objectivism according to his understanding. Otherwise, there will be too much noise on a forum supposedly dedicated to the discussion of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I presume, most people (on this thread) think that no one here can speak for Objectivism. (Assumption 1)

If so, how can somebody claim with certainty that person A was explained Objectivism correctly by somebody on this board?

To me, this is a plain contradiction to Assumption 1.

Are you saying that you don't think that any person can actually know what Objectivism holds? That judgment is simply impossible? Since you are not (I feel I needn't wait for you to confirm that point), then we can move to my main point, which is that it is possible to judge actions (words) with sufficient confidence that appropriate action is possible. And, for that matter, the choice to do nothing can be appropriate: it may mean that the conclusion is judged to be "possible" in the context of Objectivism. I don't think it would be productive for us to get into ad hominem discussion of individuals, but I can't accept that judgment is impossible, because reality is knowable, and "What Objectivism holds" is an aspect of reality. I don't suggest that it is instantly self evident; but anybody willing to engage their minds and do the hard work can understand what Objectivism is. If you can do that, then you can judge someone else's conclusions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is understood that you disagreed. However, as a matter of having moderators AT ALL, someone has to ultimately make a decision about what is or is not applicable to the focus of this board.

It was not SIMPLY the misapplication of O'ist principles, it was the charge that you were not applying them at all, even though you thought you were. Again, I understand that you don't agree with that judgment.

Nonetheless, as I said above, someone has to make a decision and I, as well as the other moderators and admins, do so under the auspices or correction of the site owner, GreedyCapitalist. There is no point to having moderators if they are not capable of coming to some conclusions which sometimes involve interpreting what is or what is not Objectivism.

I don't believe you have answered my question.

I was following the stance taken in this thread on the restricting stuff that appears to be non-Objectivist.

And I was asking for an explanation on 'why' - not how some mis-application was actually non-application.

I'm going to assume by your reply that mis-application isn't the problem.

And what is non-application? Does it just mean dishonest conscious attempt to fool? Or is it really really bad application?

If you say, it's dishonest, then I already said in my post I don't mean such cases. (Btw, I place that Christian club who stopped by OO sometime ago to belong to dishonest group.)

On another point: that somebody has to make the judgment. Sure. If it's found that it's needed then somebody has to make the judgment.

I wasn't bringing up the issue of the hierarchy of judgment making. I was talking about the necessity to judge if one is talking about mostly Objectivist ideas or not. So, I don't see what you were addressing with that point.

My post was asking for an argument of why it's necessary for this board to moderate non-disruptive discussion of students of Objectivism when they make an error with understanding Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalBiker - you did not answer my question at all. I asked: "How is misapplication of O'ist principles a reason to restrict someone to use the debate forum only?"

Since you gave my misapplication of Objectivism as a reason to restrict me (in the past) to the debate forum. To quote you:

Because in that situation though you thought you were applying Objectivist principles, you were not, you were being told and demonstrated why you were not, and you continued to press on.

I don't think it is the moderator's job to decide who applies and misapplies Objectivism (by my understanding of other posts in this thread). It is the moderator's job to restrict anti-Objectivism material, but hoest misapplication of Objectivism is not anti-Objectivism.

Opinion, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post was asking for an argument of why it's necessary for this board to moderate non-disruptive discussion of students of Objectivism when they make an error with understanding Objectivism.

Well, I would say in most cases they are not moderated immediately, but after some (and sometimes quite extensive) attempts have been made to correct their misunderstanding while they continue to hold that their view is the (or a) Objectivist viewpoint when it is not. I think it is necessary to weed out the confusion that can be cause to newer folks by not allowing the incorrect viewpoint to continue too long. I suppose this means we may disagree on what is "disruptive". In some cases mods act proactively BEFORE complaints come in, but in other cases we act on complaints made by other members. Other times, even when a complaint comes in, we take no action against the alleged violator as we disagree with the complainant.

Additionally, at some point the moderators just do not have the time to help the person sort out the problem. We are all volunteers, most of us with limited amounts of time to devote to correcting such issues, and none of us with any real obligation to be educators of those who are getting it wrong. We often still try, but at some point we have to say, enough is enough, this cannot continue along these lines.

However, even in most cases where the discussion is deemed off-limits, the poster is generally allowed to continue such discussion in the Debate sub-forum. So it is generally pretty rare that a genuinely earnest exploration (albeit in error) is entirely squelched. Generally speaking, most official sanctions (warning issued, mod-preview, etc.) aren't imposed until AFTER the violator has been advised about a given activity, advised how they can permissibly proceed (or not) and they refuse to follow the direction of the moderator/admin. They may 'appeal' such decision to an admin (if decided by a mod) or GreedyCapitalist if necessary, but if they are going to be openly defiant, that will not be allowed.

Also consider that the mods have a separate sub-forum to discuss issues like this and we make frequent use of that tool. While it happens, many decisions are not made singularly by one mod/admin, it is often bounced off the others before taking action. This tends to promote consistency and fairness. And usually in cases where there is disagreement as to how to proceed, the less punative resolution suggested is carried out.

And as Thomas points out above, the idea behind the rule is to try to keep the "signal to noise" ratio high.

RationalBiker - you did not answer my question at all. I asked: "How is misapplication of O'ist principles a reason to restrict someone to use the debate forum only?"

Okay, see my post to Olex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I would say in most cases they are not moderated immediately, but after some (and sometimes quite extensive) attempts have been made to correct their misunderstanding while they continue to hold that their view is the (or a) Objectivist viewpoint when it is not.
that was never the point. Nobody was discussing a case of someone presenting their view as Objectivism.

I think it is necessary to weed out the confusion that can be cause to newer folks by not allowing the incorrect viewpoint to continue too long.

OK, at this point, I am asking an admin to confirm this - that incorrect application of Objectivism (while using reason) is moderated here.

Because my only experience of such thing being moderated was with RB, and my understanding of sNerd's and Jennifer's words is that misapplications of Objectivism is not a cause to restrict a user to use the debate forum.

I was glad to read all of the posts here encouraging users to think and debate, emphasizing the value of such debates and discussions. I think it would be wrong to restrict users who struggle to integrate Objectivism and "chew out" ideas (like Olex said) to the debate forum, in such cases when they insist on a conclusion which is not supported by Objectivism, but still build their argument by their understanding of Objectivism and reason.

I don't think it is a moderator's job to educate them on what conclusion they should reach, or how fast they should reach it, under threat of restriction (and it is a threat, when a person puts a lot of effort into an existing discussion). As long as the user remains on topic, uses reason to establish their point, and other members are willing to devote their time to the debate - I see no reason why a moderator should play the role of a philosophical educator.

Of course, if the owner of the site wished to keep only some advanced students of Objectivism around - his choice and right, and then moderators are right in that sort of "philosophical education/moderation". But I don't see this to be the site's policy.

Admin's opinion please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as Thomas points out above, the idea behind the rule is to try to keep the "signal to noise" ratio high.

That all depends on what you consider to be "noise". I, for one, enjoy seeing a thinking mind in action, even if their opinions are oppose to mine. I don't consider such thing noise - compatible or incompatible with Objectivism and/or my opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

under threat of restriction (and it is a threat, when a person puts a lot of effort into an existing discussion).

How is it a threat in the sense you're using that word? A threat to do what? Move the thread over to another forum where you can continue basically unhindered? I don't see what the big deal is. I've seen a lot of people react in a strong negative fashion to the idea of restricting a particular argument to the debate forum, but I would really like to know why. Because I can't see the cause for it. Sorry if this is off-topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some discussion among us moderators, we've agreed on a change in the way we apply the forum rules.

Posts that are "contrary to Objectivism" will not be penalized. Nor do they need to be in a different sub-forum. We will not penalize posts that question Objectivism, even where a member does not frame their views as a question.

This is not an invitation to trolls. Nor is it an invitation to people who want to use the site for something other than the stated purpose: "...[facilitate] [intellectual] trade among those interested in Objectivism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posts that are "contrary to Objectivism" will not be penalized.

Err.. do you mean "Posts that are "contrary to Objectivism" will not be penalized just for being contrary to Objectivism?

The two sentences have different meaning, and this issue is too important to make mistakes.

There can be posts contrary to Objectivism but the person is still using reason and sees reason as an absolute, but there can also be a case when someone does not consider reason as an absolute, or does not see the necessity of words to have a certain definable meaning (in which case, a discussion is impossible).

I think the last case shows someone who is here to preach his "wisdom" and not engage in a discussion. The fact that every post of such person will be contrary to Objectivism has nothing to do with the reason why (I think) his posts should be not allowed.

So, if in the past moderators would restrict such users based on the fact their posts are contrary to Objectivism, it is still important to formulate some rule and principle to guide them when dealing with someone who is not here for discussion.

Otherwise, you just took off our panties and line us up for whipping by anyone passing by here, wishing to tell us all how much of morons we are for "existence exists" etc.

We will not penalize posts that question Objectivism, even where a member does not frame their views as a question.

An important point to make here is that this does not apply for people who speak their own opinion and present it as Objectivism. For example: "Ayn Rand held the opinion that all humans are perfect" or "Objectivism says that the basis of ethics is arbitrary".

Right?

The fact that members can present their own opinions as an answer (and not as a question) does not mean they can present someone else's ideas for them as an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ifat,

I agree with everything you say in your post above regarding what we want to allow and disallow. However, I don't think any new rule is required. Here's why...

My clarification (in the post above your's) is only about the "contrary to Objectivism" part of the rules. All other rules still apply. So, for instance, you're right that "Posts that are "contrary to Objectivism" will not be penalized just for being contrary to Objectivism". Since other forum rules apply, if the post violates that, (e.g. cursing, or personal attacks, or even near-unreadable spelling) moderators can still do something about it.

Again, on the notion that we are becoming liberal, and asking "[passers-by to take out panties off and whip us]" :lol: ... that's not the intent. As I said above:

This is not an invitation to trolls. Nor is it an invitation to people who want to use the site for something other than the stated purpose: "...[facilitate] [intellectual] trade among those interested in Objectivism".

I purposely did not elaborate more than that. In the past, we've done this to the satisfaction of the moderators, and without any complaints that have been generally considered valid. The one exception was the whole "contrary to Objectivism" thing, when genuinely interested people posted, and which we sometimes clamped down on.

To summarize, only this one minor type of enforcement will change. All else stays the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I may already know, but for clarification can any specific reasons why "posts that are contrary to Objectivism" are now allowed?
The prior discussion in this thread provided details. In summary, discussion and debate is not merely allowed, but it serves the purpose of OO.net. Indeed, if all our members were mostly sympathetic to Objectivism, it would not be an issue. With such a membership, someone expressing a doubt about some Objectivist idea would almost always be of value (assuming the basics or rational argumentation and etiquette are being followed too). What we're not interested in is (say) a whole lot of polite, post-modernists or polite commies or polite libertarians, coming here to explain their point of view. Beyond a limited dose, that pulls us away from our main purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the summary, I have only skimmed this thread and then I saw what I think is a rather major policy change depending on how it is enforced. From the answer it doesn't seem like the site will becoming more "tolerationist" (if that's even the right word), but while most consider this site "more easy-going" than some others, say, The Forum 4 Ayn Ran Fans it has still been an Objectivist website with the mods willing to part with even the best members when they get out of line. I would hope that approach continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

*** Moved from this topic ***

A rash of people defending Kelley's views and now a guy posting his "improvements" to Objectivism. Is this what the new policy shift to allow people who spout views contrary to Objectivism allows? Who does this help? Who does it hurt, and why?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who does this help? Who does it hurt, and why?
In what ways do you think it hurts?

I have not read that thread except for the post by NoumenalSelf. So, I really don't have an opinion about what went on before that. Perhaps there was something off there, but it was not reported. Unless there was something underhanded in the prior discussion, I'm happy it was posted, because otherwise NoumenalSelf would not have replied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what ways do you think it hurts?

I think that it makes light of the people who take Objectivism seriously. It's an implicit way of sanctioning evil ideas by way of tolerence just in case someone with something good to say *might* respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it makes light of the people who take Objectivism seriously.
Are you speaking of something specific in the way those two threads were presented, or more generally?

For instance, take the example that I'm more familiar with: the discussion about free-will which originally triggered this thread about what should be allowed. In that case, the poster was arguing against the notion of free-will. How does this make light of other people?

If someone was displaying an intent to annoy, or an attitude of seeking to object without reciprocating by listening to counter-argument, that would make light of their responders. As long as the topic itself is a genuine philosophical/intellectual one, I don't see how it could be seen as making light of things.

I would agree that too many topics devoted to countering objections would be unacceptable. For instance, if a whole lot of religious people, or communists, etc. came here and wanted to start a variety of threads about various aspects of religion or communism, that would not work. However, in the right dose, I think it is welcome. As long as the dose is limited, those who are not interested can simply ignore things that they have already worked out. For most such topics, there's usually at least a few people who do want the exercise of an argument. I think OO.net should cater to that purpose as well. In addition, if one's opponent appears to be honest, some members have an additional interest in advocacy to such people. If Objectivists don't get more practiced at advocacy to honest non-Objectivists, how can we ever change the world?

It's an implicit way of sanctioning evil ideas by way of tolerence just in case someone with something good to say *might* respond.
In what way does arguing with a person about an idea sanction that specific idea? If the person has indicated an unwillingness to argue in good faith, I would agree; but, then, we're talking about judging the person by more than one specific argument they they present.

This repeats what I've posted to this thread, but in summary, if the person posting appears genuinely honest in their inquiries, and if such topics are not overwhelming the board, I think they have positive value.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...