Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A recent interview with Dr Nathaniel Branden

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I thought it looked like that based on the word structure, but rationalization is a process of creating false strings of explanations after the fact while evading other information in order to try to justify a prior conclusion and hide actual motives and reasons for a position....

Also, rationalizing within Objectivist circles can mean thinking like a rationalist, meaning using deductive reasoning from definitions (among other things) that you treat as floating abstractions. Which was a poor way of saying that you end up with conclusions that are cut off from reality because you forgot that a definition refers to all of the attributes of a thing, not just the defining characteristics. It is a trap that Objectivists, especially the males, easily fall into. Listen to Dr. Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism". That is a very important set of lectures. Moralizing is doing some similar things and tends to miss context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think I recall seeing "rationalizing" used that way before even among circles discussing O'ism. What I have always seen is things described as being rationalistic in method, just never seeing it used as a verb for that meaning. I kind of like keeping them separate too, easier to tell when you are referring to which meaning specifically. Also, was this a typo? "a definition refers to all of the attributes of a thing, not just the defining characteristics" Doesn't a definition refer to the defining characteristics? I thought a definition referred to the essential, while a *concept* referred to everything, not just the essential, defining part that differentiates that concept from other concepts. Also, listening to those lectures would be nice, but I think I recall them being expensive. So, I won't be listening any time soon . . . unless of course somebody has them and just so happened to find it worth while to loan me them for however long it took me to get around to finishing them. ;o Haha, no I'm just kidding. Also, about making moral judgments out of context, I suppose it is one of those things where I haven't quite understood what makes it essentially different from anything else out of context to thus make a new concept needing a new word. Hmm . . . Eh, maybe with a little more thought on it I'll see what the essential difference is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I recall seeing "rationalizing" used that way before even among circles discussing O'ism. What I have always seen is things described as being rationalistic in method, just never seeing it used as a verb for that meaning. I kind of like keeping them separate too, easier to tell when you are referring to which meaning specifically. Also, was this a typo? "a definition refers to all of the attributes of a thing, not just the defining characteristics" Doesn't a definition refer to the defining characteristics? I thought a definition referred to the essential, while a *concept* referred to everything, not just the essential, defining part that differentiates that concept from other concepts. Also, listening to those lectures would be nice, but I think I recall them being expensive. So, I won't be listening any time soon . . . unless of course somebody has them and just so happened to find it worth while to loan me them for however long it took me to get around to finishing them. ;o Haha, no I'm just kidding. Also, about making moral judgments out of context, I suppose it is one of those things where I haven't quite understood what makes it essentially different from anything else out of context to thus make a new concept needing a new word. Hmm . . . Eh, maybe with a little more thought on it I'll see what the essential difference is.

Right off the top of my head I can't think of a specific reference for seeing the use of rationalistic in the manner that I mean. Yet, I know that I have used it that way often since I heard Dr. Peikoff's lecture and I know that I have often heard it used that way. If I think of a reference I will let you know. This usage is based upon Rationalism, referring to DeCartes and his followers, e.g., Leibniz, who took a minor point and expanded it into an entire universe. DeCartes had an entire physics, philosophy of science, and general philosophy beginning with his "I think therefore I am" bit. All of it thought up by sitting in his study. I doubt that he even looked out his window.

I don't think that you want to separate a concept from its definition that way. Yes, the definition helps in clarity, differentiation, and so on, but it is not separate from the concept and both refer to the existents that the concept stands for in all of their identiy, their reality. The definition is for epistemological purposes only, not to separate it from the real. The definition states the essential but refers to the entire existent. When you make a definition you are not separating the defining characteristic from the other characteristics or ignoring that an existent has many characteristics, many of which may not be known. It is saying that within our knowledge at this time, this characteristic differentiates it from other things and so on.

Moralizing is separated because the implication is that when one judges out of context more often than not the conclusion is one of condemnation. So it isn't just being out of context but also tied to a negitive judgment. There are lots of bad consequences. Of course, doing anything out of context will lead to bad consequences, but a moral judgment of another person is somewhat worse.

One of the points in the lecture series I mentioned is Dr. Peikoff's discussion of values. He talks about how personal values are and that what appears to be "Objectivist" values, because they are in the novels or that AR personally liked them, does not make them be ones that anyone should have. For example, he suggested that someone brought up in the Southwestern U.S. might not enjoy a big city skyline. A big city skyline is not a necessary value. He mentioned ways his values differed from Miss Rand, e.g., he did not get excited about the space program and the as a kid he loved horror movies. The lecture series opens up a person's perspective on Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may clarify my own word choice, please? By moralize I just meant that sometimes I would be far too harsh with people while discussing philosophical issues. If someone was wrong, I would call them names, effectively, rather than give reasoned arguments against them *even though I had them.* I'm not blaming Objectivism for this attitude I had at all. No, it was just my teenage self being too quick to dismiss people without using argument and persuasion, and too quick to want to feel alienated when there was quite a bit of good to be found in most people. I just wasn't willing to see that for a while. Again, this has nothing to do with Objectivism, just my false impression I took away from it during an impressionable age. I've since changed my attitudes.

I find all this nonsense about Rand's personality to be, well, nonsense. I'm not going to believe a single word either Branden or Peikoff says. Either or both of them could be lying/exaggerating for any number of reasons. I never met Rand, couldn't form my own judgment, so I'm not going to pass judgment.

And oh yes, you should read Branden's work for its own merits. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that a person's beliefs/work/whatever are invalid because that person doesn't hold true to his own beliefs.

Edited by Krattle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob G,

No, I'm aware of what rationalism is already, I just meant I've never seen that meaning used as a verb. The verb "rationalizing" I've only recall ever seeing used to mean fabricating alternate excuses after the fact for prior conclusions basically.

I did not mean to separate a concept from it's definition. I just meant that the definition does not list the entirety of everything about a concept. Like for example, just because having blood is not listed in the definition of a horse doesn't mean horses don't have blood, but at the same time neither does the fact that horses do have blood mean it must be in the definition of a horse, since definitions list the essential characteristics that seperate this kind of entity from all the other ones and only those essential characteristics. The definition doesn't list everything about a concept being referred to, but it does make clear what is being referred to and what it lists does actually correspond to aspects of the concept being referred to. The concept and the word we use to refer to it, like "horse," has a definition of the essentials, but refers still to not just the essentials, but the entire concept including what isn't in the definition, so I thought either "concept" or "word" might be more what you meant than "definition" for the first use of the word "definition" when you said "a definition refers to all of the attributes of a thing, not just the defining characteristics."

"Moralizing is separated because the implication is that when one judges out of context more often than not the conclusion is one of condemnation." See, I wondered if that was going to be said, but I think that also says something disconcerting. It is entirely possible for somebody to make unjustified leaps to moral praise rather than moral condemnation on insufficient or no evidence (ex: like on nothing more than once nice quoted sentence about the importance of reason jumping to the conclusion that somebody must be one of the greatest people you've ever heard of, not looking so far even as to see that in their next few sentences this person had gone on to make clear that they were from the rationalist school of thought and thought that induction was invalid and not part of reason and blah blah), so why is it that there still seems to be an assumption that even people who are trying to support Objectivism will be notably weighted in favor of condemnation rather than praise? It makes sense for people with non-reality based ethics to be weighted n favor of condemnation since nobody can really live, especially not live well, while consistent with their moral codes so to them people are always failing to be good enough their whole lives basically. But why would people who support Objectivism still be weighted in favor of condemnation? I guess statistically it's true most people we come across in our normal comings and goings aren't very great in large part due to bad philosophic ideas they hold. But does this weighting in favor of condemnation still hold while dealing with others you know are seeking to be as reasonable as they can?

"So it isn't just being out of context but also tied to a negitive judgment." Hmm, I guess the issue for me here is it still sounds to me too much like we've got one word for brunettes in general, and now we're talking about making another word specifically for brunettes with long legs, especially pretty brunettes with long legs. I see a list of stuff, but I'm not yet clear on what is the essential difference I guess.

". . . as a kid he loved horror movies." Lol, there was another thread not too long ago where somebody said my list of stuff I may like in some horror movies and not just a negative view of life portrayed as such was just rationalization for depravity. XD Last I checked, after I after I asked for elaboration on what was wrong still with what I enjoyed, they haven't yet responded.

Also, thanks for clarifying what you specifically meant, krattle. ". . . and too quick to want to feel alienated . . ." What the heck? XD Who WANTS to feel alienated? I'd really love to feel much less alienated if I could without betraying who I am and without becoming a second-hander deferring to the thoughts of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the heck? XD Who WANTS to feel alienated?

You'd be suprized.

Many young people, as well as some not so young people manufacture feelings of alienation.

It makes them feel so special and misunderstood.

In their minds it excuses many of their flaws. "I'm not unlikable, I'm misunderstood" "I'm not a repulsive leech, no one knows how to accept me.." and so on.

I am not saying this is the case with you...I am just attempting to respond to what I assume was not a rhetorical question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, it was not a rhetorical question. Even in the typical teenager complaints I've heard about being "misunderstood", that feeling of alienation has tended to come with a lot of the steretypical teenage angst, not liking the alienation. I get the "misunderstood" thing as an excuse in many cases, but generally the alienation only comes as an unwanted natural consequence, not as something desired as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And oh yes, you should read Branden's work for its own merits.
Are you saying that because Branden's writing have merit, we therefore have a moral obligation to read his work? That claim simply doesn't have any credibility: it's an arbitrary declaration. The burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to claim that we should read his works, so where is the evidence that supports your claim?
It's a logical fallacy to conclude that a person's beliefs/work/whatever are invalid because that person doesn't hold true to his own beliefs.
It's also a logical fallacy to conclude that a person's beliefs are valid because the person does not hold true to his own beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in the typical teenager complaints I've heard about being "misunderstood", that feeling of alienation has tended to come with a lot of the steretypical teenage angst, not liking the alienation. I get the "misunderstood" thing as an excuse in many cases, but generally the alienation only comes as an unwanted natural consequence, not as something desired as such.

I'm sorry, I don't believe that is so. For many it is self fulfilling perversity.

In my line of work, and in the places I've lived I cannot even begin to count the number of young people who cover themselves head to toe in tattoos, piece every inch of their faces, style themselves in a manner that befits an extra from Mad Max... and then complain about alienation.

Some people, unfortunately these days many people thrive on feelings of alienation. It comfirms their hatred of life and self and allows them to continue unchecked their nihilistic ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think being very different necessarily needs to come with not being understood and having people unable to relate to you though. For example, I would never want to have children, ever, ever, I don't even enjoy being around kids, yet as different as my life choices and desires and likes and dislikes are, I can understand still why many people would like kids and choose to be parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And oh yes, you should read Branden's work for its own merits. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that a person's beliefs/work/whatever are invalid because that person doesn't hold true to his own beliefs.

On what do you base this assertion?

I have read many of NB's works in the past and will say I find them of varying degrees of quality.

By why "should" I read his work in spite of my belief in his immorality?

To continue to purchase his writings would be a sanction of his actions.

Now, if he had something to say that was completely unique then I might consider it.

But since I don't believe I have ever seen him say anything I have not seen put into practice better elsewhere I don't feel the need.

When we spend our money in one place that is money that we may not be spending in another.

If I have $50 a month to spend on reading materials I would not want to give that $50 to someone who actively damages what I believe in. I would spend that $50 to support somene who I believe merits supporting.

Perhaps if I had unlimited funds I would feel differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did write a huge response, but I decided to delete it.

I have never in my life, outside of a political debate, seen so much misreading, misunderstanding, misconception, and mistrust directed against me. You fail to understand simple sentences. You fail to understand even the most basic points I make. Every single thread I've posted in, I've had nothing but people misunderstanding every single word I've written.

Edited by Krattle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did write a huge response, but I decided to delete it.

I have never in my life, outside of a political debate, seen so much misreading, misunderstanding, misconception, and mistrust directed against me. You fail to understand simple sentences. You fail to understand even the most basic points I make. Every single thread I've posted in, I've had nothing but people misunderstanding every single word I've written.

I'm out of here, permanently. CAN A MODERATOR PLEASE DELETE MY ACCOUNT. I WILL SEND YOU A PRIVATE MESSAGE. I DON'T WANT MY ACCOUNT ON THIS WEBSITE ANYMORE.

I hope that your response wasn't directed at my question Krattle (it followed what I said directly).

My response was not meant with any hostility. I honestly found you to be making an assertion about what one should do and explained why I didn't believe that was correct for myself, and possibly others.

Anyway, if it was my respnse that elicited this from you I am sorry if I could have said it better but also feel you might be responding disproportionately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did write a huge response, but I decided to delete it.

I have never in my life, outside of a political debate, seen so much misreading, misunderstanding, misconception, and mistrust directed against me. You fail to understand simple sentences. You fail to understand even the most basic points I make. Every single thread I've posted in, I've had nothing but people misunderstanding every single word I've written.

I did show you some of what Branden said that I considered to be wrong, since you asked. I certainly did not attack you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still new here, but it seems to me that many newer members tend to interpret having their words challenged as an assault on them personally. Objectivism does not seem to cater to any type of emotionalism, so perhaps this is the source of the complaints of meanness or alienation.

If someone tells me that something I wrote is stupid, irrational, moronic, whatever -- my natural response (since as long as I can remember) has be to re-evaluate the statement and determine if I agree or not. If I don't agree in the assessment, I would attempt to continue to support my thoughts (so long as I feel I'm in an honest discussion). If it turns out I did say something stupid, I learn from it and try not to make the same type of error in the future.

I've only read a few bits and pieces of Branden (his benefits and hazards of Objectivism and various issue articles and essays from when he was still in good standing with AR). It seems to me that many of his critiques of Objectivism as a philosophy are premised on what he feels that AR's ideas project and how others perceive the philosophy. He is probably better at psychoanalyzing then I, so I won't attempt, but I'll give an example:

Reason is at once a faculty and a process of identifying and integrating the data present or given in awareness. Reason means integration in accordance with the law of noncontradiction. If you think of it in these terms—as a process of noncontradictory integration—it’s difficult to imagine how anyone could be opposed to it.

Here is the problem: There is a difference between reason as a process and what any person or any group of people, at any time in history, may regard as “the reasonable.” This is a distinction that very few people are able to keep clear. We all exist in history, not just in some timeless vacuum, and probably none of us can entirely escape contemporary notions of “the reasonable.” It’s always important to remember that reason or rationality, on the one hand, and what people may regard as “the reasonable,” on the other hand, don’t mean the same thing.

It isn't Objectivism that is confusing anything here, he's claiming that "any person or any group of people" might not understand. He seems to imply (though I can't imagine he believes) that Ayn Rand was not capable of making distinctions between what she considered objective reason and an action that might be reasonable within a given context. I have heard her talk about what is ideal in terms of a free capitalist society, but acknowledge that you cannot practically get there over night (i.e. reasonable steps would be a practical method to get to a fully reasoned outcome).

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob G,...

"Moralizing is separated because the implication is that when one judges out of context more often than not the conclusion is one of condemnation." See, I wondered if that was going to be said, but I think that also says something disconcerting. It is entirely possible for somebody to make unjustified leaps to moral praise rather than moral condemnation on insufficient or no evidence (ex: like on nothing more than once nice quoted sentence about the importance of reason jumping to the conclusion that somebody must be one of the greatest people you've ever heard of, not looking so far even as to see that in their next few sentences this person had gone on to make clear that they were from the rationalist school of thought and thought that induction was invalid and not part of reason and blah blah), so why is it that there still seems to be an assumption that even people who are trying to support Objectivism will be notably weighted in favor of condemnation rather than praise? It makes sense for people with non-reality based ethics to be weighted n favor of condemnation since nobody can really live, especially not live well, while consistent with their moral codes so to them people are always failing to be good enough their whole lives basically. But why would people who support Objectivism still be weighted in favor of condemnation? I guess statistically it's true most people we come across in our normal comings and goings aren't very great in large part due to bad philosophic ideas they hold. But does this weighting in favor of condemnation still hold while dealing with others you know are seeking to be as reasonable as they can?

"So it isn't just being out of context but also tied to a negitive judgment." Hmm, I guess the issue for me here is it still sounds to me too much like we've got one word for brunettes in general, and now we're talking about making another word specifically for brunettes with long legs, especially pretty brunettes with long legs. I see a list of stuff, but I'm not yet clear on what is the essential difference I guess.

Hmmm, maybe if a guy is particularly turned on by pretty brunettes with long legs he might have created his own concept (your examples are always fun, Blue). Purpuse or context can always be a reason for having concepts, like the Eskimoes who have a bunch of different words for snow. There is a problem, but it isn't that people jump to positive judgments. Unfortunately, some have such a narrow, context dropping view of what Objectivism is that they jump to condemnation. It happened a lot. It was nortorious. Big arguments. Its like the guys who dyed their hair orange. Or the music students who would only play Chopin. Or thought the only place to live was NYC and love tall buildings. The question asked was "Is this person acting in the narrow view of Obj. that I have and if he doesn't he is immoral?" If over time, this activity stops being a tendency, the word would drop from use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, thanks. I happen to believe amusing examples have some benefits, like keeping people calmer instead of getting pissed off and going into attack mode over strong points of disagreement. :lol: As for that case of specific brunettes though, another difference has been introduced - that somebody finds them to be hot stuff in particular as opposed to any other type of people - and that now is the essential difference. Hmm, I suppose though that maybe in this case looking at it under the heading of a type of problem, especially among ones more common among people supportive of Objectivism, then it is a unique problem worth distinguishing from the other relatively common errors in this group and since concepts are derived from reality, not just cooked up from whatever we may imagine doesn't sound like it would be physically impossible, then the fact that there seems to only be a notable number of people too quick to unjustly condemn rather than too quick to unjustly praise makes it worth having in the definition of the word at least that it especially applies in the case of unjust negative judgements, though perhaps if unjust postive ones became a notable trend, it could apply to them too due to similarity in their (flawed) methodology.

I think the word just bugged me a little because the formating of the word makes it looks like it could be used to imply there was something wrong with strict moral judgement as such, or often condemning people regardless of how the judgments were derived. I have long had a similar slight sense of being ill at ease with the word "rationalize" too though, since I've often seen it used by people easily who don't really quite understand it and just assume meaning from the structure of the word along with knowing it has something negative associated with it to think that any time somebody gives an explanation for having unpopular views, their explanations are just rationalizations and they should be ashamed of their dirty, heathen ways anyway. In the case of "rationalize" though, I think the root "rational" is meant more like the word that is pronounced "ra-shun-AL" (as in, a line of thought given for something) rather than the word that is spelled the same, but pronounced "RA-shun-ull" (meaning logical, or that a conclusion is derived through the application of reason.) A person can have a badly made "ra-shun-AL" thus fine to have a word using it for something negative, but the "RA-shun-ull" is never a bad thing. It's just that "rationalize" has the "rational" part pronounced more like "RA-shun-ull" than "ra-shun-AL" that is the little bit of trouble.

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only read a few bits and pieces of Branden (his benefits and hazards of Objectivism and various issue articles and essays from when he was still in good standing with AR). It seems to me that many of his critiques of Objectivism as a philosophy are premised on what he feels that AR's ideas project and how others perceive the philosophy.

I agree that he addresses the second-hand perspective, a useful skill for a psychologist.

Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" article does not actually describe problems with Objectivism, but instead ways people can screw up in understanding Objectivism. His identifications could be correct and still have little to do with Objectivism. A mondegreen is a misheard music lyric In Jimi Hendrix's Purple Haze the line "'scuse me while I kiss this guy" is a misheard version of "'scuse me while I kiss the sky". Branden identified intellectual mondegreens.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the word just bugged me a little because the formating of the word makes it looks like it could be used to imply there was something wrong with strict moral judgement as such, or often condemning people regardless of how the judgments were derived. I have long had a similar slight sense of being ill at ease with the word "rationalize" too though, since I've often seen it used by people easily who don't really quite understand it and just assume meaning from the structure of the word along with knowing it has something negative associated with it to think that any time somebody gives an explanation for having unpopular views, their explanations are just rationalizations and they should be ashamed of their dirty, heathen ways anyway. In the case of "rationalize" though, I think the root "rational" is meant more like the word that is pronounced "ra-shun-AL" (as in, a line of thought given for something) rather than the word that is spelled the same, but pronounced "RA-shun-ull" (meaning logical, or that a conclusion is derived through the application of reason.) A person can have a badly made "ra-shun-AL" thus fine to have a word using it for something negative, but the "RA-shun-ull" is never a bad thing. It's just that "rationalize" has the "rational" part pronounced more like "RA-shun-ull" than "ra-shun-AL" that is the little bit of trouble.

I, on the other hand, know precisely which English words you are discussing. The use of the term "rationalize" as you are concerned with basically means to make things up to justify what someone has already decided, but is unwilling to admit their real reasons. This is also similar to the "ra-shun-AL" use of the word, as it is a justification. The reason (using a real word) that makes sense is that the "Rationalists", a group of "philosophers", did the same thing, that is, made things up, in their case to "explain" the world (I couldn't write without the " key.) The use of the term regarding the error that (usually male) Objectivists make is to forget that the term refers to all of the characteristics of an existent, and just use the defining characteristic. (Sorry, I know that I am being needlessly repetitive.) Neither use really has anything to do with reason as we know it. Both have more to do with the earlier philosophical position that there is a split between the physical world and conceptual knowledge, or universals. It was held that perceptual awareness could not lead to concepts, but only to isolated facts. Universals could only be known via intuition and direct imput from god. This is also known as a priori knowledge. A prioi knowledge could be used in reasoning, a deductive process and would give you certainty. This was know as Reason, until Ayn Rand. You might think that people understand you when you talk about using Reason or being rational, but most do not have any idea. They might think "deduction", making things up, special appeals to god, maybe, who knows. Objectivism has a very clearly defined understanding of what reason is and why it is important. It is just one of the ways that Ovbjectivism trains man to think differently than he has been, and let him focus on the world and enjoy life. The people you hear are speaking a different language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never heard of two pronunciations before. The hard RA as 'ratio' I have never heard used in the word rational, or rationale, or rationalist. Links please, I think this is idiosyncratic to your unique snowflake self. :lol:

I think bluecherry is reffering to the difference between rationale and rational.

edit: I may have read your post too quickly... still though:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationale

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never heard of two pronunciations before. The hard RA as 'ratio' I have never heard used in the word rational, or rationale, or rationalist. Links please, I think this is idiosyncratic to your unique snowflake self. :)

Ah! True, I forgot! There's an "e" at the end of the word I meant by "ra-shun-AL", so they aren't actually spelled exactly the same and different only in pronunciation. Thank you for reminding me that this is not one of English's numerous cases of many very different meanings under basically a single term after all. And maybe I've been better off than most people in that I've not come across many who think to be rational is to appeal to a god Oo; - at least generally people I've come across recognize reason as tied to logic, though there are a number of fools who think themselves rare geniuses who will try to say the senses and the information you get from them can't be trusted, but I've yet to come across one who would put their money where their mouth is and go appear to jump off that non-existent roof of that non-existent building their lying senses tell them is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like whenever there is a publication regarding the right and wrong of objectivism people attack it blindly.

:|

Many times when my high school teachers notice my reading book they say: "Oh, so you believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy of the weak not worthy of survival, and that donating, a concept held widely as good, evil?"

I reply, "No, I believe in my philosophy, objectivism, not in Ayn Rand."

Edited by Egosum—
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why you would suspect that an Objectivist board would look kindly on an interview hosted by a rabid anarchist, centered on a figure who says that Objectivism is a cult and destroys self-esteem in people is beyond me.

Stefan Molyneux gets loonier by the day, and Nathaniel gets deader by the day

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...