Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Howard Roark blowing up Cortlandt was not Objectivist, and neither is

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Well this is pure fiction. The size of the federal government has been increasing since 1913.
Yes, it has. Did I say it did not? And if healthcare is nationalized the government-run portion will go up further. So, where's the revolution in Canada, Germany, Japan? What time-frame are you speaking of? Are you saying that there will be a revolution when my great-grandson is retiring?

I am saying that collectivism, once accepted by the culture, must collapse in order to be diverted back toward freedom, as Rand explained quite often. The only other option is to change the culture before the collapse which simply isn't going to happen given the rate at which we are approaching bankruptcy, the rate of our cultural decline, and socialist control over the "schools."
Can you back this up with quotes and/or references to something Rand published? (Something other than fictional events from Atlas Shrugged.)

If you think the culture will not change toward real Capitalism, that's fine. It is an extremely difficult task. Nothing I said should be taken to construe that such a change is likely. I do not think we're going to see full-fledged Capitalism in the U.S. in this century. The most likely change will come in the form of a mix of good and bad, with things moving a little less statist for a while, and perhaps sliding back.

However, the worst possible outcome will be a collapse. That will have exactly the opposite of what you expect. The least likely possibility is that a collapse -- taking place in an environment where the vast majority of voters still believe in statist government -- will lead to non-statist government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The argument is that building a life for yourself and your family requires long term planning. With the various governments (federal, state, local) massively involved in the US economy, people's plans

What's your point? Are you saying that there's nothing for us to do until society collapses on its own, in which case there is no possibility of "phasing out" reliance on government services? Or are you saying that government services should be ended abruptly through use of force by some extra-governmental power? Since you don't seem to think it's possible that enough members of the culture will voluntarily change - which of course is the premise of the "phasing out" approach - I don't understand what you are proposing as an alternative.

my point is that Objectivists must be consistent to have any expectation of affecting change. What the oppisition is advocating is the path of the conservatives- decrying new socialism while offering tacit or active support for maintaining that which we already have. As Rand explained often, in an ideological battle it is the more consistent side that will eventually prevail. You can not defeat socialism by arguing against ending it.

no one in particular owned the property

Yikes!!!! Are you serious? Who do you think make the contract with Keating? Obviously, the BOD was acting in behalf of the owners. This was not a fully socialized society being portrayed after all but a mixed economy.

No. Print out my post for yourself, take a sharpee and circle where I wrote that. When you fail to find it, you'll have learned a valuable lesson for yourself: pay more attention.

Actually, I have decided to ignore you. You are emotional, insulting, make irrational assumptions of my knowledge of Objectivism, etc. Its quite boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am saying that collectivism, once accepted by the culture, must collapse in order to be diverted back toward freedom, as Rand explained quite often. The only other option is to change the culture before the collapse which simply isn't going to happen given the rate at which we are approaching bankruptcy, the rate of our cultural decline, and socialist control over the "schools."

Can you back this up with quotes and/or references to something Rand published? (Something other than fictional events from Atlas Shrugged.)

Of course, as long as you are referring to my points regarding Rand's statements that movement away from collectivism requires cultural change to occur. If that is what you are looking for, let me know and I will find some quotes for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
my point is that Objectivists must be consistent to have any expectation of affecting change. What the oppisition is advocating is the path of the conservatives- decrying new socialism while offering tacit or active support for maintaining that which we already have. As Rand explained often, in an ideological battle it is the more consistent side that will eventually prevail. You can not defeat socialism by arguing against ending it.

Obviously nobody is arguing against ending socialism. We are arguing in favour of phasing out socialist elements in a mixed society in a sane way that will not result in more socialism. It's called rational self-interest, maybe you've heard of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously nobody is arguing against ending socialism.

Sure, they are. They are calling for a State managed transition over a period of time rather than ending it. Further, no principled manner of accomplishing this phasing out has even been uttered. As I have pointed out, a phasing out accomplishes all the same negative results of ending it without any of the positive economic stimulus which would occur from freeing people and the economy from slavery. Its pretty much like advocating phasing out slavery in the South over a decade or something versus setting them free all at once. Pragmatism over principle, for starters. Yuck.

We are arguing in favour of phasing out socialist elements in a mixed society in a sane way that will not result in more socialism. It's called rational self-interest, maybe you've heard of it?

You mean *you*, the mob, and the politicos get to decide what is in *my* rational self-interest, get to say its in my interest to altruistically sacrifice my productivity to those in greater need? Yikes! It is not in my self-interest to continue to be a slave.

Edited by Chris LeRoux
Link to post
Share on other sites
They are calling for a State managed transition over a period of time rather than ending it.

We are calling for a transition from a mixed economy TO a free market economy over a period of time, rather than an overnight change, which is impossible anyway - which was the point of my first question to you. Given that the culture has to change in order for any of these changes to be made, what do you think is an alternative?? Are you going to put together an army and shut down all economic functions of the government overnight, by force?

Further, no principled manner of accomplishing this phasing out has even been uttered.

The way it would happen is that cultural changes would allow for increased freedom in one area at a time as voters become less tolerant of political involvement in certain areas of life. As these changes happen and people observe themselves to be better off, more changes would follow.

What is your "principled manner" of achieving an overnight change?

You mean *you*, the mob, and the politicos get to decide what is in *my* rational self-interest, get to say its in my interest to altruistically sacrifice my productivity to those in greater need? Yikes! It is not in my self-interest to continue to be a slave.

No - I mean *I*, a rational and responsible human being, get to say it's in *MY* self-interest to influence changes in society through volitional and rational means rather than through force. It's in *MY* self-interest to live in a more-stable rather than a less-stable society - where people have somehow overnight lost the framework on which their livelihoods and future plans depended, where they are essentially being punished for making decisions based on reality.

But it doesn't matter anyway because your head is in the clouds if you think there is ANY alternative to change that happens slowly, in any society, much less one that is becoming MORE rational and free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that the culture has to change in order for any of these changes to be made, what do you think is an alternative?? Are you going to put together an army and shut down all economic functions of the government overnight, by force?

Yes, you are confused as to what my point is, clearly. I have advocated no action, no use of force. I have advocated being philosophically consistent as the only effective way to defeat collectivism.

The way it would happen is that cultural changes would allow for increased freedom in one area at a time as voters become less tolerant of political involvement in certain areas of life. As these changes happen and people observe themselves to be better off, more changes would follow.

Yes, this is consistent with what I have been saying. However, you cannot create the cultural change by ceding the moral basis for collectivism- altruism, in this case by saying I cannot be free because other people are now dependent on my slavery. This is no different from saying I can't be free because some people are incompetent to take care of themselves. It is *pure* altruism.

No - I mean *I*, a rational and responsible human being, get to say it's in *MY* self-interest to influence changes in society through volitional and rational means rather than through force. It's in *MY* self-interest to live in a more-stable rather than a less-stable society - where people have somehow overnight lost the framework on which their livelihoods and future plans depended, where they are essentially being punished for making decisions based on reality.

This is in absolute contradiction to numerous principles of Objectivism. Of course, advocating the continuation of slavery/entitlements is advocating the continuation of aggression. And clearly, the mixed economy nor a system of slavery can be considered stable from an Objectivist viewpoint. Quotes ready from Rand if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, as long as you are referring to my points regarding Rand's statements that movement away from collectivism requires cultural change to occur. If that is what you are looking for, let me know and I will find some quotes for you.
Yes, I'd be interested specifically in any Rand published reference that shows that she thought that when one moves from a mixed-economy to a free-economy, one must do it with extreme speed. (I won't say "overnight", because that's probably a straw man, and not your real view.) In fact, I don't remember Rand saying very much about such a process of transition, so any references will be welcome. Even if I think the reference does not support your point, I would still be interested in reading what she said.

I understand the argument that it is unjust to continue to take money from some, to give to others. However, there are simply some situations where all choices are imperfect. That is the nature of some situations in a mixed economy, and it is the nature of some situations where one unwinds from such a mixed economy. Someone who is 70 has spent all his working life forced to pay money, with the promise of getting it back. So, is it justice to tell him to get lost? No; and yet, neither does it seem just to force someone else to pay for this guy. The injustice is built into this situation. It is not justice to say "let's simply ignore what happened in the past". This does not mean that the old guy should get all the pie-in-the-sky that was promised, but nor does it mean he should simply fend for himself. Here is a Rand quote (not referring to this exact situation, but that I believe to apply at the right level of abstract principle):

It is a hard problem, and there are many situations so ambiguous and so complex that no one can determine what is the right course of action. That is one of the evils of welfare statism: its fundamental irrationality and immorality force men into contradictions where no course of action is right.

Anyhow, it sounds that this is "agree to disagree" time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I'd be interested specifically in any Rand published reference that shows that she thought that when one moves from a mixed-economy to a free-economy, one must do it with extreme speed. (I won't say "overnight", because that's probably a straw man, and not your real view.)

The statements you are asking for quotes from were only partially from Rand and partially my own ideas. This is why I said I could provide quotes from Rand to the effect that cultural change must precede the economic changes. Rand did not speak to the pace it should occur as far as I know, yet never did she advocate maintaining socialist programs due to altruism or pragmatism.

Someone who is 70 has spent all his working life forced to pay money, with the promise of getting it back.

Very good point. The plan I propose would refund all "contributions" 100%, accounting for interest, before discontinuing "benefits." Of course, this is far less money than they would take out on average but is as fair as it can get, given the years of their lives are already stolen.

Have to run for now. Later.

Edited by Chris LeRoux
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is in absolute contradiction to numerous principles of Objectivism. Of course, advocating the continuation of slavery/entitlements is advocating the continuation of aggression. And clearly, the mixed economy nor a system of slavery can be considered stable from an Objectivist viewpoint. Quotes ready from Rand if needed.

Do you think hitting the brakes in your car is the same as continuing to propel the car forward, simply because the principles of physics make it impossible to stop a large moving object on a dime?

Do you deny that a society with a significant and increasing percentage of free-market elements is MORE STABLE than one with no functioning government whatsoever, where millions of people have been put of out work overnight, where schools, roads, power and water systems suddenly cease to function, etc??

Do you think there is some possibility of an overnight destruction of 80% of current government functions that would somehow leave a seamless transition to a government whose military and policing functions are fully intact and functional immediately? Or where utilities that are currently government-run could be replaced overnight by private infrastructure and management? Or perhaps where the sudden loss of currently-public services would simply go unnoticed?

Do you think there is anything principled or consistent about insisting that changes occur in a way that is patently impossible?

IIRC, Rand herself suggested that in a change to a completely free market economy, the elimination of forced taxation would be the last step of the transition. It's all well and good for you to wish you could just snap your fingers and skip all the steps, but you can't claim that you're being consistent to do so. To be consistent with Objectivism would be to advocate a rational progression towards a free economy, in tangent with cultural changes that will allow such a progression to be made volitionally, rationally, and with the least possible increase in chaos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism does not tell you how to go about dismantling welfare programs, so continuing to say that Objectivism tells you not to phase out programs, or that all government employees should be fired immediately, or that programs are ended in 30-60 days is false. You have already been told why these would be stupid ideas.

Objectivism gives you principles on which a free society is founded. Objectivism is not a philosophy that engages in the specifics of government planning or utopia-bulding or a philosophy that tells you how to go about the privatization of the post office or how best to dismantle Social Security, or what new departments or agencies should be created or phased out in which manner. You can keep claiming that it does, but that would be a lie. You can keep saying that people are claiming to support welfare programs, but that would be a lie. You can keep saying that people on here are calling for slavery, or justifying plunder, but that would be a lie. Are you a liar?

Now, if you want something more specific on how to dismantle some welfare programs, or privatize some government monopoliies there are some economic books on the matter that I can suggest to you, but this an academic issue and isn't a part of Objectivism. As far as what principles Objectivism would state, which have clear applications on this subject, contrary to what you have falsely accused, there would be no tacit support for any current socialist programs. Your time would be better spent figuring out a system of rational transitional measures that accomplish the abolition of the welfare state while being consistent with debt obligations, fostering just privatization conductive to competition, and providing for welfare recipients whose savings have been made impossible by punitive tax regimes and whose incomes have been stolen and reduced to below-subsistence levels by taxes and government-induced inflation and unemployment. As an idea, for example, the government could purchase annuities for the severely disabled and for low-income retirees by liquidating and selling off government assets.

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well for one thing, this is the government, aren't they building with rather stolen goods anyway?

Yes, they are building with stolen wealth, and Roark, while conspiring with Keating to commit the fraud of passing off his work as Keating's, states that he is philosophically opposed to public housing, but the prospect of working on the project is just too thrilling to pass up. So, basically, Roark decides that his own creative pleasure, at taxpayers' expense, is more important to him than adhering to the principle of not working on projects funded by stolen wealth.

More to the point though, if you stole my painting and put it in your closet and the only way for me to get my painting back was for me (or somebody on my behalf if we're not dealing with the government itself being the culprit here) to force my way into your closet in such a way that it damages your closet, you don't have room to complain.

A more accurate analogy would be that if I steal a painting from you, as well as thousands of other paintings from everyone else who lives in your community, yes, you would have the right to use force to take back your painting, or you'd even have the right to destroy your painting if that's what you wanted to do rather than let me keep it, but you wouldn't have the right to destroy everyone else's paintings. Their paintings don't suddenly become your property to play with or to dispose of as you see fit. The same is true of Roark. The fact that a fraction of the Cortland project may have been funded by wealth confiscated from him via taxation doesn't give him the right to destroy the property confiscated from all other taxpayers. It's rightfully their property, not his, and not the government's.

You brought the damage upon yourself by violating my rights and then putting your stuff in the path between me and setting right that violation of my rights.

Well, keep in mind that Roark didn't destroy the project because the government had confiscated his wealth. He destroy it for purely aesthetic reasons. One can't complain that one's rights have been violated while joining in with the looters and playing with wealth stolen from the taxpayers.

Don't expect you can keep violating my rights by putting your own out there in the way, you won't succeed in trying to use pity or guilt to keep me a victim. And I explained earlier why I think Keating was not the party at fault here who should be held responsible by Roark. Besides, even if he did go after Keating it wouldn't solve the problem of his rights still being violated by that building existing as it was. Normally you would go to the government of course to solve a contractual dispute, but of course such was no good in this case because the government *was* the one ignoring the contract.

Keating was in violation of his contract with the government before he agreed to it. He conspired with Roark to pass off Roark's work as his own. He violated his end of the contract long before the government violated theirs. He, and Roark, went into the deal with the intention of violating the contract.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand had Roark blow up Cortlandt not as a part of some complex rationalization about contractual law, but to demonstrate that Roark was absolutely committed to his principles. It's a romantic novel, it's not supposed to be "realistic" in the sense of "this is exactly how people should behave in real life". It is the commitment of Ayn Rand's heroes to their ideas and the content of their ideas that Objectivists follow, not their specific actions.

If you read Ayn Rand talking about her writing (and about such subjects as plot development), she explains all this--that the conflict in a plot is properly conveyed through *stressed* action. Thus people go over the top and do things that they probably wouldn't (and shouldn't) in real life, in order to more fully expose the ideas and assumptions that underlie their actions. In real life, I doubt she would encourage anyone to go on strike, blow up a housing project, or commit murder (see "Think Twice!"), but she delighted in using these devices of "melodramatic" action in her writing.

She even talked about this issue with Leonard Peikoff when he complained that John Galt seemed like an impossible figure to live up to, because he was always perfectly in control at all times. Dr. Peikoff used the example that if John Galt went on a date and had to open a wine bottle, he'd be perfectly suave and pull the cork on the first try, but if Dr. Peikoff had to try it, he said, he'd probably fumble, it'd be awkward, etc. Ayn Rand said, in response, that in real life, John Galt would also probably fumble, but it wouldn't bother him because such bumps in real life are utterly insignificant. By including them in her novel, however, she'd be indicating that the occasional fumble was an important aspect of life and that was not at all what she wanted to convey.

Escapism has become so deeply ingrained in our culture that many people take the stressed action and stylization of art as a literal guide to living. This is certainly a very common problem that I run across all the time. My father criticized the heroes of Atlas Shrugged for being "impossibly perfect and beautiful"--amusing, because Ragnar Danneskjold and Kay Ludlow are the only characters who are described as having extreme physical beauty--the other characters are described as what we'd probably consider as ordinary-looking, EXCEPT that Ayn Rand uses such glowingly favorable LANGUAGE that we assume they're beautiful. Rearden is actually described as being rather homely--in an attractive, ascetic, austere sort of way.

So don't take the actions of Ayn Rand's characters within her plot construction as some sort of prescription for how people ought to act in real life. Look more at the ideas that motivate their actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you read Ayn Rand talking about her writing (and about such subjects as plot development), she explains all this--that the conflict in a plot is properly conveyed through *stressed* action. Thus people go over the top and do things that they probably wouldn't (and shouldn't) in real life, in order to more fully expose the ideas and assumptions that underlie their actions. In real life, I doubt she would encourage anyone to go on strike, blow up a housing project, or commit murder (see "Think Twice!"), but she delighted in using these devices of "melodramatic" action in her writing...So don't take the actions of Ayn Rand's characters within her plot construction as some sort of prescription for how people ought to act in real life. Look more at the ideas that motivate their actions.

I agree.

I don't think that Rand's morality should be judged based on what her characters do in her novels. The fact that some of the fictional heroes she created were not justified in their actions according to her philosophy should not be held against her. But I also think that the same generosity should be extended to all other artists and their art. There should not be a double standard which exempts Rand while condemning other artists for the unjust actions of their fictional characters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, what unjust actions? Most of the time, when I see people criticizing artists, they're criticizing the ideas that underlie the artwork using the artwork as *evidence* for what those ideas are. This is what I try to do, myself. Since most people have a number of unresolved contradictions in their thinking, it's usually possible to make two, three, or even more solid, distinct and contradictory cases for the overall impact of a given artwork. I'm tempted to say ALL people, because even the most scrupulously rational person has limits to their knowledge/experience and out of the fringe areas there will be contradictions they can't resolve on their own due to the state of their knowledge and interest in that specific issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you tell me! Suddenly the tables are turned, because I wouldn't go so far! laugh.gif

Yes, and I would go farther. I was in a hurry at last post. I would refund 100% of "contributions" with interest and with adjustment for inflation. All property is returned and all looting is ended immediately. A phasing out of entitlements is impossible. You cannot stop something by increasing the numbers of victims enslaved to it. Only by decreasing the number of new enrollments could you phase it out and then you of course have your chaos. The choice is not between a nice orderly movement away from tyranny or a chaotic one. The choice is between a scheduled, rationally chosen date and an unchosen date.

You have already been told why these would be stupid ideas.

Ad hominem unfortunately negates anything worth answering in this post.

Jonathan13, I concur with every word you said. The fact the building was funded via State looting partially or fully is completely irrelevant to the morality of Roark blowing it up. Roark was wrong on all counts. To say the morality of this action is irrelevant is to utterly dismiss any value Rand's fiction has. The fact is that Rand fused fiction with philosophy, and explained why in TRM. To say Rand would intentionally have one of her heroes commit an immoral act is absolutely incredible to me. She made a mistake. Its a contradiction. She is still the greatest mind to ever live in my opinion, though I think JMeganSnow had some almost good points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ad hominem unfortunately negates anything worth answering in this post.

For the record, you started out by declaring that everything you wrote is the Objectivist position, and the opposite view would benon-Objectivist, in the title. Then you proceeded to label everything written in response as collectivism. All that, despite the fact that Ayn Rand never wrote anything that would support your claim.

So you'll forgive us for not being more gentle with your feelings and sensibilities when characterizing your opinions. Get a hold of yourself, and start responding to the criticism, as it is. If you wanted nice and polite, you should've kept it nice and polite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ad hominem unfortunately negates anything worth answering in this post.

That isn't ad hominem. No one has suggested there is anything questionable about you or attacked your personal character, I said you've been told why those ideas (not phasing out government interventions, firing all government employees simply because they are government employees, giving 30-60 day's notice to just end programs) are bad ideas, and you can refer to those posts which explained why (because that was besides the point I was making, which Jake just summarized in the first paragraph of the preceeding post.) But this is your evasion tactic, isn't it? Instead of responding, now I have to explain what ad hominem is to you because you like to imagine things in posts which arent there. You've done it in just about every one of your posts. Are you just unwilling to pay attention, or is it just an inability to respond?

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and I would go farther. I was in a hurry at last post. I would refund 100% of "contributions" with interest and with adjustment for inflation. All property is returned and all looting is ended immediately.

Where are you going to get the money that you'll return, plus interest? It's not still sitting there, you know. It certainly isn't collecting interest or rising with inflation. Maybe you'll have to invent a "restitution tax" or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you just unwilling to pay attention, or is it just an inability to respond?

Pay attention to your insults? Yes, not interested. Its too bad really. I would respond to some of what your wrote otherwise, actually agreed with some of it. Undisciplined writing, emotionalism, ad hominem, etc. Sad. I added you to my ignore list.

Where are you going to get the money that you'll return, plus interest? It's not still sitting there, you know. It certainly isn't collecting interest or rising with inflation. Maybe you'll have to invent a "restitution tax" or something.

Obviously, the ending of all entitlement benefits would account for much of the refunds. Other cuts in illegitimate federal spending would account for all of the rest, but you also have the option of selling federal assets. Defense is the only legitimate role of federal government. Add up how much it spends elsewhere. :)

Edited by Chris LeRoux
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pay attention to your insults? Yes, not interested. Its too bad really. I would respond to some of what your wrote otherwise, actually agreed with some of it. Undisciplined writing, emotionalism, ad hominem, etc. Sad.

Obviously, the ending of all entitlement benefits would account for much of the refunds. Other cuts in illegitimate federal spending would account for all of the rest, but you also have the option of selling federal assets. Defense is the only legitimate role of federal government. Add up how much it spends elsewhere. :)

It certainly doesn't spend any *more* than the amount it collects in taxes. Property would be the only appreciating asset. However you add it up, the amount available to return is going to be much, much smaller than the amount that has been collected. Never mind increasing the returned amount to account for interest and inflation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pay attention to your insults? Yes, not interested. Its too bad really. I would respond to some of what your wrote otherwise, actually agreed with some of it. Undisciplined writing, emotionalism, ad hominem, etc. Sad.

Did you just turn an accusation of imaginary ad hominem into an actual ad hominem to conclude that I am wrong and to justify your non-response? Hilarious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
However you add it up, the amount available to return is going to be much, much smaller than the amount that has been collected. Never mind increasing the returned amount to account for interest and inflation.

Negative. Further, of course, property could be returned in payments, if necessary. But, the unfunded liabilities "only" make up the largest % of federal spending, not even the majority yet though it will soon. Their primary burden is expenses still to come. The amount payed in cumulative is far less than the expenditures that are coming, obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Negative. Further, of course, property could be returned in payments, if necessary. But, the unfunded liabilities "only" make up the largest % of federal spending, not even the majority yet though it will soon. Their primary burden is expenses still to come. The amount payed in cumulative is far less than the expenditures that are coming, obviously.

Just to be clear, we are talking about property (money) that has been unjustly seized by the government from individual citizens to fund government initiatives that are outside the realm of protection from force.

In that case all government liabilities are "unfunded" in the sense that they are funded only by forced taxation. The government doesn't have any other means of paying for anything.

I don't understand your last sentence - are you trying to argue that the government can spend more money than it collects/has collected in taxes?

How would the government return property in "payments" - once taxation stops, there is not going to be any more money available next month or year than there is this month or year. If there is not currently enough to return 100% plus interest, adjusted for inflation, to everyone who has contributed (in some cases over upwards of 70 years), how would there be any more once the next payment is "due"? Since as you say the looting has stopped by this point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...