Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

An Open Letter To Craig Biddle

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Dr. Peikoff doesn't have to provide anyone a philosophical argument for his letter, and anyone who acts as if--or expects--memos, communiques, letters, to and amongst board members--of any organization--to be philosophically rich, is out of touch.

Likewise, anyone who expects people to continue donating to an organization whose board is influenced so dramatically by an outside party, without the slightest bit of explanation, is also out of touch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Craig, I have subscribed to your publication, The Objective Standard, for the last four years. However, I will not renew my subscription on account of your recent denigration of Leonard Peikoff.

A small semantic point... underline mine Biddle made it clear that he is judging Peikoff's specific act as unjust. He is not attacking Peikoff's reputation, nor denying the importan

True. I think one can semi-retire, but there is some minimal level of involvement needed, without which one becomes the absentee boss, out of touch with the organization. LP's level of involvement doe

Likewise, anyone who expects people to continue donating to an organization whose board is influenced so dramatically by an outside party, without the slightest bit of explanation, is also out of touch.

Students and associated intellectuals are also rightly worried. If one writes mildly critical things about LL in private, and word gets back to Peikoff, will one lose his student status? Or grant money? All without any explanation?

Or maybe we should just turn our backs on the falsely accussed. You know, for the sake of the movement. After all, the needs of the movement are more important than the injustices done to the individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find anywhere where the OP has posted even a link to his full essay... So I am faced with reading what amounts to an executive summary that is unconvincing but admits to leaving out key information, but alludes to it existing "somewhere" else. Basically a long innuendo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't find anywhere where the OP has posted even a link to his full essay... So I am faced with reading what amounts to an executive summary that is unconvincing but admits to leaving out key information, but alludes to it existing "somewhere" else. Basically a long innuendo.
He said he would send it privately to people who contact him via his website.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not clear, are you not posting your essay because of cowardice, or because you haven't finished it?

I'm certain it wasn't out of cowardice, but rather out of respect for the forum rules. It's really long, and this forum isn't the place for it. I received my copy within 24hrs of my request. Go ask for one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ says: "Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else."

Speak for yourself, brother. I've given money to the ARI, started a University club in their name and with their support, bought stuff from them, gone to their school, attended dozens of their functions, made friends of their employees, and other things besides. If I decide that I don't like the way they do business, then it impacts the decision whether or not to participate in all of the above. If you offer your unqualified support to ARI without ever questioning business practices you are concerned about, then you're not doing your job. And if this situation did not at all lead you to question their business practices, then see point A: Speak for yourself.

--Dan Edge

Link to post
Share on other sites

What aspects of Dr. McCaskey's criticisms of the book do you consider as evidence of a moral breech? Please explain.

I consider this question to be irrelevant to my position on Craig Biddle, so I'm not going to answer it directly. But I will give you a hypothetical to think about, and if you want we can discuss the hypothetical.

Suppose that you are a painter, and you were taught how to paint by a very close friend and a real popular master of the craft named Nick Branson, who died and willed his entire estate to you. One day you decide to build an art gallery to promote your master's paintings as well as some of your own, and you call the gallery The Nick Branson Art Gallery. Over time, the gallery gets larger and you get older. Eventually you decide to retire from the business end of the gallery and focus on writing a book on art. You hand the business over to a friend, but you, of course, retain all rights to your master's name and work as well as your own work.

Things go well for many years. But then one day you find out that your friend hired his friend to be a co-manager for the business. And this other person has started saying some very negative things about your paintings to some of the other employees at the gallery. And he is suggesting that your paintings should be repainted so that they better match his view of good art.

What would you do in this situation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ says: "Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else."

Speak for yourself, brother. I've given money to the ARI, started a University club in their name and with their support, bought stuff from them, gone to their school, attended dozens of their functions, made friends of their employees, and other things besides. If I decide that I don't like the way they do business, then it impacts the decision whether or not to participate in all of the above. If you offer your unqualified support to ARI without ever questioning business practices you are concerned about, then you're not doing your job. And if this situation did not at all lead you to question their business practices, then see point A: Speak for yourself.

--Dan Edge

I was speaking for myself, either way. I don't offer unqualified support for ARI: my support and attendance of ARI events and lectures is directly based on what the institute has accomplished--or sets to accomplish--generally spearheading the spread of Objectivism. Because of my qualified support for ARI, it's going to take quite more than a spat between two people (primarily), of which a non-philosophical letter has become a focal point, to throw my hands in the air and start crying foul.

Additionally, I elaborated on why I said "Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else." You and others, not being the original actors in the issue, are not affected by it, except through your own choice. Lastly, Dr. McCaskey is a big boy, and can speak for himself, like he has already. Why do I need to hear from Craig Biddle what should be coming from Dr. McCaskey? McCaskey's own motivations for resignation were:

"I believe it would be damaging to the Institute if the Institute acted either way, either acceding to his demand or rejecting it. So I decided to resign from the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and of the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship."
How do the actions of all of these non-involved actors correspond with his intention? Obviously, they don't: TOS seems to have removed ARI affiliation, and ARI has canceled lectures. If one is being a mouthpiece for McCaskey, when such a thing isn't necessary because the man can speak for himself, and, at the same time, causing negative problems of the type McCaskey probably sought to prevent, then I'd say such a person "has no business adding more flames to this issue." Edited by RussK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust, objectively, should never go that far as to accept someone's moral denunciation of a person without a shred of evidence - when that judgment is in a direct contradiction to everything known about this man. [emphasis added]

Are you allowing Leonard Peikoff the same benefit of the doubt that you espouse in the part I've emphasized?

Harriman should have at least seriously considered McCaskey's constructive criticisms. It's clear from Harriman's email to Paul Hsieh that he did not.

I believe Harriman considered McCaskey's criticisms for seven years and found them wanting.

Peikoff denounced McCaskey because of what McCaskey wrote in his emails to Harriman, and (most of) those emails are now public for us all to read. To claiming that there is some other unknown evidence that makes Peikoff's position reasonable is baseless speculation, [...]

A sample of 3 emails from only one side of the conversation is not "most", nor is it "baseless" to speculate that there is another side to the story.

[...] given that one of the parties of this dispute (Harriman) testifies that we have all of the evidence needed to reach a judgment.

I agree with him: "The Logical Leap", McCaskey's criticisms, Objectivist material and the historical record provide all the evidence needed to reach a judgement about who is right.

Furthermore, if this is indeed a dispute about philosophy (and not history), what business does ARI have in weighing in one way or the other?

You're kidding right? ARI's mission is to spread Objectivist ideas and principles throughout the culture. If judging whether something is consistent with Objectivism isn't ARI's business, then they have NO business whatsoever.

I can only speculate that the primary reason ARI sided with Peikoff so difinitively is that he flexed his muscles over the estate copyrights.

And speculation it is: can you think of no more rational reason why ARI would side with Peikoff? How about: that Peikoff is right? Is that a good reason?

Furthermore, if Peikoff judges something at ARI to be contra Objectivism, then should he refrain from "flexing his muscles"?

Otherwise, I can't see how this private dispute becomes such a public spectacle.

Because McCaskey made it public.

Maybe I haven't thought this through, but my first thoughts are that what might have been the more appropriate thing to do was to give those rights over to the Ayn Rand Institute upon his retirement, or Yaron Brook even.

Why? If Leonard Peikoff believes that he understands Objectivism better than anybody else, why would he relinquish control over his creation and that which makes it possible? I can think of no reason. Some day he will have to and I'm sure he is contemplating that now.

softwareNerd:

Of all the people on this forum I have found you to be the most even tempered and one of the most rational; moderators should emulate your behavior -- so I found your remarks to be the most disturbing to me and completely out of character for you.

I think one can semi-retire, but there is some minimal level of involvement needed, without which one becomes the absentee boss, out of touch with the organization. LP's level of involvement does not even rise to being concerned about what ARI donors think about the professionalism and integrity of the institute.

As evidenced by what we are talking about and its subject clearly LP is involved, is not absentee and is in touch with ARI. I think LP's actions show tremendous concern for ARI and its donors.

McCaskey had seven years to make his case along with the rest of the board. He traded emails with Harriman. He had the chance to make his case in front of a forum of other scientists. After all this he was unable to convince Harriman or Peikoff. If LP thinks he's right (and I'm sure he does), then he has saved the donors from a board divided about the direction of the Institute.

Nobody who was concerned would release the letter he did for public consumption.

Let's remember the facts: LP wanted McCaskey out; as a condition of leaving McCaskey wanted permission to release the letter; McCaskey released the letter. So who is the one showing concern here, McCaskey?

Now and then LP has mentioned that others around him were more motivated than he about setting up an institute to spread Objectivism.

The way I have heard LP express it is that he didn't think it would be successful. Now perhaps that does lead to one being less motivated than others, but I think his actions in actually creating ARI belie that assertion in his case. And since that time LP has said that he was completely wrong, that ARI has been an unmitigated success and that he is proud of its achievements.

From LP's approach, it does seem that he really does not care about ARI anymore. He does not value it enough to act for the value. [...] If one intends to lead people to battle, the least one has to do is show that one cares about winning. Obviously, LP no longer does.

I don't see this at all and I don't know what you are basing this opinion on -- is it this one incident? Have you taken into consideration everything else he has done?

In my opinion Leonard Peikoff is ARI's greatest champion. The man who has done more than any other person to present Ayn Rand's ideas to the world. The man who understands Ayn Rand's ideas more than any other. A man who continues to work assiduously to apply Ayn Rand's philosophy to varied fields. Is he infallible? No, and I've heard him acknowledge such. But I've never heard or read him making a serious mistake, certainly not on a philosophical issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
softwareNerd:..
I appreciate your remarks Marc. Let's assume that Piekoff and ARI are of a single mind on McCaskey's deviations from Objectivism.

Do you have a theory on why ARI didn't simply fire McCaskey? He might have asked for a document; but, they did not have to give him anything. Even if they did, why give him an internal communication that was never meant for his eyes? And, why allow him to make it public?

Also, given that a significant number of its donors and supporters wanted answers (and note that the more prominent ones did not jump the gun and react immediately), do you have a theory why ARI has not responded in any way -- not even to making a very brief but explicit defense of Dr. Peikoff ? Do you think it is fair that they allow this to look like it is about Peikoff vs. McCaskey. Do you think they should at least make a statement that McCaskey could not remain on the board because of significant philosophical differences with ARI? If my boss tells me to make my team do something, shouldn't I -- in the ordinary course of things, and if I agree -- take ownership and not say "the boss is saying we should..."?

If ARI did not fire McCaskey -- but let him resign -- because they wanted to do things quietly, I do not understand how they could also have given him LP's internal letter. Nor, how they would stay quiet and let the controversy drag on. If they were being soft-hearted and letting him take an easy way out, then would they not view his subsequent actions as a breach of their benevolence, and thus be motivated to make their own position clear?

The only thing I have seen from "ARI" (actually Brook), was what was reported by Diana here:

Dr. McCaskey resigned as a result of a conflict between him and Dr. Peikoff, regarding David Harriman's newly published book on induction, in the creation of which Dr. Peikoff had a large role

We are not going to comment here on that conflict itself, but we do want to make clear that the issue for Dr. Peikoff was only whether or not Dr. McCaskey should remain on ARI's Board, not his continued involvement in ARI activities. In other words, contrary to claims that some are now making, no "excommunication" was demanded by Dr. Peikoff or considered by any Board member. While Board members were still weighing this matter, Dr. McCaskey decided to resign. We understand the public's interest in changes in ARI's Board membership, but our internal discussions about Board composition are properly kept confidential. (emphasis added)

Do you think that portraying the conflict as between Mc Caskey and Dr. Peikoff is accurate? Having had time to think about this, and having seen the controversy this has stirred up, do you think ARI ought to set the record straight and say that this about philosophy and not just some "conflict" with Dr. Peikoff?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

What more is required to identify his position as a denunciation of the book?

How about a statement that rises to being a denunciation? A denunciation requires a moral judgement, McCaskey merely points out discrepancies with the historical record. McCaskey repudiates any interpretation of his criticisms as being against the theory itself.

This really goes back to Fact and Value, interpreted so that pointing out mistakes becomes equivalent to a moral denunciation. Harriman's book is written at a introductory level as if for a popular audience, and at that level it is not clear whether what McCaskey calls inaccuracies are in fact mistakes or deliberate editing choices for the level at which the book was written. Others have criticized exactly that popular tone and introductory nature of the text as an editorial error, they wanted a tome that could be cited in academic works. Harriman wrote the book that he wrote, it was his prerogative to decide how to write it and others have the prerogative to be disappointed in it. I have no need to take a side in this conflict of personal contexts.

Craig Biddle has McCaskey on his masthead at TOS, so he needed to think this through. He should have asked if Yaron Brook wanted to be removed from the masthead instead of acting pre-emptively. The result is that by keeping McCaskey and removing Brook, Biddle has cast his lot with McCaskey to a degree he didn't need to demonstrate. Now that Biddle has likely lost most of his writers, and he is running out of chapters of his own book to publish, he will likely cease publishing TOS within a year. Now that pisses me off.

Academics love their theories, it is their main claim to being productive besides teaching. Let Peikoff and Harriman zealously defend their work. McCaskey should more zealously advocate for the high standards he holds and not pose as an impersonal robot bringing inconvenient truths to light. This kind of dispute is not unique to Objectivism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kidding right? ARI's mission is to spread Objectivist ideas...

I wasn't kidding, but I accept this explanation. However, I'm still waiting to read why this is about philosophy, and how we got from philosophical disagreement to fire and brimstone moral condemnation.

can you think of no more rational reason why ARI would side with Peikoff? How about: that Peikoff is right? Is that a good reason?

No, that's an assertion which I will not accept on faith. A reason requires an explanation. The people who supposedly have that explanation were rightly afforded the benefit of the doubt when this began. But that benefit is a perishable good.

Furthermore, if Peikoff judges something at ARI to be contra Objectivism, then should he refrain from "flexing his muscles"?

I thought that figure of speech was clear, but I see I'll have to elaborate. Only Rand gets to say, "It's part of my philosophy because I say so." She created it, she can do that. Peikoff needs to explain how new additions ideas are consistent with her philosophy. It is entirely possible that Peikoff argued McCaskey to the grave and he didn't see fit to make his argument public. But please concede that it is also possible that he didn't feel like presenting a convincing argument because leveraging copyrights is easier. If that is the case, he didn't flex his mind.

Because McCaskey made it public.

Come, now. You know there was cooperation at every level in making this public; from McCaskey, to Peikoff to ARI. If Peikoff cared about privacy, I probably wouldn't even know who McCaskey is right now.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Biddle has McCaskey on his masthead at TOS, so he needed to think this through. He should have asked if Yaron Brook wanted to be removed from the masthead instead of acting pre-emptively. The result is that by keeping McCaskey and removing Brook, Biddle has cast his lot with McCaskey to a degree he didn't need to demonstrate. Now that Biddle has likely lost most of his writers, and he is running out of chapters of his own book to publish, he will likely cease publishing TOS within a year. Now that pisses me off.

It pisses me off too; it's what prompted me not to ignore this thread. I love TOS and have been a subscriber since the first issue. Craig Biddle has excellent content of his own, and I planned on listening to him at the University of Minnesota. For now--I can only hope for the situations impermanence--those things have been dashed.

OT: Obviously though, Robert Tracinski has eaten his words yet again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a statement that rises to being a denunciation? A denunciation requires a moral judgement, McCaskey merely points out discrepancies with the historical record. McCaskey repudiates any interpretation of his criticisms as being against the theory itself.

Not so. By McCaskey's own admission he critcized the theory itself in the private conference held. From his resignation page:

In the meeting I noted where the proposed theory of induction contradicted the historical record and speculated on ways the theory could be refined, if it had to be, to better match the history.

Granted, he's been oh so generous of the theory after the fact, calling it "potentially seminal" but still "inchoate" in his Amazon review, but this fact is irrelevant as he only mentions criticisms in the forum.

Edited by Sir Andrew
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am particlarly annoyed by your repeated use of the word, "abstractionland," but that is a criticism of style.

"Good reason" is neither an anti-concept nor crypto-speak for the word "evidence." It simply is common parlance for "justifying one's actions".

Thanks for the critique. After further consideration, I have revised the article. You might be happy to know that the made up place is now called Assumptionland, where people who make assumption-based evaluations reside, and the section on "good reason" has been significantly expanded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the critique. After further consideration, I have revised the article. You might be happy to know that the made up place is now called Assumptionland, where people who make assumption-based evaluations reside...

What purpose does this sarcasm serve? Those who disagree with you have been nothing but polite and respectful of your intelligence, whereas this is a kind of slap in the face in return by you toward intelligent people with whom you disagree.

Good in the context of Bible re-tellings, bad in the context of disagreement with (rare) like-minded people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What purpose does this sarcasm serve? Those who disagree with you have been nothing but polite and respectful of your intelligence...

I don't consider the following from FeatherFall to be polite and respectful:

After reading your bizarre manifesto Its clear that you don't understand even the basics of this one.

Thus the mild sarcasm directed at him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swig, I'm sorry my words seemed disrespectful to you, I didn't mean them to. I'll hear you out if you want to explain why you think "good reason" is an anti-concept (which is the position I find bizarre).

Regarding assumptions; I recognize that we don't know all of the specifics, and I'm not standing firm behind the notion that Peikoff didn't explain himself -I couldn't possibly know that. It's a nagging suspicion that I would sincerely like dispelled. Biddle's letter was a call for Justice, which might mean revealing condemnation of McCaskey. It was a call for the information we all need to come to a non-assumption based conclusion.

I'd like to reiterate that the onus is on Peikoff to explain why he thinks something is consistent with Objectivism. It's not a given that he will be correct in perpetuity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll hear you out if you want to explain why you think "good reason" is an anti-concept (which is the position I find bizarre).

I've decided to provide the following excerpt from my article to address the question of whether "good reason" is an anti-concept. Last night I revised and added to this section (particularly in paragraphs 4 and 7), so some of it will be new to you, FeatherFall.

The phrase “good reason” often appears in casual, conversational remarks such as: I’m sure there is a good reason for what he did. Or the negative version: There’s no possible good reason for what he did. Neither example tells us what the man did. Nevertheless, from the positive version, we get the impression that the man did something morally questionable, but that we should delay making a moral judgment until this “good reason” is discovered. With the negative version, we still sense that the man did something morally questionable, but this time we shouldn’t hesitate judging him, because a “good reason” for his behavior probably doesn’t exist.

How is all of this possible when we still don’t know what the man did? Why are we starting to think that his behavior is morally questionable and that we should either delay or rush a judgment, when we don’t have the slightest bit of knowledge about his actual behavior?

Well, let’s consider what happens if we change one word: I’m sure there is a good excuse for what he did. The noun excuse is a morally charged word. It is an explanation for an action that requires forgiveness or justification. Thus, when it is heard or read, it automatically brings to mind morally questionable behavior. In the original example sentences, the word reason is being used as a sort of synonym for excuse, which is why we got the unfavorable impression of the man’s unknown behavior. Perhaps you did not consciously realize this at first. No matter, your subconscious realized it for you.

Now let’s ask why we got the impression that we should either delay or rush a moral judgment. The answer to this question seems relatively easy: we were picking up on the evaluators’ biased assumptions. The positive evaluator, perhaps a close friend of the man being judged, clearly assumes that there is a good excuse for the questionable behavior, thus beginning the sentence with “I’m sure there is...” While the negative evaluator, perhaps an enemy of the man being judged, clearly assumes that there isn’t a good excuse for the questionable behavior, thus beginning the sentence with “There’s no possible...”

What ultimate purpose is served by this method of moral evaluation? To answer this, let’s consider a hypothetical and see where it leads.

Suppose the man in question tries to offer a “good reason” for his behavior. Suppose he says that he shot and killed a stranger, because his wife was being raped by that stranger. The positive evaluator could now reply, “See, that is a perfectly good reason. The rapist deserved to die, because rape is one of the worst imaginable crimes.” While the negative evaluator could say, “Okay, but that is still not a good enough reason for what he did. Unnecessary killing is always wrong. He should have, at the very least, fired a warning shot and given the stranger a chance to surrender.” Once this sort of discussion gets rolling, it tends to wander off on any number of strange tangents, and it’s easy to lose track of the actual facts of the case.

Keep in mind that in our hypothetical we still don’t know what actually happened. All we have is a dead man and a confession from the self-proclaimed killer. But let’s suppose there is a security camera video that clearly proves the wife was being raped, and then the husband shot the rapist once in the head. The negative evaluator could still say, “That’s really horrible, but it doesn’t change my belief that the husband should have fired a warning shot.” Such an evaluation is possible because the negative evaluator started from the assumption that there is no “good reason” (excuse) for the man’s behavior, and after being confronted with an alleged “good reason,” rather than face the facts, he simply invented a more relevant assumption: that the rapist deserved a warning shot.

By the way, if this particular “warning shot” assumption is ever seriously challenged, a different one would quickly take its place, as long as the evaluator maintains the original assumption of there being no possible “good reason” for what the man did. Such evaluators typically become permanent residents in a realm called Assumptionland, where reality, facts, and evidence are irrelevant, and only assumptions matter...

That is the brutal effect of an anti-concept like “good reason.” Left unchecked, it (probably in combination with many other anti-concepts) ravages the rational mind, destroying valid concepts like evidence, and rendering the subject irrational and desperately reliant upon more and more fantastic assumptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've decided to provide the following excerpt from my article to address the question of whether "good reason" is an anti-concept. Last night I revised and added to this section (particularly in paragraphs 4 and 7), so some of it will be new to you, FeatherFall.

What your two theoretical debaters are really debating is conflicting standards for the justification of deadly force. They would be better served discussing that explicitly, but your identification of "good reason" as an anti-concept is a mis-diagnosis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What your two theoretical debaters are really debating is conflicting standards for the justification of deadly force. They would be better served discussing that explicitly, but your identification of "good reason" as an anti-concept is a mis-diagnosis.

Describing the content of the evaluators' assumption-based disagreement does not negate my view of "good reason." People use anti-concepts to debate all sorts of irrational ideas. If they didn't have this imaginary notion of a "good reason," they might actually focus on the facts, apply the valid standard of self-defense, and arrive at a reality-based evaluation. Instead they invent further assumptions about standards, which are intended to support their original assumptions that the man either did or did not have a "good reason" for what he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swig, your argument makes very little sense to me. Perhaps I'm too dense. It doesn't look to me that Biddle implies the things you're accusing him of implying. Could you simplify this for me without the use of a hypothetical?

SirAndrew, quotes from Peikoff's letter and from yourself speak to the concerns I have:

By McCaskey's own admission he critcized the theory itself in the private conference held.

In essence, his behavior amounts to: Peikoff is misguided, Harriman is misguided, M knows Objectivism better than either. Or else: Objectivism on these issues is inadequate, and M is the one pointing the flaws out.

Assuming the accuracy of either of Peikoff's synopses, an argument must still be presented as to why the Peikoff/Harriman take is correct. McCaskey must be shown to be wrong regardless of whether or not Peikoff actually morally condemned him ( I understand there is growing disagreement over whether such condemnation actually happened). I doubt the book directly addresses McKaskey's criticisms. Without such a rigorous public defense we can have no confidence in Peikoff's conclusion; his reputation is no argument. Furthermore, Peikoff's reputation will diminish every time he makes a claim for which he won't provide reasons. Any organization he has control over will also lose face when this happens. For this reason, I hope his argument is eventually made public, and if not, I hope it remains an isolated incident.

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...