Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thoughts on defending Rand against this attack?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I admire and value honesty, and disdain deception, and Source chooses to find fault with me proclaiming so. Actually, I can understand that, since in thread after thread Source himself has continued to also earn my disdain. I am not in the least bit surprised that he should here invert the truth and attempt to elevate a deceptive poster while faulting an honest one like me. I have come to expect such poor understanding and judgment from Source, so, yes, I am not at all surprised.

You can view this as a personal vendetta of mine if you wish, for all I care. For your information, it isn't.

In the past I have stated on this forum how I would rather be friends with a value-oriented person with a good sense of life than with a person who intellectually embraces Objectivism but does not reflect the sense of life and and act on the values that matter to me.
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but are you expecting all Objectivists you meet to be your friends?

Don was ultra-religious but he had a joyous sense of life and a very active mind. Unlike the other poster I did not conceal the philosophy or try to finesse him towards Objectivism. I was always open and forthright, as was Don, and we both enjoyed arguing passionately.

I'm sure that your approach was different than that demonstrated in the first few sentences in your first post in this thread. Basically, they are accusations directed at someone who has little to no understanding of Objectivism. Had I written the post, I would have explained that Objectivism cannot be finessed because doing that would violate its principles. That is essentially different from your "approach," and it is not finesse.

Anyway, I thought you would try to explain why you wrote your replies to Thesweetscience the way you did after this. Instead, you are trying to cash in on our past disagreements and refute my arguments on this poor basis (and on the basis that you once "converted" a Jew).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I must admit before a few days ago I have never had a single negative thought about Objectivism. But, there are people here who I do not wish to be anything like.

This presents a puzzle to me. I do not understand the connection between (1) one's thoughts about a whole philosophy -- and (2) some individuals' actions in a particular thread of a particular forum at a certain time.

What is the connection?

What negative thoughts logically could arise -- about a whole philosophy -- from such a limited experience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The early responses were that I should ignore them and that there was nothing worthy of responding to.

I didnt accept that and began to try and defend her and Objectivism to the best of my ability. For that I was roundly criticized and accused of "proselytizing".

That is a misrepresentation of the facts. You being labelled a proselytizer had nothing at all to do with your supposed defense of Objectivism. You told me that you were interested in converting religious mystics by concealing the philosophy and finessing them towards Objectivism. And further, when I pointed out that Objectivists should proudly proclaim their ideas rather than practicing deception, you defended your actions as salesmanship on the pragmatic grounds that it works. It was then that you were labelled a proselytizer, and that is an excellent characterization of your own stated intentions and actions. To proselytize is to induce others to convert to your faith, and that is exactly what you yourself described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every principle of Objectivism should be proudly and explicitly laid out in a discussion where it is relevant.

Exactly! We do not need to convert religious mystics from one religion to have them treat Objectivism as another, and we do need those who seek to finesse these mystics to Objectivism by concealing the philosophy.

And the proper response when an error of yours is called is : "Thank you."

And the presumption here is that a "thank you" is from one acting on the premises of honesty and truth, not deception and pragmatism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that your approach was different than that demonstrated in the first few sentences in your first post in this thread.

Of course my approach was different; it is a matter of justice. Did you miss the part where I explained that Don was open and forthright, whereas the other poster was deceptive? Or, perhaps such a difference does not matter to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby,

Stephen is right, and you need to accept it. Yes, he did not pull any punches when he let you know. Just deal with it and stick around. I think it will be worth it to you. If you honestly seek knowledge here, you will get it, and then you can stand up for yourself. Just do it as a means of returning the favor I did for you. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that he meant to deceive anyone, ....(snip)....

To a person who only read "The Fountainhead" this can be misleading. This, I think, is why he claims to be agnostic, why he claims that there is a religious aspect of Objectivism, etc., although I may never know that now since he's already said goodbye.

This doesn't wash. The lengths to which you are reaching to explain his deceptive practice goes well beyond presumption or assumption in using the above as justification.

From thesweetscience:

my motives for saying that religion is not unacceptable to an objectivist lie in the fact that if someone tells a mystic that belief in god is bad, they will automatically think that everything you are saying is rooted in evil and stop listening. I think they need to be finessed into grasping the basic principles of objectivism first before they can accept the harder parts.

By me saying God is arbitrary and can't be proven or disproven, but must be solved with logic and reason, is saying by osmosis that there is no god.

This is an admission of the understanding that Objectivism holds that the concept of God is arbitrary and is bad, his words. He's obviously not confusing Roark's "religiousness" with it's potential acceptance in Objectivism. Rather, he acknowledges a pretty firm grasp that religion is not acceptable with Objectivists as that is the point he wishes to knowingly evade when trying to convert mystics so as not to shut them off. It's only after these words that he comes up with a rationalization for his methods by proposing the idea "if God can be proven by reason".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! We do not need to convert religious mystics from one religion to have them treat Objectivism as another, and we do need those who seek to finesse these mystics to Objectivism by concealing the philosophy.

As was so kindly pointed out to me, the above should read "and we do NOT need those who seek to finesse ..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thesweetsciece openly acknowledged engaging in deceit to get others interested in Objectivism. Mr. Speicher called him on it with a succinct analogy to the shoddy used car-salesman. The sweetscience made further errors that were also called.

I am not saying that Thesweetscience is in any way correct. What I am saying is that he is confused as to what Objectivism really is, and as such doesn't deserve the titles he has been given by stephen_speicher.

Now you are asking him to engage in the very behaviour that is in question here; that of deceit. You asking that a spade not be called a spade so as not to "scare" someone away from Objectivism.
Absolutely not! I just don't think that the first judgment you have of a man when he speaks his first (incorrect) sentence does not have to be communicated to him immediately. You can try explaining to him some things if you find reason to and see if there is a more fundamental level of Objectivism on which you agree. And if you do, you start from there, or you refer him to some books. Is that so hard? Does that violate some Objectivist principles which are unknown to me?

I have seen this happen here again and again, and again and again the same charges are brought up. "You shouldn't have scared him away like that, maybe he doesn't know any better."

Well, is that not one of the virtues of letting the person know and not engaging in the deceit by pretending that person did not commit the error (or crime)?

He's done no such thing, at least until the moment of stephen's first post. He only said what he presently thought. A warning against doing so would have been enough. The thing that would reveal him is only his further reaction - whether he insists on "finessing" or says "Thank you."

Every principle of Objectivism should be proudly and explicitly laid out in a discussion where it is relevant.
Read stephen_speicher's first post in this thread and tell me - which principle did he "proudly and explicitly" lay out in regard to the paragraph where Thesweetscience talked about finessing?

And the proper response when an error of yours is called is : "Thank you."

Then call that error, and judge me by my response to that call!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't wash.  The lengths to which you are reaching to explain his deceptive practice goes well beyond presumption or assumption in using the above as justification.

It is possible, and I think that before passing judgment to Thesweetscience, such possibilities should have been investigated. After all, proof must be made such as to leave room for no "reasonable doubt." I think this doubt of his real dishonesty is reasonable; but that could only have been proven before judgment was passed.

This is an admission of the understanding that Objectivism holds that the concept of God is arbitrary and is bad, his words.  He's obviously not confusing Roark's "religiousness" with it's potential acceptance in Objectivism.  Rather, he acknowledges a pretty firm grasp that religion is not acceptable with Objectivists as that is the point he wishes to knowingly evade when trying to convert mystics so as not to shut them off.  It's only after these words that he comes up with a rationalization for his methods by proposing the idea "if God can be proven by reason".

If you look at Thesweetscience's post more carefully, you'll notice that he is using a double negation. He says "my motives for saying that religion is not unacceptable to an objectivist..."

This, in english is gramatically incorrect, but logically can be replaced by affirmation. Therefore, grammatically correct, his sentence would begin with "my motives for saying that religion is acceptable to an objectivist..." and mean logically the same thing. I myself sometimes type out double negations, thinking actually of uttering an affirmation and I think the same thing happened here.

Edit: Emphasis in quotes of Thesweetscience all mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stephen_speicher, BurgessLau,

Would you say that source's call for tolerance (which I was initially agreeing with) is to some extent an instance of subjectivism? Because it's dawning on me that this is similar to the type of accusation that Kelley (and, occasionally, I for that matter) has leveled against certain Objectivists, as described in Peikoff's "Fact and Value".

For some time, I have not been a fan of the harsh style that is used in some posts against users who criticize Objectivism or Objectivists or make errors they consider serious (let's just assume for the sake of argument that this is true).

However, having been pressed to supply proof of this bias or logical refutation of the methods at times over the last couple of months, I have not been able to verify my claims to any significant degree. What this suggests to me is that rather than the methods per se being skewed, they are simply a uniform response to objectively bad posts.

Is this an accurate assessment? Do you see a parallel with Peikoff's essay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course my approach was different; it is a matter of justice. Did you miss the part where I explained that Don was open and forthright, whereas the other poster was deceptive? Or, perhaps such a difference does not matter to you?

It's a matter of justice, but you don't do any to Thesweetscience. Justice matters to me and all I'm saying is that you should have passed judgment on him (in this particular issue) only after you warned him of this error, and I mean warn him explicitly. Saying that doing what he suggests "Sounds more like a sales technique used by a devious salesman promoting a bad product" isn't a warning. I mean - it IS true - but it is in no way helpful to a beginner in Objectivism to understand and correct his error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying really hard to leave this board. But, I keep feeling the need to type when I should just walk away. My knowledge of Objectivism was formed by the books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I have also seen the "Sense of life" Doumentary.

Everything else is from another member of this forum who I have known for the past 12 years. It is he that told me that belief in god was acceptable in Objectivism if based on reason. If he wants to make himself known then that is his decision.

I can understand why religion is unacceptable in Objectivism. But, I am still having a hard time understanding why belief in the possibility of God isn't.

I do not mind being called wrong, I do mind being attacked. Speicher strikes me as the angry sort of narrow minded person who I have been dealing with in society all of my life.

Nothing about him makes me feel he is enlightened or any different than mystics or collectivists that attack anyone who doesnt think the same way they do.

I am sure he knows every word of what Ayn Rand has written and his knowledge of physics would make Einstein proud. But, if that is the model human being, then that is not who I want to be.

I reserve the right to believe in god (although I don't now), because I don't believe in "guessing". The true origin of this universe is not known to me or anyone else. If there is ever proof there was a creator then I will listen. Otherwise I will base my belief on all available data. Isn't that what Objectivism is? We are not talking about Judeo-Christian mythology here.

I am more than willing to listen to anyone elses opinon and if they can show me where I am wrong... I love to learn, especially about Objectivism.

I live in Oklahoma, the middle of the "bible belt". I know the culture of the people around me and the way I myself was raised. If a person tells you to reject religion they are instant enemies. I don't believe in HIDING Rand's opinion of Religion. I just think it should not be the first part of Objectivism that is explained. Hence my explanation of "finessing". If that is wrong I don't see why. Just setting someone on the path to understanding these concepts for themself instead of telling them the hardest parts for them to accept upfront is not really dishonest.

I hope I am making sense and do not get accused of something else now.

Bobby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stephen_speicher, BurgessLau,

Would you say that source's call for tolerance (which I was initially agreeing with) is to some extent an instance of subjectivism? Because it's dawning on me that this is similar to the type of accusation that Kelley (and, occasionally, I for that matter) has leveled against certain Objectivists, as described in Peikoff's "Fact and Value".

I would say it is more an issue of judgment. If a philosophy can be said to possess a sense of life, then the sense of life of Objectivism is that of a benevolent glowing world. That is to say, the philosophy itself holds man and his adherence to reality in such a high regard, that our default position towards strangers should be that of open benevolence. But a failure to pass a negative judgment where one is deserved, is neither benevolent nor just.

There have been cases of too harsh treatment on this forum, and more than once I spoke up against such behavior. I twice have contacted a member who left because of such poor treatment, and asked him to return. On the one hand we all need to understand that people have their own time table for learning, and we cannot expect others to see Objectivism and the world exactly the way we do. If a poster seems honest but mistaken then we can mark this as ignorance or an error of knowledge, but dishonesty or deception should not be excused.

It is not always easy to make these distinctions, but I completely agree with Peikoff in his Fact and Value essay regarding whom and what are the enemies of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stephen_speicher, BurgessLau,

Would you say that source's call for tolerance [...]

I need to slow down here. First, to set an immediate context, you should probably say what you mean by "tolerance." It is worth defining, especially for anyone new to Objectivism. If you don't know how to define it, for this context, I recommend saying so and inviting suggestions.

Second, with a definition in hand, show the evidence that led you to suspect tolerance in the sense that you mean.

Your questions are appropriate, but I suggest we need to do this one step at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything else is from another member of this forum who I have known for the past 12 years. It is he that told me that belief in god was acceptable in Objectivism if based on reason. If he wants to make himself known then that is his decision.

Belief in god/s is unacceptable when talking about Objectivism. Whoever it was that told you this, is wrong.

I reserve the right to believe in god (although I don't now), because I don't believe in "guessing". The true origin of this universe is not known to me or anyone else. If there is ever proof there was a creator then I will listen. Otherwise I will base my belief on all available data. Isn't that what Objectivism is? We are not talking about Judeo-Christian mythology here.
Objectivism's witty response to this is "who created the creator?" And if you say that he always existed, then I say that it was actually the universe which always existed.

I am more than willing to listen to anyone elses opinon and if they can show me where I am wrong... I love to learn, especially about Objectivism.

I live in Oklahoma, the middle of the "bible belt". I know the culture of the people around me and the way I myself was raised. If a person tells you to reject religion they are instant enemies. I don't believe in HIDING Rand's opinion of Religion. I just think it should not be the first part of Objectivism that is explained. Hence my explanation of "finessing". If that is wrong I don't see why. Just setting someone on the path to understanding these concepts for themself instead of telling them the hardest parts for them to accept upfront is not really dishonest.

Instead of listening to our opinions, I suggest that you learn Objectivism actively, on your own. The forum is a bad place to begin learning philosophy. Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (OPAR for short) is what I suggest you start with. As you study, you can come back here and ask questions if something is unclear to you.

In time, you will see the errors you have made in this thread, much like I saw mine only after I finished a certain paragraph. ;) That is, if you honestly want to learn it. Honesty, according to Objectivism, is a virtue and by definition it is the refusal to fake reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that Thesweetscience is in any way correct. What I am saying is that he is confused as to what Objectivism really is, and as such doesn't deserve the titles he has been given by stephen_speicher.

It is very clear from his posts that he had little knowledge of Objectivism, and it was recommended that he cease until he acquired a better understanding. It makes his actions that much more objectionable that he was trying to sell something of which he had little idea.

It was thesweetscience guy that pulled the first hostility by saying he was refusing to answer to Mr. Speicher's posts. There was nothing in Speicher's post #13 that warranted that. Not if you give an honest consideration to your actions.

There seems to be a paranoia about admitting error. Some seem to want to pick on the delivery of argument rather than on its Objective validity.

Absolutely not! I just don't think that the first judgment you have of a man when he speaks his first (incorrect) sentence does not have to be communicated to him immediately. You can try explaining to him some things if you find reason to and see if there is a more fundamental level of Objectivism on which you agree. And if you do, you start from there, or you refer him to some books. Is that so hard? Does that violate some Objectivist principles which are unknown to me?
Right, just as thesweetscience didn't want the first thing he told someone about Objectivism is its atheism. Just how long would you let someone compound their error before you decided that mutual agreement wasn't the standard of communication of ideas? Why can't disagreement be the starting point?

He's done no such thing, at least until the moment of stephen's first post. He only said what he presently thought. A warning against doing so would have been enough. The thing that would reveal him is only his further reaction - whether he insists on "finessing" or says "Thank you."

A warning? Put very softly so he would never know the nature of his action? So that it is presented to him in pragmatic terms so he goes away thinking that he only committed a "tactical" error of strategy? He was revealed (in terms of what the essence of his action was) when he said how he went about telling people about Objectivism- LYING. Whether that was his conscious intent or not is not up to anyone here to point out, (until it is pointed out) only the nature of his action.

Read stephen_speicher's first post in this thread and tell me - which principle did he "proudly and explicitly" lay out in regard to the paragraph where Thesweetscience talked about finessing?
I was actually referring to thesweetsciences's not telling people the truth about Objectivism.

But, since you asked the question. How about honesty! You don't make something that which it is not. Rationality for the thinking involved in seeing the nature of actions through analyzing them objectively.

Then call that error, and judge me by my response to that call!

I was actually referring to thesweetscience on that. But, since you want it...

I have. You are a pragmatist. Whatever your focus is on, it is not about truth. My proof is your last post to me (and the others). Now, for once, don't focus on the messenger, but at least take a glance at the message.

Edited for clarity and spelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I am making sense and do not get accused of something else now.

I can suggest a procedure, which I learned painfully over 60 years and am still trying to apply consistently. (One of my motivations in participating in ObjectivismOnline is to fine-tune my knowledge and practice of etiquette in philosophical debate.)

When someone accuses me of X, I try to ask first, "What do you mean by X? If I receive a sensible explanation of the charge, then I ask for evidence proving -- possibly, probably or certainly -- that I have done what I was charged with.

One of the advantages of this approach is that I always learn something. Sometimes -- as when I was first accused of rationalism, 20 years ago -- I learn new ideas I can gradually incorporate, if they are objective, into my philosophy.

But always I learn something about the person making the charge. If I ask, what do you mean, and I get no answer or gibberish or hesitancy, I suspect that the person making the charge has a problem, not me. (Of course, we might both have a problem.)

Nothing is lost by initally asking questions for further clarification. Nothing is lost by sincerely saying, "I need to think about this, and I will get back to you." Do I react emotionally to such charges? You bet, but I try to let them wash through me while taking an approach of asking questions or taking a time-out for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still having a hard time understanding why belief in the possibility of God isn't.

That is the crux of the matter, and my suggestion is that if you are seriously interested in Objectivism, you should start by understanding epistemology. Do you understand the relevance of the arbitrary in Objectivist epistemology? If so, you need to move on to a higher-level discussion of "possible". Once you have a proper understanding of the possible and the arbitrary, I think you will see why such a belief is totally incompatible with Objectivism. To make this concrete, do you understand ITOE and OPAR ch. 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible, and I think that before passing judgment to Thesweetscience, such possibilities should have been investigated.

...(snip)...

If you look at Thesweetscience's post more carefully, you'll notice that he is using a double negation. He says "my motives for saying that religion is not unacceptable to an objectivist..."

The opportunity to "investigate" this, or in other words for him to explain what he meant came after Stephen's first challenge. Instead, TSS choose to rationalize his methodology rather than acknowledge that a deceptive methodology is wrong. I will expand on this later as I have limited time right now.

However, I did read it carefully, and even in correct english, it changes nothing I pointed out. Are you now resorting to straw man?

Based on that statement, grammatically corrected or as is, he knows religion is not compatible with Objectivism and he deceptively avoids that when trying to convert people. I am now suspecting that you are choosing to evade the logical interpretation of his words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the crux of the matter, and my suggestion is that if you are seriously interested in Objectivism, you should start by understanding epistemology. Do you understand the relevance of the arbitrary in Objectivist epistemology? If so, you need to move on to a higher-level discussion of "possible". Once you have a proper understanding of the possible and the arbitrary, I think you will see why such a belief is totally incompatible with Objectivism. To make this concrete, do you understand ITOE and OPAR ch. 5?

That I need to do. I will do that as soon as possible. I want to understand. I hope it makes sense to me.

Bobby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opportunity to "investigate" this, or in other words for him to explain what he meant came after Stephen's first challenge.  Instead, TSS choose to rationalize his methodology rather than acknowledge that a deceptive methodology is wrong.  I will expand on this later as I have limited time right now.

However, I did read it carefully, and even in correct english, it changes nothing I pointed out.  Are you now resorting to straw man?

Based on that statement, grammatically corrected or as is, he knows religion is not compatible with Objectivism and he deceptively avoids that when trying to convert people.  I am now suspecting that you are choosing to evade the logical interpretation of his words.

I disagree with that characterization of what I said. What I have said and keep saying is that I don't believe that certain people will listen to the concept of Objectivism if you tell them they can't believe in God. Therefore it should be in Chapter 3 instead of Chapter 1 for CERTAIN PEOPLE.

Since I don't going around trying to "convert" anyone. The only practical experience I have is watching the growth of my wife who would have never read Atlas Shrugged had she known the author was an atheist. And today she wants to learn as much as she can about Rand and Objectivism. I know I am right about this in certain situations.

I do acknowledge being wrong about an Objectivists potential to believe in God. I was given wrong information by someone who should have known better. But, I am still not to the point where I understand why.

Bobby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying really hard to leave this board. But, I keep feeling the need to type when I should just walk away.

So then, staying here is you acting on your feelings, rather than your rational judgment?

I can understand why religion is unacceptable in Objectivism.

The why did you talk about "the religion aspect of Objectivism" for a person who "converts?"

But, I am still having a hard time understanding why belief in the possibility of God isn't.

I count eight prior posts that addressed the issue of God to you, but you did not engage a single one of those posters regarding their explanations. You did not even ask them a single question. Did you consider their arguments at all?

I do not mind being called wrong, I do mind being attacked. Speicher strikes me as the angry sort of narrow minded person who I have been dealing with in society all of my life.
I am angry and narrow minded when it comes to deceptive people who choose to blame me for their own failures. Have you considered that maybe it is not "society," but rather you that is the problem?

Nothing about him makes me feel he is enlightened or any different than mystics or collectivists that attack anyone who doesnt think the same way they do.

Well, you have established such a fine base for your judgment in these matters by attacking my character rather than answering my arguments.

I am sure he knows every word of what Ayn Rand has written and his knowledge of physics would make Einstein proud. But, if that is the model human being, then that is not who I want to be.
Don't feel bad. My soul is already accounted for.

I reserve the right to believe in god (although I don't now), because I don't believe in "guessing". The true origin of this universe is not known to me or anyone else. If there is ever proof there was a creator then I will listen. Otherwise I will base my belief on all available data. Isn't that what Objectivism is? We are not talking about Judeo-Christian mythology here.

Like I said, eight prior posts addressed the issue of God, and you did not address them, but you "reserve the right to believe in god" and repeat the same reasons that people have argued against? Amazing!

I am more than willing to listen to anyone elses opinon and if they can show me where I am wrong... I love to learn, especially about Objectivism.
Pardon me for any sense of doubt, but your failure to address the arguments that have been presented hardly qualifies you as someone "willing to listen." Well, maybe willing to listen, but clearly not willing to address the points that were made.

I hope I am making sense and do not get accused of something else now.

I doubt it. There is not much left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (OPAR for short) is what I suggest you start with. As you study, you can come back here and ask questions if something is unclear to you.

Source's recommendation is a good one, but I would suggest first purchasing and becoming generally familiar with the structure of The Ayn Rand Lexicon. It is an alphabetical, one-volume collection of excerpts about an amazing variety of subjects which Ayn Rand discussed. Examples, pertinent to this discussion, are: Honesty, God, Religion, Possible, and many others.

Each excerpt provides the exact source, in a larger work, of the quoted passage. For each topic, the excerpts are arranged hierarchically, with the first being the most fundamental -- usually a definition.

Equally important, all topics are cross-referenced to other topics. That is crucial in a philosophy that is totally integrated. One cannot understand a topic fully, in isolation.

ARL is the single-most important tool for the study of Ayn Rand's philosophy. It is a doorway to her writings (and some of the works of Leonard Peikoff when he was working under her editorship).

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...