Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Objectivist Rhetoric

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You could read The Art of Non-Fiction, written by Rand, herself.

Maybe The Art of Fiction is more relevant, since Atlas Shrugged is fiction. But I haven't read either one of these works. Do you know if she talks about rhetoric or anything related to rhetoric in any of them?

 

(Coming late to the conversation)

 

This may not qualify as rhetoric (techniques of persuasion), but I've noted a pattern in Rand's imagery.  When she wants the reader's approval she uses imagery of hard or bright objects: stone; polished, highly reflective metal; ice; bright light.  Where we are to disapprove: clouds; fog;melting ice cream.

 

Another device is frequent allusion to logic and frequent citation of "A is A".  The residuum is a feeling that disagreeing with Rand is as patently unreasonable as disagreeing with the law of identity or with the rules of deduction - even where she doesn't give anything close to a premise-and-conclusion argument herself.

Yes, I think she packaged her rhetoric in logic. Plato had done similarly, trying to position his philosophy as objective, but he did not have Aristotle's laws of logic before he formed his philosophy. Rand surely had an advantage over Plato, but she should also be grateful to him for his excellent student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plato didn't have the Prior Analytics in front of him when he set out to philosophize, but he and Socrates before him had worked deduction up to a high art before Aristotle came along.  Lack of technical logic was not their problem.

 

I wonder how much influence the technical side of Aristotle had on Rand in any case.  He seems to have been more an inspiration than a technical source.  She rarely spells out a premise-and-conclusion argument (which is not to say that you couldn't recast her arguments that way), much less a syllogism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deduction is done by relying on premises and drawing from them a conclusion.

 

All men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Socrates was mortal. The broad generalization, all men are mortal, is already taken for granted. The conclusion is just follows from the premises.

How would you proceed from:

p1: Socrates was a man.

p2: Socrates was mortal.

c: All men are mortal.

 

How do you reach the conclusion that all men are mortal though via deduction? Such a verdict is not reached via syllogism.

 

Inductive conclusions are not reached by deduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No denying that. (Presumably that inductive conclusions are not reached by deduction.)

 Rand thought she had presented a seamless deductive monolith whose conclusions you can't deny any more than you can deny that A is A.  I'm not convinced that she did this.

The point was that Miss Rand was not presenting "a seamless", "deductive monolith". So you should not be convinced that she did so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristotle not only used syllogisms, but he also used enthymemes. In his Rhetoric, he called an enthymeme "the 'body' of persuasion" (1354a3), "a rhetorical syllogism" (1356b8), "a syllogism consisting of propositions expressed" (1359a7).

In my own words, an enthymeme is a rhetorical argument (which means that it is probabilistic or inductive), in which one of the premises is omitted. For example, "Socrates is mortal, for he is a man" or "Socrates is mortal, for all men are mortal" are both enthymemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one questions that Aristotle used formally spelled-out arguments.  The question is whether Rand did so as often as she thought.

 

To answer Nicky's question in #31, one citation would be her Mike Wallace interview, wherein she says that her theory is faultless and challenges anyone to show otherwise.  More important than what she said is what she didn't say, which was formal, explicit deduction.  I like to think that she was generously giving future Objectivists (Tara Smith for example) a way to make a living, as has been the policy of important, original philosophers throughout history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first definition in Google to a:-

define: persuasion

is:-
 

1) the action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe something.
"Monica needed plenty of persuasion before she actually left"
synonyms:    coaxing, persuading, coercion, inducement, convincing, blandishment, encouragement, urging, inveiglement, cajolery, enticement, wheedling;

 

In other words "persuasion" stinks, likewise "the techniques of persuasion" - you weaken your own case by attempting it.

Instead Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, a romantic fiction that a critic sneered "It's just a love story." to which Rand replied "That's all it ever was."

Edited by fourtytwo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first definition in Google to a:-

define: persuasion

is:-

 

In other words "persuasion" stinks, likewise "the techniques of persuasion" - you weaken your own case by attempting it.

Instead Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, a romantic fiction that a critic sneered "It's just a love story." to which Rand replied "That's all it ever was."

Read up on the (Kenneth) Burkean defition of rhetoric - maybe it will help you fill the void. In the modern world, rhetoric and language are defined as "symbolic action" and man is the symbol-using inventor. If you ask me, only robots do not need rhetoric because robots do not need emotions. And even then robots can have logically programmed emotions. Wouldn't you agree?

 

in post #26  above IIya Startsev said:-

 

I recommend you read Atlas Shrugged. It will change your life.

It has. Have you read about my emotional economy yet? I suggest you also read my signature too, or at least glance at it once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in post #26  above IIya Startsev said:-

Quote

Maybe The Art of Fiction is more relevant, since Atlas Shrugged is fiction. But I haven't read either one of these works.

 

I recommend you read Atlas Shrugged. It will change your life.

 

Also, since you ignored the context (I should have known, so it's shame on me):

You could read The Art of Non-Fiction, written by Rand, herself.

Maybe The Art of Fiction is more relevant, since Atlas Shrugged is fiction. But I haven't read either one of these works [The Art of Fiction or The Art of Non-Fiction]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

On page 6 you wrote: "To persuade, Rand not only used stories and appeals to emotions, but she also wanted to convince her audience of her truth, thus [attaining] absolute adherence."

 

The immediate question that comes to my mind is her truth? As opposed to what? His truth? Their truth? Black truth? Female truth? Male truth? Consider Peikoff's addressing this issue in logic on lecture 1 of Introduction to Logic.

 

On page 11 you wrote:

This major choice by the astronaut is given to Rand’s enemies - “the mystics of spirit” with the belief in God to explain reality. The only other choice would be to accept reality as it is by the axiom of existence. The either-or crossroads is a common thread through Rand’s ideology, and it places Aristotelian logic as the only true way for people to reason.

 

You began your paper placing "cult" in quotation marks. Here "Aristotelian logic as the only true way for people to reason" harkens back to the same principle. The implication is that there is  no one way to reason. It is subjective, to be based on the criteria selected and considered for reaching one's conclusion.

 

Yet shortly after you wrote: "Sciences, the products of reason, are not as dependable as the nature of reality because they may also be misused for the sake of a blind and false belief."

This presumes a reality and that it has a nature independent of the mind seeking to reason about it, and that the conclusions drawn can be mistaken - the basis for Aristotle's recognition that a method (logic) is needed to avoid such blind and false beliefs.

 

On page 15:

Reason is the “basic means of survival,” man’s fundamental attribute, and “necessity of human life” (Rand, 1984, pp. 7f.). Surviving in a hostile world necessarily entails a battle for one’s life, particularly a philosophical battle.

 

Surviving in a hostile world conjures a malevolent universe premise to me. Rand advocated a benevolent universe premise. There has been discussion on OO about morality: is it about survival or flourishing? Albeit, tying it into a philosophical battle does help frame it here. In "What Can One Do", she augments the battle lingo with:
 

Today, most people are acutely aware of our cultural ideological vacuum; they are anxious, confused, and groping for answers. Are you able to enlighten them?

 

Can you answer their questions? Can you offer them a consistent case? Do you know how to correct their errors? Are you immune from the fallout of the constant barrage aimed at the destruction of reason---and can you provide others with the antimissile missiles? A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war.

 

I'll admit, in reading that last paragraph again, I am fairly immune to the barrage, but am not always equipped to rise to the occasion on the other questions.

 

Anyhow, I do have a few more points I'll post later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 6 you wrote: "To persuade, Rand not only used stories and appeals to emotions, but she also wanted to convince her audience of her truth, thus [attaining] absolute adherence."

 

The immediate question that comes to my mind is her truth? As opposed to what? His truth? Their truth? Black truth? Female truth? Male truth? Consider Peikoff's addressing this issue in logic on lecture 1 of Introduction to Logic.

 

On page 11 you wrote:

This major choice by the astronaut is given to Rand’s enemies - “the mystics of spirit” with the belief in God to explain reality. The only other choice would be to accept reality as it is by the axiom of existence. The either-or crossroads is a common thread through Rand’s ideology, and it places Aristotelian logic as the only true way for people to reason.

 

You began your paper placing "cult" in quotation marks. Here "Aristotelian logic as the only true way for people to reason" harkens back to the same principle. The implication is that there is  no one way to reason. It is subjective, to be based on the criteria selected and considered for reaching one's conclusion.

 

Yet shortly after you wrote: "Sciences, the products of reason, are not as dependable as the nature of reality because they may also be misused for the sake of a blind and false belief."

This presumes a reality and that it has a nature independent of the mind seeking to reason about it, and that the conclusions drawn can be mistaken - the basis for Aristotle's recognition that a method (logic) is needed to avoid such blind and false beliefs.

 

On page 15:

Reason is the “basic means of survival,” man’s fundamental attribute, and “necessity of human life” (Rand, 1984, pp. 7f.). Surviving in a hostile world necessarily entails a battle for one’s life, particularly a philosophical battle.

 

Surviving in a hostile world conjures a malevolent universe premise to me. Rand advocated a benevolent universe premise. There has been discussion on OO about morality: is it about survival or flourishing? Albeit, tying it into a philosophical battle does help frame it here. In "What Can One Do", she augments the battle lingo with:

 

Today, most people are acutely aware of our cultural ideological vacuum; they are anxious, confused, and groping for answers. Are you able to enlighten them?

 

Can you answer their questions? Can you offer them a consistent case? Do you know how to correct their errors? Are you immune from the fallout of the constant barrage aimed at the destruction of reason---and can you provide others with the antimissile missiles? A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war.

 

I'll admit, in reading that last paragraph again, I am fairly immune to the barrage, but am not always equipped to rise to the occasion on the other questions.

 

Anyhow, I do have a few more points I'll post later.

Good stuff, Greg.

The parts in bold were corrected to:

of "the truth"

as the best method

 

Would these work?

 

Also, "a philosophical battle is a nuclear war" is freaking amazing (w00t)

Thank you, Greg!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 22 you wrote:

Lakoff et al.’s (1999) analysis of Kant’s moral theory (Ch. 20) is in some respects similar to Rand’s own moral theory, as both claim to be based on reason.

 

This is an equivocation that counts on the reader mentally accepting that Kant's moral theory is based on reason, Rand's moral theory is based on reason.

 

Kant's moral theory, as far as I understand it, is based on duty. Rand bases her morality on life and the requirements thereof. One pithy remark that encapsulates the difference to me is when Rand stated in Galt's speech

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

 

Duty falls under the "speak your kind of language". To speak of duty or obligation is to outline what one should do.

 

Rand dispels this notion with the identification of the contradiction, at the same time ties the faculty that apprehends morality to the activity of discovering morality as being moral as well.

 

On page 25 you wrote:

Rand points out that a weakness of conservatives is that they do not have true philosophy to strengthen their cases and help them better fight the enemy. But they are not yet lost, since they have realized, at least dimly, that they have been blind to reason. Rand is further trying to scare the conservatives (using an appeal to fear) to have them accept her reasoning and convictions.

 

Once again, accepting her reasoning leaps out at me. The distinction between reasoning and faith is profound. An article of faith is the acceptance of something as true in the absence of evidence. Reasoning, in contrast, is the acceptance of something as true - because of the evidence.

 

This assessment is of a quote you cited earlier:

In recent years, the “conservatives” have gradually come to a dim realization of the weakness in their position, of the philosophical flaw that had to be corrected. . . [,] arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith. . . Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues. Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies. (Rand et al., 1966, pp. 200f., original emphases)

 

Religion over the centuries has held a monopoly on morality by the default of having little to challenge it. Identifying what the intellectual difference between resting a case on faith versus one of reason is not an appeal to fear, but one of distinguishing a crucial difference. To rest a case on faith is to acknowledge one has no evidence to put under the scrutiny of reason.

 

On page 25 you wrote:

The imagery of conservatives, however, had to be rebranded and changed from those who were immoral because of weakness from faith to those who are like lost sheep in need of a true shepherd.

 

And continuing with the religious imagery - you seem to be casting Rand as a stand-in to be the true shepherd. Perhaps this can tie in with what you wrote on page 27:

And in the world where so many have succumbed to the dangerous influences of mind-destroying philosophies, Rand and her followers cannot go on trusting people, since they can no longer rely on the definition of all humans as rational animals.

 

In addition to her contributions identifying the rational basis for morality - are the epistemological recognitions she made regarding concepts and definitions. The fact that not all human beings employ or utilize reason and rationality in no way undermines the fact that man is the rational animal. Aristotle identified this genus/differentia. Rand seconded it showing the relationship between a concept and its definition, in terms of identifying its essential distinguishing characteristic(s).

 

I've stopped, for now, on page 28 where you wrote: Although Objectivists are militant atheists, they are considerate of similarly-minded, idealistic theists when defending Capitalism.

 

Richard Dawkins comes to mind as one spokesperson on atheism. Advertisement campaigns this Christmas season have captured a few Drudge Report headlines regarding atheism. Rand's philosophic journals showed early on a desire to be known as the greatest enemy of religion, but over the years she focused more on being the greatest champion of reason, in which atheism merely crops up as essentially a side effect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good stuff, Greg.

The parts in bold were corrected to:

of "the truth"

as the best method

 

Would these work?

 

Also, "a philosophical battle is a nuclear war" is freaking amazing (w00t)

Thank you, Greg!

They are better. It shifts the question to examining the use of absolute adherence on the former while the latter shifts the focus back to examining the parallels you draw in your interpretations of your identified metaphors.

 

Lakoff, G. - cognitive linguist - esp. with regard to metaphor,  according to Google's Berkley result. Glancing at his webpage, one title that caught my attention was "Where Mathematics Comes From". The abstract for the book was a little less so (attention catching, to me - that is.)

 

With regard to a philosophical battle being stated metaphorically as a nuclear war, Miss Rand replied to being praised for her courage for fighting the Establishment with:  "I am not brave enough to be a coward," she said. "I see the consequences too clearly."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 22 you wrote:

Lakoff et al.’s (1999) analysis of Kant’s moral theory (Ch. 20) is in some respects similar to Rand’s own moral theory, as both claim to be based on reason.

 

This is an equivocation that counts on the reader mentally accepting that Kant's moral theory is based on reason, Rand's moral theory is based on reason.

 

Kant's moral theory, as far as I understand it, is based on duty. Rand bases her morality on life and the requirements thereof. One pithy remark that encapsulates the difference to me is when Rand stated in Galt's speech

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

 

Duty falls under the "speak your kind of language". To speak of duty or obligation is to outline what one should do.

 

Rand dispels this notion with the identification of the contradiction, at the same time ties the faculty that apprehends morality to the activity of discovering morality as being moral as well.

 

On page 25 you wrote:

Rand points out that a weakness of conservatives is that they do not have true philosophy to strengthen their cases and help them better fight the enemy. But they are not yet lost, since they have realized, at least dimly, that they have been blind to reason. Rand is further trying to scare the conservatives (using an appeal to fear) to have them accept her reasoning and convictions.

 

Once again, accepting her reasoning leaps out at me. The distinction between reasoning and faith is profound. An article of faith is the acceptance of something as true in the absence of evidence. Reasoning, in contrast, is the acceptance of something as true - because of the evidence.

 

This assessment is of a quote you cited earlier:

In recent years, the “conservatives” have gradually come to a dim realization of the weakness in their position, of the philosophical flaw that had to be corrected. . . [,] arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith. . . Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues. Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies. (Rand et al., 1966, pp. 200f., original emphases)

 

Religion over the centuries has held a monopoly on morality by the default of having little to challenge it. Identifying what the intellectual difference between resting a case on faith versus one of reason is not an appeal to fear, but one of distinguishing a crucial difference. To rest a case on faith is to acknowledge one has no evidence to put under the scrutiny of reason.

 

On page 25 you wrote:

The imagery of conservatives, however, had to be rebranded and changed from those who were immoral because of weakness from faith to those who are like lost sheep in need of a true shepherd.

 

And continuing with the religious imagery - you seem to be casting Rand as a stand-in to be the true shepherd. Perhaps this can tie in with what you wrote on page 27:

And in the world where so many have succumbed to the dangerous influences of mind-destroying philosophies, Rand and her followers cannot go on trusting people, since they can no longer rely on the definition of all humans as rational animals.

 

In addition to her contributions identifying the rational basis for morality - are the epistemological recognitions she made regarding concepts and definitions. The fact that not all human beings employ or utilize reason and rationality in no way undermines the fact that man is the rational animal. Aristotle identified this genus/differentia. Rand seconded it showing the relationship between a concept and its definition, in terms of identifying its essential distinguishing characteristic(s).

 

I've stopped, for now, on page 28 where you wrote: Although Objectivists are militant atheists, they are considerate of similarly-minded, idealistic theists when defending Capitalism.

 

Richard Dawkins comes to mind as one spokesperson on atheism. Advertisement campaigns this Christmas season have captured a few Drudge Report headlines regarding atheism. Rand's philosophic journals showed early on a desire to be known as the greatest enemy of religion, but over the years she focused more on being the greatest champion of reason, in which atheism merely crops up as essentially a side effect.

 

The bolded and underlined are corrected to:

"based on reason, even if that reason is judged differently."

"Rand is further trying to convince the conservatives, by challenging the foundation of their morality, to accept reason over faith"

"in need of a true shepherd. The shepherd, in this case, had to be reason."

"no longer rely on all humans to act as rational animals."

"Although Rand started as a militant atheist, over time she became considerate of similarly-minded, idealistic theists when defending Capitalism. With theists on their side, Objectivists could inspire others to use reason selfishly and thus motivate them to become atheists in the long run. This tactic would be enough to reinforce Objectivists in order to accomplish the shared goal, the target of their mission."

 

Ilya Startsev, I'm curious to know if you ever got around to reading The Art of Fiction, The Art of Nonfiction or Atlas Shrugged.

 

Of course I've read Atlas Shrugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you said that you hadn't read it, but you must have referred to the other two works. I was surprised to read that you weren't interested in them. I think these would be the first place to start when studying Rand's rhetoric. She isn't known primarily for her public speaking but rather her fiction and nonfiction. The strength of your thesis may benefit from quoting what Rand had to say about rhetoric then quoting examples of her doing it.

The Art of Nonfiction focuses much on the process of writing, which is probably irrelevant to your purpose. But chapter 8 is about style and may be of value. It has subsections on  emphasis, transitions, rhythm and drama. Chapter 3, Judging One's Audience, may help to explain why some criticize her use of the axiom, "existence exists." As a stand alone sentence it is tautological, redundant and meaningless. But she assumes her reader is familiar with the deeper meaning that there is futility in attempts to constrict lines of reasoning that deny existence (she either assumes this or tries to explain it). I'm interested to know if the criticisms quoted in your thesis were drawn from pieces intended for Objectivist audiences. Perhaps I'll look into it if I have time.

The Art of Fiction may offer you much more to work with, as it focuses less on the process of writing. This book focuses on style in three separate chapters. The book quotes examples from Rand and and about 8 other authors including Victor Hugo, Thomas Wolfe and Sinclair Lewis. It wouldn't take long to scan these two books for material, so I think it's still a good idea this late in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you said that you hadn't read it, but you must have referred to the other two works. I was surprised to read that you weren't interested in them. I think these would be the first place to start when studying Rand's rhetoric. She isn't known primarily for her public speaking but rather her fiction and nonfiction. The strength of your thesis may benefit from quoting what Rand had to say about rhetoric then quoting examples of her doing it.

The Art of Nonfiction focuses much on the process of writing, which is probably irrelevant to your purpose. But chapter 8 is about style and may be of value. It has subsections on  emphasis, transitions, rhythm and drama. Chapter 3, Judging One's Audience, may help to explain why some criticize her use of the axiom, "existence exists." As a stand alone sentence it is tautological, redundant and meaningless. But she assumes her reader is familiar with the deeper meaning that there is futility in attempts to constrict lines of reasoning that deny existence (she either assumes this or tries to explain it). I'm interested to know if the criticisms quoted in your thesis were drawn from pieces intended for Objectivist audiences. Perhaps I'll look into it if I have time.

The Art of Fiction may offer you much more to work with, as it focuses less on the process of writing. This book focuses on style in three separate chapters. The book quotes examples from Rand and and about 8 other authors including Victor Hugo, Thomas Wolfe and Sinclair Lewis. It wouldn't take long to scan these two books for material, so I think it's still a good idea this late in the process.

 

Jacob, in my thesis I've chosen to analyze Rand's speech and essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It." I apperiate your suggestions, but I am more interested in her rhetorical method of invention, rather than mere style. As I show in my thesis, metaphors are not just stylistic devices (as Aristotle originally defined them), but they actually carry philosophical meaning. I've used Peikoff's Objective Communication: Writing, Speaking and Arguing, where he talks aplenty about style and things like that, and I judge this to be enough to stay within the boundaries of this project. However, I did not intend the thesis to be only for academe. That's why I posted it here. I hope that Objectivists would find something useful from it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another suggestion from the Objective Communication course you may benefit from, is to try reading your article again from the perspective of a reader and not the author.

They show that the conceptual metaphor Argument Is War is structural because argument and war share similar ways of expression (ibid., Ch.1). Argument is fought as if it were a weapon--it can hurt or even kill.

 

Argument is fought as if it were a weapon? I look at that and ask if English is your primary or secondary language.

 

Could you have meant "Argument is used as if it were a weapon--it can hurt or even kill." ?

 

Recall that in oral presentation, an audience is more forgiving in what was said, the groping for a better term, or a slight misstatement made - but in writing, the demands are much more exacting.

 

If you are just using the course to excerpt from Peikoff's examples using Rand's West Point delivery, keep in mind, the course was Objective - not Objectivist - Communication, albeit, delivered by one of the preeminent spokespersons for the cause at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another suggestion from the Objective Communication course you may benefit from, is to try reading your article again from the perspective of a reader and not the author.

They show that the conceptual metaphor Argument Is War is structural because argument and war share similar ways of expression (ibid., Ch.1). Argument is fought as if it were a weapon--it can hurt or even kill.

 

Argument is fought as if it were a weapon? I look at that and ask if English is your primary or secondary language.

 

Could you have meant "Argument is used as if it were a weapon--it can hurt or even kill." ?

 

Recall that in oral presentation, an audience is more forgiving in what was said, the groping for a better term, or a slight misstatement made - but in writing, the demands are much more exacting.

 

If you are just using the course to excerpt from Peikoff's examples using Rand's West Point delivery, keep in mind, the course was Objective - not Objectivist - Communication, albeit, delivered by one of the preeminent spokespersons for the cause at the time.

 

Yes, argument is used as if it were a weapon and fought as if with weapons. The blunder is on my side.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
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...