Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism: Who Owns It?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I know this has been debated for years by alot of prominent people, but what I want to know is if Ayn Rand/Leonard Peikoff actually literally own - and I hesitate to use a big "o" but I know it's required on this website - Objectivism. Did he or she ever actually get it copywritten? And if so, should they have been able to from either a legal or a moral standpoint, or both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What do you mean by 'literally own'? The ARI (through Peikoff) owns the copyrights to the works of Ayn Rand, in which she developed the system of Objectivism. I suppose whether they 'should' have these depends on whether you believe that intellectual property rights should be transferrable upon the death of the creator, rather than becoming public domain immediately.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to USPTO.gov, 'Objectivism' doesn't appear to be registered as a trade or service mark, though 'Ayn Rand' is, and the registration belongs to Dr. Peikoff.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about Peikoff owning the copyrights to the works of Rand, and I'm OK with that part. I don't know about copyright law enough to answer whether or not they should have been transfered to him after Rand's death, or if they should have become public domain.

What I'm confused about is whether or not Objectivism per se belonged to Ayn Rand, and now Leonard Peikoff. Is Objectivism simply the sum of the works of Rand? If so, then isn't anything Peikoff writes not Objectivism - even if it is in logical agreement? But Rand granted him the privledge to expound. He is the official spokesperson of Objectivism.

Since she allowed him to, and since he chose to (eg: OPAR), then it isn't something more than just her works? But if that's the case, is Peikoff free to say anything and advocate anything on Rand's behalf?

It seems that he is free to do that. And if he is, then legally he would be preaching Objectivism, but literally he may be preaching something other than objectivism. If that happened, what we would be hearing is not literally Objectivism, but Peikoffism.

Edited by ggdwill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think that since objectivism is the result of integrating the rational function of the human brain into a philosophy that it therefor may be considered an 'act of nature' in terms of Intellectual Property law and therefore un-ownable.

That's not to say that "Ayn Rand" or literally calling the philosophy "objectivism" isn't protected under the blanket of IP law, I'm not necessarily decided on that. I just think trying to sue someone for being an objectivist because someone owns "Objectivism" and may only will its use like some sort of service is not something that holds up.

I merely glanced over the topic so I might be totally off topic here.

Off to replace more lightbulbs.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about Peikoff owning the copyrights to the works of Rand, and I'm OK with that part. I don't know about copyright law enough to answer whether or not they should have been transfered to him after Rand's death, or if they should have become public domain.
That's what copyright means: it is property, which by law is transferrable and endures beyond the author's death (we changed the law somewhat recently so how much beyond depends on when the work was written: this is why Anthem is unowned).
What I'm confused about is whether or not Objectivism per se belonged to Ayn Rand, and now Leonard Peikoff. Is Objectivism simply the sum of the works of Rand?
That's actually why Objectivism can't be owned. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand; as such, it is more that just the precise words written by Rand (which can be copyrighted and therefore property). As property, Rand or her heir Peikoff could say "You may not copy my words without my permission"; but the underlying ideas, the philosophy, cannot be owned, so she or he could not say "You may not apply the ideas of Ayn Rand wthout permission". (Nor is a philosophy patentable, even as a method patent).
If so, then isn't anything Peikoff writes not Objectivism - even if it is in logical agreement? But Rand granted him the privledge to expound. He is the official spokesperson of Objectivism.
I don't think that the term "official" is correct. We can presume that Rand fully approved of Peikoff's writings up to the time of her death, but there was no "official title" conferred. Recall that Rand was opposed to the idea of Objectivism as a mass movement, so for instance she did not found the Ayn Rand Institute.
Since she allowed him to, and since he chose to (eg: OPAR), then it isn't something more than just her works? But if that's the case, is Peikoff free to say anything and advocate anything on Rand's behalf?
Right, but the validity of Peikoff's writings, idem Binswanger, Bernstein, Smith etc. must always be validated with reference to Ayn Rand's statements. Does what Peikoff wrote constitute a valid elaboration of Rand's philosophical claims, or is it a totally new idea. If the latter, it is not Objectivism. The question: is the conclusion clearly implicit in the writings of Ayn Rand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand or her heir Peikoff could say "You may not copy my words without my permission"; but the underlying ideas, the philosophy, cannot be owned, so she or he could not say "You may not apply the ideas of Ayn Rand wthout permission". (Nor is a philosophy patentable, even as a method patent).

I am pretty certain that ideas themselves cannot be owned, unless, I suppose, you were to keep it to yourself. You can't advocate an idea that is in correct accordance with reality and then demand that others live otherwise. For example, Rand stated that she believes that existence is objective. She can't state that and demand that everyone else pretend it is not. To be clear, I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty certain that it does not apply to ideas. As I understand it, it only partially applies to words. One could theoretically start a hardware store and call it McDonalds Hardware. You would only run into trouble if you made a restaurant added some golden arches and called it mcdonalds. The intent to create an improper association to profit by is what is important.

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but the validity of Peikoff's writings, idem Binswanger, Bernstein, Smith etc. must always be validated with reference to Ayn Rand's statements. Does what Peikoff wrote constitute a valid elaboration of Rand's philosophical claims, or is it a totally new idea. If the latter, it is not Objectivism. The question: is the conclusion clearly implicit in the writings of Ayn Rand?

I like this. I think you have found the heart of the issue. So what I must ask is, are the works and statements of Ayn Rand Objectivism? Simply because Rand wrote it or uttered it does that confer upon any given work or statement objectivity? I do think that a small number of Rand's writing and statements are not objective/correct. I realize that they deserve threads of their own, but assuming that they were errant, would just one error in objectivity render her entire philosophy undeserving of the title "Objectivism"? I don't think it would, but I do think it would undermine claims that have been made such as "Objectivism is a closed system" and would necessarily allow those who essentially agree, but try to correct or refine her work to properly claim to be Objectivists - despite what anyone says.

Rand obviously did not restrict herself to just theoretical Objectivism. She wrote about many everyday applications of the philosophy. These are where my disagreements with her lie, and therefore, using aggrement with (or in her unique case, harmony in) her work as my standard, I think I would be correct in saying that Rand herself was not an Objectivist. She was not correctly applying objectivity. However, if I used objectivity as my standard, by judging only her theoretical work, she was essentially an Objectivist - despite what anyone says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who owns Christianity?
I do. And I'm not allowing anyone to use it, so all of those criminals out there illegally profession Christianity, stop it. Arrest warrants will be issued if you do not relinquish your faith.

Just kidding. But man, talk about profitable....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this has been debated for years by alot of prominent people, but what I want to know is if Ayn Rand/Leonard Peikoff actually literally own - and I hesitate to use a big "o" but I know it's required on this website - Objectivism. Did he or she ever actually get it copywritten? And if so, should they have been able to from either a legal or a moral standpoint, or both?

Qwertz (see his response) is correct. "Objectivism" is not copyright- or trademark-protected. "Ayn Rand" is. That means that her name cannot be used (without permission of its owner) in the marketing of a particular product or service. I cannot, for example, set up an Ayn Rand psychotherapy clinic or an Ayn Rand high school or an Ayn Rand cigarette holder without license from the owner of Ayn Rand's name. However, under current law, I can mention her name in a discussion of philosophy, politics, the arts, etc.

As an extremist in the defense of intellectual property rights, I believe that gaining legal protection over the use of a particular name and set of ideas is moral and should be protected to the full extent of the law. I support the right of the Ayn Rand Institute to regulate any printed or Internet-posted discussion of "Ayn Rand" and "Objectivism." That means that ARI (or Dr. Peikoff) would have the right to shut down any website that uses her name or the name of her philosophy in a way that the owner disapproves of. (The only problem with my argument is that the term "objectivism" was in use among scholars prior to Ayn Rand's adoption of the word in the late 1950s. Alas, she does not have original claim to the word.)

What I'm confused about is whether or not Objectivism per se belonged to Ayn Rand, and now Leonard Peikoff. Is Objectivism simply the sum of the works of Rand? If so, then isn't anything Peikoff writes not Objectivism - even if it is in logical agreement? But Rand granted him the privledge to expound. He is the official spokesperson of Objectivism. . .

It seems that he is free to do that. And if he is, then legally he would be preaching Objectivism, but literally he may be preaching something other than objectivism. If that happened, what we would be hearing is not literally Objectivism, but Peikoffism.

The Objectivism Wiki, which is an extension of this website, defines Objectivism in this way:

Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter).

Since Ayn Rand specifically approved Dr. Peikoff's works in her lifetime and granted him intellectual authority after her demise, he has full authority to speak for Objectivism. Furthermore, since she willed Dr. Peikoff her intellectual authority over Objectivism, what Dr. Peikoff say is in fact Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, it only partially applies to words. One could theoretically start a hardware store and call it McDonalds Hardware. You would only run into trouble if you made a restaurant added some golden arches and called it mcdonalds. The intent to create an improper association to profit by is what is important.
It actually applies to a "particular expression", so it could be words, music, painting, a photograph. It isn't just protection of the exact words (so that modifying a handful of words in Atlas Shrugged won't get around copyright protection). Now in fact, trademark protection is kind of a loose canon (pun intended). You can get in trouble for naming a motel chain "McSleep".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Ayn Rand specifically approved Dr. Peikoff's works in her lifetime and granted him intellectual authority after her demise, he has full authority to speak for Objectivism. Furthermore, since she willed Dr. Peikoff her intellectual authority over Objectivism, what Dr. Peikoff say is in fact Objectivism.
These are factual claims: what is your evidence that they are true? Have you read her will? Which clause mentions "willing authority over Objectivism"? What does it mean for Rand to grant Peikoff intellectual authority -- to do what? What fact indicates to you that Rand did such a thing?

Let me repeat: Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. That means that anything else is not Objectivism. If Leonard Peikoff were to assert that the fundamental axiom is "Reality is What You Understand", that would not make Objectivism logically incoherent. Objectivism is a closed system, which means that not even Leonard Peikoff can change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the right of the Ayn Rand Institute to regulate any printed or Internet-posted discussion of "Ayn Rand" ...
That's extremely broad. If, say, someone wants to set up a site titled "Why Ayn Rand was Wrong?" or "What's Wrong with Christian Science?" or "Why I support Objectivism?" or "Why I am a Raelism?", of "Forum for ex-Ayn Rand fans", I don't see how they'd be violating anyone's rights.

I assume that the "Ayn Rand" trademark protection applies more narrowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that the "Ayn Rand" trademark protection applies more narrowly.

Again according to USPTO.gov, trademark protection of the use of 'Ayn Rand' is limited to:

printed matter, namely, brochures, newsletters, educational and instructional materials concerning the literature, teaching, philosophy and study of objectivism...

...educational services, namely, lectures, instructional workshops and seminars concerning the literature, teaching, philosophy and study of objectivism.

Interesting (though probably irrelevant) to note the lower-case spelling.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me repeat: Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. That means that anything else is not Objectivism. If Leonard Peikoff were to assert that the fundamental axiom is "Reality is What You Understand", that would not make Objectivism logically incoherent. Objectivism is a closed system, which means that not even Leonard Peikoff can change it.

If Objectivism is a closed system, then not even Ayn Rand can change it. Which means that, like I said earlier (I don't know if you saw it), the few minor errors, since they represent the inconsistent application of objectivity within her work, objectivism is a broken system. I don't agree with this. I think that essential Objectivism (by that I mean basically what Dr. Peikoff outlined in OPAR) is correct.

Thus, I think that we are faced with two options that are less than desirable to many Objectivists, but nonetheless exist. Either Objectivism can be thought of as closed within the limits of Rand's work, or Objectivism is open and the only concepts that should come to mind when one hears the word are the essential principles. This would leave the questions aroused about it's application to anyone who is familiar with the situation's particulars and is employing those essential principles.

Here's an example. Ayn Rand never addressed Issue X. Many years later, Issue X arises and someone, employing an objective metaphysics, a rational epistemology, an individualist ethic, a capitalist politic, and a romantic-realist aesthetic addresses it. Could this be properly thought of as an Objectivist critique?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Objectivism is a closed system, then not even Ayn Rand can change it. Which means that, like I said earlier (I don't know if you saw it), the few minor errors, since they represent the inconsistent application of objectivity within her work, objectivism is a broken system.
That is what it would mean (if it were true): now the burden is on someone to show that Objectivism is contradictory. This thread isn't where to make that argument; I claim that you cannot show any such error. However, your use of the word "objectivity" suggests to me that you don't exactly understand what Rand said and didn't say. So let's put aside the question of supposed errors and the money-mouth meeting, and focus on the meaning of "Objectivism".
Either Objectivism can be thought of as closed within the limits of Rand's work, or Objectivism is open and the only concepts that should come to mind when one hears the word are the essential principles.
This is exactly the Peikoff vs. Kelley issue -- either Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand (hence it is a closed system), or it is open to free interpretation by Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, Chris Sciabarra and Andrea Dworkin (hence it is a discourse open to many levels of interpretation).
Here's an example. Ayn Rand never addressed Issue X. Many years later, Issue X arises and someone, employing an objective metaphysics, a rational epistemology, an individualist ethic, a capitalist politic, and a romantic-realist aesthetic addresses it. Could this be properly thought of as an Objectivist critique?
Show me the critique: I don't know what you're talking about. Let's take something pretty obvious, in the realm of ethics. Theft is clearly immoral, according to Objectivist principles. I doubt there is anyone who would claim that Objectivism sanctions theft. But I also do not believe that Rand ever directly asserted "It is a principle of Objectivism that theft is immoral". Now getting really specific, it would be immoral to steal my car. But I am utterly positive that Rand never made that assertion. And yet we can be utterly certain that according to Objectivism, stealing my car is immoral. How is that possible??

Objectivism is not a catalog of concrete statements, it is a set of related principles. Just as the genus/species classification in epistemology allows you to make concrete conclusions about specific instances -- the particular beast to your left is a mammal, a fact that you can derive from the fact that it is a dog -- particular philosophical conclusions can be logically derived from more general statements. That's how I know that Objectivism holds that stealing my car is immoral, even though Rand never spoke specifically of the stealing of my car or, as far as I know, any car in specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd like, I could start a thread discussing the specific disagreements with Rand that I have. I can't put them aside since I know them to exist. The only reason why I cannot, for the purposes of this discussion, is because of your definition of "Objectivism" - the entirety of Rand's work. Using my definition - Objectivism is only it's essentials and Rand's application of them are not completely correct - I would be able to. Then I would happily agree with you that they could, and should, be put aside.

I'm glad you pointed out the Kelley-Peikoff issue, so that I didn't have to. Frankly, I was afraid to on this board. I was kicked off of this board about 3 years ago for having a disagreement that ran along those same lines. Unfortunately I have forgotten the specific issue we were debating.

And as for what you said here:

Objectivism is not a catalog of concrete statements, it is a set of related principles. Just as the genus/species classification in epistemology allows you to make concrete conclusions about specific instances -- the particular beast to your left is a mammal, a fact that you can derive from the fact that it is a dog -- particular philosophical conclusions can be logically derived from more general statements. That's how I know that Objectivism holds that stealing my car is immoral, even though Rand never spoke specifically of the stealing of my car or, as far as I know, any car in specific.

I think you just misunderstood my question that read "Could this be properly thought of as an Objectivist critique?" I should have phrased it better. What I meant to ask was "Could this (A critique of Issue X) be properly thought of as a critique by an objectivist?" Would your critique of the theft of your car, since created via the use of Objectivist principles, qualify you as an Objectivist? Does this forum and it's participants, since much of it promotes and defends Objectivism, qualify as Objectivism by Objectivists? Is it something else because it is not specifically the work of Rand herself? Or is it something else because some of it's posts contradict Rand's work?

I don't expect answers to those questions. I only ask them to point out a suspicion I have that because philosophy is always relevant, it's properties of definition and ownership may be different. If they are, don't ask me to tell them to you, because I certainly don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Objectivism is a closed system, then not even Ayn Rand can change it.

Well....um.......of course not even Ayn Rand can change it. That's because she's dead and, therefore, is not capable of changing it (or doing anything else for that matter).

Now, up until the moment that she died, Ayn Rand was able to "change it" i.e. to add new identifications to it, to further clarify or even renounce previous identifications and statements she made. It was an "open system" in that it was Ayn Rand's system to modify or expand however she saw fit. Since Objectivism is her philosophy, it is now "closed" because Ayn Rand is no longer alive and able to change it.

If you have read the old articles from Ayn Rand's magazines, you will recall that, when Ayn Rand was alive, it was NOT considered appropriate for admirers of Ayn Rand's ideas to refer to themselves as "Objectivists." Rather, the proper term was "student of Objectivism." The reason was because Objectivism was Ayn Rand's philosophy and only she was qualified to be an authority on what did and did not constitute her philosophy. All of that changed when she died because no further modifications of Ayn Rand's philosophy was possible once there was no more Ayn Rand. Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it was - and, that being the case, any person who studies and understands the philosophy and finds himself in agreement with it can properly call himself an Objectivist.

- - - - - - - - -

BELOW IS INTENDED AS A SEPARATE POSTING - THE INVISION SOFTWARE COMBINES BACK TO BACK POSTINGS IN THE SAME THREAD INTO ONE

- - - - - - - - - -

As an extremist in the defense of intellectual property rights, I believe that gaining legal protection over the use of a particular name and set of ideas is moral and should be protected to the full extent of the law. I support the right of the Ayn Rand Institute to regulate any printed or Internet-posted discussion of "Ayn Rand" and "Objectivism." That means that ARI (or Dr. Peikoff) would have the right to shut down any website that uses her name or the name of her philosophy in a way that the owner disapproves of.

On that same basis, you would not be able to make public criticisms of anyone. If you think that Hillary Clinton is a vile and evil Evita Peron/Joseph Stalin wannabe - well, you would not be able to say so because she would undoubtedly not approve of such things being said about her and enforce the alleged property rights in her name. And the heirs of Evita Peron and Joseph Stalin would also be able to shut you up even if Hillary decided to not follow up with it.

A trademark offers protection specifically in the realm of commercial activity.

Edited by Dismuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but the validity of Peikoff's writings, idem Binswanger, Bernstein, Smith etc. must always be validated with reference to Ayn Rand's statements.

I don't mean to be nit-picky but, actually, their writings must always be validated with reference to the facts of reality. Validating them by reference to Ayn Rand's statements would be an example of rationalism.

Whether or not their writings are consistent with Objectivism, that is what must be determined by reference to Ayn Rand's statements.

Does what Peikoff wrote constitute a valid elaboration of Rand's philosophical claims, or is it a totally new idea. If the latter, it is not Objectivism. The question: is the conclusion clearly implicit in the writings of Ayn Rand?

But even if Dr. Peikoff's conclusion is clearly implicit in the writings of Ayn Rand, it is still not Objectivism - and Dr. Peikoff has always been very clear about pointing that out when it comes to his writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, up until the moment that she died, Ayn Rand was able to "change it" i.e. to add new identifications to it, to further clarify or even renounce previous identifications and statements she made. It was an "open system" in that it was Ayn Rand's system to modify or expand however she saw fit. Since Objectivism is her philosophy, it is now "closed" because Ayn Rand is no longer alive and able to change it.
I dont agree with this. If, for example, Ayn Rand had renounced all her previous beliefs and embraced Marxism 5 years before she died, then I think it would make a lot more sense to say "Ayn Rand abandoned her system of Objectivism in her later years" than it would to say "Objectivism became Marxism". The best thing to do in this situation, I think, would be to identify "Objectivism" with the coherent body of work she produced between 1940 and <whenever>, and then use a different name for her later work. In other words, the reference of the term 'Objectivism' became fixed at the moment in time she used it to name her system, and any further work she produced which didnt cohere with this wouldnt have fallen under the term.

Perhaps this is just a minor quibble though, since we're obviously talking about something that never happened.

edit: to use an analogy, "The Fountainhead" refers to a specific book that Ayn Rand wrote. And after she wrote it, she may have been able to clarify minor issues of interpretation. But she couldnt have (for instance) turned round and said "actually, Howard Roark was a farmer rather than an architect". Similarly, once she had published her philosophy and named it "Objectivism", she wouldnt have been able to go back in time and revise major parts while keeping the same name - that isnt how language generally works. Naming something is like publishing a book - the act becomes fixed in time and you dont get to go back and make major changes; the fact that you were the first person to name something doesnt mean you get to alter its definition whenever you wish (similarly, Bob Dylan would not be able to revise the lyrics to one of his old songs, even though he owns the copyright - once something is a matter of public record, its fixed).

Objectivism refers to a specifc set of ideas, and noone (not even AR) would have been able to change the essentials (obviously she would have been able to change her mind about key points or even renounce the whole thing, but her new beliefs wouldn't have been part of Objectivism).

edit2: I was trying to think of a historical example of this actually happening, but I cant come up with anything. Most philosophers who made major changes to their beliefs didnt actually name them. There are a few vaguely related cases but theyre probably more different than they are similar :/

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be nit-picky but, actually, their writings must always be validated with reference to the facts of reality. Validating them by reference to Ayn Rand's statements would be an example of rationalism.

Whether or not their writings are consistent with Objectivism, that is what must be determined by reference to Ayn Rand's statements.

This is getting to the point that I have been trying to make since I created this thread. However, unlike what is quoted above, I believe that not only Binswanger's, Bernstein's, and Smith's writings need to be verified with reality, but also Rand's. Sure, Rand did a near perfect job of that, but like I've said a few times, I'm not ready to say that she did the job flawlessly. Also, Objectivism itself (however we want to define it), in order to be Objectivism within the terms set by Objectivism, needs to be verified with the facts of reality.

Ayn Rand did not technically create Objectivism, she discovered it. Discovering the correct philosophical system (ie: the truth) is not an act of invention. It is like discovering Newtonian physics, rather than inventing mystical explanations. This is why Objectivism is not a closed system. It is open to interpretation and application as long as Objectivism's basic principles are employed, whether or not Ayn Rand, had she lived longer, or any of her appointed successors remained as rational and consistent as she was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what your exact disagreements are about, since you haven't mentioned them, but it is my understanding that Objectivism is not every view ever held by Miss Rand. Concrete applications of her philosophy are just that, and they are not part of Objectivism.

Objectivism is a philosophical system, and that's why I think her views that rely heavily on more specialist sciences should not be considered part of it, in the same way as you are not required to share her views on what constituted good music to be an Objectivist.

*note* That is not to say that everything goes, of course, just that I don't think the more peripheral issues are really part of the philosophical system of Objectivism

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's extremely broad. If, say, someone wants to set up a site titled "Why Ayn Rand was Wrong?" or "What's Wrong with Christian Science?" or "Why I support Objectivism?" or "Why I am a Raelism?", of "Forum for ex-Ayn Rand fans", I don't see how they'd be violating anyone's rights.

I assume that the "Ayn Rand" trademark protection applies more narrowly.

While I recognize that my views are not reflected in current law, I regard one's name as a form of intellectual property. And, yes, a proper legal code would allow you veto power over any website entitled "Why softwareNerd Is Wrong?" or "Why I support softwareNerd."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that same basis, you would not be able to make public criticisms of anyone. If you think that Hillary Clinton is a vile and evil Evita Peron/Joseph Stalin wannabe - well, you would not be able to say so because she would undoubtedly not approve of such things being said about her and enforce the alleged property rights in her name.

That's right. Protection of property rights extends even to those we loathe. I'm not particularly happy about Hillary owning a mansion in New York, but I don't deny her right to it.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...