Recommended Posts

In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand wrote an article called "The Argument from Intimidation." It is chapter 19. 

If you want to see a great example of an argument from intimidation and how to respond, look at the tweet below.

But first, let's look at Rand's own words which can be found online: The Argument from intimidation.

Quote

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. Since it is particularly prevalent in today's culture and is going to grow more so in the next few months, one would do well to learn to identify it and be on guard against it.

This method bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy ad hominem, and comes from the same psychological root, but is different in essential meaning. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent. Example: "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false."

But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."

In the first case, Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument. In the second case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today's epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as "The Argument from Intimidation."

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: "Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea."

President Trump just offered a perfect example of how to respond by refusing to accept the moral premise of a questioner using this form of framing. It's not as evident in the first tweet (which I did not want to embed, but it comes automatically with the second) but it's still there. However in the second tweet, it's there in all its glory. Rather than accept moral guilt for being inconsistent, which was the reporter's frame, President Trump essentially said his legal and moral standard for acting was The Constitution.

President Trump answers gotcha questions a lot in this manner--by refusing to accept the moral premise of the question and giving an answer based on his own moral premises instead.

I noticed this a long time ago. And that's how you do it.

That's how Rand did it.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Pastor Greg Laurie, Harvest, and Corona:

Greg Laurie is an American author and pastor who serves as the senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California, Harvest Corona in Corona, California Harvest Woodcrest in Riverside, California, Harvest at Kumulani in Kapalua, Hawaii, and Harvest Orange County in Irvine, California. Wikipedia

https://twitter.com/tobycovfefe2/status/1246829184971870212/photo/2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Laurie

 

(Now, with the Wiki page bio, I'd certainly want to know if that isn't just shenanigans taking place after the fact...)
[Edit: Nope, not shenanigans. It's on the the official Harvest.org page as well:]

https://harvest.church/location/corona/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

Re: Pastor Greg Laurie, Harvest, and Corona:

Greg Laurie is an American author and pastor who serves as the senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California, Harvest Corona in Corona, California Harvest Woodcrest in Riverside, California, Harvest at Kumulani in Kapalua, Hawaii, and Harvest Orange County in Irvine, California. Wikipedia

https://twitter.com/tobycovfefe2/status/1246829184971870212/photo/2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Laurie

 

(Now, with the Wiki page bio, I'd certainly want to know if that isn't just shenanigans taking place after the fact...)
[Edit: Nope, not shenanigans. It's on the the official Harvest.org page as well:]

https://harvest.church/location/corona/

 

And this is shortly after the "Ready Reserves" comment Trump emphasized that revealed a gun shop in Texas called "Ready Reserves", on Corona Drive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Greg Laurie is an American author and pastor who serves as the senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California, Harvest Corona in Corona, California Harvest Woodcrest in Riverside, California, Harvest at Kumulani in Kapalua, Hawaii, and Harvest Orange County in Irvine, California.

TG,

I get the wordplay, but I took a look at Greg Laurie in "identify then judge" mode. I saw the beginning of this sermon: God’s Answer to Fear, Anxiety and Worry, Part 2.

What follows is a little off-topic, but who cares? I find it interesting and probably several readers will, too.

When I go into "identify then judge" mode on looking at something new, I turn my brain into a sponge. I try to set aside everything I can from what I already know and believe about similar things and just observe. I can't turn off everything, of course. There are countless memories and abstractions floating around in the underbelly of my brain, so I can't do this literally. But I can turn off my critical faculty to a conscious extent and just soak up the experience, which I can later judge consciously. It's like I give my brain a command: "Just observe and identify." 

In that frame of mind, what I saw surprised me in a pleasant way. It had nothing to do with political message, but instead with music.

I normally don't like modern Christian music because the lyrics tend to suck. :) (Many older hymns rock, though.) Of course, I'm referring to what I've heard. The lyrics of the modern stuff tend to have little poetic value and do not integrate with the music.

So on hearing the opening song of the sermon, once again, the lyrics were not what you could call poetic. But I wasn't judging, so I got a nice surprise in the chorus. The lyrics integrated with music and the listener in a really cool way. The verse was the normal first-person statements of the obvious for the context I dislike ("We are your church, we are your sons and daughters" and so on). But the music underneath started getting a real nice groove on.

Then the chorus came: "With our hands to the heavens, alive in your presence, Oh God, you are here. So pour out your spirit, we love to be near you, Oh God, you are here."

If you allow yourself to get into the groove of the underlying music, you should get a mix of nice, cool, wonder, just let go and feel, and a few other such things thrown in. Granted, this is subjective, but from what I've observed, a smooth easy-listening style of music heavy on ninths in both harmony and melody (sorry for being technical, but I don't have other words for it) generally produces a pleasant hypnotic effect where you let go of negativity at that moment and just coast on feel-good rhythm. But with this song, the words of the lyrics direct this all-consuming emotion toward God at the time you are feeling it, and even give you instructions of what to do with your body and how to feel about God--through presupposition at that. The words don't tell you what to do. They say what you are doing.

Note, I'm not analyzing whether God exists. I am analyzing how a strong emotion gets elicited through music and unexpectedly attached to God in lyrics through the image of God pouring his presence over you at the time your are feeling the emotion.

This same process could be used for a country, for a person, for the planet, for anything big, or admirable outside of you.

There is so much going on in this song and performance in both aesthetic experience and covert persuasion I could write a long article about it and still uncover new things. I am definitely going to do some serious thinking on this.

For example, the process I described can also be done in reverse, that is, after eliciting in you (should you allow yourself to get into the music) a negative emotion like raw aggressiveness, using first-person statements in the lyrics--while you are feeling the emotion--to attach that emotion to something or someone outside of you. Instant hate and bigotry.

Wow.

I did not expect to see, hear and observe that.

As the saying goes, people don't remember what you tell them, but they never forget how you make them feel.

I don't know anything else about Greg Laurie and his people other than he's a famous preacher, and I didn't watch the video for much longer after the song, but I do know he knows what he is doing.

And, I get the feeling he is a good man. Which is good. Bad people with his level of competence could do a lot of damage in society. In fact some do. I'm glad Greg Laurie is on the good guy side.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that did happen.

That said...Re: 4/10/20, or 4,10,20, or 4-10-20:

While the numbers DO correspond to Trump's initials, "Q" has just come out and warned anons to not try to predict dates, that "future validates past" doesn't mean to play Nostradamus...(and also warned against non-Q posts: "No outside comms", or theories that "take Q's name in vain..."

And yet, in the same drop containing his warning, he DOES mention the indictments and events that DID happen on 4/10/20. And you do have to have SOME sympathy for those pushing for a big Easter reveal, given the MANY 4-10-20 references in Q drops, that "Good Friday" falls on 4/10/20 this year, and Trump's earlier "aspiration" to have the country re-open by Easter. Q even deserves some of the blame for raising expectations with the 4/8 drop featuring a picture of a bible passage ("the armor of god") emphasising the 10, 11, and 12 at the start of each verse. (As in, April 10, 11, 12...Good Friday to Easter.)

https://qmap.pub/read/3914

I'm seeing a schism forming, as a result, between "true believers"* ("Trust the plan! Have faith! God prevails!"), the religious who say NOT to trust "Q", but only Christ, and "shills" who claim that "Q" is constantly moving the goal posts and that it's all a scam. (Conversely, it's also an attack on the integrity of anyone who asks for proof, or calls to "trust, but verify" They're told to "trust the plan". It's one thing to point out the need for patience in military matters, but it's another to ask for blind faith, let alone to be inactive...it's the civilian/soldier dichotomy).

I have to say, there's a bit of a "waiting for the Great Pumpkin" anxiety setting in...and like Sally, who gets laughed at for sitting with Linus in the pumpkin patch, and the Great Pumpkin never shows, then Linus rationalizes it by saying they weren't sincere enough...Sally's gonna get ticked off about missing out on trick-or-treating...)

(*"True believers": Whatever "Q" may be, and I do think there's something to it, a lot of the followers concern me in their lack of critical thing, or rationalization of every detail to be some kind of code, or in their religious blind faith...not to mention the "JFK JR is alive!" and "Trump is a time traveler!" crowd. But, that said, and to be fair...In contrast to "true believers" , there are those Q supporters who simply know and point out that you can't broadcast dates of attack to your enemy, and those who are saying it can't be rushed, that this has to be done right, dotting all the i's and crossing the t's, like an antibiotic finishing its course to get all the sickness out...but that will only go so far for those supporters who, after 3 or so years of Q-ness,  are out of a job and may be worried about paying their bills and feeding their families...how long can they "trust the plan" of a secret  they've never met? And then there are those worried about losing their civil liberties, and the encroaching socialism, in the meantime. Again, that civilian/soldier dichotomy...)

(I wanted to make a Galt "radio speech" comparison here, but Galt selectively chose his companions and co-conspirators, and wasn't acting on behalf of "the people"; it wasn't "WWG1WGA" with Galt's Gulch and the outside world...)

Anyway, here's the Q Drop warning about predictions:

"Patriots Making Date Predictions Are Harming the Movement and Arming the MSM"

"Patriots: be cautious in your interpretations of info posted. False expectations [& push] based on 'speculation' will only weaponize those who attack us [MSM].
Why does [MSM] expend resources [daily] attempting to discredit?
Do you provide the playbook to the enemy w: specific dates?
Logical thinking.
FISA INDICTMENTS = START (public_justice)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/start📁
Future proves past [events unlock]."

and finishes with:

"Game theory.
If you look you can see.
Q"

https://qmap.pub/read/3929

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Durham.

 

 

I've seen people pointing out that tweet (and "Q" even did a drop about it), but hadn't seen anyone quoting the exact words. A video did surface, and one person was saying that it didn't verify the tweet's claim about subpoena's, and called everyone nuts. But he didn't quote what he THOUGHT it said, either, just that the message was being distorted on Twitter...it's a good example of both an over-willingness to accept every claim at face value (based on second-third hand info) and dismissing every claim because arrests aren't happening overnight...

But what did Solomon really say? It was pretty much what the tweet claimed:


"Solomon: Well I know of some witnesses that received subpoenas. I know of some witnesses that have appeared before the grand jury and again I think it's very foundational…
Hannity: “Taking place in DC or in the Boston area?”
Solomon: “DC is my understanding.”

Here's the video (cue'd up around the 5 minute mark):
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But back to the events that DID take place on 4/10:

1. The Steel dossier was revealed to be what many already said, a Democrat-driven attempt to use Russian disinformation in order to smear Trump
2. The afore-mentioned Grand-jury indictments on behalf of A.G. Durham
3. The last "Q" drop contained a "placeholder" list for said indictments:
 

3934
 
Q!!Hs1Jq13jV6 10 Apr 2020 - 5:10:12 PM
[Placeholder - Indictments Tracking > Non_Civ]
[Set 1]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
[Placeholder - Indictments Tracking > Civ]
[Placeholder - Acts of Treason + support Articles]
[Placeholder - Foreign Acts_pub]
[Placeholder - FISA_pub]


https://qmap.pub/read/3934

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hysterical crap. We'd be so much better off if Hillary were President? Trump has character flaws but Hillary is evil.

--Brant

and bomb the mosques!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He Journo doesn't have the "honesty" to point out too, that the biggest liars and cheats on the planet have been bitterly opposed to the president, since day 1? 

That's not to justify Trump's iffy statements, altogether. (I think his handling of the crisis has been pretty good, except for relying too much, possibly, on the "experts").

But he has fought back, in the street fighting tactics his enemies (the real anti-truthers) understand best. He didn't get the soft soap treatment of his predecessor. That is significant.

He, Journo, predicted in an article at almost day 1, that the White House would turn into "a theocratic dictatorship".

Could he now have the honesty to admit it didn't happen?

These guys make me livid. And this article comes out  at this worst of times, when partisanship should be put on ice.

("Trump supporters are sell-outs of Objectivism" - Y. Brook)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism is like a frozen over lake. You are either trapped under the ice or ice skate. (On the shore your friends have a fire going for the evening victuals.)

--Brant

you possess Objectivism; Objectivism does not possess you

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anthony said:

("Trump supporters are sell-outs of Objectivism" - Y. Brook)

Globalists are some of the real sell-outs of Objectivism, for example, Y. Brook.

To paraphrase the subtext of their meaning, let's get slave labor from communist China but try to hide that fact, play a crony tariff game with the US where the Chinese win, rake in the dough from said arrangement and call that free trade--then claim those who think there's a whole lot wrong with that sell-outs of Objectivism...

Yeah, right...

Hedge fund my ass. The only thing hedged is morality with those guys.

Journo talking about Trump's lack of character is rich as he wallows in hypocrisy in the name of Ayn Rand.

I was once going to refute some blast against Trump from that corner and I think it was Journo but maybe it was a cohort. I would have to look it up. When I delved into their beefs against Trump, they were nothing but talking points taken directly from CNN and MSNBC--things like saying Trump claimed all Mexican immigrants are rapists. That kind of plain wrong crap was not worth refuting so I didn't bother.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone notice the name of the publication Journo is writing at? The New Ideal.

For God's sake...

A play on an FDR policy that implemented socialism in the US?

What's next? Calling Objectivists the New Comrades?

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I was once going to refute some blast against Trump from that corner and I think it was Journo but maybe it was a cohort. I would have to look it up. When I delved into their beefs against Trump, they were nothing but talking points taken directly from CNN and MSNBC--things like saying Trump claimed all Mexican immigrants are rapists. That kind of plain wrong crap was not worth refuting so I didn't bother.

Here, let me take a swing at Journo's article to show that this is what they still do. Here's the link again. The title is called: "Amid Pandemic, The Price of Trump’s War on Truth" by Elan Journo and it's dated April 13, 2020.

7 hours ago, anthony said:

Irritating evasions built on half truths and untruths by the media from Journo.

https://newideal.aynrand.org/amid-pandemic-the-price-of-trumps-war-on-truth/

So let's do it.

 

Journo:

Quote

In January, while intelligence agencies and health officials warned the Trump administration about a looming crisis, the president shut his eyes to the problem and insisted — as if wishing made it so — that we have nothing to worry about.

Did anyone catch that link on the word "warned"? It goes to a Washington Post article, one of those articles with 4 different authors (Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey and Ellen Nakashima), a tactic used for CYA and to give the impression that important serious work was done--so important and serious, one person alone couldn't be assigned such momentous responsibility . And guess who the sources mentioned for the facts in the article are? You guessed it. Mr. And Ms. No-Names. Look here--quoted directly from the article:

Quote

... according to U.S. officials familiar with spy agency reporting. ...

... a U.S. official who had access to intelligence reporting that was disseminated to members of Congress and their staffs as well as to officials in the Trump administration, and who, along with others, spoke on the condition of anonymity... 

... Public health experts...

... officials familiar with the reports... 

... according to current and former officials familiar with the process...

... One official noted...

... A colleague at the White House mentioned...

... according to multiple officials with knowledge of meetings...

... according to two senior administration officials...

... according to people briefed on the meeting...

... officials said...

... according to people briefed on White House meetings...

... in a classified briefing that four U.S. officials said...

... according to administration officials...

... administration officials said...

... according to two senior administration officials...

... said people ­familiar with Trump’s conversations...

This is where Journo got his information. There are more of the same he provided in the article.

 

I recall a scene in Atlas Shrugged where Eddie Willers was criticizing in horror a press release by the State Science Institute. The very things he said about that press release can be said about mainstream fake news articles these days.

Take a look at what I bolded below. It is exactly the form used in the WaPo article Journo used for his information (see these phrases taken directly from the article: "may not have been..." "might have..." "could require..." and so on). Except this crap is compounded and peppered with statements of fact no one can verify because they are provided by unknown sources. In other words, there are speculations amid just plain made up shit.

Rand gives merely a morally reprehensible example below. Imagine what she would have thought of today's press reports where outright fabrications are constantly provided by unnamed sources.

The excerpt starts with Dagny.

Quote

She knew, the moment she entered the anteroom of her office, that something had happened. She saw the unnatural stillness, with the faces of her staff turned to her as if her entrance were the moment they had all waited for, hoped for and dreaded.

Eddie Willers rose to his feet and started toward the door of her office, as if knowing that she would understand and follow. She had seen his face. No matter what it was, she thought, she wished it had not hurt him quite so badly.

“The State Science Institute,” he said quietly, when they were alone in her office, “has issued a statement warning people against the use of Rearden Metal.” He added, “It was on the radio. It’s in the afternoon papers.”

“What did they say?”

“Dagny, they didn’t say it! ... They haven’t really said it, yet it’s there—and it isn’t. That’s what’s monstrous about it.”

His effort was focused on keeping his voice quiet; he could not control his words. The words were forced out of him by the unbelieving. bewildered indignation of a child screaming in denial at his first encounter with evil.

“What did they say, Eddie?”

“They ... You’d have to read it.” He pointed to the newspaper he had left on her desk. “They haven’t said that Rearden Metal is bad. They haven’t said that it’s unsafe. What they’ve done is ...” His hands spread and dropped in a gesture of futility.

She saw at a glance what they had done. She saw the sentences: “It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted.... The possibility of a molecular reaction, at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted.... Although the tensile strength of the metal is obviously demonstrable, certain questions in regard to its behavior under unusual stress are not to be ruled out. ... Although there is no evidence to support the contention that the use of the metal should be prohibited, a further study of its properties would be of value.”

“We can’t fight it. It can’t be answered,” Eddie was saying slowly. “We can’t demand a retraction. We can’t show them our tests or prove anything. They’ve said nothing. They haven’t said a thing that could be refuted and embarrass them professionally. It’s the job of a coward. You’d expect it from some con-man or blackmailer. But, Dagny! It’s the State Science Institute!”

That is the epistemology behind the information where Journo gets his facts. I mean, why do you think you think?

Right?

With Journo accepting unnamed sources that provide made up shit as solid information, why does he think he thinks?

He doesn't. That's why. He's believes all this on faith. He has to. There's nothing rational present in it. There are no conceptual referents that readers can look at. The conceptual referents are allegations from what unnamed people say.

 

But wait! There's more! And it's worse.

In that excerpt from Journo, in his own words, he said: "... while intelligence agencies and health officials warned the Trump administration about a looming crisis..."

That sounds serious. So it's reasonable to ask, what intelligence agencies? Which health officials? Journo doesn't say. I mean, why should he? For those who agree with him, no explanation is needed. For those who don't, none is possible.

Right?

He didn't say that, but that's the way he treated it.

At least he linked to a WaPo article that does say who those intelligence agencies and health officials are... kinda. And kinda doesn't. After all, we know who they are, unless we don't, and they said those dire warnings because unnamed people told four whole reporters from the Washington Post they did.

Bah...

That's Objectivism? Rand would have been proud of Journo, huh?

 

I want to detail some of the other things in Journo's article, but as you can see, just doing one is a bit of work. However, I can mention a few other beauties where that kind of rebuttal is simple to do. However, this is just as exciting as killing a swarm of flies with a fly-swatter. So I'll just mention a few rather than go deep on them.

Journo uses the term "Trump's war on truth." This is a buzz-phrase taken directly from the anti-Trump fake news media. The gist of the rebuttal would be that this phrase "war on truth" is used for Trump's hyperbole and rhetoric while the people who use that phrase constantly serve up made up shit. In other words, they wage their own war on truth with fabrications to attack what they call Trump's war on truth (meaning his hyperbole and rhetoric.)

Journo mind-reads Trump supporters, then treats his mind-reading as fact. Then uses that to condemn them. Do I really need to say what the rebuttal would be for that?

Journo's concern is not with the actions President Trump has performed re the coronavirus. He's only concerned with what Trump said. Take a look at his examples. The rebuttal would be to show Journo's blanking out of facts (President Trump's deeds) on a massive scale while treating Trump's hyperbole and rhetoric as fact. And even worse, he blamed the severity of the COVID-19 problem on Trump's words, which, incidentally, he often takes out of context. And even worser worse, he acknowledged that Trump supporters know that Trump's hyperbole and rhetoric are hyperbole and rhetoric. And then he bashed Trump's supporters for knowing that. (Journo apparently doesn't like Trump's hyperbole and rhetoric as he writes an article of nothing but his own hyperbole and rhetoric based on sources and information that provide little more than spin and made-up shit.)

I'm not even going to delve into how the impeachment hogged the press, government, and so on right at the time Journo blames Trump for not doing things according to his Monday morning quarterbacking that might have... that could have... etc. etc. etc.

There's more, hell I could go on for quite a while and still not cover it all, but that's enough for now. 

That's why I am harsh on him. He uses Ayn Rand's words to justify left-wing authoritarian crap and propaganda so he can use that to attack Trump. 

Why?

That's a great question. 

I don't want to pick a fight with the ARI fundies, but goddamit, if in their boneheaded universe, they want to constantly call Trump supporters a bunch of names right as President Trump is fixing a whole lot of evil they tolerate and sanction as normal, they are going to get it right back when someone like me gets fed up with their bullshit. 

The best thing they can do right now is get out of the way. Oh, they can talk. Free speech and all. But they really should let people who fix problems fix them instead of trying to get in the way by posturing as people who know better--basing their posturings on authoritarian talking points that would have made Ayn Rand sick. In fact, if we make changes for different world events and boil those talking points down to fundamentals, they did make her sick when she was alive. And she wrote reams about them.

The good news is, in reality terms, they are not in the way at all. In terms of hyperbole and rhetoric, they get me riled, but in terms of deeds, they are not relevant. The problems are being fixed. 

Don't believe me? See the 141 pages (so far) on the White House website called:

Presidential Actions

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Journo's concern is not with the actions President Trump has performed re the coronavirus

.....

See the 141 pages (so far) on the White House website called:

Presidential Actions

Michael

Nice fog and snow job.  ☹️  You point the reader to 141 pages of presidential actions starting in 2017, most of which are not about the coronavirus that didn't become an issue until 2020.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merjet said:

Nice fog and snow job.  ☹️  You point the reader to 141 pages of presidential actions starting in 2017, most of which are not about the coronavirus that didn't become an issue until 2020.

Merlin,

You're a hoot.

:)

I don't think you know what I was talking about for real.

Dayaamm!

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...