Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I just hope for the protestors' sake this is all wrapped up by May 10th.  If they interfere with graduation the protestors may need the DPS' protection from my wife and the other 8,000+ moms of graduates.  Those that have spent the last few months booking reservations, ordering cakes, and scheduling photographers will be out for blood if junior doesn't walk across that stage, jump in the fountain, and get drunk.  It's the 8,000+ army of Karens that Hartzell and probably Abbot should fear the most.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 5
Posted

WIthout weighing in on the UT protests, there is a precedent for tent protests that turned into a problem: Occupy Wall Street, which started out as a legitimate protest (I worked a block from the McPherson Square encampment) and eventually turned into just a homeless/unhoused community that the NPS had to clear away.

I'm not saying that's a thing here.  But if I was a University administrator, once Spring term was over, I'd clear out any community to prevent it from becoming a public health nuisance. Again, in the case of UT, it sorta feels like they went right to the "clearing out" portion without some of the interim steps that usually occur with a protesting group.  But I haven't followed it super closely.  

Posted
6 minutes ago, sasquatch69 said:

(1) be heard/absorbed and (2) change hearts and minds.   Screaming at people, scrapping with police and other extreme tactics may be seen by the actors as justified/righteous - but they don't seem to be having a positive effect in terms of the general public (e.g. people who don't already have a strong opinion one way or the other).  It ends up turning the very people they're trying to convince against them.  

Leave Fox and CNN alone

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Skipper said:

It's just fucking lawyers being lawyers.  Getting everyone stuck in minutiae instead of focusing on the big picture or the reality of the situation because it suits their politics.

Like wearing surgical masks?

  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A rule that indirectly serves as an impediment to the right to speech and assembly is in many ways more pernicious than a rule that directly inhibits those activities. For instance, imagine if there were a "no umbrellas" rule. The right to assemble and speak in the rain would be significantly hampered. While the most determined would not be deterred, many others would be. We can't let "reasonable" restrictions become a trojan horse for restrictions that would materially reduce the availability of free speech. Here, "no tents" serves to make free speech more difficult in the same way that a "no umbrellas" policy would. A no tent policy serves to make it more difficult to exercise a full day of assembly by preventing the assembled a place to rest out of the sun/elements.

Again, maybe no tents is a reasonable restriction. But I don't think it is cut and dry, particularly when a location has been specifically protected as a part of the public forum. I need something more than the argument that someone might try and stay past 10:00 pm. 

I think our post-Covid reality is pretty dang important context in determining whether older case regarding masks is still relevant law. Not allowing masks in the wake of a pandemic is most certainly going to restrict free speech. I don't think we can call a blanket no mask policy as reasonable in this day and age. 

You don't get to ignore rights based upon what you think someone is going to do. Why is this so hard for you? 

See above. Tents are tools that may assist with the exercise of free speech. A blanket no tent policy in a protected public forum seems overly restrictive if the goal ensuring others have use of the space. It seems like a more reasonable restriction would be to allow tents so long as a permit is acquired in advance (as you described). UT doesn't have that mechanism.  

The argument is that by setting up tents, you are taking a public space and rendering it occupied and unusable to other members of the public.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I mean, these were publicly announced as an act of solidarity with the other nationwide encampments, all of which were overnight establishments.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this discussion, if I'm being honest.

 

There is more than one issue here, thus your confusion.

1. Did these protesters intend to keep the tents up beyond a single day and create a "tent city" as seen in some other campuses? 

2. Would anyone using a tent in connection with public assembly necessarily intend to leave them up beyond a single day and create a "tent city"?

3. Is a "no tents ever" policy a reasonable restriction of free speech in the pubic forum?

You're focused on #1.  Maybe you're right. Maybe that was their intention. But I don't think the potential that someone may intend to violate a reasonable restriction is sufficient to restrict free speech. And, at any rate, there was maybe one tent at the original event last week. It is not reasonable to shut down everyone's speech because of one minor violation. You tell the person they can't have it and remove the tent if that is a violation. You don't remove everyone. 

As to #2, I think the answer is clearly no. I know this from my own experience.  

And whether #3 is reasonable or not is going to depend on the purpose of the no tents rule. If it is to make sure no one stays more than one day, it is overly restrictive and could be handled with an additional time frame element. It if is to make sure everyone has access to the space, it seems overly restrictive and could be assigned with the requirement of a permit/registration for use of a tent. If it is to prevent the creation of a "tent city" (which I really don't understand why these matter honestly), then again, overly restrictive as you can just prevent the creation of a tent city rather than all uses of tents. Maybe there are other arguments for a blanket no provision. I'm just not convinced the arguments offered so far are sufficient to call it a reasonable restriction.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, North of Walburg said:

I just hope for the protestors' sake this is all wrapped up by May 10th.  If they interfere with graduation the protestors may need the DPS' protection from my wife and the other 8,000+ moms of graduates.  Those that have spent the last few months booking reservations, ordering cakes, and scheduling photographers will be out for blood if junior doesn't walk across that stage, jump in the fountain, and get drunk.  It's the 8,000+ army of Karens that Hartzell and probably Abbot should fear the most.

I have a HS sr and soph.  If college graduations are anything like HS, god help anyone who gets in front of that blonde haired, don't feed after midnight, fucking party-planning gremlin.  Losing her shit is a FT job for her, but also is married to me and my progeny...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, sasquatch69 said:

This is true, but one thing that seems to be lacking in a lot of young people who get involved in these efforts today is an understanding

Young people don't make the best decisions, and are prone to believing their own bullshit at the expense of actually being effective advocates.  Film at 11:00 to cover this shocking expose.

I found most student protests to be stupid and ham-handed even back in my campus days, regardless of the topic.  Because 18-22 year olds are not the wisest bunch.  But they're also figuring shit out.  And what better place to figure shit out/learn than a university campus?

Next thing you're gonna tell me is that young people sometimes ingest more substances than their reasonable limit, and make poor decisions about sexual partners and whatnot.  Don't tell me that, I just can't handle the shock to my system, I may come down with a touch of the vapors.

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Again, in the case of UT, it sorta feels like they went right to the "clearing out" portion without some of the interim steps that usually occur with a protesting group.

This.  Which tells us that the goal was the display of "look at us being tough, fuck those libtards" as opposed to being to actually protect any real campus interests.  I don't think any of us on here would have a problem with clearing all protesters and their gear at 10:00 pm. -- that's a good, clean, content-neutral and reasonable rule to keep the campus safe and clean.  You can show up every day, from here to eternity, to protest.  But you can't take up residence when you do so.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I have a HS sr and soph.  If college graduations are anything like HS, god help anyone who gets in front of that blonde haired, don't feed after midnight, fucking party-planning gremlin.  Losing her shit is a FT job for her, but also is married to me and my progeny...

Because of Covid most of this year's graduating class did not have a traditional high school graduation.  So for a lot of folks this one means a lot.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
5 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The argument is that by setting up tents, you are taking a public space and rendering it occupied and unusable to other members of the public.

That extends to doing anything, including standing. By definition using a space is going to keep others from using it as the same time. Logically, we shouldn't let anyone use the space at all because any of use of it makes it unavailable to others. But that's obviously self-defeating. As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Skipper said:

It's just fucking lawyers being lawyers.  Getting everyone stuck in minutiae instead of focusing on the big picture or the reality of the situation because it suits their politics.

No, it's just you being dense and being fine violating rights because you disagree with the speech. Precrime isn't a thing. And it shouldn't be a thing. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

Is that not the case now?  Tents having curfew times of 10pm?

Posted
Just now, BabaYaga said:

Is that not the case now?  Tents having curfew times of 10pm?

Well that is an interesting question. The rule as written as vague. It could either mean no tents at all, ever, or no tents past 10 pm. The administration chose to enforce it as no tents ever. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

That extends to doing anything, including standing. By definition using a space is going to keep others from using it as the same time. Logically, we shouldn't let anyone use the space at all because any of use of it makes it unavailable to others. But that's obviously self-defeating. As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

Yeah, the whole "abusing a public space" thing starts to sound like Aggies and their grass rules. 

To me, if you don't want them actually camping, like @Brisketexan said, I'd pull the leaders aside day 1 and say "You can't sleep here, that's just the rules.  Here's what we can do:  Facilities will set up a floor/grass protecting cover, and we will allow y'all to set up early in the morning and help facilitate tear down at night.  We can even get some porta johns in here and allow groups to donate food and such during the day.  Y'all have to be out of here two days before graduation, period, so we can clean and set up.  That's non-negotiable and we will crack skulls if you try and cross us on it.  Anyone who crosses the two day mark will also be expelled, without recourse. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

No, it's just you being dense and being fine violating rights because you disagree with the speech. Precrime isn't a thing. And it shouldn't be a thing. 

Meh, sort of.  Entrapment is a thing.  Stating you are going to so some salty shit will get knocks on your door by agencies you do not want knocking on your door

Posted
2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

 

Yeah, I'm quite sure that after the publicity last week, that this week's stuff is attended by more folks outside of the student body. Given that it is a public forum, I'm not sure that is relevant. I also always question reporting that tries to blame protests on outsiders. They weren't UT students, but were they graduates? Austinites? Texans? The UT community is much broader than its students. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, BabaYaga said:

Begs the obvious question who are they and releasing their identities....which I doubt happens as no charges have been filed

Yep, Garza ain’t going to charge any of them with shit (if these are his to charge).

Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

No, it's just you being dense and being fine violating rights because you disagree with the speech. Precrime isn't a thing. And it shouldn't be a thing. 

Yesterday was not Precrime.  There was a rule.  It was enforced.   You are writing essays on whether or not that rule was "reasonable" and ignoring the reality which is whatever UT's interpretation of the rule was (including, Brisket's 10PM cut-off) it was getting broken.  You are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point enjoying your first amendment hypothetical and missing your days in ConLaw debating with the other fucking gunners. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A rule that indirectly serves as an impediment to the right to speech and assembly is in many ways more pernicious than a rule that directly inhibits those activities. For instance, imagine if there were a "no umbrellas" rule. The right to assemble and speak in the rain would be significantly hampered. While the most determined would not be deterred, many others would be. We can't let "reasonable" restrictions become a trojan horse for restrictions that would materially reduce the availability of free speech. Here, "no tents" serves to make free speech more difficult in the same way that a "no umbrellas" policy would. A no tent policy serves to make it more difficult to exercise a full day of assembly by preventing the assembled a place to rest out of the sun/elements.

A ban on tents does not infringe free speech even "indirectly," and certainly not "materially." A tent has absolutely nothing to do with conveying a political message. It's either detrimental to the message (if you're *in* the tent, then people are less likely to hear your message) or it's just an irrelevant structure sitting empty while you protest.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Skipper said:

MAGA gathers on campus intentionally violating policy I would be the first one cheering on the police beating their ass and calling bullshit if they were treated differently.

Jesus, man. Just wow.

Edited by Judge Roybeanbag
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.  By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries.

I would of kicked you if you had paid. Hopefully, you have a digital watch.

Edited by Bevo
Posted
9 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Just you wait, I’m sure this dynamic trio are working on making it a thing as soon as possible (spoiler alert it’s already happening)

image.thumb.jpeg.89f23a0d162a0171d08a9db5ac2dd409.jpeg


 

The one in the middle is spending $12,000 of our money to take he and some staffers to lower Manhattan today to promote what the guy on the left is doing on our campus to another guy.  I think the guy on the right is busy shopping for big hats for a Kentucky Derby party this weekend.  

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Mikey4 said:

Exactly why I avoid CR and generally avoid DT as well. 

This isn't true - I think there is confusion on the argument here. Some people are arguing that there is justification in this because they don't like the content of the protest or the way the protest is happening 

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

 

 

 

 

It's becoming increasingly difficult to muddle through all the various hot takes about other places to find information about what's happening on OUR university campus. Anyone who'd like to discuss protests NOT taking place on the UT campus, please feel free to do so in this brand new thread.

Thank you.

I will moderate accordingly thanks for doing this. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Yesterday was not Precrime.  There was a rule.  It was enforced.   You are writing essays on whether or not that rule was "reasonable" and ignoring the reality which is whatever UT's interpretation of the rule was (including, Brisket's 10PM cut-off) it was getting broken.  You are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point enjoying your first amendment hypothetical and missing your days in ConLaw debating with the other fucking gunners. 

I haven't been focused on yesterday. You're spending time dismissing last week and diminishing us pointing out the problem.  That's what I have an issue with. 

Posted
25 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Begs the obvious question who are they and releasing their identities....which I doubt happens as no charges have been filed

Are you unfamiliar with the mugshot thread? I'm sure a lot of them end up with no charges.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

A ban on tents does not infringe free speech even "indirectly," and certainly not "materially." A tent has absolutely nothing to do with conveying a political message. It's either detrimental to the message (if you're *in* the tent, then people are less likely to hear your message) or it's just an irrelevant structure sitting empty while you protest.

If I say you can protest in this field but you cannot wear shoes, and the field volcanic is surrounded with volcanic rock, am I infringing speech? The shoes may not directly contribute to the speech, but they sure as shit make it a lot easier to do. An umbrella and a tent do the same thing to differing degrees. As I said, no tent ever is pretty harsh rule. If a less restrictive measure exists that will serve the same end goal, then that is the measure that should be used. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, immamac said:

This isn't true - I think there is confusion on the argument here. Some people are arguing that there is justification in this because they don't like the content of the protest or the way the protest is happening. 

I don't follow. I was agreeing with Nicole that people are disuaded from posting in CR and to some extent DT due to tribalism and a rush to neg rather than engage in a debate. There is certainly some good faith debate and discussion, but the extremists make it unpleasant.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That extends to doing anything, including standing. By definition using a space is going to keep others from using it as the same time. Logically, we shouldn't let anyone use the space at all because any of use of it makes it unavailable to others. But that's obviously self-defeating. As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

You can only take up so much space standing.  But setting up tents you are taking up your space and the footprint of your tent or any number of tents you care to set up.  Standing space is first come first serve.  People eventually will have to use the restroom and vacate the space.  Tents can be there indefinitely.  

Not really a good argument.

The mall is not a fucking campground.  Leave your tent at home and protest all you want.

Edited by Frank Drebin
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

If I say you can protest in this field but you cannot wear shoes, and the field volcanic is surrounded with volcanic rock, am I infringing speech? The shoes may not directly contribute to the speech, but they sure as shit make it a lot easier to do. An umbrella and a tent do the same thing to differing degrees. As I said, no tent ever is pretty harsh rule. If a less restrictive measure exists that will serve the same end goal, then that is the measure that should be used. 

It's hot and humid.  Who is getting in a tent vs a canopy/shade?  It's clear why the rule was implemented.  There have been tent cities all over the city and for a school trying to attract the best & brightest, it's not the best look for visiting students vs a hypothetical about shoes and rocky ground.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I have no sympathy for Hartzell and wouldn’t mind him getting run out of town, but god damn can you imagine the psycho Abbott and the regents would appoint to replace him. Meet your new university president, the Navy Seal who murdered those Iraqi civilians and Trump pardoned. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If I say you can protest in this field but you cannot wear shoes, and the field volcanic is surrounded with volcanic rock, am I infringing speech? The shoes may not directly contribute to the speech, but they sure as shit make it a lot easier to do.

Yes, shoes assist in protesting for the reason you mention, and a ban on shoes would burden speech.

 

Quote

An umbrella and a tent do the same thing to differing degrees. As I said, no tent ever is pretty harsh rule. If a less restrictive measure exists that will serve the same end goal, then that is the measure that should be used.

Less restrictive measures exist and are permissible. If you need protection from the elements, then you can use an umbrella, wear a raincoat, or assemble in a covered space. If you need somewhere to sit and rest, bring a folding chair or find a bench. A tent adds absolutely nothing other than exclude people from using public space.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

I don't follow. I was agreeing with Nicole that people are disuaded from posting in CR and to some extent DT due to tribalism and a rush to neg rather than engage in a debate. There is certainly some good faith debate and discussion, but the extremists make it unpleasant.

In my experience, people only pick up a ton of negs when they come in hot without any supporting evidence or citation for their claims. There is certainly a belief of what you claim, but it's ironically completely supported by a mindless repetition of something that isn't quite true.

Just like how there's a weird overriding urge in this thread from some folks to call everything antisemitism and cheer on the riot cops, in spite of the objective reality before them

Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why would he do that?  He'd see it as being weak and hypocritical, and he'd be right in that assessment.

For rationale adults, admitting you made a mistake and taking steps to correct it is not considered weak or hypocritical 

Posted
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's hot and humid.  Who is getting in a tent vs a canopy/shade?  It's clear why the rule was implemented.  There have been tent cities all over the city and for a school trying to attract the best & brightest, it's not the best look for visiting students vs a hypothetical about shoes and rocky ground.  

What's the difference between a tent vs a canopy? As far as UT's rules go, they appear to be the same thing and would both be prohibited. 

As to whether the rule was specifically implemented with recent events in mind, I don't know that to be the case. It seems like the tent rule pre-dated the tent city stuff, but maybe I'm wrong. Again, if we weren't talking about a public university with a statutorily designated public forum, concerns about student recruitment/retention would be a pretty fair reason for the rule. But, this is a special place with a special designation. The administration does not get to do with it what it pleases. A reasonable restriction in one context (private university land) is not reasonable in another (public forum). No tents ever is a harsh rule. Why would all of your concerns not be solved with a registration requirement? Why would @Frank Drebin's concerns not be resolved with a registration requirement? 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In my experience, people only pick up a ton of negs when they come in hot without any supporting evidence or citation for their claims. There is certainly a belief of what you claim, but it's ironically completely supported by a mindless repetition of something that isn't quite true.

I don't doubt that some of it is justified, but a lot of times people just neg when they see a view that's different from their own. It's also the style of discourse -- for example, attacking people with personal slurs rather than debating their positions. It's not appealing to me.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The mall is not a fucking campground.  Leave your tent at home and protest all you want.

And that's why the Governor said he was busting up the protests!  No tents!  Follow the rules!

Oh wait...that's not what he said at all.  He said, in plain language, that the protests were busted up for their content:

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

I don't follow. I was agreeing with Nicole that people are disuaded from posting in CR and to some extent DT due to tribalism and a rush to neg rather than engage in a debate. There is certainly some good faith debate and discussion, but the extremists make it unpleasant.

I invite you to visit the Hartzell thread in CR, which discusses this very topic. It's six pages of debate/discussion/dissent, with lots of back-and-forth. Having just skimmed the entire thing just now, I counted 1 "fuck you" emoji. I'll also ask you to look at the last page, where one poster came in well over an hour ago with a flaming hot take on the current president of the US (not the university). Guess what? Not a single neg.

Here's a link if you'd like to check for yourself: https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/35367-jay-hartzell-is-not-out-standard/page/6/

If you're really concerned about avoiding neg reps on this site, I'd suggest never, ever visiting the Football board.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

Yes, shoes assist in protesting for the reason you mention, and a ban on shoes would burden speech.

Less restrictive measures exist and are permissible. If you need protection from the elements, then you can use an umbrella, wear a raincoat, or assemble in a covered space. If you need somewhere to sit and rest, bring a folding chair or find a bench. A tent adds absolutely nothing other than exclude people from using public space.

You're confused about what "less restrictive measures" refers to. In constitutional analysis, it refers to government action, not the actions of the public, i.e., the government could choose an action less restrictive than outlawing the use of tents entirely. Here, that would be time limits and registration/reservation. Further, the solution to a problem caused by government restriction of free speech in a public forum cannot be "go someplace else". Literally, the place people are suppose to be able to go is the public forum. That said, I agree that a no tent policy isn't extremely restrictive and that so long as other government restrictions aren't in play, free speech is only marginally affected by the restriction. As I said, maybe no tents is a reasonable restriction. But because less restrictive options are available to the government, I'm not entirely sure that conclusion is obvious. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Why is not allowing people to set up tents on the mall harsh?  

The rule is harsh because it is absolute. That is all I mean. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

I don't follow. I was agreeing with Nicole that people are disuaded from posting in CR and to some extent DT due to tribalism and a rush to neg rather than engage in a debate. There is certainly some good faith debate and discussion, but the extremists make it unpleasant.

Oh for fuck's sake, Nancy.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And that's why the Governor said he was busting up the protests!  No tents!  Follow the rules!

Oh wait...that's not what he said at all.  He said, in plain language, that the protests were busted up for their content:

 

 

Yeah, also this. The rest of it is an interesting legal discussion. This is the primary point. 

Posted
1 minute ago, bolverk said:

I invite you to visit the Hartzell thread in CR, which discusses this very topic. It's six pages of debate/discussion/dissent, with lots of back-and-forth. Having just skimmed the entire thing just now, I counted 1 "fuck you" emoji. I'll also ask you to look at the last page, where one poster came in well over an hour ago with a flaming hot take on the current president of the US (not the university). Guess what? Not a single neg.

Here's a link if you'd like to check for yourself: https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/35367-jay-hartzell-is-not-out-standard/page/6/

If you're really concerned about avoiding neg reps on this site, I'd suggest never, ever visiting the Football board.

 

I'll check it, thank you. I've been posting on the football board for 6+ years, and shaggy before that, and hornfans before that. I've had no problems with negs or hostility on there.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
21 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

You can only take up so much space standing.  But setting up tents you are taking up your space and the footprint of your tent or any number of tents you care to set up.  Standing space is first come first serve.  People eventually will have to use the restroom and vacate the space.  Tents can be there indefinitely.  

Jesus Christ, have you never seen dozens and dozens of people laying out on the South Mall?  THEY'RE TAKING UP MORE THAN THEIR ALLOTED SPACE.

Come on, be a bigger pussy, I dare you.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1

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.



×
×
  • Create New...