Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jtrevino said:

As far as I’ve read, I don’t remember anyone officially involved in the LA bid taking shots at Paris. There are soundbites about the other city here and there with obvious inferences comparing themselves against the other. But that applies to both sides and it’s mostly fluff made into something bigger by journalists. For the most part, the process has lacked drama. Journalists and individual commenters, of course, can be opinionated and provocative, but....the internet... 

I was referring to a poster on this thread rather than anyone official from LA2024.  They're smart enough to not make such comments.  But 1 poster and especially 1 journalist in particular haven't held back from making some ridiculous comments.  If you stick around here long enough, I'm sure you'll see them here to.  Like you said.. the internet

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

On 31/05/2017 at 2:29 AM, josejose50 said:

If the IOC considers a 12+ year gap as an issue for Europe, then a 28 year gap in North America is ridiculous.

“On behalf of a proud, determined and grateful nation I declare open the Games of Salt Lake City”.

Heads of State need to understand that here have to be penalties for not sticking to the Opening Ceremony script!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FYI said:

Pfft, paul. As if we can take anything that he has to say seriously. :wacko:

You're right, but my serious mistake is being too optimism with people in clear argumentations. Now, i'll keep a more "whatever" attitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, paul said:

Of course one will have to just get used to the idea of a another LA games, what can one do? 

But, but, what about the "real resistance"?! :lol::P

22 hours ago, paul said:

At lease it sounds like LA is once again in a position to negotiate terms and get paid. 

L.A. isn't negotiating anything. The IOC is going to offer L.A. incentives to take 2028. L.A. can either accept or decline them. That doesn't sound at all like 1984. And if L.A. were to refuse, then they'd be the big fools this time around.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FYI said:

L.A. isn't negotiating anything. The IOC is going to offer L.A. incentives to take 2028. L.A. can either accept or decline them. That doesn't sound at all like 1984. And if L.A. were to refuse, then they'd be the big fools this time around.

There’s always negotiations.  In fact, I think under Bach, the IOC may even be more open to it. Unless you have inside info? I wouldn’t even put it past Paris to negotiate if they were awarded 2024.  It’s not even a question of whether LA will take 2028. They will. They want it. But it doesn’t mean the IOC isn’t open to “requests” Garcetti may ask for.  From his history, he can be very persuasive with his usual charm offensive, which may be the best method of dealing with the IOC. Because it’s not like the IOC doesn’t care about locking down two great bids, or enjoys these bid drop-out headaches that only seem to be getting worse. Thomas Bach seems commited to making sure both LA and Paris walk away happy (or winners, in his word). It’s not going to be take it or leave it. A sign of introspection and a marked departure from previous leaders who enjoyed the ego stroking of bidding as sport and shrugging at cities’ tears.  

It hasn’t yet devolved into  “you need me more than I need you!” arrogance. I think (at least hope) the IOC has learned that lesson that they can’t take that posture if they want the games to thrive. Cities, too. Certainly Paris learned that lesson from the last time around. And LA’s bid also seems careful not to come across that way either. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jtrevino said:

There’s always negotiations. It’s not even a question of whether LA will take 2028. They will. They want it. But it doesn’t mean the IOC isn’t open to “requests” Garcetti may ask for. 

Yeah, but that's still different from dictating the terms, which is what L.A. did back in 1978 to get 1984, & what the poster I was quoting was alluding to. 

Garcetti can request whatever he wants, but this is still the IOC we're talking about here, & at the end of the day they're also still a business in addition to being an international sporting organization, so they're not just going to give away their Swiss bank (hence the term "get paid"). This time, it's going to be more of a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" scenario. 

12 hours ago, jtrevino said:

It hasn’t yet devolved into  “you need me more than I need you!” arrogance. I think (at least hope) the IOC has learned that lesson that they can’t take that posture if they want the games to thrive. Cities, too. Certainly Paris learned that lesson from the last time around. And LA’s bid also seems careful not to come across that way either. 

Umm, you sure about that? Cuz L.A.'s bid team has come across that way. Citing things like "the IOC 'must' chose L.A. (in reference to 2024) in order to 'stabilize' the Olympic world & steer them back in the right direction", & in so many words that their plan is only available for a 'limited time', etc, etc. That to me does sound a lot like a "you need me more than I need you" arrogance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jtrevino said:

There’s always negotiations.  In fact, I think under Bach, the IOC may even be more open to it. Unless you have inside info? I wouldn’t even put it past Paris to negotiate if they were awarded 2024.  It’s not even a question of whether LA will take 2028. They will. They want it. But it doesn’t mean the IOC isn’t open to “requests” Garcetti may ask for.  From his history, he can be very persuasive with his usual charm offensive, which may be the best method of dealing with the IOC. Because it’s not like the IOC doesn’t care about locking down two great bids, or enjoys these bid drop-out headaches that only seem to be getting worse. Thomas Bach seems commited to making sure both LA and Paris walk away happy (or winners, in his word). It’s not going to be take it or leave it. A sign of introspection and a marked departure from previous leaders who enjoyed the ego stroking of bidding as sport and shrugging at cities’ tears.  

It hasn’t yet devolved into  “you need me more than I need you!” arrogance. I think (at least hope) the IOC has learned that lesson that they can’t take that posture if they want the games to thrive. Cities, too. Certainly Paris learned that lesson from the last time around. And LA’s bid also seems careful not to come across that way either. 

Good luck in trying to get the IOC to acknowledge a lesson.  You would think 2020 and 2022 might have done that, but look at 2024.  They have every excuse right now to think they have it made and ignore the 3 cities that dropped out and just focus on the 2 that stayed in.  So who knows if they'll change their ways going forward.  It's been said that the double award is something of an acknowledgment that they need to take a look in the mirror and realize how they got here (and essentially give up on having open bidding for 2028 and lose out on that ego stroking they like so much), but I'm not sure they'll see it that way.  We might not know for another 6 years or so when we see who is in the running for what would then be the next available summer Olympics.

As for the last part.. I think there's been some arrogance as FYI alluded to, but a lot of that is the nature of having a 2-city race.  To me, a lot of the commentary has been very reactionary.  Paris will say "we only want 2024" and LA will feel obligated to respond "uhhh yea, we only want 2024 as well!"  At this point, both cities probably acknowledge this is not an ordinary race and are just positioning themselves to get the best possible outcome.  Originally, that outcome was the 2024 Olympics because that's all that was on the table.  Paris is still looking at that, although LA seems to acknowledge that they might get something more by taking the deal for 2028.  Which means going forward, we may seem commentary that is less about posturing for their city to be selected - like we would city in a normal cycle - and more about where they fit in whatever plan or vision the IOC is putting together here.

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

Yeah, but that's still different from dictating the terms, which is what L.A. did back in 1978 to get 1984, & what the poster I was quoting was alluding to. 

Garcetti can request whatever he wants, but this is still the IOC we're talking about here, & at the end of the day they're also still a business in addition to being an international sporting organization, so they're not just going to give away their Swiss bank (hence the term "get paid"). This time, it's going to be more of a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" scenario. 

Umm, you sure about that? Cuz L.A.'s bid team has come across that way. Citing things like "the IOC 'must' chose L.A. (in reference to 2024) in order to 'stabilize' the Olympic world & steer them back in the right direction", & in so many words that their plan is only available for a 'limited time', etc, etc. That to me does sound a lot like a "you need me more than I need you" arrogance.

It doesn't come across that way. La's “must" or even Paris’ “we’re on the top” shouldn't be taken too literally. What's the context?  Garcetti also said, “We want to not be that American bid. It’s really about what they can do for us too” And if the worst it's gotten, it's magnitudes milder compared to the spiciness of the 2012 bids. They should be presenting themselves confidently and assuredly and should emphasis what they can do for the Olympics  as much as what their city can get out of it. The pitfalls of hosting isn't some unmentionable taboo anymore. The IOC has already acknowledge it themselves. 

Saying their plan is for a limited time isn't arrogance. That's the reality of their situation. If their plan is only available for 2024, that's because of the logistics and challenges of keeping contracts on board beyond 2024. The city doesn't own all the facilities that have been generous enough to allow the use of it. For 2028, it requires the city to juggle an array of different contracts and expecting each contract to be able to keep promises for 11 years.  Neither sides can dicate terms. But that's not negotiation.  Negotiation isn't always the game of who can screw the other over the most. It's a contract where both sides are acting as busineses (city and IOC), and both sides need something out of it other than the thrill of throwing a big party. There are obviously certain things neither side can make the other do. But scratching the other's back is pretty much exactly what it is.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Good luck in trying to get the IOC to acknowledge a lesson.  You would think 2020 and 2022 might have done that, but look at 2024.  They have every excuse right now to think they have it made and ignore the 3 cities that dropped out and just focus on the 2 that stayed in.  So who knows if they'll change their ways going forward.  It's been said that the double award is something of an acknowledgment that they need to take a look in the mirror and realize how they got here (and essentially give up on having open bidding for 2028 and lose out on that ego stroking they like so much), but I'm not sure they'll see it that way.  We might not know for another 6 years or so when we see who is in the running for what would then be the next available summer Olympics.

 

3 cities dropping out is in itself the reason they can't have an excuse. The 24/28 double award should be a credit to the IOC as an acknowledgment of learning a lesson, otherwise, why even consider it? Why potentially give hundreds of millions dollars extra? And also voluntarily give up being wined and dined by different cities? That to me, more than anything, is the clearest thing the IOC could do to acknowledge the increasing weakness of the desire of cities to host. If they don't, then yeah, lesson not learned. But signs seem to point to this working. I'd be shocked if the IOC voted against Bach's proposition, or if the 2028 contract turns out to be a worse financial deal than 2024. 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jtrevino said:

Saying their plan is for a limited time isn't arrogance. That's the reality of their situation. If their plan is only available for 2024, that's because of the logistics and challenges of keeping contracts on board beyond 2024. The city doesn't own all the facilities that have been generous enough to allow the use of it. For 2028, it requires the city to juggle an array of different contracts and expecting each contract to be able to keep promises for 11 years. 

Well, exactly. But when Paris 2024 cites that their Olympic Village plan isn't available for 2028, bcuz that's the reality of their situation, the L.A. boosters here (& elsewhere) are quick to jump that the French are giving "ultimatums" & are getting "desperate". But when L.A. says things like that, it ain't arrogance or otherwise. Go figure. 

But considering since L.A. has virtually everything in place, then their logistics & challenges are less & can be a bit more flexible in comparison to some of Paris' plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jtrevino said:

Saying their plan is for a limited time isn't arrogance. That's the reality of their situation. If their plan is only available for 2024, that's because of the logistics and challenges of keeping contracts on board beyond 2024. The city doesn't own all the facilities that have been generous enough to allow the use of it. For 2028, it requires the city to juggle an array of different contracts and expecting each contract to be able to keep promises for 11 years.  Neither sides can dicate terms. But that's not negotiation.  Negotiation isn't always the game of who can screw the other over the most. It's a contract where both sides are acting as busineses (city and IOC), and both sides need something out of it other than the thrill of throwing a big party. There are obviously certain things neither side can make the other do. But scratching the other's back is pretty much exactly what it is.

 

Spot on. And yet, one argument I got into over at skyscrapercity was over exactly this. A few posters (and one in particular) there were painting Paris as "arrogant" and "entitled". When pressed, this was supposed to be because (a) well, the general impression that whenever Parisians do anything they're being arrogant and entitled - happens every time they bid; (b) some notion that they were continually going on about 2024 being the centenary for them - that is, when they're not going on and on about nothing more than the Eiffel Tower; and (c) the village issue and that supposedly they were just bullsh!tting and issuing ultimatums if they claimed they couldn't replicate it all for 2028.

For the record, I don't think any of the official bid teams have been doing anything that could be called arrogant or entitled. If anything, they're both being particularly careful not to. They're both doing their lobbying and marketing very effectively, very diplomatically and very well. From my point of view, however, where there has been arrogance and entitlement has been on the sidelines, from some of the sources barracking for LA (and you all here know who the main culprits are - both in the media and in the social channels) who continually push the arguments that (a) Paris' bid is a flawed piece of sh!t; (b) LA is the only city on earth and in history that can "save" the games; and (c) that LA is the only city that can project youth, modernity and a sporting culture. For some reason, however, posting that didn't go down too well with the main LA backers on SSC. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Spot on. And yet, one argument I got into over at skyscrapercity was over exactly this. A few posters (and one in particular) there were painting Paris as "arrogant" and "entitled". When pressed, this was supposed to be because (a) well, the general impression that whenever Parisians do anything they're being arrogant and entitled - happens every time they bid; (b) some notion that they were continually going on about 2024 being the centenary for them - that is, when they're not going on and on about nothing more than the Eiffel Tower; and (c) the village issue and that supposedly they were just bullsh!tting and issuing ultimatums if they claimed they couldn't replicate it all for 2028.

For the record, I don't think any of the official bid teams have been doing anything that could be called arrogant or entitled. If anything, they're both being particularly careful not to. They're both doing their lobbying and marketing very effectively, very diplomatically and very well. From my point of view, however, where there has been arrogance and entitlement has been on the sidelines, from some of the sources barracking for LA (and you all here know who the main culprits are - both in the media and in the social channels) who continually push the arguments that (a) Paris' bid is a flawed piece of sh!t; (b) LA is the only city on earth and in history that can "save" the games; and (c) that LA is the only city that can project youth, modernity and a sporting culture. For some reason, however, posting that didn't go down too well with the main LA backers on SSC. :rolleyes:

Spot on. If any case, just drop a few pages below of this thread to see that smug attitude. As a trolling dope, certain users called the French arrogant and hurtful and that was the only reason which Paris wants the Games, without forgetting if Paris didn't made this bid, they could have called them as "above the IOC" elitists. Or how a pseudo journalist called the reunion of the IOC with the French new government as a "Rocky Horror Show". It's like, everything Paris does (For better or worse) always cause insecure feelings and low self esteem. Now, with Paris looking more favorite for 2024, they are currently going for the 2028 as it was: a. A full voluntary action of goodwill and b. As if people have selective amnesia for these lies and half truths. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, this forum had this type of arrogance and blindness before - Just returning 2008 Toronto or 2016/2020 Madrid, but somehow 2024 Los Angeles surpassed them in high bar, not exactly for the number of members but for the level of smug attitude, trolling arguments, clear disqualifications against the opposition for the most ridiculous and risible reasons, contrarian self awareness and pathetic pettiness in highsight. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

spot off.

i don't even think there has been any controversy in this race, just some petty snarky stuff around here from the 4 people that even care.

I think we all know Paris will take 24...not a big shocker. I think we know LA is more flexible. Paris had everything to lose, so I think the supporter is super sensitive making eiffel towers out of erector sets.  

Edited by paul
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Roger87 said:

I mean, this forum had this type of arrogance and blindness before - Just returning 2008 Toronto or 2016/2020 Madrid, but somehow 2024 Los Angeles surpassed them in high bar, not exactly for the number of members but for the level of smug attitude, trolling arguments, clear disqualifications against the opposition for the most ridiculous and risible reasons, contrarian self awareness and pathetic pettiness in highsight. 

Not sure if i agree with that. Every race really throws up its share of over-the-top trolling proponents. And, really, it's predictable and understandable that really passionate backers of a city, specially if it's their home city, get over-excited and hot under the collar when they're in the trenches of a bid campaign. Heck, I don't think I would have been able to handle it very well if there was a GamesBids and I was here during Sydney's campaign for 2000. I wasn't here for the 2008 race, but Maxiu and the delusions of the canadians here have sure gone down in forum legend. The campaign for the 2014 Commonwealth Games was IMO the high bar here for nastiness and viscousness and trolling. The race for 2012 was full of fire from my recollections and the facing off between the London and Paris backers here was certainly on a par with this race, if not fiercer at times. The 2018 WOG race also brought up some particularly one-eyed and delusional posters here. Yeah, this race has brought up some pretty over-the-top partisanship and fighting, but I think it's still a bit more contained than in the past (and that's more because of the state of the site than if the race itself, IMO).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paul said:

Spot off.

Paris had everything to lose, so I think the supporter is super sensitive making eiffel towers out of erector sets.  

If only there was an Olympic event for projection, you'd give your buddy truff a "spot on" good run for the gold medal everytime. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, FYI said:

If only there was an Olympic event for projection, you'd give your buddy truff a "spot on" good run for the gold medal everytime. :rolleyes:

Right. The capacity of infantile mentality, past trolling and smug attitude in one post can be surprised, even at this stage. 

This is far away of sarcasm or witty. This is becoming lame and obnoxious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Spot on. And yet, one argument I got into over at skyscrapercity was over exactly this. A few posters (and one in particular) there were painting Paris as "arrogant" and "entitled". When pressed, this was supposed to be because (a) well, the general impression that whenever Parisians do anything they're being arrogant and entitled - happens every time they bid; (b) some notion that they were continually going on about 2024 being the centenary for them - that is, when they're not going on and on about nothing more than the Eiffel Tower; and (c) the village issue and that supposedly they were just bullsh!tting and issuing ultimatums if they claimed they couldn't replicate it all for 2028.

For the record, I don't think any of the official bid teams have been doing anything that could be called arrogant or entitled. If anything, they're both being particularly careful not to. They're both doing their lobbying and marketing very effectively, very diplomatically and very well. From my point of view, however, where there has been arrogance and entitlement has been on the sidelines, from some of the sources barracking for LA (and you all here know who the main culprits are - both in the media and in the social channels) who continually push the arguments that (a) Paris' bid is a flawed piece of sh!t; (b) LA is the only city on earth and in history that can "save" the games; and (c) that LA is the only city that can project youth, modernity and a sporting culture. For some reason, however, posting that didn't go down too well with the main LA backers on SSC. :rolleyes:

Agreed.  I think we here need to be careful about making a clear separation between the actions and thoughts of the actual bid cities and ones portrayed here and in the media.  To the newer guys here, there should be an easier way to make that distinction.  Please understand that sometimes we're referring to comments made here which often do not represent the cities they're rooting for.  Stick around long enough and you'll see it for yourself.

We've said it here a number of times that the nature of this cycle is that it's starting to lack drama since the outcome is starting to become apparent and we don't have the usual in-fighting.  And often times we're (I say "we" to represent the collective nature of this website) are almost trying to create drama to make it interesting.  Still, as we know, this place doesn't accurately represent what's going on with the actual bids.  I think we all know that, but sometimes it needs to be pointed out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

From my point of view, however, where there has been arrogance and entitlement has been on the sidelines, from some of the sources barracking for LA (and you all here know who the main culprits are - both in the media and in the social channels) who continually push the arguments that (a) Paris' bid is a flawed piece of sh!t; (b) LA is the only city on earth and in history that can "save" the games; and (c) that LA is the only city that can project youth, modernity and a sporting culture. For some reason, however, posting that didn't go down too well with the main LA backers on SSC. :rolleyes:

And that's precisely also been the problem here: Paris = "everything bad", while L.A. = " everything good". :rolleyes:

I haven't been on SSC in a long, long time, mainly bcuz it seems more of a pissing match over there than here. But GB's (mainly in this thread) has become just that in the past 20 months thanks to the efforts of a couple (well, mainly one. But lately there's been a second one not too far behind) of insidious L.A. boosters.

Where if you don't agree with all of their incessant "L.A. is somekind of a grand Olympic utopia" rhetoric, then you are labeled "anti-L.A." or "L.A. hater" or something else along those lines (followed by petty insults).

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

To the newer guys here, there should be an easier way to make that distinction.  Please understand that sometimes we're referring to comments made here which often do not represent the cities they're rooting for.  Stick around long enough and you'll see it for yourself.

Yeah, a lot of the times the newbies just don't understand the context of what's been going on in the forums & just start posting where things are left off. 

Granted, it isn't necessarily their fault, but at the same time, it does get kinda fatigueing having to explain the content everytime a new forumer comes along into the discussion midstream, when perhaps reading back some pages could help navigate why certain things are said here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FYI said:

And that's precisely also been the problem here: Paris = "everything bad", while L.A. = " everything good". :rolleyes:

I haven't been on SSC in a long, long time, mainly bcuz it seems more of a pissing match over there than here. But GB's (mainly in this thread) has become just that in the past 20 months thanks to the efforts of a couple (well, mainly one. But lately there's been a second one not too far behind) of insidious L.A. boosters.

Where if you don't agree with all of their incessant "L.A. is somekind of a grand Olympic utopia" rhetoric, then you are labeled "anti-L.A." or "L.A. hater" or something else along those lines (followed by petty insults).

...i'm not an LA Olympic booster, just an LA booster. i love my LA lifestyle but there are A LOT of not great things about LA, however; it's really almost none of the things people here criticize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^You may not be an L.A. Olympic booster, but you sure get on the total defense when their OLYMPIC bid is challenged or constructively criticized. And then going off the deep end by labeling people "L.A. haters" as a result. When in reality, none of that has anything to do with your L.A. "lifestyle" or boosterism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, FYI said:

^You may not be an L.A. Olympic booster, but you sure get on the total defense when their OLYMPIC bid is challenged or constructively criticized. And then going off the deep end by labeling people "L.A. haters" as a result. When in reality, none of that has anything to do with your L.A. "lifestyle" or boosterism.

sorry, often you (and the paris guy) don't sound very "constructive" but more furious about anything positive regarding LA. I just chime in now and then when you seem to be bashing LA or ruff because I don't think I'm wrong. I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion I'm just giving one too.

.....and I do live here soooooo, ya know, maybe I know LA a little.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, paul said:

sorry, often you (and the paris guy) don't sound very "constructive" but more furious about anything positive regarding LA. I just chime in now and then when you seem to be bashing LA or ruff because I don't think I'm wrong. 

Mmm, but that's not what you've said before. But anyway, "newsflash", what you call "bashing" is actually constructive criticism. But yet this is another classic case on your part of projection & hypocrisy & where you lose any bit of credibility that you actually had. 

I don't get "furious" about this, bcuz I have no personal stake in this like apparently you do. You do more than just "chime in every now & then". You're here practically everyday in what you seem to find as your own personal duty in "defending" L.A. for some reason, even though you claim to hate the Olympics & all they stand for.

And also just the fact that you seem to think that anyone here is "bashing" Truff is a total, complete joke, & actually, sorry to say, really reflects on the type of not so nice person that you perhaps also really are. The fact that you can even still say that after all the "vile" insults that individual has hurled all over this thread is just as "outrageous" as the comments over in the Donald Trump thread that you took offense to. Disgusting.

18 minutes ago, paul said:

.....and I do live here soooooo, ya know, maybe I know LA a little.

Exactly - but here's one for you; I don't live in Paris. So obviously this is way more personal for you, & why you get so defensive & "furious" whenever someone says the slighest critique about L.A.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...