Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gowrestle

Hair Cut

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jon said:

Why worry about implicit bias, other bias when the ref's history of racist behavior takes second to notions of self accountability?

Perry's comments here make her/his anti-Iowa potshots look thoughtful.

Why assume there is a bias is the motive when the actions were consistent with the rules?

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Consistent with rules' explanation weakened in this case by the ref's sketchy past. Ref's history of racist behavior makes non-rules explanation look plausible. This particular situation--the dreadlocks situation--is hairy (no pun intended lol). 'Consistent with rules' explanation seems simplistic.

Not trying to be argumentative. But here's the flipside: "Why assume there [isn't] a bias in the motive when the actions [come from a ref whose past is sketchy one way or another]?"

Edited by jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jon said:

'Consistent with rules' explanation weakened in this case by the ref's sketchy past. Ref's history of racist behavior makes non-rules explanation look plausible. This particular situation--the dreadlocks situation--is hairy (no pun intended lol). 'Consistent with rules' explanation seems simplistic.

Not trying to be argumentative. But here's the flipside: "Why assume there [isn't] a bias in the motive when the actions [come from a ref whose past is sketchy one way or another]?"

History of racist behavior = 1 comment made in a joking manner while drinking with an African American and complimenting in on his homemade wine. 

Now, dumb thing to say?  Of course. But I don’t know that it exactly quantifies as a “history of racist behavior”. Especially in the context it is continuously used on this particular situation. 

Share this post


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

'Consistent with rules' explanation weakened in this case by the ref's sketchy past. Ref's history of racist behavior makes non-rules explanation look plausible. This particular situation--the dreadlocks situation--is hairy (no pun intended lol). 'Consistent with rules' explanation seems simplistic.

Not trying to be argumentative. But here's the flipside: "Why assume there [isn't] a bias in the motive when the actions [come from a ref whose past is sketchy one way or another]?"

...because you are basing your assumption that he acted with racist motives simply because there may be a correlation from a past incident. That is still an assumption. There is one fact. This is a rule. That is a fact. That facts state one thing, the assumptions can state whatever you want it to. It still doesn't make it a fact. 

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


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

Classic YES... BUT...YES... BUT...YES... BUT...YES... BUT...

And many other times the ref had a bad interpretation.  If you cannot acknowledge I am very sorry.  We have ALL seen it. So have you.

Your stance in all this is the epitome of “yes but”. It is a rule, and the athlete and coach were in violation of the rules. The coach must certify before each and every dual meet that his/her athletes will report to the mat properly equipped. HE WAS NOT, therefore they were in violation of the rules, and the official applied the appropriate action in accordance with the rules. Your entire counter argument to this is nothing but “yeah, but....” Plain and simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, npope said:

Then can you please identify the aspect of the original incident in question that is racist. The ref may, or may not, be a racist, but his attitudes of race would seem to have no bearing on enforcing the rules in the same manner as other refs. You assume that just because the ref and kid of different races that it is racially motivated. That is about the "weakest" argument I have ever heard.

Do you know anyone who isn't racist who says the N word? The ref absolutely is racist. I can't believe that is up for debate.

A racist ref chose to apply a rule that questionably applied, to a black teenager, specifically related to destroying a representation of black america. This rule is generally not enforced, as indicated by the many examples in this thread, on twitter, etc. 

For you to choose not to link those is...silly. I'm not suggesting the ref be thrown in prison. I'm suggesting that his actions are very likely to have been motivated by race and the state has the ability to correct their two year old mistake. Fire him. Ban him permanently. 

Share this post


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

History of racist behavior = 1 comment made in a joking manner while drinking with an African American and complimenting in on his homemade wine. 

Now, dumb thing to say?  Of course. But I don’t know that it exactly quantifies as a “history of racist behavior”. Especially in the context it is continuously used on this particular situation. 

Do you know a single person who uses the N word, especially in a social setting, and isn't a racist? I literally do not think that person exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Housebuye said:

Do you know a single person who uses the N word, especially in a social setting, and isn't a racist? I literally do not think that person exists. 

  • Jay Z
  • Kanye
  • Eminem
  • Chris Rock, Louis CK, Rickie Gervais
  • A person who is trying to verbally injure someone and spits the worst name they can think of
  • ........   I could go on, but to what benefit 

Ever strike out at someone and make a derogatory ethnic or religious remark?  Ever? 

Ever say something for effect and miss the mark, offending people?  Never?

Ever say something rotten and regret it forever? 

Does it mean you truly hate and would discriminate against all members of that ethnicity or religion? 

We are a wrestling community getting sucked into the racial divisiveness that sells advertising clicks.  The kids on the team are watching the adults and shaking their heads.   No more from this corner.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TFBJR said:
  • Jay Z
  • Kanye
  • Eminem
  • Chris Rock, Louis CK, Rickie Gervais
  • A person who is trying to verbally injure someone and spits the worst name they can think of
  • ........   I could go on, but to what benefit 

Ever strike out at someone and make a derogatory ethnic or religious remark?  Ever? 

Ever say something for effect and miss the mark, offending people?  Never?

Ever say something rotten and regret it forever? 

Does it mean you truly hate and would discriminate against all members of that ethnicity or religion? 

We are a wrestling community getting sucked into the racial divisiveness that sells advertising clicks.  The kids on the team are watching the adults and shaking their heads.   No more from this corner.   

 

 

Yes good call. Adding Jay Z to your list clearly indicates you understand the point I am making. 

No. I have never ever said the N word of anger. Have you? 

Yes, I've said something for effect and missed the mark, but never the N word. 

Yes, I've said things I've regretted. Never the N word. 

Surprised you are getting support for that argument. Have any of you used the N word in any of these scenarios? 

 

Claiming we are getting "sucked into this" as if this is a non-issue is incredibly out of touch. Think about what black wrestlers think by seeing this and experiencing this. You think Jordan Burroughs spoke out for fun? 

 

Share this post


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

Do you know anyone who isn't racist who says the N word? The ref absolutely is racist. I can't believe that is up for debate.

A racist ref chose to apply a rule that questionably applied, to a black teenager, specifically related to destroying a representation of black america. This rule is generally not enforced, as indicated by the many examples in this thread, on twitter, etc. 

For you to choose not to link those is...silly. I'm not suggesting the ref be thrown in prison. I'm suggesting that his actions are very likely to have been motivated by race and the state has the ability to correct their two year old mistake. Fire him. Ban him permanently. 

So, based on allegation that he once uttered aloud the n-word (which he neither claims nor disavows), you consider that as factual evidence that he, in a racist manner, enforced the wrestling hair net rule? Because that is what was asked of you, what about the specific incident in question was racist. Your answer is that he possibly uttered the n-word in a completely different setting at a different time so that is evidence that this incident is a manifestation of his racist bias.

Think about that for a minute, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, npope said:

So, based on allegation that he once uttered aloud the n-word (which he neither claims nor disavows), you consider that as factual evidence that he, in a racist manner, enforced the wrestling hair net rule? Because that is what was asked of you, what about the specific incident in question was racist. Your answer is that he possibly uttered the n-word in a completely different setting at a different time so that is evidence that this incident is a manifestation of his racist bias.

Think about that for a minute, please.

Question is not what's the ref thinking but rather do circumstances indicate a particular explanation is *plausible*? Ref has a sketchy past, which makes bias-oriented haircut explanation *plausible*. Not all rules enforcement/applucations/interpretations steeped in bias. Dreadlocks case, however, not so much a 'consistent with the rules' example. If it's *plausible* that the ref would act on bias then dreadlocks case merits scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon, I have (on the other thread) said that if the ref has done other racist things in the past then that is not acceptable at all, I am not defending racism one bit. Russel made my point better than I probably could, in THIS situation there is not one speck of racism that can be detected. My bigger problem is society's acceptance of crying racism when something doesn't go their way. It is an absolute spit to the face of people who have actually been subjected to racist behavior and cheapens the word. There is a rule in place (that applies to both blacks and whites & boys and girls). The official's job is to enforce said rule to the best of his ability. The opinion of some is that it is racist. Facts don't care about your opinions. Sorry to break that to you if you haven't heard that before.

Share this post


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

Question is not what's the ref thinking but rather do circumstances indicate a particular explanation is *plausible*? Ref has a sketchy past, which makes bias-oriented haircut explanation *plausible*. Not all rules enforcement/applucations/interpretations steeped in bias. Dreadlocks case, however, not so much a 'consistent with the rules' example. If it's *plausible* that the ref would act on bias then dreadlocks case merits scrutiny.

Again, you don't respond with specific examples of what was racist in that scenario. Rather, you respond with hypothetical motives which are not supported by any evidence in this situation. I sincerely don't get that rationale unless someone is intent on predetermining that it was a racist incident - regardless as to what the facts support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 1032004 said:

 

Blair kid looks legal.  Howard is in both pics so not sure what you mean by “2.”  For one, he’s already been brought up in regard to this topic.

But what’s your point?  If it’s about the inconsistency of this rule’s enforcement, again already been discussed.   But again, just because someone gets away with something one time doesn’t mean they should complain if they don’t get away with it another time.  And honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if a ref does tell Howard he needs a hair cover after all this (although I’m sure he’ll do it at skin checks).

If you’re trying to say he was let wrestle because he’s white (not saying you are), Kurt McHenry looks to have similar hair as Johnson and he wasn’t wearing a cover either.

honestly i didn't realize it was the same kid. lol. And this has nothing to do with race, just went through the Beast photos to see what someone referenced earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Housebuye said:

Do you know anyone who isn't racist who says the N word? The ref absolutely is racist. I can't believe that is up for debate.

A racist ref chose to apply a rule that questionably applied, to a black teenager, specifically related to destroying a representation of black america. This rule is generally not enforced, as indicated by the many examples in this thread, on twitter, etc. 

For you to choose not to link those is...silly. I'm not suggesting the ref be thrown in prison. I'm suggesting that his actions are very likely to have been motivated by race and the state has the ability to correct their two year old mistake. Fire him. Ban him permanently. 

 

I’ll give you “questionably applied,” but I would not go as far as saying it’s “generally not enforced.”  If nothing else, the video you replied about below is evidence that it does get enforced.

 

21 hours ago, Housebuye said:

Sure thing. Just to be clear, your argument is this ref didn’t make a race based decision because a call was made against a white wrestler at some point for the same violation, right?

that in no way demonstrates this call wasn’t racist. This is about as weak as “I have a black friend” defense. 

Just because cops have shot white people, doesn’t mean that the shooting of Walter Scott is justified. 

 

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most of you, I have been following this story since it broke.  It has been interesting to note differing opinions of family, friends, and coworkers based on race, age, education, and sex.  Granted, this sample is biased in countless ways, not the least of which is nearly all are from one area and are filtered through me; far from empirical evidence for much of anything.  Nevertheless, it was interesting to note that people who on the surface share at least some common variables had widely different perceptions of the event.  I admit what I initially thought seemed like a clear case of media manipulation of facts to "create" a story, is more to many people.  When it first broke, I assumed the story would eventually be debunked as junk by the wrestling community itself.  Clearly I was wrong.  

I have seen some questionable social science offered as explanations for certain perceptions of the incident.  With all of the sociology being thrown around, I have been waiting for someone to draw upon psychology to offer additional insight.  I am surprised nobody has mentioned confirmation bias and belief perseverance when seeing rational fact based arguments discarded in favor of possible explanations.    

Confirmation Bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs.  When people would like a concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered to a point confirms the views one would like to be true.  Once the view is formed, information is embraced that confirms it while other information that casts doubt on it is ignored or rejected.  Confirmation bias strongly suggests we don't perceive circumstances objectively.  We pick and choose data that confirms of prejudices.  This can often explain how seemingly neutral circumstances can be interpreted differently by different people.  

Belief perseverance is the tendency to cling to one's initial belief despite receiving new information that contradicts or disconfirms the basis of that belief.  In other words, people tend to hold on to their beliefs even when it appears they shouldn't.  Conclusions drawn from experience during different circumstances bias our beliefs during the specific one being examined. 

The interesting catch here is that it potentially applies to people on both sides of the argument and/or even those somewhere in between. 

With that said, comparisons to Jim Crow laws and Auschwitz, both of which were offered during this discussion, seem outlandish to me.  I am not overly interested in discussing institutional racism on a wrestling forum though I certainly think it exists (though I dispute it as evidence that particular races are or aren't more or less guilty of racism.  If racism is objectively wrong as a moral absolute, it follows that it applies to everyone.  Logically.  Otherwise it isn't absolute.). 

Respectfully, shouldn't the burden of proof lie on those making accusations rather than on those defending against the accusations?  I understand this isn't a court of law so we don't have to presume innocence, but if racism is a charge we want taken seriously, is it fair to make accusations based on suspicion without proof?   I have yet to see any proof that this was a racist incident.  I only see proof that some perceived it as racially insensitive which makes sense in retrospect while others suspect sinister intentions motivated a ref they likely don't know based on their personal experiences and or preconceived ideas.  The ref may very well be racist and may have been motivated to enforce the rule on proper hair cover because of it, but is there any proof of this *in this incident*?  Those focusing on the rules and the application of the rules may not be saying racism didn't play a part and/or doesn't exist.  Rather, they likely are focusing on what they see as the only facts to be analyzed to determine if the argument has merit.  I don't think they are saying the ref isn't a racist.  I think they are saying there is no way to know based on the evidence which conversely explains why they are arguing against the racism charge.  

On a more relevant note considering the forum, I assumed based on my personal experience these hair rules were applied more to white wrestlers than other races.   I admit having wrestled in the 90s though, haven't been to a high school match in nearly a decade, and attend duals for two specific colleges which both are located in the same area.   Is the charge that the rule is affecting some races more than others accurate?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the results of my recent scientific poll:

1 Hispanic and 1 Black wrestler were forced to cut their hair because their hair was too long and did not have an attached hair cover.

1 very prominent White wrestler from the same state as the Black wrestler mentioned above has hair that is in clear violation of the rules.  He doesn't bother with a hair cover so he is good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lurker said:

Your stance in all this is the epitome of “yes but”. It is a rule, and the athlete and coach were in violation of the rules. The coach must certify before each and every dual meet that his/her athletes will report to the mat properly equipped. HE WAS NOT, therefore they were in violation of the rules, and the official applied the appropriate action in accordance with the rules. Your entire counter argument to this is nothing but “yeah, but....” Plain and simple. 

"I was just following orders..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ironmonkey said:

Like most of you, I have been following this story since it broke.  It has been interesting to note differing opinions of family, friends, and coworkers based on race, age, education, and sex.  Granted, this sample is biased in countless ways, not the least of which is nearly all are from one area and are filtered through me; far from empirical evidence for much of anything.  Nevertheless, it was interesting to note that people who on the surface share at least some common variables had widely different perceptions of the event.  I admit what I initially thought seemed like a clear case of media manipulation of facts to "create" a story, is more to many people.  When it first broke, I assumed the story would eventually be debunked as junk by the wrestling community itself.  Clearly I was wrong.  

I have seen some questionable social science offered as explanations for certain perceptions of the incident.  With all of the sociology being thrown around, I have been waiting for someone to draw upon psychology to offer additional insight.  I am surprised nobody has mentioned confirmation bias and belief perseverance when seeing rational fact based arguments discarded in favor of possible explanations.    

Confirmation Bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs.  When people would like a concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered to a point confirms the views one would like to be true.  Once the view is formed, information is embraced that confirms it while other information that casts doubt on it is ignored or rejected.  Confirmation bias strongly suggests we don't perceive circumstances objectively.  We pick and choose data that confirms of prejudices.  This can often explain how seemingly neutral circumstances can be interpreted differently by different people.  

Belief perseverance is the tendency to cling to one's initial belief despite receiving new information that contradicts or disconfirms the basis of that belief.  In other words, people tend to hold on to their beliefs even when it appears they shouldn't.  Conclusions drawn from experience during different circumstances bias our beliefs during the specific one being examined. 

The interesting catch here is that it potentially applies to people on both sides of the argument and/or even those somewhere in between. 

With that said, comparisons to Jim Crow laws and Auschwitz, both of which were offered during this discussion, seem outlandish to me.  I am not overly interested in discussing institutional racism on a wrestling forum though I certainly think it exists (though I dispute it as evidence that particular races are or aren't more or less guilty of racism.  If racism is objectively wrong as a moral absolute, it follows that it applies to everyone.  Logically.  Otherwise it isn't absolute.). 

Respectfully, shouldn't the burden of proof lie on those making accusations rather than on those defending against the accusations?  I understand this isn't a court of law so we don't have to presume innocence, but if racism is a charge we want taken seriously, is it fair to make accusations based on suspicion without proof?   I have yet to see any proof that this was a racist incident.  I only see proof that some perceived it as racially insensitive which makes sense in retrospect while others suspect sinister intentions motivated a ref they likely don't know based on their personal experiences and or preconceived ideas.  The ref may very well be racist and may have been motivated to enforce the rule on proper hair cover because of it, but is there any proof of this *in this incident*?  Those focusing on the rules and the application of the rules may not be saying racism didn't play a part and/or doesn't exist.  Rather, they likely are focusing on what they see as the only facts to be analyzed to determine if the argument has merit.  I don't think they are saying the ref isn't a racist.  I think they are saying there is no way to know based on the evidence which conversely explains why they are arguing against the racism charge.  

On a more relevant note considering the forum, I assumed based on my personal experience these hair rules were applied more to white wrestlers than other races.   I admit having wrestled in the 90s though, haven't been to a high school match in nearly a decade, and attend duals for two specific colleges which both are located in the same area.   Is the charge that the rule is affecting some races more than others accurate?  

 

Reasonable... Rational... tempered... I like it.  Thank you for re-injecting a little bit of "logic" into this thread.  I was beginning to think this was another "Mob Rule Outrage" session, stoked society's puppeteers.  I think... when we sit and actually talk things through, using the above post as a sort of benchmark for the starting point, we'll all end in a much less "outrageous" state of being.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 8:10 AM, treep2000 said:

Sharing some alternative facts, since it's so fun:

* My brother, back in late 90's, had a huge mop of a head of hair

* His hair was so coarse, that it was actually difficult (and still is today) to cut with scissors

* He is Caucasian

* When he went to Districts his senior year, he was forced to cut his hair, matside, because the opponent complained that his hair was "cutting him".  Note:  his opponents forehead DID have micro-abrasions and was in need of blood time

* The scissors broke when attempting to cut his hair... so they had to use a 2nd pair. 

Moral of the story... If the hair, prosthetic, denture, headgear, faceguard, penis ring, whatever poses a potential danger to themselves or to the opponent, it should be removed and/or modified to reduce the danger.  My brother understood it, regrettably, but now we look back and have a story to laugh about at Christmas get-togethers.

 

To reconfirm the situation... see the above portion in bold and underlined.  

Just because you can't find it in the news, doesn't mean it isn't real...  Nor does it support the some of the concepts or "outrage" that is flying around.  

* Does racism exist in the US? Yes.

* Is it systemic?  In some parts, probably.

* Is it "institutional".  I sincerely doubt.  

* Are people human, and do people fundamentally like those that are different than them?  Yes, and not particularly.  

You've got a single "dude" he acts like a douchebag.  He doesn't represent me, or you.  He doesn't really represent anyone, unlike how the media wants to spin it.  Instead, he does represent himself, and his little 'clique' of like-minded folks.  Sorry to hear about what happened to the kid.  Character is measured by adversity.  Hopefully he does something positive with it.  

In terms of my brother.  Sure... he LOVED his hair.  His high school yearbook staff (his junior year), made a couple comments about it in the schools yearbook.  Think Cohlton Shultz' hair style, only... the coarseness was razor sharp.  He realized afterwards that it was a "phase", and although was a memorable moment in his life, it did not define him.  But... that's just him.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ironmonkey said:

I have seen some questionable social science offered as explanations for certain perceptions of the incident.  With all of the sociology being thrown around, I have been waiting for someone to draw upon psychology to offer additional insight.  I am surprised nobody has mentioned confirmation bias and belief perseverance when seeing rational fact based arguments discarded in favor of possible explanations.

I pretty much pointed out this error in thinking to jon. Perry has been saying it also. Neither of us said it as clearly as you have and called it by name. 

 

31 minutes ago, ironmonkey said:

Respectfully, shouldn't the burden of proof lie on those making accusations rather than on those defending against the accusations?  I understand this isn't a court of law so we don't have to presume innocence, but if racism is a charge we want taken seriously, is it fair to make accusations based on suspicion without proof?   I have yet to see any proof that this was a racist incident.  I only see proof that some perceived it as racially insensitive which makes sense in retrospect while others suspect sinister intentions motivated a ref they likely don't know based on their personal experiences and or preconceived ideas.  The ref may very well be racist and may have been motivated to enforce the rule on proper hair cover because of it, but is there any proof of this *in this incident*?  Those focusing on the rules and the application of the rules may not be saying racism didn't play a part and/or doesn't exist.  Rather, they likely are focusing on what they see as the only facts to be analyzed to determine if the argument has merit.  I don't think they are saying the ref isn't a racist.  I think they are saying there is no way to know based on the evidence which conversely explains why they are arguing against the racism charge.  

You are right. This isn't a court of law. The purpose of a court of law is to seek justice through a fair and thorough evaluation of the facts to prove the guilt of the defendant. When it comes to the social justice and victim culture that is so pervasive in our culture today it is actually opposite. The victim very quickly gets replaced by the mob which becomes the court of public opinion. We must remain sensitive to and trust the victim at all times or you get backlash from the mob. What actually happened is of little concern. It is all about how the victim and the mob was made to feel. Do people feel it was racist, sexist, homophobic etc? Don't let facts get in the way of how this makes people feel! Everyone in this case feels that this is a race issue because they assume this guy seems like the type and he said something racist once. Then it is up to the defendant to prove his innocence. However, he cannot simply provide facts, he needs to prove everyones assumptions and feelings wrong, which is pretty much impossible. The only way out is to throw yourself at the mercy of the mob, or be made an example of. Then the mob congratulates itself on how progressive it is and moves on to the next issue on twitter. There is really no way out of it at this point. Facts no longer matter. This isn't justice, its injustice. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really falls on the coaches. As a senior in HS, I wore socks that kind of "skirted" the uniform rules. Before EVERY event, my coach took me to the head official to make sure what I was wearing would fly at that event.

No way an official can use their own bias to screw you if you do your due diligence regarding what will be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that people seem to not realize/understand is that while "Rules are Rules" for many it feels/seems like those "Rules that are Rules" get enforced selectively.

So while some people will argue:

"These are the rules we must follow them. Race has nothing to do with it. Why have rules if we're not going to follow them?"

Others argue:

"These rules only get enforced to the benefit of white people, or detriment of people of color. They are selectively enforced, therefore the fact that these are rules holds zero weight with me"

 

Is it racist if a rule/law get enforced more frequently against a certain race? When the rule/law gets enforced its easy to fall back on the whole "rules are rules, laws are laws." but do we get an accurate accounting of how often the law is NOT enforced and the authority figure let things slide?

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...