Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Is the team name "Buccaneers" a problem?


Do you think the Buccaneer name is a problem?  

105 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Woof. I went with probably not a problem. If, years from now, we have a relic called the Washington Anarchists and their logo features a Molotov cocktail, then maybe I guess there's a point about our adoption of violent and deleterious subcultures being something to examine. But there's a context here to consider about folklore, culture, and narrative. Box office smashes sympathetic to mascara-wearing pirates are the norm now. Whether this is a sign of coarseness or not, our culture has adapted so that the pirate takes on positive traits. Think of the word "swashbuckling" and the next word that comes to your mind, is, of course, "pirate." The buccaneer, no longer a scary Libyan ready to decapitate a ship's crew, has become a symbol of the underdog in society, and that is what informs our sports knowledge.

And speaking of those Libyans. Marine and pirate law centered around the British empire and navy and their laws, which largely endorsed and supported colonialism, or the implementation of laws that the natives of Africa (the most prominent area of pirate population) had no choice but to accept of suffer the violence of guns and other advanced weaponry. So again, the underdog in the face of maritime law imposed upon them.

I'd say it passes muster. But have you heard about the new pirate movie?

 

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much interesting, as eye-rolling.  What's next, saying that "Patriots" is offensive because it implies you are proud of a country with a history of slavery and oppression?

Sorry if that seems snarky, but this culture of being offended/bothered by seemingly everything has gotten so out of control that it's not worth much than a laugh more often than not.  Yes, there are plenty of offensive things that should be called out, but this?? Good grief. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's not a problem.

There are two types of people who will point to mascots like the Buccaneers as being problematic.  The first is people who are even cult-ier than your normal social justice cultist.  The second is right-wingers who want to re-litigate the Redskins controversy with an extra dash of bad faith thrown in.  Both groups' arguments can be safely dismissed out of hand IMO.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A modest proposal: let's eliminate all team names so we can stop having the same awful discussions over and over again. Yes, this is letting the terrorists win. But it's just so tiresome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I also find the following football team names offensive:

  • Patriots- offensive to non-citizens
  • Jets- offensive to 9/11 victims
  • Dolphins- offensive to whales
  • Bills- offensive to people named William
  • Steelers- named after criminals
  • Ravens- similar to crows and a group of crows is called a murder which is offensive
  • Bengals- non-inclusive of other types of tigers
  • Browns- offensive to hispanics
  • Titans- offensive to the Greek
  • Jaguars- offensive to leopards
  • Colts- offensive to mares
  • Texans- annexed from Mexico so offensive to Mexicans
  • Chiefs- offensive to Native Americans
  • Raiders- offensive to the people they raid
  • Chargers- offensive to environmentalists
  • Broncos- offensive to OJ Simpson's victims
  • Giants- offensive to little people
  • Eagles- offensive to mice
  • Cowboys- offensive to Indians
  • Packers- offensive to Amazon workers
  • Lions- offensive to lionesses
  • Bears- a group of bears is called a sloth and that's offensive to slow people
  • Vikings- offensive to all the people they pillaged
  • Falcons- also offensive to mice
  • Buccaneers- offensive to the victims of pirates
  • Saints- offensive to atheists
  • Panthers- offensive to the Black Panthers
  • 49ers- offensive to all the people who died in the gold rush movement
  • Seahawks- offensive to land hawks
  • Cardinals- offensive to bishops
  • Rams- offensive to the concussion protocols
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Isnt this kind of a fake thing? Isnt the author a huge Pirate historian, cosplayer, etc? 

I cant read the piece since it is paywalled, but saw pictures of her dressed up, may even have a big pirate tattoo, etc. 

It's not paywalled for me and I don't have a subscription. 

And I assume it's 100% real:

Quote

 

By Jamie L.H. Goodall

Jamie L.H. Goodall is a staff historian at the U.S. Army Center of Military History and author of “Tippling Houses, Rum Shops, & Taverns: How Alcohol Fueled Informal Commercial Networks and Knowledge Exchange in the West Indies” and "Pirates of the Chesapeake Bay." The author’s views are her's alone and do not reflect those of the U.S. government.

Feb. 5, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. EST

On Sunday, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will take on the defending Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LV at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa — the first time a team has played a Super Bowl at their home stadium. And the Buccaneers’ name and logo are a true reflection of the city hosting the game, trumpeting its close association with pirate legends, like José Gaspar, namesake of an annual Tampa Festival.

When the National Football League expanded to 28 teams in 1973, the league awarded Tampa an expansion team, prompting a name-the-team contest in 1975. “Buccaneers” won, a reference to the pirates who frequented the coasts of Florida in the 17th and 18th centuries. But team executives wanted the logo to be a “classy” pirate — a cross between Robin Hood, Errol Flynn, the musketeer D’Artagnan and pirate Jean Lafitte. It was a logo the team maintained until 1997 when they switched to a more aggressive, menacing Jolly Roger.

Yet, while this celebration of piracy seems like innocent fun and pride in a local culture, there is danger in romanticizing ruthless cutthroats who created a crisis in world trade when they captured and plundered thousands of ships on Atlantic trade routes between the Americas, Africa and Great Britain. Why? Because it takes these murderous thieves who did terrible things — like locking women and children in a burning church — and makes them a symbol of freedom and adventure, erasing their wicked deeds from historical memory. These were men (and women) who willingly participated in murder, torture and the brutal enslavement of Africans and Indigenous peoples.

AD

Derived from the Arawak word buccan, “boucanier” initially referred to landless hunters who survived off wild game and developed a particular meat-drying technique on the islands of Hispaniola and Tortuga. Later, the term became Anglicized as buccaneer and referred to a group of Caribbean outlaws who operated much like Mediterranean pirates/privateers, who existed in a world of dubious legality. Sometimes they protected colonial interests in the West Indies with governors of Caribbean islands paying them to attack Spanish treasure ships. But most often they were considered a seafaring menace — one that gradually careened out of control, attacking any ship they felt might be carrying valuable cargo, whether it belonged to an enemy country or not.

Consider, for example, Gaspar, who died in 1821 and is still celebrated in Tampa today as the “Last of the Buccaneers.” Stories say he was born in Spain circa 1756 and worked his way into a high position in the court of King Charles III. One story alleges that he kidnapped a 12-year-old girl for ransom and the judge made him choose between jail or the Spanish Navy. Choosing the Navy, he purportedly made his way into the good graces of the king due to his fabulous feats against the Barbary pirates of Tripoli and victories against many pirates in the Caribbean.

According to legend, other members of the court were jealous of his success and his new position as admiral of the Atlantic fleet. They plotted against him, accusing him of treason in 1782. Another story argues that Gaspar publicly abandoned the king’s daughter-in-law for another woman. Heartbroken, she worked with the prime minister to frame Gaspar for stealing the Spanish crown jewels. Hearing that King Charles III had issued a warrant for his arrest, Gaspar escaped, stole a ship and entered into piracy, hoping to take revenge against the Spanish who had treated him so unjustly.

AD

Another story says that at the age of 27, serving as a lieutenant on the Floridablanca, a Spanish Navy ship, Gaspar narrowly escaped a defeat inflicted on his fleet by the English. Humiliated and disappointed by Spanish governance, he decided to seek his own wealth and fame in piracy. Somehow he managed to persuade the crew to join him in mutiny and off they went pirating.

Despite the mystery and conflicting legends about his background, we know 1783 marked a turning point in which Gaspar became a pirate and established a pirate den in Charlotte Harbor on the west coast of Florida north of Fort Myers. He attacked merchant ships, accumulated immense wealth and killed all who stood in his way until he retired in 1821 at age 65. Ordering his men to disband, he promised to divide all their treasure equitably.

But on the day he was to divide the spoils, he spotted what he thought was a rich British merchant ship near the harbor. Gaspar could not resist the temptation to seize it. Unfortunately for him, it turned out to be an American warship, the USS Enterprise. Facing his own demise, Gaspar climbed to the bow of the sinking ship, wrapped the anchor’s chain around his waist, and threw himself into the sea shouting “Gasparilla dies by his own hand, not the enemy’s!” His crew either perished in the melee or were hanged in New Orleans. Only a few managed to escape, according to legend, one of them being John Gómez, who was supposedly the first narrator of the Gasparilla legend.

AD

Other than Gómez’s supposed recollection, there are no historical records of Gaspar. Yet that doesn’t stop Tampa locals and visitors alike from celebrating his legend with a parade and a festival known as the Gasparilla Pirate Festival or Gasparillafest. It supposedly began in 1904 when Louise Francis Dodge (the society editor of the Tampa Tribune) and George W. Hardee (a federal employee) decided to promote the city of Tampa and the May Day celebration as a way to rebrand the city and attract tourists.

The only times Tampa didn’t celebrate the tradition were World War I, World War II and a two-year hiatus when there was dispute over African Americans being allowed to participate. This question of who could be involved in the celebrations mattered. According to André-Marcel d’Ans, the legend and ritual of Gasparilla was “born at a time when the adventurous plundering of pioneers had just given way to a system that necessitated the peaceful cooperation of all social classes” and it “tried to open a safety valve to release the ethnic and social tensions in a city where the relations between different classes and the different ethnic groups were marked by repressive violence in which a largely Anglo elite confronted mostly Latin … workers.” In short, Gasparilla was a way to bring the multiethnic population of Tampa together in celebration.

Of course, the glamorization of Gaspar is not unusual or new. When we consider pirates, we think of swashbuckling films like “Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003), which spawned five additional films with a sixth in production. Lionizing pirates dates back at least to 1724, when Captain Charles Johnson’s “A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pyrates” hit London presses. Rather than condemn piracy, Johnson created caricatures who were as charismatic as they were deadly. Other writers and artists used Johnson’s work as a foundation for their own, like Lord Byron’s poem “The Corsair” (1814), which sold 10,000 copies in a day. Sir Walter Scott’s “The Pirate” (1821), based on the pirate John Gow, was one of his most popular novels.

AD

So why do we celebrate individuals who were the baddest of bad guys, those whom preacher Cotton Mather once called “Common Enemies of Mankind?” Pirates were known murderers who pillaged, raped and plundered their way through the Caribbean. And they were well-known enslavers who dehumanized Africans and Indigenous people, selling them for profit.

Perhaps time has dulled us to the atrocities committed by these 17th and 18th century outlaws. Or perhaps it’s the fact that if pirates of the Golden Age were bloodthirsty, so too were the nations who opposed them. They willingly and purposefully massacred millions of African and Indigenous peoples in the name of colonization. Pirates, then, are seen as romantic heroes — the underdogs fighting the establishment — whom historian Marcus Rediker refers to as proto-democratic, egalitarian and multicultural.

Should we celebrate their complicated legacy? It’s a question Tampa Bay has to contend with as we collectively contemplate other major sports mascots with dubious legacies, like their Super Bowl rivals in Kansas City.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Next on Hannity...” 

Just like the Bernie white privilege story, this is the type of thing that gets hyped in order to get right wingers excited and angry. You find one extreme person that makes a silly comment and say “look at the left! They’ve gone too far, they’re crazy!” And ratings go up. 
Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon find some extreme conservative that says something racist or homophobic, and it’s “look how awful the right is!” That gets their ratings up too. 
It all sucks. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

It's not paywalled for me and I don't have a subscription. 

And I assume it's 100% real:

 

Thanks. You get a certain number of free articles per month. After that you get to read like a paragraph. I max mine out pretty early in the month. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

“Next on Hannity...” 

Just like the Bernie white privilege story, this is the type of thing that gets hyped in order to get right wingers excited and angry. You find one extreme person that makes a silly comment and say “look at the left! They’ve gone too far, they’re crazy!” And ratings go up. 
Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon find some extreme conservative that says something racist or homophobic, and it’s “look how awful the right is!” That gets their ratings up too. 
It all sucks. 

I know you like to write this stuff off as fringe, but it isnt. 

This kind of stuff is becoming quite mainstream. Lets not forget that congress just removed the word mother from its code of conduct because it is offensive(of course it isnt, but this is what kind of goofy stuff gets thrown around). 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

“Next on Hannity...” 

Just like the Bernie white privilege story, this is the type of thing that gets hyped in order to get right wingers excited and angry. You find one extreme person that makes a silly comment and say “look at the left! They’ve gone too far, they’re crazy!” And ratings go up. 
Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon find some extreme conservative that says something racist or homophobic, and it’s “look how awful the right is!” That gets their ratings up too. 
It all sucks. 

No. More like, “Next in the Washington Post”.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Of course it's not a problem.

There are two types of people who will point to mascots like the Buccaneers as being problematic.  The first is people who are even cult-ier than your normal social justice cultist.  The second is right-wingers who want to re-litigate the Redskins controversy with an extra dash of bad faith thrown in.  Both groups' arguments can be safely dismissed out of hand IMO.

I would venture to say that if you polled people on the street 80% or more would have no idea what a Buccaneer means or is. So if people find out maybe someone might take it on will make it an issue.  If Captain Phillips does not care I don`t think we should.

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

“Next on Hannity...” 

Just like the Bernie white privilege story, this is the type of thing that gets hyped in order to get right wingers excited and angry. You find one extreme person that makes a silly comment and say “look at the left! They’ve gone too far, they’re crazy!” And ratings go up. 
Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon find some extreme conservative that says something racist or homophobic, and it’s “look how awful the right is!” That gets their ratings up too. 
It all sucks. 

Rachel Maddow would never dignify such a so called controversy by even mentioning it on her show. She never addressed the nonsense about Bernie Sanders showing white privilege by his attire at the inauguration and won't take two seconds on this either. It will also being similarly ignored by about 99% of all liberals and progressives who find no offense at names like Buccaneers, Vikings or Raiders (who got the pirate association in their logo too).

I take this as seriously as I did when PETA demanded the Green Bay Packers change their name to the Pickers (as in fruit pickers) because of the origin of the name was a meat packing plant and slaughterhouse. 

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I know you like to write this stuff off as fringe, but it isnt. 

This kind of stuff is becoming quite mainstream. Lets not forget that congress just removed the word mother from its code of conduct because it is offensive(of course it isnt, but this is what kind of goofy stuff gets thrown around). 

Amen and Awomen.  

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

Rachel Maddow would never dignify such a so called controversy by even mentioning it on her show. She never addressed the nonsense about Bernie Sanders showing white privilege by his attire at the inauguration and won't take two seconds on this either. It will also being similarly ignored by about 99% of all liberals and progressives who find no offense at names like Buccaneers, Vikings or Raiders (who got the pirate association in their logo too).

I take this as seriously as I did when PETA demanded the Green Bay Packers change their name to the Pickers (as in fruit pickers) because of the origin of the name was a meat packing plant and slaughterhouse. 

It was printed in the Washington Post. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ekbeats said:

It was printed in the Washington Post. 

So? Wasn't it an Op-Ed? (It is stated "The author’s views are her's alone and do not reflect those of the U.S. government.") I believe WaPo prints a lot of things in their Opinion section that they don't necessarily agree with.

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

I know you like to write this stuff off as fringe, but it isnt. 

This kind of stuff is becoming quite mainstream. Lets not forget that congress just removed the word mother from its code of conduct because it is offensive(of course it isnt, but this is what kind of goofy stuff gets thrown around). 

Ok, what do YOU mean by "quite mainstream"?  I know 0 people who would give two poops about this issue.  

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

“Next on Hannity...” 

Just like the Bernie white privilege story, this is the type of thing that gets hyped in order to get right wingers excited and angry. You find one extreme person that makes a silly comment and say “look at the left! They’ve gone too far, they’re crazy!” And ratings go up. 
Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon find some extreme conservative that says something racist or homophobic, and it’s “look how awful the right is!” That gets their ratings up too. 
It all sucks. 

Nothing says "right winger" like "Joe Bryant:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Ok, what do YOU mean by "quite mainstream"?  I know 0 people who would give two poops about this issue.  

I was also wondering who are these people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Ok, what do YOU mean by "quite mainstream"?  I know 0 people who would give two poops about this issue.  

Most people didn't care about the redskins being called the redskins either initially. These things keep happening. Outrage gets generated about the lamest things every single day and it gets results. 

I mean in the last few posts we already pointed out where congress actually struck the word mother (and father and several others) and out of fear of saying just amen(because he somehow thought it was a gendered term) added awomen. The AP modified their style guide to discourage using the word elderly and instead say older people and they discouraged reporters from using the word riot because that is just too harsh a way to describe burning buildings, and they dont want you to say the word homeless anymore either because that is offensive and change it to people without homes. There are countless examples of this kind of stuff. 

How much more mainstream do you need to get? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

why is everything turned into something possible/maybe offensive ?

when PETA says using Dolphins and Sharks as mascots are offensive as we banning those too ? I mean geeeeeesh   

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Most people didn't care about the redskins being called the redskins either initially. These things keep happening. Outrage gets generated about the lamest things every single day and it gets results. 

I mean in the last few posts we already pointed out where congress actually struck the word mother (and father and several others) and out of fear of saying just amen(because he somehow thought it was a gendered term) added awomen. The AP modified their style guide to discourage using the word elderly and instead say older people and they discouraged reporters from using the word riot because that is just too harsh a way to describe burning buildings, and they dont want you to say the word homeless anymore either because that is offensive and change it to people without homes. There are countless examples of this kind of stuff. 

How much more mainstream do you need to get? 

They didn't ban the use of such terms as some have claimed (see below) and the awomen was just how Rep. Emanuel Cleaver ended the opening prayer for the 117th Congress, not some sort of policy change.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/congress-house-of-representatives-gendered-terms-language-ban-fact-check/65-6643878a-1723-4e69-b2a8-b480d7744784

VERIFY: No, the House of Representatives didn't ban 'gendered terms'

[...]

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed on Fox News and on Twitter that the Democratic-controlled House "won't let you say 'gendered' words like 'father' and 'mother.'" A graphic with a list of terms banned in the House is spreading on Twitter like wildfire.

So we're Verifying:

QUESTION:

Did the House of Representatives ban "gendered terms" in legislation or on the House floor?

ANSWER:

No. Sections of H. Res. 8 altered a number of terms in the House Code of Official Conduct. It did not ban the use of any words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Ok, what do YOU mean by "quite mainstream"?  I know 0 people who would give two poops about this issue.  

Most people didn't care about the redskins being called the redskins either initially. These things keep happening. Outrage gets generated about the lamest things every single day and it gets results. 

The flaw in this logic is that there are actual Native Americans who did care about a team being called "The Redskins". Just like there were actual Native Americans who cared about misusing the name "Indian"; just like there were actual African-Americans who cared about a number of insulting names that have been used over the past 500 years.

The fact that those people were ignored by the mainstream, does not mean that their concerns were invalid.

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

The flaw in this logic is that there are actual Native Americans who did care about a team being called "The Redskins". Just like there were actual Native Americans who cared about misusing the name "Indian"; just like there were actual African-Americans who cared about a number of insulting names that have been used over the past 500 years.

The fact that those people were ignored by the mainstream, does not mean that their concerns were invalid.

"Indian" is a perfectly fine term and is generally (though not universally) preferred to "Native American."  

I didn't know this until 20 years or so ago, when I moved to a place adjacent to Indian country.  "Indian" always sounded archaic to me, but it's still by far the most commonly-used descriptor for American indigenous folks.  If you're referring to an American Indian, using their specific tribal affiliation is best if you know it -- it would be weird to refer to an Italian as "European" when "Italian" is more specific and more accurate.  Failing that, "(American) Indian" and "Native American" are both okay but people actually tend to get pricklier about the latter.  Both are basically fine though.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

The flaw in this logic is that there are actual Native Americans who did care about a team being called "The Redskins". Just like there were actual Native Americans who cared about misusing the name "Indian"; just like there were actual African-Americans who cared about a number of insulting names that have been used over the past 500 years.

The fact that those people were ignored by the mainstream, does not mean that their concerns were invalid.

I work with a couple of Irish people who do not like Notre Dames logo and the Irish being portrayed as a fighting Leprechan.  I always laughed it off but I guess if they are offended I should listen as the Irish were discriminated against and a marginalized group at one time.

Edited by Summer Wheat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about buccaneers but I do know that some Somali's are offended by the PIttsburgh Pirates. 

They don't find the name offensive just the team's performance on the field for the better part of three decades.

Edited by Godsbrother
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:
1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

The flaw in this logic is that there are actual Native Americans who did care about a team being called "The Redskins". Just like there were actual Native Americans who cared about misusing the name "Indian"; just like there were actual African-Americans who cared about a number of insulting names that have been used over the past 500 years.

The fact that those people were ignored by the mainstream, does not mean that their concerns were invalid.

I work with a couple of Irish people who do not like Notre Dames logo and the Irish being portrayed as a fighting Leprechan.  I always laughed it off but I guess if they are offended I should listen as the Irish were discriminated against and a marginalized group at one time.

Right. People of cultural groups have a right to express concern about their culture being exploited through negative stereotypes.

My point is that "Most people don't care" is not a sound argument for dismissing those concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Lets not forget that congress just removed the word mother from its code of conduct

 

2 hours ago, squistion said:

They didn't ban the use of such terms as some have claimed (see below) and the awomen was just how Rep. Emanuel Cleaver ended the opening prayer for the 117th Congress, not some sort of policy change.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/congress-house-of-representatives-gendered-terms-language-ban-fact-check/65-6643878a-1723-4e69-b2a8-b480d7744784

VERIFY: No, the House of Representatives didn't ban 'gendered terms'

[...]

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed on Fox News and on Twitter that the Democratic-controlled House "won't let you say 'gendered' words like 'father' and 'mother.'" A graphic with a list of terms banned in the House is spreading on Twitter like wildfire.

So we're Verifying:

QUESTION:

Did the House of Representatives ban "gendered terms" in legislation or on the House floor?

ANSWER:

No. Sections of H. Res. 8 altered a number of terms in the House Code of Official Conduct. It did not ban the use of any words.

Thanks for the fact check, lol

Eta: and when i said struck i was referring to the actual language of the aformentioned code of conduct if you read the changes it says to strike those words.

So in other words, fact check:true

Edited by parasaurolophus
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...