Jump to content

Vegan in the family


BritishShooting
 Share

Recommended Posts

When I have vegans/vegetarians coming here for a meal (I have one of each in close family) I make sure that there is something suitable for them to eat, and make sure that cooking is suitably compatible (e.g. roast potatoes/vegetables done in non meat based fat).  But I do draw the line at spoiling the meal for others, in that I do use dairy products in some dishes.  they can take that or leave it.  I will not serve a wholly vegan, or even meat free meal just to suit one or two guests, but I will make sure in as far as I can that there is something suitable for them to eat.  My vegan relatives will not cook/serve non vegan food, even to guests, which I think is a shame as I personally fine vegan food very dull.

I am myself a 'non egg' eater - they don't agree with me, so when I am away I politely decline any egg rich dish, by I don't expect my hosts to cook me a special egg free meal.  I will also cook eggs for guests if necessary.

It is the same over alcohol.  Vegan relative is also tea total, and doesn't serve alcohol.  I am tea total when driving (as are many guests), so always make sure there are non alcoholic drinks available, but serve alcohol to those who like to have a drink.

Overall, having a party, wedding reception, guests to stay should be about providing ALL guests with food/drink they will like and enjoy - not imposing your own particular tastes/fads on others.  This often means providing choices of dishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Chrisjpainter,

I would not expect her to cook me meat, that would be her choice......it is just a way of saying.......if I am prepared to put myself out for someone, I would expect that person to be prepared to put themselves out for me!

But their extreme vegan views WERE being imposed on me, I had NO CHOICE but to see and hear them! Unless I walked around with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears!

Assuming veganism is based on some moral objection, are you suggesting individuals and society should positively discriminate in favour of vegans? When most individuals and society do not share their moral objections? Using the same yardstick, are you suggesting society discriminates positively in favour of all minorities, who claim a moral objection to the accepted norm? Surely this is political correctness "gone mad"

That's being subjected to, not being imposed. Just walk faster ;)

I'm saying that a question of morality trumps pretty much anything. So, should restaurants provide a vegan option? yes, because to refrain from doing so is discriminating against someone for a deep rooted, moral belief. Are my rights discriminated against? no. there's still dead pig on the menu, as is ground up cow, dismembered chicken etc...That is accommodating, not discriminating in favour, because no one's moral code is broken. 

Discrimination is of course wrong on any level - whether positively or negatively. so it'd be wrong to insist that restaurants go vegan. THAT is positive discrimination. Instead I'm saying that you make accommodations where it is reasonable and practicable - as is the case with this wedding. No one's rights are ignored, no one is discriminated against. 

At some point one gets to two impasses: 1) where a moral position is weighed up against a non-moral position and 2) where two moral positions go up against each other. The first should be easily broken, as I said. Sticking with food, if you eat a vegan meal at your sister's house, you've not been forced to do something that is explicitly against your moral belief. It might not be your cup of tea, but big deal. For the odd meal to keep a fictitious sister happy, why not? But it works with plenty of other things. Smoking areas get the smoke away from people who think it's wrong to smoke and don't want to have their bodies damaged by someone else's liberties. The smoker is still free to smoke, rights maintained, but the non smoker keeps their lungs in good condition. The second is more complicated, but that VERY rarely comes up in modern society, and we probably should take THAT debate elsewhere, because where it usually surfaces is with religion and then we'd both get banned!

Sexism, racism, feminism, er...foodism? etc, should come down to a simple matter of egalitarian politics. Everyone is equal in their rights and should have equal opportunities. That excludes positive discrimination as well as negative discrimination. 

As it stands, your right to eat meat is not infringed upon. Happy days. At the point where your rights are legislated against (as opposed to a vegan's rights for) then we have a problem. It's something that we should be aware of, and be vocal and active in to prevent the vegans taking over and damning us all to rabbit food, but to me, keeping a sister happy and sharing a meal with her as well as showing I respect her beliefs, is more important than one meal. We can't tell if she respects your opinions (partly because she's fictitious) but mostly because we've not given much chance for her to demonstrate it. Is she plaguing your phone with animal cruelty tweets, or vegan recipes or saying you're a terrible person for eating Fluffy? at that point she's obviously not respecting you, which is wrong of her. But we can't assume that's the case, or we're prejudicing against her unfairly. With this wedding, the boyfriend would show that he respects the meat eaters by shutting up for one day and not making a fuss over it, particularly if he's been shown the respect of having a meal specially done for him to account for his convictions. If he can't do that for one day, then he's going to upset the bride, the groom, the family, the friends and make the sister (the real, existing sister!) feel incredibly awkward. At that point he can be shown the door, but if he's a genuinely lovely chap, I can't see that happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

 

I'm saying that a question of morality trumps pretty much anything.

No it doesnt, practicality trumps everything, would a vegan starve to death, rather than eat meat if it were available and there was nothing vegan?

 

6 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

 

 So, should restaurants provide a vegan option? yes, because to refrain from doing so is discriminating against someone for a deep rooted, moral belief. Are my rights discriminated against? no. there's still dead pig on the menu, as is ground up cow, dismembered chicken etc...That is accommodating, not discriminating in favour, because no one's moral code is broken. 

 

What ?
So restaurants HAVE to serve vegan food or its discrimination against vegans? B.S.
They will serve it if they want to, its commercially viable, or if their usual clientele request it, you cant force an establishment to prepare and serve something it may never sell or have requested.
Sorry, but youve gone straight into veganazi territory there, exactly what the OP feared.

Most establishments will WANT to accommodate, I would want to accommodate if it were my wedding, the same as I would if I had Muslim guests, or any allergy issues.
But its a CHOICE, you talk about discrimination and broaden the subject to a host of other PC issues of discrimination as a sort of natural progression.
And this is where you go wrong, you want to FORCE people to accommodate, by making them feel morally or legally liable to.
Most people are going to resist this, even if they agree with it in principle.

No one likes being told they HAVE to do something, because of someone elses beliefs or life choices.
What the young man should be doing is approaching the host in some fashion, maybe through a 3rd party and expressing his desire to attend, and his dietary preference, some vegans will not eat things that other vegans will, so its a waste of time trying to figure out what to provide without input.
Its not a big ask to provide a choice of foods, or a hard thing to state a desire for them, communication would help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel a bit sorry for the lad, he's having to pass through some hoops to get an invite as +1. First he has to go to the pub with his partner and and her parents and listain to a bunch of old farmers "compliment" the bar staff without complaining. I can only assume the compliments will be a bit salty, as who would complain about a genuine complement. 

Then at the wedding where he's going as partner of the groom's sister he has to oggle the bridesmaids cleavage as that's what every other man at the wedding will be doing! I hope the bridesmaids know they are only invited as the entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

No it doesnt, practicality trumps everything, would a vegan starve to death, rather than eat meat if it were available and there was nothing vegan?

 

What ?
So restaurants HAVE to serve vegan food or its discrimination against vegans? B.S.
They will serve it if they want to, its commercially viable, or if their usual clientele request it, you cant force an establishment to prepare and serve something it may never sell or have requested.
Sorry, but youve gone straight into veganazi territory there, exactly what the OP feared.

Most establishments will WANT to accommodate, I would want to accommodate if it were my wedding, the same as I would if I had Muslim guests, or any allergy issues.
But its a CHOICE, you talk about discrimination and broaden the subject to a host of other PC issues of discrimination as a sort of natural progression.
And this is where you go wrong, you want to FORCE people to accommodate, by making them feel morally or legally liable to.
Most people are going to resist this, even if they agree with it in principle.

No one likes being told they HAVE to do something, because of someone elses beliefs or life choices.
What the young man should be doing is approaching the host in some fashion, maybe through a 3rd party and expressing his desire to attend, and his dietary preference, some vegans will not eat things that other vegans will, so its a waste of time trying to figure out what to provide without input.
Its not a big ask to provide a choice of foods, or a hard thing to state a desire for them, communication would help.

I said pretty much everything. not Everything in any situation! Practicality doesn't trump everything. A country's population is getting too big. Practical solution: invade a neighbouring country with low population, because it's a practical solution? perhaps not...

I said should, not have to. Currently they don't, by law, but in a society that wants to accept everyone regardless of their moral beliefs should - where reasonably practical and where common sense dictates - provide allowances. 

How have I? All I've said is that if it's reasonable and practical to make accommodations then it makes sense to. I've not said the whole meal should go vegan to protect the feelings of one. I've not said that it's morally wrong to eat meat, I've not even said it's wrong to eat meat in the presence of another vegan. All I've said is that if you can, you should, because it's nice to show that you respect each other's opinions - especially when loved ones are concerned.

Actually, no, I don't want to FORCE the hand. This may take some explaining, because I recognise it kind of sounds like I do! By force, I'm guessing you mean by a specific legislated, concerted mission by some government/populist power? (If not, put me straight and I'll answer!). No, I don't believe that. Governments can't be trusted and populist movements are usually even worse! I am taking it beyond that level, if that makes sense - so that governments and populists are included into that same moral framework. What I would like to see is inclusiveness  - but true, genuine inclusiveness. So a family with a pet vegan can go to any restaurant and have nothing to worry about. The same with Muslims and Christians, men and women, gay, whatever. All of that under the premis of what is practicable and reasonable and it's this that stops me from wanting it legislated for. As you and Panoma1 point out, it's WAY too easy to get into 'what about this and what about that' of examples that make it stupid and dangerous to specifically legislate. A case in point often comes up with Christian Unions being part of the Students Union on most union campuses. There's a clause in many Students Unions that makes it clear that elections for positions within clubs and societies must be completely non discriminatory. Most CUs won't sign that, because they do (reasonably) discriminate - they wouldn't, for example, have a Muslim as its chairperson. REASONABLE and PRACTICABLE would have to go out the window. So they 'should' be allowed to discriminate but to legislate would be daft and, as Panoma1 suggests unfair because that is political correctness gone mad.

I'd rather see a world of genuine, realistic tolerance, where everyone is accommodated wherever they please to be, without infringing on others' beliefs. That's where far too many vegans fall down and drive me nuts. Tolerance too often these days means 'you have to believe everything I believe'. rather than 'i believe differently, but we can still eat in the same place'. That's not unreasonable. 

If there is any 'process' going on, it needs to be gradual and not deliberate - again why I don't think a specific legislative agenda should be pursued as you risk trampling on others' views and belief. I just want to see one guest be happy at a wedding because someone was kind enough to openly accept him - whilst guzzling as much meat as they can!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This for me boils down to, you hardly have to go far out of your way to accommodate a guest who is very important to the ops sister, to actively not accommodate them in my mind isn't much better than some of the rabid antis who go around preaching meat is murder to anyone they can. Don't tar everyone with the same brush and have a little tolerance in life. Personally I have no beef (see what I did there) with vegetarians or vegans, so long as they respect my choices, I will respect there's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

This for me boils down to, you hardly have to go far out of your way to accommodate a guest who is very important to the ops sister, to actively not accommodate them in my mind isn't much better than some of the rabid antis who go around preaching meat is murder to anyone they can. Don't tar everyone with the same brush and have a little tolerance in life. Personally I have no beef (see what I did there) with vegetarians or vegans, so long as they respect my choices, I will respect there's.

quite!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

 

I'd rather see a world of genuine, realistic tolerance, where everyone is accommodated wherever they please to be, without infringing on others' beliefs. That's where far too many vegans fall down and drive me nuts. Tolerance too often these days means 'you have to believe everything I believe'. rather than 'i believe differently, but we can still eat in the same place'. That's not unreasonable. 

If there is any 'process' going on, it needs to be gradual and not deliberate - again why I don't think a specific legislative agenda should be pursued as you risk trampling on others' views and belief. I just want to see one guest be happy at a wedding because someone was kind enough to openly accept him - whilst guzzling as much meat as they can!

Which is what everyones ideal world should be, and believe it or not, it mostly is.
The thread has got slightly out of hand because some , including myself, make joking references to 'take his own food' ect.
Of course the OP is going to accommodate him, any reasonable person would.

The problem I see with this and other issues is the taking of  'The moral high ground'  Im not singling out anyone in particular, but whenever a thread concerning PC issues gets aired, there are always those that seem to grab onto that high ground.
If its Brexit or immigration, the minority of people on here tend to resort to the same old mantra of , 'you are ignorant/uneducated' or 'you just dont like brown people/foreigners '

They try to negate the argument, not due to a practical reason, but a 'moral' one, 'I am a better person than you, because I think uncontrolled immigration, and people seeking asylum should be let in no questions asked, and you are a pig ignorant racist'
It sounded like the same type of thing, with ' My moral choices' but if not, fair enough.

BTW my daughter drifts in and out of veganism and vegetarianism with some regularity, and is a royal pain in the bum with her vocal opinion on the matter.
She works part time at McD s though, and lapses regularly into meat eating, so is pretty hilariously hypocritical.
But its the thought that counts isnt it ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Which is what everyones ideal world should be, and believe it or not, it mostly is.
The thread has got slightly out of hand because some , including myself, make joking references to 'take his own food' ect.
Of course the OP is going to accommodate him, any reasonable person would.

The problem I see with this and other issues is the taking of  'The moral high ground'  Im not singling out anyone in particular, but whenever a thread concerning PC issues gets aired, there are always those that seem to grab onto that high ground.
If its Brexit or immigration, the minority of people on here tend to resort to the same old mantra of , 'you are ignorant/uneducated' or 'you just dont like brown people/foreigners '

They try to negate the argument, not due to a practical reason, but a 'moral' one, 'I am a better person than you, because I think uncontrolled immigration, and people seeking asylum should be let in no questions asked, and you are a pig ignorant racist'
It sounded like the same type of thing, with ' My moral choices' but if not, fair enough.

BTW my daughter drifts in and out of veganism and vegetarianism with some regularity, and is a royal pain in the bum with her vocal opinion on the matter.
She works part time at McD s though, and lapses regularly into meat eating, so is pretty hilariously hypocritical.
But its the thought that counts isnt it ?

 

That must be absolutely infuriating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aint nothing wrong with being a veggie...........my mates wife is a veggie  and when we go there for dinner we always look forward to it cause i know what we will get will always be super tasty.....she is a good cook mind you............

my problem with veganism...is it seems more like a religious cult and seems to attract those sort of people....and thats where the trouble starts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weddings and families are a source of untold stress and aggravation, If i were the OP i would do all i can to try and be nice, maybe a short note to your sister and partner acknowledging that Vegans were not intentionally catered for when planning the meal but outlining the component parts so as they can decide what they can or cant eat, you could go as far as saying that although you would miss them you understand they may wish to make alternative arrangements for dinner, then  its up to them...

As an side, i know quite a few Vegans, some of who go this route for medical reasons and some ethical.  To be honest, they have all been pretty respectful of how we live and that respect has been returned, we are united by a disbelief of vegetarians who seemingly can't make their mind up especially chicken eating one or those partial to the odd Big Mac or Bacon sarnie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So society has to defer to people and minority groups with extreme view/lifestyle based on morality? That being the case perhaps the "right on" PC brigade on PW should consider making a large bequest to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the ALF (if it still exists?) in their will?

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

So society has to defer to people and minority groups with extreme view/lifestyle based on morality?

I think accommodate is a better word than defer - and yes, society does have to accommodate minority groups with views/lifestyles based on morality (and religion).  The vast majority are not seen by most as 'extreme'.

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

So society has to defer to people and minority groups with extreme view/lifestyle based on morality? That being the case perhaps the "right on" PC brigade on PW should consider making a large bequest to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the ALF (if it still exists?) in their will?

I think the point others are making is more about trying where possible to be demonstrably reasonable in dealing with others, as opposed to just being ranty, annoying, militant mirror images of those who oppose us.

Nothing "pc gawn maayyyyd" about that, surely?  Just common decency.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think accommodate is a better word than defer - and yes, society does have to accommodate minority groups with views/lifestyles based on morality (and religion).  The vast majority are not seen by most as 'extreme'.

I see , but if I do see these minority groups as 'extreme' do I then become a minority, and you then have to 'accomodate' me ?

Im not trying to be deliberately awkward, but in todays diverse society, we can end up chasing our tails in an ever spiralling tornado of conundrums, where everything becomes offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

That's being subjected to, not being imposed. Just walk faster ;)

I'm saying that a question of morality trumps pretty much anything. So, should restaurants provide a vegan option? yes, because to refrain from doing so is discriminating against someone for a deep rooted, moral belief. Are my rights discriminated against? no. there's still dead pig on the menu, as is ground up cow, dismembered chicken etc...That is accommodating, not discriminating in favour, because no one's moral code is broken. 

Discrimination is of course wrong on any level - whether positively or negatively. so it'd be wrong to insist that restaurants go vegan. THAT is positive discrimination. Instead I'm saying that you make accommodations where it is reasonable and practicable - as is the case with this wedding. No one's rights are ignored, no one is discriminated against. 

At some point one gets to two impasses: 1) where a moral position is weighed up against a non-moral position and 2) where two moral positions go up against each other. The first should be easily broken, as I said. Sticking with food, if you eat a vegan meal at your sister's house, you've not been forced to do something that is explicitly against your moral belief. It might not be your cup of tea, but big deal. For the odd meal to keep a fictitious sister happy, why not? But it works with plenty of other things. Smoking areas get the smoke away from people who think it's wrong to smoke and don't want to have their bodies damaged by someone else's liberties. The smoker is still free to smoke, rights maintained, but the non smoker keeps their lungs in good condition. The second is more complicated, but that VERY rarely comes up in modern society, and we probably should take THAT debate elsewhere, because where it usually surfaces is with religion and then we'd both get banned!

Sexism, racism, feminism, er...foodism? etc, should come down to a simple matter of egalitarian politics. Everyone is equal in their rights and should have equal opportunities. That excludes positive discrimination as well as negative discrimination. 

As it stands, your right to eat meat is not infringed upon. Happy days. At the point where your rights are legislated against (as opposed to a vegan's rights for) then we have a problem. It's something that we should be aware of, and be vocal and active in to prevent the vegans taking over and damning us all to rabbit food, but to me, keeping a sister happy and sharing a meal with her as well as showing I respect her beliefs, is more important than one meal. We can't tell if she respects your opinions (partly because she's fictitious) but mostly because we've not given much chance for her to demonstrate it. Is she plaguing your phone with animal cruelty tweets, or vegan recipes or saying you're a terrible person for eating Fluffy? at that point she's obviously not respecting you, which is wrong of her. But we can't assume that's the case, or we're prejudicing against her unfairly. With this wedding, the boyfriend would show that he respects the meat eaters by shutting up for one day and not making a fuss over it, particularly if he's been shown the respect of having a meal specially done for him to account for his convictions. If he can't do that for one day, then he's going to upset the bride, the groom, the family, the friends and make the sister (the real, existing sister!) feel incredibly awkward. At that point he can be shown the door, but if he's a genuinely lovely chap, I can't see that happening.

OK if you want to be pedantic........subjected me to!.........but when someone is shouting slogans, handing out leaflets and scrawling pro vegan slogans in coloured chalk on the pavement, I think that qualifies as imposition? Because you have no choice but to see/hear their views!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, storm in a teacup said:

I feel a bit sorry for the lad, he's having to pass through some hoops to get an invite as +1. First he has to go to the pub with his partner and and her parents and listain to a bunch of old farmers "compliment" the bar staff without complaining. I can only assume the compliments will be a bit salty, as who would complain about a genuine complement. 

Then at the wedding where he's going as partner of the groom's sister he has to oggle the bridesmaids cleavage as that's what every other man at the wedding will be doing! I hope the bridesmaids know they are only invited as the entertainment.

He doesn't have to jump through any hoops at all, I'm literally suggesting I meet him to actually meet him it's not an audition,  I just get a glimpse of what he's like also prior to the wedding and understand if his views are his own or if there heavily forced upon others if he's not in agreement. Honestly genuine compliments to a lady would offend certain feminists, maybe he's just a feminist vegan to be edgy, cool and hip and in which case he wont be so easily offended by others actions or adamant others follow suit. The comment regarding bridesmaids was a joke, there's always beautiful women at weddings looking their most glamorous and occasionally catching male attention, it's not to say their the entertainment or being subjected to anything, no need to turn it to something it isn't going to be, maybe I didn't give the best of examples admittedly.

 

I did find this amusing in the news today however, trans and feminists clashing at protests due to biological women losing their 'safe places' etc as a result of men self assigning themselves as women. So what do the feminists do? Protest by going to a swimming lake where there is male and female swimming areas and swim in the mens lake to prove some kind of point. Even though these were just average men who had nothing to do with Trans rights etc. and likely made separate areas so women had their own privacy in the first place. Completely Baffled.

https://news.sky.com/video/the-fight-between-trans-and-feminists-11440870

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I see , but if I do see these minority groups as 'extreme' do I then become a minority, and you then have to 'accomodate' me ?

Im not trying to be deliberately awkward, but in todays diverse society, we can end up chasing our tails in an ever spiralling tornado of conundrums, where everything becomes offensive.

Everyone has a different interpretation of 'extreme' - hence - you are quite right - there will be some tail chasing.  I have no doubt that some regard me - with my interest in field sports as 'extreme'.  I don't regard vegan as 'extreme', but I do regard ALF, Hunt Saboteurs etc. as extreme.  There are 'minorities' - examples being religious groups, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, skin colour etc. which we do 'have to' accommodate (by law) - and many others (best examples I can think of might (tongue much in cheek) be estate agents, lawyers, accountants!) that we also 'accommodate', although to the best of my knowledge they don't have legal protection!

In general the 'extreme' elements (ALF, Hunt Saboteurs etc.) are still 'accommodated' by many in society - and in many cases it might be better if they weren't.

However I'm guilty of going off topic here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Chrisjpainter,

I would not expect her to cook me meat, that would be her choice......it is just a way of saying.......if I am prepared to put myself out for someone, I would expect that person to be prepared to put themselves out for me!

But their extreme vegan views WERE being imposed on me, I had NO CHOICE but to see and hear them! Unless I walked around with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears!

Assuming veganism is based on some moral objection, are you suggesting individuals and society should positively discriminate in favour of vegans? When most individuals and society do not share their moral objections? Using the same yardstick, are you suggesting society discriminates positively in favour of all minorities, who claim a moral objection to the accepted norm? Surely this is political correctness "gone mad"

Hmm. So if I am shooting, and someone walks past the field, am I forcing /imposing myself upon them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in an earlier post and several others have agreed, it is about mutual respect, if I respect (accommodate) other people's way of life/views I expect them to respect (accomodate) mine....that is why I said if Matt is prepared to cook his sister a vegan meal she should be prepared to cook him a steak!....it was an example.........I didn't mean it literally!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, motty said:

Hmm. So if I am shooting, and someone walks past the field, am I forcing /imposing myself upon them?

I didn't write "forcing" in the quote you used! But if you preach your views to a virtually captive audience, you are imposing your views on them!

Were you preaching and handing out propaganda on the positives of shooting to them as they walked past? If so you were probably forcing/imposing your views (not yourself!) on them! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I didn't write "forcing" in the quote you used! But if you preach your views to a virtually captive audience, you are imposing your views on them!

Were you preaching and handing out propaganda on the positives of shooting to them as they walked past? If so you were probably forcing/imposing your views (not yourself!) on them! 

Indeed, but there would be nothing they could do other than to hear loud banging and watch dead animals fall from the sky. Imagine an anti walking his/her dog and coming across a busy pheasant drive.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...