Jump to content

Star Trek


des

Recommended Posts

Karen, Bill and others,

 

This conversation is amazing to me. I watched ST regularly but my memory of and fitting together of the pieces can't compare what has come out in this conversation. I haven't posted because i can't contribute anything except amazement.

Thanks, Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

Wow, Karen, you have way out-geeked me! You are a hardcore Trekker (instead of a Trekkie).

 

Will you marry me? Ha ha! :lol:

 

Seriously, though, one of the things I’ve always appreciated about the Star Trek mythos is the worldview/paradigm that humanity is not “totally depraved”, that we are capable of becoming better than we are without some kind of “imputation of righteousness” by a deity. This is something that I struggled with as a Christian, the notion that the only way for me to ever become a better person was not through anything I did, but through God pretending that I was as righteous as Jesus through “justification by faith”. The almost constant reminders of how sinful and guilty I am became too much to bear. Spong addresses this somewhere in one of his books when he says something along the lines of, “Have you ever known anyone to be helped by telling them how worthless and bad they are?”

 

Star Trek presents us with a future that, while not perfect, is better because we have earned it through the hard process of learning from our mistakes, from reaping what we have sown. Sure, there are still struggles and conflicts and enemies. But Star Trek asks us to examine ourselves first before judging others, like a good Rabbi that I have heard of. I especially appreciate the communal focus, that if we are going to become better and make our universe better, it must involved all of us. It isn’t about each of us having our own personal Nexus, it’s about continuing to grow and to “become” as sentient beings with our differences seen as strengths to be cherished and celebrated, not eliminated into some kind of homogeneity. To me, the function of institutional religion is to make everyone the same. And yet, the reality of the “universe” is that it is “one” despite almost infinite variety. It is one, not because everything is exactly the same, but because life itself seems to thrive best where variety and differences are allowed to flourish.

 

Well, I’m rambling now so I better close. Have you ever read, “All I really need to know I learned from watching Star Trek”?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-Watching/dp/0517883864/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307458739&sr=8-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind words - when I was on B’net I led a dialogue group on Star Trek, and saved my notes, so it’s not all off the top of my head :-) At the time I was also doing a series of Trek paintings for a show-- might try a few more.

 

About Trek’s optimism and secular humanism--Roddenberry said “I think technology will save us” but he went on to say “And our own goodness--basic human decency. Our ability to sympathize with others. The wish to help. These things are part of our nature.”

 

The comment about valuing differences reminded me of the Vulcan IDIC pin, the acronym for Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Spock wore it to the dinner for Miranda Jones, in “Is there in truth no beauty?” At the end when Miranda is leaving, she says to Spock “The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.” He responds, “And the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty.”

 

Unlike most people here, I don’t know what it’s like to be raised fundamentalist / evangelical. But I agree, the idea of humans as inherently depraved doesn’t work. On the other hand, it seems that relying completely on our own strength has its problems too. The best of the Trek characters retain an openness to mystery, an awareness of vulnerability, the mutual need for help, forgiveness and community in order to survive and possibly thrive.

 

The book title sounds familiar -- haven’t read that one, but I have enjoyed several autobiographies by the actors who played Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Janice Rand, Sulu, and especially Chekov -- Warped Factors by Walter Koenig. His sense of humor is delightful.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A couple of recent Trek news items for those interested -

 

http://startrek.com/news_articles

 

A new semester of Trek Class will begin meeting on August 30 at 5:00pm EST, when everyone will be able to join the class discussion on Twitter using the hashtag #TrekClass. Until then, Professor Rotolo is sharing some concepts and reflections from last semester’s class--the latest is a comparison / contrast of current social networks to the Borg.

 

And, Chase Masterson (who played Leeta the Dabo girl on Deep Space Nine and married Quark’s brother Rom) has begun a series of columns on spiritual themes in Trek shows and films. Fascinating!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I have been "seriously addicted" to Star Trek for many years. Given the themes that the series explored, I have always suspected that the writers were mostly members of Ernest Holmes, Church of Religious Science in Los Angles. Perhaps some of the other "addicts" here are familiar with the writers of the episodes. They mostly seem to be metaphysical in background. I would love to know more about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to think that most of the writers were secular humanists like Gene Roddenberry, but I really don't know. If there is an episode, film or series you'd care to discuss I'd be interested to hear.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Rivanna, there is a new show coming on the Science Channel done by Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator, etc.) in which he (and probably others) discuss the influence of science fiction writers and visionaries in our lives. Some of the names mentioned are Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, HG Wells, George Lucas, and, of course, Gene Roddenberry with Star Trek. The name of the show, if I recall correctly, is "The Prophets of Science Fiction." Ridley intends to examine how these people and their creations have influenced our lives, for better or worse.

 

While it appears the much of the show might center on the development of technology, I'm hoping the show will also consider the social and political aspects of good science fiction. Science and technology have always been a part of good science fiction, but so has social and political ideologies advanced in some of the better books and shows.

 

It looks like Star Trek will figure prominantly in this new show. I hope so as Star Trek almost always challenged us to critique our advances in science and technology against the backdrop of the benefit of our world and, within the milieu, the universe.

 

I believe the new show starts in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I’d like to hear how that program goes—my cable doesn’t get the Science channel.

 

This bit of Trek news caught my eye a week ago--Star Trek (TOS) and the Legion of Super-heroes are teaming up for a new monthly comic book series. Here’s one cover

 

Star_Trek_and_the_Legion_of_Super-Heroes.jpg

 

I know nothing about Brainiac 5, Saturn Girl, Cosmic Boy, Shadow Lass, Lightning Lad, Chameleon, etc but somehow it tickles me that a futuristic partnership is created between them and Kirk’s crew…in the comic book world, anything is possible J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

…in the comic book world, anything is possible J

 

...As long as, in the Star Trek world(s), Kirk gets the girl! :):D:lol:

 

I might share some of the core thoughts from the episodes here on this thread, if that's okay.

 

sbnr1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I’d like to hear whatever is of interest from the “Prophets of Science Fiction” program.

 

Along those lines –apparently NASA is trying to develop a tractor beam much like the one in Star Trek –to transport lab samples to an instrument, among other things.

 

and this cracked me up in ST news --Eternal Image, Inc. has released an officially-licensed line of Star Trek-themed

caskets and will soon release cremation urns as well.

 

TrekCasket102711.gif

 

For boldly going to the ultimate Undiscovered Country

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Karen,

 

On Ridley Scott’s “Prophets of Science Fiction” series, I watched Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein last night. This was the most meaningful episode to me so far (I’ll talk about the others later if you’re interested). As you probably know, Mary wrote “Frankenstein” when she was only 18 (around 1816 or so) and is considered by many to be the first true “science fiction author”, quite an accomplishment considering her age and that fact that she was, in that time, “a woman.” She didn’t even sign her name to it at first because she didn’t think people would read such a book if they knew that a woman wrote it. But she incorporated the three guidelines of science fiction: 1) write a story that pertains to the use of cutting edge science of your time 2) address how that science might be used for the betterment of humanity and 3) also address how responsibility comes with the use of that science. Shelley’s novel was definitely classic in that sense.

 

I assume you know the basic story, so I won’t go into all of the details. Frankenstein, using the cutting edge surgery and electrical knowledge of his time, creates a human being. He brings life out of lifelessness. From the science side, we already can somewhat do that with our paddle machines. We can, up to a point, bring the dead back to life. And from the genetic side, we can already determine what sex, hair, and eye color our babies should be. Scientist tells us that in the very near future, we will be able to predetermine our child’s height, weight, intelligence level, musical abilities, and physical abilities just by manipulating chromosomes. Awesome possibilities. But also awesome responsibilities.

 

In Shelley’s novel, the monster is not the creature, but the creator. Frankenstein, for reasons of his own, rejects his creation. He was brilliant in creating the creature, but didn’t know what to do with it after he brought it to life. After he began to comprehend just what he had done, he became sanctimonious and didn’t want anything more to do with his creation. Frankenstein’s science was great, but his sense of responsibility and morality for the life he had given birth to was severely lacking. This, to me, is Shelley’s morality play. Just because we *can* do a thing, does that mean we *should* do a thing?

 

But whether or not Shelley (or Scott) intended it this way, I can’t help but see religious issues in play here also. According to the Judeo-Christian religion, God created mankind. But the way the story is told today, our choice of sin resulted in our visage being marred and God is repelled by the “ugliness” of our sin. He cannot bear to look upon us and has rejected us. There is, supposedly, a great gulf that separates us from our creation and he no longer is responsible for his creation. He has abandoned us as worthless. The only remedy, according to the apostle Paul, was for God to make a “new creation”, a “new Adam” in Jesus and to associate us with him in order to accept us. Many Christians find comfort in this, there is no doubt. But I don’t, for it still says that God cannot accept us just as *we* are. I don’t want to be accepted “for Christ’s sake” or on the basis of someone else’s merits. If God cannot love me and accept me just as I am, then, like Shelley’s Frankenstein, it is our Creator that is the monster. Good fathers love and accept their children, warts and all.

 

Shelley lost her mother in childbirth. She lost all five of her children to early death. Her husband died of drowning. Maybe she thought that these things were punishment from God, I don’t know. Maybe deep down she felt like God had rejected and abandoned her. Or maybe her story is simply one of science run amuck. Whatever the case, despite the fact that her book is 200 years old now, I still think it has a message appropriate to our time. Our science, technology, and sense of morality have real world consequences. If we dare to create, then we should be prepared to take responsibility for our creations. This doesn’t mean that we control our creations, but that we stay in relationship with them and guide them to be the best that they can be, something that Frankenstein utterly failed to do. What a monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure when this will add to the conversation, but here goes...

 

Being a long-time science fiction/fantasy fan, I, too, am a Trekkie. Two things to note about SF/fantasy as a genre:

 

1. Jung said that dreaming of "aliens" is a reflection of our need to become acquianted with the "foreign" parts of ourselves so we can integrate them. Often in SF, the alien, whether a good or evil, reflects either the shadow or the anima of the herio.

2. Fantasy quite often has a religious undertones, sometimes quite overt.

 

I read a lot of sf/fantasy and find myself actually looking for the themes of redemption, salvation, resurrection, healing, prophecy, etc. Once in a while, a particularly good author can actually trigger a religious "aha" moment for me.

 

I know, I'm weird, but that's okay with me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yvonne, I don't think you're weird at all! But, then, because I'm a Trekkie, I don't know how unbiased my scale of weirdness is. :D

 

I like what Jung said about aliens. I've never read anything by him, but maybe I should. One of the things that I think scifi aliens do rather well is to allow us to "see ourselves" from the outside. Other than the ones who are out to destroy us or to eat us, they usually offer us questions and critique that cause us to reflect on who we really are and why we do what we do.

 

Both Spock and Data where excellent at this. Spock was, of course, half-human, but buried his human half because he felt that rationality and logic was usually the best tool for making decisions of import. Data was, admittedly, superior to humans in many ways, but always had as his goal the desire to be more "human" and that required the frustrating process of trying to understand us. So both of these "alien" characters allowed us "windows into the soul" to understand ourselves better.

 

I found it interesting that through ST original series, Spock never "grew" much. Of course, the premise of the TV show was that episodes had to stand alone and characters, therefore, couldn't be changed a whole lot. But when it came to the movies, Spock becomes "more human" in Star Trek: The Motion Picture" after his mind-meld with V'Ger. As he holds Kirk's hand, he says something to the effect of, "This, Jim, emotion, is beyond V'Gers comprehension. For all of V'Ger's knowledge, it is empty, without meaning or purpose." (My paraphrase from memory or lack thereof) And Spock smiles. He says that he has found what he was looking for, something that Kholinar could not give him. And he revels in his ability to be "human" until the end of STII, where he dies.

 

It's my opinion that Roddenberry knew that Spock's character could not really function as Spock if he were allowed to be as human as anyone else. This is one of the things that I don't like about Abram's "Star Trek". A Spock that is just as subject to "flawed human emotions" as the rest of us is not, well, Spock. So Roddenberry kills off that "more human" Spock and when we meet "Spock" again at the end of STIII, he is the emotionless Spock that we have always known. Granted, Spock became more and more his "old self" through the rest of the movies, but he was drawn more and more to embrace and appreciate his Vulcan side, ultimately leaving Star Fleet in order to become a Vulcan Ambassador like his father. Spock, as we know him in the finals, is more like his father than he is the "hand-holding" Spock of STTMP. He functions better as a "window into the soul" that way, asking us why we do what we do and what we hope to accomplish.

 

For what it's worth, I hope the "new" Spock of Abram's reboot gets his heart severely broken by Uhura and decides to embrace being Vulcan (especially given how many are left) in the reboot. I just can't see him jumping Uhura's bones in the turbolift ever time he gets a free moment away from his science station. That is not the Spock I know and love. And I don't think it is the Spock that Star Trek needs. Roddenberry had Spock right the first time, showing us the logical side of ourselves that needs to be balanced with our emotions (McCoy) and our will (Kirk) to make us the best humans we can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yvonne,

 

glad to know you are a Trekker too! Hadn’t heard that idea from Jung on aliens--interesting. I’ve never gotten into other types of sci-fi, or fantasy, but think religious themes are probably a strong element in all.

 

Bill,

 

thanks for the recap of the science fiction show. Didn’t know that about Mary Shelley’s life—tragic. Your quote reminds me of a line from “The Undiscovered Country” when the Federation president says at the Camp Khitomer conference, “Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing.”

 

A few associations that come to mind --

Harry Mudd in TOS created hundreds of androids to serve him— a clear cut example of technology used for wrong purposes.

In TNG “The Offspring,” Data creates an android daughter, Lal. The story ends sadly when she dies due to a malfunction. Sort of a mixed message there.

On Voyager there’s the creation of the EMH, the holographic Doctor. A positive outcome, in that case.

In some ways the Borg could be compared to Frankenstein’s monster.

 

Also like your insights on aliens as “windows into the soul” and the analysis of Spock’s character development through the feature films. Somehow I doubt he and Uhura will be much of an item in the next sequel, but who knows. A big part of what made TOS work so well was the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, as you suggest, each portraying one aspect of the ideal human. I’m not sure the rebooted characters have the same chemistry.

 

About God as a monster if He demanded a blood sacrifice-I agree. To me, atonement in the bible reveals that it was never God who had to be appeased, but human beings who needed to be reconciled to God.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Thanks for the recap of the science fiction show.

 

You’re welcome, Karen.

 

>>Didn’t know that about Mary Shelley’s life—tragic.

 

Yes, and she died from a brain tumor at the age of 53. But her work has served as a warning for 200 years now.

 

>>Your quote reminds me of a line from “The Undiscovered Country” when the Federation president says at the Camp Khitomer conference, “Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing.”

 

Ah, yes, that was a good one. The Federation was in a position to completely wipeout the Klingon empire…and they chose not to (at least most of them).

 

>>A few associations that come to mind --Harry Mudd in TOS created hundreds of androids to serve him— a clear cut example of technology used for wrong purposes.

 

Indeed. This also made me think of the Roger Corby/Andrea episode where androids essentially enable humans to have eternal life. The danger, of course, was that they were created by fallible human beings and, therefore, had human flaws programmed into them.

 

>>In TNG “The Offspring,” Data creates an android daughter, Lal. The story ends sadly when she dies due to a malfunction. Sort of a mixed message there.

 

Definitely. That episode brought tears to my eyes. I could cry for Data’s loss though he could not. It was so sad to see her shut down. What kind of scifi makes saps like me cry? :(

 

>>A big part of what made TOS work so well was the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, as you suggest, each portraying one aspect of the ideal human.

 

I think so too. Next Gen had a different formula, but the theme was still the same in that we need each other and different viewpoints in order to grow and be all that we can be. While Roddenberry was alive and at the helm of Next Gen, he expressly forbade the writers to have conflicts between the bridge crew. His ideal was that we had truly embraced IDIC by the time of Next Gen. They could have minor misunderstandings that required clarification, but not even the sort of banter that McCoy and Spock had (“Listen, you green-blooded, pointy-eared walking computer…”). Not on Next Gen. The enemy on Next Gen was always “out there”, and, usually, to be understood. Still, the goal of Star Trek (or one of the goals) was to turn enemies into friends or allies. The TOS Klingons came to serve on the Next Gen bridge with Worf. The Borg came to serve on the Voyager bridge with Seven-of-Nine. Like what Jesus taught, enemies were to be understood and loved if possible, not utterly exterminated. I’m not sure about Q, though. ;)

 

BTW, the scuttlebutt on the next ST movie is that Khan will be back. Abrams is interviewing actors to reprise the role. Of course, since Abrams rebooted everything, the Botany Bay is still floating in space with Khan and crew in cryogenic stasis. We’ll see what happens. But I’m partial to Ricardo Montelban and don’t think anyone can pull off Khan like he did. Man, am I getting old. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

the scuttlebutt on the next ST movie is that Khan will be back

 

From what I’ve read recently, the new Trek movie’s villain will not be Khan but another character from TOS – a few mentioned are Harry Mudd, Gary Mitchell, Trelaine, and the Talosians…Mudd seems like the most viable possibility. That whole alternate timeline thing bothers me somehow, but I guess it was necessary to generate more prequels!

 

About the “prophets of science fiction” – looks like Arthur Clarke and H.G. Wells will be featured, but I don’t see any listing of Trek writers - ?

I agree about Roger Corby etc in TOS -- and “The Offspring” in TNG as a memorable character. Actually, while there are plenty of episodes where humans create an artificial life form, or hologram, or one android creates another, nothing really resembles the Frankenstein story…at least none I can recall.

 

A couple more tidbits from Trek news --

 

There’s going to be a 55 foot long Enterprise float in the annual Rose Parade in Pasadena, Jan. 2--flying above the Paramount arch.

 

And Google is working on a project to develop a voice controlled personal assistant, which they are naming "Majel" after Majel Barrett Roddenberry. Google purchased a speech recognition software company as part of their plan to "move a little faster towards that Star Trek future" of freeing people from keyboards and talking to their computers. Apparently the voice assistant will be available on Android phones and tablets.

I met Majel once at a local Trek convention…very nice lady. She would have loved knowing about this.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Mudd would definately be interesting from a comedic viewpoint. Mitchell, to me, blah. Trelaine, yes, I would love to see him developed as a pre-Q Q! "You will hang by the neck, Captain, until you are dead, dead, dead."

 

I haven't seen anything on ST writers either. Looks like Ridley is pinning all of ST on Roddenberry.

 

And the Frankenstein story, yes, truly a timeless classic. In fact, I just received in the mail the Hallmark version of Frankenstein which I though was closer to Shelley's novel than any of the others I've seen.

 

I got an iPhone for Xmas, so, yes, I now need to go "Trekify" it! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

My favorite source of Trek news is trekmovie.com -- lots of updates on the making of the new film, etc.

 

Here is Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) with President Obama on Feb. 29, giving the Vulcan salute -- she was speaking at a NASA event

nichelleobama.jpg

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
the scuttlebutt on the next ST movie is that Khan will be back.

 

The news has been back and forth, whether Cumberbatch will be playing Khan… I’m still hoping it's a different villain!

 

Does anyone have a favorite Trek movie, show, character?

 

The past few months I’ve enjoyed some “Enterprise” episodes streaming on Netflix. One of my favorites is from season 2, “Carbon Creek.” At dinner, Archer and Trip ask T’Pol why she paid a visit to this tiny mining town in Pennsylvania, and she tells them an amazing story about the real First Contact -- not in Montana 2063, but in 1957 when a Vulcan survey ship crash-lands near Carbon Creek (they’d come to earth to check out Sputnik). The three survivors are T’Mir--T’Pol’s second foremother—and two male crewmates, Stron and Mestral. They hide out for weeks until they’re near starvation, then find jobs, passing for human, slowly getting involved with the community. T’mir works as a waitress, Stron a handyman, and Mestral a coalminer. After several months, Mestral becomes so fond of his new life and friends that he stays behind when a Vulcan ship arrives to rescue them. At the end, Archer and Trip look doubtful these things actually happened, but T’Pol, back in her quarters, reveals a ‘souvenir’ handed down from her ancestor. It’s an intriguing mystery, with plenty of warmth, humor and nods to past Trek events….one of those episodes that gives you hope for radically different cultures getting along, helping each other.

 

Trip: Do you realize you've just rewritten our history books?

T’Pol: A footnote at best.

Trip: : Footnote? This is like finding out Neil Armstrong wasn't the first man to walk on the moon!

T’Pol: Perhaps he wasn't.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

More speculation about the next film…according to Trekmovie.com, the co-writer/ producer Robert Orci says the villain is not Gary Mitchell. And definitely not Khan. I’ve been wondering if Gary Seven is a possibility, especially since Orci affirms that Alice Eve is also playing a role from TOS – Roberta Lincoln, the secretary? or Isis, his partner? And Cumberbatch looks more like Robert Lansing than any other Trek villain --or obstacle rather- he was more a mysterious time-police kind of guy, also known as Supervisor 194 in “Assignment Earth”.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Karen.

 

Gary Seven. Hmmm. Definitately an interesting and mysterious character.

 

Of course, since Star Trek has been "rebooted" (I'm quite loyal to the original canon), they can bring in anyone and anything they want. Trek, as a show, has always had villains that reflect, in some way, the fears of the times. Given this, what things cause us the most fear in 2012 and how might they be "characterized"? Terrorists? The end of the world? The re-election of Obama (ha ha! sorry, I couldn't resist)? Genetic engineering? Our consumer culture? More alien invasions? Our paradoxical immediate connection with one another via technology but loss of personal, face-to-face interaction? What fears of modern culture would make good Trek villains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill,

 

Nice to hear from you. Challenging question --but I doubt the story line will be all that topical...more likely an opponent with special powers (Garth of Izar? Squire of Gothos?).

 

Apparently they're having a hard time coming up with a title for this film!

 

Another wild guess...Alice Eve as Janice Rand.

 

It's true that Star Trek has appealed to both sides politically, probably one of the reasons for its enduring so long.

Edited by rivanna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...

An inspiring note about the new Trek movie, to be released in May--

Daniel, a 41-year-old from New York who is a big Trek fan, has leukemia and only weeks to live. After a family friend made a posting on Reddit, word got to Paramount and director JJ Abrams himself. He called Dan’s wife and arranged a private screening of a rough cut of “Star Trek: Into Darkness,” which happened on Sunday. She sent her thanks, saying “it was truly amazing that a film-maker so secretive as JJ Abrams was kind enough to show this to us….It was a wonderful thing to see Daniel enjoy – making someone as ill as he is smile for any length of time really makes a difference….this kind of thing is part of what Star Trek is all about: hope and family in the face of adversity. I believe that Gene Roddenberry, The Great Bird of the Galaxy, would be proud.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's awesome, Karen. I, too, would believe that gesture would make Gene proud. At it's heart, Star Trek has always been about finding "family" in the least expected places. I hear the new movie will be big on that theme. It's great to know that JJ Abrams knows that Trek isn't just scifi or just entertainment, but a hope for a better humanity and a better tomorrow that we all long for.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service