Jump to content

Does my treatment of Chooser


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now, now, *Cad*, you shouldn't be talking about "expos"ing in the presence of a minor.

 

Have you no sense at all?

 

No decency at all?

 

And by the way, that picture ...

 

... that's you and rest of the LF liberal gang of dirty ol' men who have been hanging around Sixteen while she stalks me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, now, *Cad*, you shouldn't be talking about "expos"ing in the presence of a minor.

 

Have you no sense at all?

 

No decency at all?

 

And by the way, that picture ...

 

... that's you and rest of the LF liberal gang of dirty ol' men who have been hanging around Sixteen while she stalks me.

 

 

 

weak.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! What did you just get done saying to me?

That you are such a pathetically lying coward that you always use some laughably desperate, flaccid excuse to run and hide from opponents who kick your ass. For example, hiding behind cartoons, or trying to get your opponent banned by lying about them.

 

"What you do, say or think couldn't possibly be of less interest to me."

So why'd you just post two long posts parsing my statements line by line?

 

I already told you that I find slapping you and watching you caper around in terror quite entertaining.

I know you never read things that frighten you, you just squinch your eyes shut, post your cartoon and crouch behind it.

 

No, you almost seem obsessed with me, Pop!

 

You need to give up your relentless obsession with finding out personal information about Zaro. Really - the second you decided she was an underage girl, you have been relentlessly stalking her and demanding she confirm your fantasies about her age. You even tried to bully her into it by threatening to try to get her banned if she didn't give in to your relentless demands for her personal information.

 

STALKER.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isabel: You are such a pathetically lying coward that you always use some laughably desperate, flaccid excuse to run and hide from opponents who kick your ass. For example, hiding behind cartoons, or trying to get your opponent banned by lying about them.

(posts cartoon and hides)


LOLOL!! Q.E.D.

Yep, definitely an obsession.

You need to give up your relentless obsession you have with finding out personal information about Zaro. Really - the second you decided she was an underage girl, you have been relentlessly stalking her and demanding she confirm your fantasies about her age. You even tried to bully her into it by threatening to try to get her banned if she didn't give in to your relentless demands for her personal information.

STALKER.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want some?

All you have is manifested hyperbole only the corrupted follow to the letter of the law's current interpretation. As for revenge, understanding everything you choose to ignore made public is enough, even if only exposed in a cyberspace message board training devil's advocates to disrupt everyone's lifes and nobody here believs or admits to understanding anything I add.

 

Knowing why substance is self evident takes all the wondering about what if everything isn't self contained by the moment here out of a conversation be it academic, political, artistic, spiritual, economic, social direction of society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you didn't treat him too rough. He's quick to cry elder abuse

True. The list of things that make him weep and screech about how victimized he is keeps getting longer and longer.

 

- disagreeing with him

- posting about him

- "theorizing" about him

- starting a thread about him

- any post that doesn't specifically address an OP

Link to post
Share on other sites

True. The list of things that make him weep and screech about how victimized he is keeps getting longer and longer.

 

- disagreeing with him

- posting about him

- "theorizing" about him

- starting a thread about him

- any post that doesn't specifically address an OP

You forgot the part about refusing to scan through a massive wall of text and knowing he can't be concise because he cut and paste it instead of reading it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True. The list of things that make him weep and screech about how victimized he is keeps getting longer and longer.

 

- disagreeing with him

- posting about him

- "theorizing" about him

- starting a thread about him

- any post that doesn't specifically address an OP

And blowing off discussing old conspiracy theories about Vince Foster. He calls it running if he can't suck you in

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when BAC accused me of plagiarizing myself. That was funny...

What was funny is you acting like you'd read a book I quoted from (David Schipper’s book on the Clinton impeachment) thinking I wouldn’t be able to discover the origin of what you wrote. Turns out you ripped off what you wrote off from a comment made by some unknown person at the Amazon.com website. Here was your post

 

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=1059495522

 

and my response (which quotes your post in its entirety):

 

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=1059495618

 

 

Not lying. I read it years ago.

I don't believe you. And not only are you a liar but you are a plagiarist. You wrote your post acting as if YOU read the book from cover to cover, thinking I wouldn’t be able to discover the origin of what you wrote. Turns out you ripped it off from a comment made by a person about the book at Amazon.com. Here:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sellout-Inside-President-Clintons-Impeachment/product-reviews/1522695192?pageNumber=9

 

Factual but mostly speculative.

 

By Mark Clemmons on January 8, 2008

 

I read this from cover to cover and found that Mr. Schippers substantial information listed. However, I also found that all but one accusation was pure speculation and was mostly contradicted by contrary evidence. I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty.

 

Schippers Claimed that Clinton & Gore pushed to get Aliens registered so they can vote for Democrats.

- Wrong. The INS was way behind schedule and so Gore and Clinton both pushed to get on track. Needless to say, It was a really bad idea as people serving time found themselves being naturalized.

 

He also claims that Clinton coached Lewinsky, Curie and Vernon.

- Correct. He did seem to advocate denial and probably even directed Lewinsksy on how to set up an affidavit so she wouldn't have to testify.

 

Lewinsky's affidavit was purchased in exchange for a job she wasn't qualified for.

- Unsubtiated. She did create a affidavit and found a job that Schippers considered her to be unqualified for.

 

He stated that Paula Jones's affidavit was purchased in a out of court deal.

The record was sealed shortly afterwards.

 

He raped Juanita Broddrick.

- Unknown. This coming from a 3rd party, not Ms Broddrick. In '92, Miss Broddrick signed an affadavit stating that Clinton didn't rape her.

 

* Clinton and Gore deliberately solicited donations from foreign governments.

Clinton requested a thorough investigation of the issue, resulting in several friends of Clinton and Gore being convicted. But no one could find a tie to Clinton/Gore despite the flowing testimony. Schippers claimed that he was not given sufficient time to investigate the issue.

Word for word what you wrote. LOL! So unless you wish to now claim you are Mark Clemmons, it’s game set match. You're a liar and a plagiarist.

 

And by the way, Mark's comment is clearly an outlier. Only 15% of reviewers gave the book one star like Clemmons did.

 

Even if you do want to claim you are Clemmons (and you’ll have to prove it in some way to be believed), what Clemmons wrote is just Trutherish spin.

 

Let’s examine some of the specifics:

 

I also found that all but one accusation was pure speculation and was mostly contradicted by contrary evidence.

That’s a lie. And in typical Truther fashion, rather than address the facts that I pointed out to YOU about the INS issue, you simply regurgitate the same lie by Clemmons. Sorry but the emails between Farbrother, Kamarck, Gore and Father Vega identified in the IG's report clearly show, all denials aside, that there was pressure and intent to naturalize illegals quickly so that they could vote in the 1996 election for Clinton, Gore and other Democrats. Any response by you other than challenging those specific emails is just proof that I'm right. And you know it.

 

He also claims that Clinton coached Lewinsky, Curie and Vernon.

- Correct. He did seem to advocate denial and probably even directed Lewinsksy on how to set up an affidavit so she wouldn't have to testify.

Clinton advocating denial was the same as advocating she lie under oath. That alone was impeachable and a crime. It’s called obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Further, directing Lewinsky on how to set up a FALSE affidavit was again a crime. No amount of spin changes these facts, SM. All it does is make you look like a Truther now.

 

Lewinsky's affidavit was purchased in exchange for a job she wasn't qualified for.

- Unsubtiated. She did create a affidavit and found a job that Schippers considered her to be unqualified for.

Truthers will bend over backwards to defend the Clintons. Vernon Jordan stated under oath during his own testimony that Clinton knew Lewinsky was going to lie in the affidavit, that he notified Clinton once she'd signed it and that he (Jordan) then made several calls to New York corporations to get Lewinsky a job. In other words, he, acting on Clinton’s behalf, sought to reward her for signing a false affidavit. That’s clear as day. That’s called bribery and it’s illegal.

 

There is no question that this occurred since Jordan admitted it. And the timing fits.

 

Lewinsky testified that Clinton called her on Dec 17, 1997 to say she was on the Paula Jones witness list. Obviously he was concerned about her testifying. Her false affidavit took a couple weeks to arrange and was signed on January 7, 1998. Immediately after that, the job search by Jordan took on new urgency. On January 8, the very next day, she interviews with MacAndrews and Forbes, but it doesn’t go well. So Jordan calls the Chairman of MacAndrews and Forbes, Ronal Perelman, and make three calls to the White House. The next day, the 9th, Lewinsky interviews with MacAndrews and Forbes again (a second chance now with Presidential pressure on the company) as well as with Revlon, also arranged by Jordan. On January 9th she accepts the Revlon job. She calls Jordan and Jordan then informs Clinton who responds “Thank you very much.” That’s all there in the various testimonies. You don’t have to be a genius to connect the dots here, SM.

 

Of course, Clinton, in Clinton fashion, would later dishonestly claim not to have been the "precipitating force" in the meeting between Jordan and Lewinsky, but we know that was a lie based on the testimony [of] Vernon, Lewinsky and Currie alone. Indeed, Jordan testified “The President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job.” And Currie stated she was told to contact Jordan about a job for Lewinsky by Clinton. Now unless both of them are lying, that means Clinton lied … under oath. An impeachable offense.

 

He raped Juanita Broddrick.

- Unknown. This coming from a 3rd party, not Ms Broddrick. In '92, Miss Broddrick signed an affadavit stating that Clinton didn't rape her.

LOL! Clemmons (or YOU) doesn’t even spell Broaddrick’s name right. Obviously, he didn’t actually read Schipper’s book cover to cover, or know much else about this case, because the name is spelled correctly in the book. And he was wrong in claiming that the allegation came from a 3rd party, not Broaddrick. Broaddrick made the claim herself, during a nationally televised interview on NBC no less. Apparently Clemmons didn’t watch TV either.

 

As to the affidavit, it was as bogus as Lewinsky’s and for the same reason … wanting to avoid testimony in a national scandal. Moreover, Schippers carefully explained the reasons that Broaddrick lied in the affidavit. He said "She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them." Speaking of Willey, Schippers said “Let me tell you something. They [meaning Clinton's people] were all over that woman, and it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. ... Just to let her know 'We can do what we want.’” Code Shearer, who worked for the Clintons, was identified by Chris Matthews (not exactly a right wing source) as the man who approached Willey near her home, asked her about her punctured car tires and her kids and lost cat, and then said "Get the message?"

 

And keep in mind that Bruce Lindsey was involved in Broaddrick getting the affidavit sample she used from the Whitehouse. Lindsey was a *fixer* for Clinton who was implicated in numerous illegalities. Bill Burton, another former top Clinton official, said "There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the president, There are things Bruce would do for the president that nobody else on Earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it." Clinton used Executive Privilege to keep Lindsey from having to talk to investigators. Given what we know about the Clintons, is there any doubt about how far his "fixers" would have been willing to "go for" Bill in this case? Not at all.

 

He would have been willing to pressure a woman into signing ANY false affidavit that they supplied. They wouldn’t even need to be explicit about their desire. The woman might simply feel she was being constantly watched, find her home broken into, find her pets released, and find her answering machine stolen … all of which Broaddrick testified happened. She’d get the message. And what a coincidence that during the Jones discovery, they found that Clinton made a 158 minute phone call to someone named "Juanita" … and that the day after that phone call a woman named Juanita Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for an affidavit sample. You don’t have to be a genius to connect the dots here, SM. You just have to realize that the affidavit template was supplied by the Clinton Whitehouse … an affidavit that that another woman used to falsely deny involvement with Clinton (want to guess who?). In fact, it was the same type of affidavit that almost all the women in the Paula Jones case got. And we know who lied in that case, don’t we?

 

Yes we do … MORON.

I think I’ve made my point about you. You continue to show both your dishonesty and stupidity.

 

:D

10e2c68a05c476ee7ffddcf917d567fd.jpg

 

 

THAT is the only appropriate response to you now, Pop!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BeALoser is a troll! An anti-science, anti-rationality, anti-logic TROLL!!!

 

I have pity on those who still imagine that they can engage him in any semblance of rational debate.

 

He is the undisputed King of Crackpot Conspiracy Theories.....and he will come up with one for any occassion.

 

He is the perfect Trump supporter.....gullible, ignorant, misinformed (brainwashed), bigoted, and severely delusional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BeALoser is a troll! An anti-science, anti-rationality, anti-logic TROLL!!!

 

I have pity on those who still imagine that they can engage him in any semblance of rational debate.

 

He is the undisputed King of Crackpot Conspiracy Theories.....and he will come up with one for any occassion.

 

He is the perfect Trump supporter.....gullible, ignorant, misinformed (brainwashed), bigoted, and severely delusional.

 

 

So do you like 13 years old too, pg?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/07/china-announces-a-massive-20-increase-in-coal-by-2020/

 

China Announces a Massive 20% Increase in Coal - by 2020

 

Poor pg.

 

Seems I’m not the one he should be worried about.

 

It’s Hillary’s FRIENDS.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

BeALoser is a troll! An anti-science, anti-rationality, anti-logic TROLL!!!

 

I have pity on those who still imagine that they can engage him in any semblance of rational debate.

 

He is the undisputed King of Crackpot Conspiracy Theories.....and he will come up with one for any occassion.

 

He is the perfect Trump supporter.....gullible, ignorant, misinformed (brainwashed), bigoted, and severely delusional.

So do you like 13 years old too, pg?

A perfect troll response.....empty and insane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I remember when BAC accused me of plagiarizing myself. That was funny...

What was funny is you acting like you'd read a book I quoted from (David Schipper’s book on the Clinton impeachment) thinking I wouldn’t be able to discover the origin of what you wrote. Turns out you ripped off what you wrote off from a comment made by some unknown person at the Amazon.com website. Here was your post

 

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=1059495522

 

and my response (which quotes your post in its entirety):

 

http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/?p=1059495618

 

 

Not lying. I read it years ago.

I don't believe you. And not only are you a liar but you are a plagiarist. You wrote your post acting as if YOU read the book from cover to cover, thinking I wouldn’t be able to discover the origin of what you wrote. Turns out you ripped it off from a comment made by a person about the book at Amazon.com. Here:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sellout-Inside-President-Clintons-Impeachment/product-reviews/1522695192?pageNumber=9

 

Factual but mostly speculative.

 

By Mark Clemmons on January 8, 2008

 

I read this from cover to cover and found that Mr. Schippers substantial information listed. However, I also found that all but one accusation was pure speculation and was mostly contradicted by contrary evidence. I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty.

 

Schippers Claimed that Clinton & Gore pushed to get Aliens registered so they can vote for Democrats.

- Wrong. The INS was way behind schedule and so Gore and Clinton both pushed to get on track. Needless to say, It was a really bad idea as people serving time found themselves being naturalized.

 

He also claims that Clinton coached Lewinsky, Curie and Vernon.

- Correct. He did seem to advocate denial and probably even directed Lewinsksy on how to set up an affidavit so she wouldn't have to testify.

 

Lewinsky's affidavit was purchased in exchange for a job she wasn't qualified for.

- Unsubtiated. She did create a affidavit and found a job that Schippers considered her to be unqualified for.

 

He stated that Paula Jones's affidavit was purchased in a out of court deal.

The record was sealed shortly afterwards.

 

He raped Juanita Broddrick.

- Unknown. This coming from a 3rd party, not Ms Broddrick. In '92, Miss Broddrick signed an affadavit stating that Clinton didn't rape her.

 

* Clinton and Gore deliberately solicited donations from foreign governments.

Clinton requested a thorough investigation of the issue, resulting in several friends of Clinton and Gore being convicted. But no one could find a tie to Clinton/Gore despite the flowing testimony. Schippers claimed that he was not given sufficient time to investigate the issue.

Word for word what you wrote. LOL! So unless you wish to now claim you are Mark Clemmons, it’s game set match. You're a liar and a plagiarist.

 

And by the way, Mark's comment is clearly an outlier. Only 15% of reviewers gave the book one star like Clemmons did.

 

Even if you do want to claim you are Clemmons (and you’ll have to prove it in some way to be believed), what Clemmons wrote is just Trutherish spin.

 

Let’s examine some of the specifics:

 

I also found that all but one accusation was pure speculation and was mostly contradicted by contrary evidence.

That’s a lie. And in typical Truther fashion, rather than address the facts that I pointed out to YOU about the INS issue, you simply regurgitate the same lie by Clemmons. Sorry but the emails between Farbrother, Kamarck, Gore and Father Vega identified in the IG's report clearly show, all denials aside, that there was pressure and intent to naturalize illegals quickly so that they could vote in the 1996 election for Clinton, Gore and other Democrats. Any response by you other than challenging those specific emails is just proof that I'm right. And you know it.

 

He also claims that Clinton coached Lewinsky, Curie and Vernon.

- Correct. He did seem to advocate denial and probably even directed Lewinsksy on how to set up an affidavit so she wouldn't have to testify.

Clinton advocating denial was the same as advocating she lie under oath. That alone was impeachable and a crime. It’s called obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Further, directing Lewinsky on how to set up a FALSE affidavit was again a crime. No amount of spin changes these facts, SM. All it does is make you look like a Truther now.

 

Lewinsky's affidavit was purchased in exchange for a job she wasn't qualified for.

- Unsubtiated. She did create a affidavit and found a job that Schippers considered her to be unqualified for.

Truthers will bend over backwards to defend the Clintons. Vernon Jordan stated under oath during his own testimony that Clinton knew Lewinsky was going to lie in the affidavit, that he notified Clinton once she'd signed it and that he (Jordan) then made several calls to New York corporations to get Lewinsky a job. In other words, he, acting on Clinton’s behalf, sought to reward her for signing a false affidavit. That’s clear as day. That’s called bribery and it’s illegal.

 

There is no question that this occurred since Jordan admitted it. And the timing fits.

 

Lewinsky testified that Clinton called her on Dec 17, 1997 to say she was on the Paula Jones witness list. Obviously he was concerned about her testifying. Her false affidavit took a couple weeks to arrange and was signed on January 7, 1998. Immediately after that, the job search by Jordan took on new urgency. On January 8, the very next day, she interviews with MacAndrews and Forbes, but it doesn’t go well. So Jordan calls the Chairman of MacAndrews and Forbes, Ronal Perelman, and make three calls to the White House. The next day, the 9th, Lewinsky interviews with MacAndrews and Forbes again (a second chance now with Presidential pressure on the company) as well as with Revlon, also arranged by Jordan. On January 9th she accepts the Revlon job. She calls Jordan and Jordan then informs Clinton who responds “Thank you very much.” That’s all there in the various testimonies. You don’t have to be a genius to connect the dots here, SM.

 

Of course, Clinton, in Clinton fashion, would later dishonestly claim not to have been the "precipitating force" in the meeting between Jordan and Lewinsky, but we know that was a lie based on the testimony [of] Vernon, Lewinsky and Currie alone. Indeed, Jordan testified “The President asked me to get Monica Lewinsky a job.” And Currie stated she was told to contact Jordan about a job for Lewinsky by Clinton. Now unless both of them are lying, that means Clinton lied … under oath. An impeachable offense.

 

He raped Juanita Broddrick.

- Unknown. This coming from a 3rd party, not Ms Broddrick. In '92, Miss Broddrick signed an affadavit stating that Clinton didn't rape her.

LOL! Clemmons (or YOU) doesn’t even spell Broaddrick’s name right. Obviously, he didn’t actually read Schipper’s book cover to cover, or know much else about this case, because the name is spelled correctly in the book. And he was wrong in claiming that the allegation came from a 3rd party, not Broaddrick. Broaddrick made the claim herself, during a nationally televised interview on NBC no less. Apparently Clemmons didn’t watch TV either.

 

As to the affidavit, it was as bogus as Lewinsky’s and for the same reason … wanting to avoid testimony in a national scandal. Moreover, Schippers carefully explained the reasons that Broaddrick lied in the affidavit. He said "She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them." Speaking of Willey, Schippers said “Let me tell you something. They [meaning Clinton's people] were all over that woman, and it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. ... Just to let her know 'We can do what we want.’” Code Shearer, who worked for the Clintons, was identified by Chris Matthews (not exactly a right wing source) as the man who approached Willey near her home, asked her about her punctured car tires and her kids and lost cat, and then said "Get the message?"

 

And keep in mind that Bruce Lindsey was involved in Broaddrick getting the affidavit sample she used from the Whitehouse. Lindsey was a *fixer* for Clinton who was implicated in numerous illegalities. Bill Burton, another former top Clinton official, said "There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the president, There are things Bruce would do for the president that nobody else on Earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it." Clinton used Executive Privilege to keep Lindsey from having to talk to investigators. Given what we know about the Clintons, is there any doubt about how far his "fixers" would have been willing to "go for" Bill in this case? Not at all.

 

He would have been willing to pressure a woman into signing ANY false affidavit that they supplied. They wouldn’t even need to be explicit about their desire. The woman might simply feel she was being constantly watched, find her home broken into, find her pets released, and find her answering machine stolen … all of which Broaddrick testified happened. She’d get the message. And what a coincidence that during the Jones discovery, they found that Clinton made a 158 minute phone call to someone named "Juanita" … and that the day after that phone call a woman named Juanita Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for an affidavit sample. You don’t have to be a genius to connect the dots here, SM. You just have to realize that the affidavit template was supplied by the Clinton Whitehouse … an affidavit that that another woman used to falsely deny involvement with Clinton (want to guess who?). In fact, it was the same type of affidavit that almost all the women in the Paula Jones case got. And we know who lied in that case, don’t we?

 

Yes we do … MORON.

I think I’ve made my point about you. You continue to show both your dishonesty and stupidity.

 

:D

10e2c68a05c476ee7ffddcf917d567fd.jpg

 

 

THAT is the only appropriate response to you now, Pop!

 

I'm Mark Clemmons you idiot! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot the part about refusing to scan through a massive wall of text and knowing he can't be concise because he cut and paste it instead of reading it.

LOL.

 

Oh, yeah.

 

And blowing off discussing old conspiracy theories about Vince Foster. He calls it running if he can't suck you in

Well, that's his brilliant double dog dare tactic because you won't indulge his pointless bullshit.

 

 

--------------------------------

 

 

Isabel: Just a relentlessly lying whore and coward, who runs and hides from opponents who kick his ass.

 

(posts cartoon and hides) THAT is the only appropriate response to you now, Pop!

Like that.

 

ROTFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you like 13 years old too, pg?

It's quite clear that you do, you disgusting pervert. After all, you ADORE that child rapist Trump, and you obsess over and stalk a poster here whom you think is underage - following her from thread to thread, demanding that she expose personal information to you, threatening her by saying that you will try to have her banned unless she confirms your fantasies about her age.

 

How many times did you stalk her and beg and demand and threaten her to make her tell you personal information?

 

Thirty? Forty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...