Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gillam Harrow

So what happens if Abaddon dies?

Recommended Posts

@Jackal: I tend to take anything Black Library books say with seas worth of salt, since their record on being coherent and consistent with anything is spotty at best. Hell, as is often repeated, GW considers them pseudo-cannon, aka cop-out :D

Likewise, the idea that Magnus will do nothing is at odds with his stated goal of "Seeing the Galaxy burn". So, yeah, the only reason he hasn't come down from his tower is because GW doesn't want him to.

Then there's Doombreed, the older than Horus and more powerful than the Primarchs Daemon Prince (yay Lexicanum!) who wiped out two entire chapters in a single Crusade.

If you accept Imperial Armor books, there's Uraka Az'baramael, another ancient Daemon Prince with a known interest in being an active and raiding daemon ******.

And that's just Daemon Princes listed on Lexicanum. That's not even accounting for the inevitable murder attempts on Abaddon by any Ascended PC! Or non-ascended PC's doing what PC's do best, which is break the setting in half and use it as a surfboard.

So yeah, I stand by my point that while Abaddon dying will have consequences, what he has started has far too much inertia and momentum to end with him. Especially since I've never seen his Crusades portrayed as being built around the "Cult of Personality" leadership method, instead being more along the lines of "Hey guys, I'm hardcore enough to weather any attempts on my life by would-be usurpers! This makes me Leader, let's organize and go do what we all want to do!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me see if I get this straight? You discredit sources that is listed as official (black library) because you think they contradict other fluff sources, but give credit to an unofficial wiki-esque page?

Black library isn't any better or worse than other sources of fluff when it comes to contradictions or discrepancies in regard to the established background of the game. It seems to me that you simply choose what is considered official based on what you've personally read or not?

And I was talking about Daemon Primarchs, not just Daemon Princes. I'm fully aware of Doombreed and what he has done, but compared to Abaddon it's still not much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I tend to discredit it for two reasons.

1) Black library books have a history of horrendous errors. Like C.S Goto, whom i recall had a D-cannon that fired bullets, Terminators performing backflips and of course the infamous Multilasers on everything issue.

2) To quote George Mann:

" In further conversation, George emphasized that Black Library’s main objective was to 'tell good stories'. He agreed that some points in certain novels could, perhaps, have benefited from the editor’s red pen (a certain multilaser was mentioned) but was at pains to explain that, just as each hobbyist tends to interpret the background and facts of the Warhammer and 40K worlds differently, so does each author. In essence, each author represents an “alternative” version of the respective worlds. After pressing him further, he explained that only the Studio material (rulebooks, codexes, army books and suchlike) was canonical in that it HAD to be adhered-to in the plots and background of the novels. There was no obligation on authors to adhere to facts and events as spelled out in Black Library work."

Official it ain't!

Basically, the authorative and narrative control GW wields over BL books is small, and the freedoms the writers take often quite large. Ergo, a rather dubious source.

As for the wiki, I don't give credit to it. I give credit to the sources it cited, none of which were BL books, but Codexes and Imperial Armor books. I was mentioning the wiki since a quick use of it highlighted the above sources and information.

What I've personally read is completely irrelevant, and have no real bearing on what I consider cannon or not.

And sure, Doombreed's various exploits are not as widely listed as Abaddon. Could that perhaps be because Abaddon is the narrative focal point of Chaos, while Doombreed is not? The question is not if Doombreed or anyone else has displayed the sometimes sickeningly high levels of Sueish competence Abaddon displays, but whether or not they have the Infamy needed to be a contender for his throne, the personal power to defend said throne and the leadership to lead his forces.

And I think there's quite a few entities, daemonic or otherwise, who have what it takes to fill his shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Marc Gascoigne:

Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40k universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it.

Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths.

Marc Gascoigne
Publisher, The Black Library and Black Flame

So... yea, you can selectively quote people to prove your point - so can we.

Everything with GW and the 40k logo on it was authorised by GW, and was put past the same Intellectual Property guys, which means they authorised it, which makes it GW official, which makes it canon.

That's how GW setting canon works - everything is canon, not everything is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair 'nuff a point. Of course you still haven't responded to the heart of my argument, which is that Black Library books have a rather spotty history with being consistent with any other work. Not to mention the often blatant contradictions with established canon. Like D-cannons not shooting bullets.

There is also, of course, the fact that your quote is a wonderful lil' version of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." If every published material, from codexes to black library books are to be treated as half-truths, rumors and legends, nothing is a credible source.

In which case I could easily argue that Abaddon has done nothing, doesn't even exist, is an Imperial myth, is Horus in disguise, is the Emperor in disguise, is a Daemon, is Tzeentch, is the Changeling or is a giant walking pile of mashmellow fluff. While I have no source, you yourself quote admittance that all your sources are compromised and utterly unreliable and quite possibly not true.

Basically, it torpedoes any legitimate discussion of 40k lore, because there is no lore, only legend.

Though on the upside, I can now bring Narrative Focus in as an in-setting argument for Abaddon being nothing special. It's all just PR. From him to bloat his own legend, and from the Imperium to create an easily vilified figure head for the enemy to rally the people against. The only reason he stays in the limelight now is inertia.

Besides, nobody with hair that silly could ever succeed at any aspect of life. Not even my withered, cynical heart is willing to admit such a thing is possible, not even in the crapsack grimdark world of 40k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverend mort said:

Fair 'nuff a point. Of course you still haven't responded to the heart of my argument, which is that Black Library books have a rather spotty history with being consistent with any other work. Not to mention the often blatant contradictions with established canon. Like D-cannons not shooting bullets.

There is also, of course, the fact that your quote is a wonderful lil' version of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." If every published material, from codexes to black library books are to be treated as half-truths, rumors and legends, nothing is a credible source.

In which case I could easily argue that Abaddon has done nothing, doesn't even exist, is an Imperial myth, is Horus in disguise, is the Emperor in disguise, is a Daemon, is Tzeentch, is the Changeling or is a giant walking pile of mashmellow fluff. While I have no source, you yourself quote admittance that all your sources are compromised and utterly unreliable and quite possibly not true.

Basically, it torpedoes any legitimate discussion of 40k lore, because there is no lore, only legend.

Though on the upside, I can now bring Narrative Focus in as an in-setting argument for Abaddon being nothing special. It's all just PR. From him to bloat his own legend, and from the Imperium to create an easily vilified figure head for the enemy to rally the people against. The only reason he stays in the limelight now is inertia.

Besides, nobody with hair that silly could ever succeed at any aspect of life. Not even my withered, cynical heart is willing to admit such a thing is possible, not even in the crapsack grimdark world of 40k.

 

Yeah, well, if Goto wrote all kinds of crap, so did Matt Ward in the codexes (I'm disregarding about all that was in the last 5th edition codexes as blatant bull: as it stands, between Supreme Absolute Grand Total Master Whateveritsname of the Grey Knights and "I'm the king of the galaxy and everyone's my *****" Mephiston, it's a wonder the Imperium still has enemies).

Anyway, it's still your choice to believe what you want or not in your game. I know that in my games, the Alpha Legion is split between "Loyalists" and those that have truly fallen to Chaos, Eisenhorn is still at large and alive somewhere (at least until Abnett writes Ravenor vs Eisenhorn), that Abaddon is not a failure, but has anger management issues, that Khorne is not the fuckwit God he has been ever since they revamped him, that Mephiston is a powerful psyker that has vanquished the Black Rage but that half of the stories are just that: stories (ie he did not vanquish the equivalent of half a Hive fleet by himself), etc.

So yeah, I kinda "agree" with you, there is no lore but that which you decide for yourself is true. In my case, it won't ever include anything written by any of the two aforementionned idiots. Some bits of Rogue Trader (the first book, not the RPG) are good, others are not. You just take your pick and roll with it. Let's just say I never feel the need to head up to 4chan to impose my views on a fictional world with 12 years old.

And I could make the argument that inertia is actually a pretty important theme in 40k, with the Imperium being a metaphor for its ruler (or is it the opposite?): a rotting, still corpse trying to stave off its own destruction. Whatever people do, in the grand scheme of things, it rarely changes anything. Abaddon is quite impressive in that he actually periodically makes a dent in the Imperium, however small it may be, and while some other warlords may be as competent as he is, Daemon princes and lords, even old primarchs, are not interested by the affairs of the mortals, by and large, their preceptions too distorted by the influence of their masters to even give a ****. So I find Magnus locking himself up in shame, disgust or anguish for a period of time that makes no sense in the physical world, for example, does not matter: it's entirely in keeping with the spirit, and thus I do not care or even feel the need to give an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverend mort said:

There is also, of course, the fact that your quote is a wonderful lil' version of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." If every published material, from codexes to black library books are to be treated as half-truths, rumors and legends, nothing is a credible source.

In which case I could easily argue that Abaddon has done nothing, doesn't even exist, is an Imperial myth, is Horus in disguise, is the Emperor in disguise, is a Daemon, is Tzeentch, is the Changeling or is a giant walking pile of mashmellow fluff. While I have no source, you yourself quote admittance that all your sources are compromised and utterly unreliable and quite possibly not true.

Basically, it torpedoes any legitimate discussion of 40k lore, because there is no lore, only legend.

Though on the upside, I can now bring Narrative Focus in as an in-setting argument for Abaddon being nothing special. It's all just PR. From him to bloat his own legend, and from the Imperium to create an easily vilified figure head for the enemy to rally the people against. The only reason he stays in the limelight now is inertia.

Which is exactly my point. Everything in 40k is lore and legend, not entirely 100% true facts. GW has made no secret of this over the years, many of their big name employees have said as much. Hell, that's even stated in-game ("Everything you have been told is a lie" is quoted in the pre-face of many of the books, codices, etc) that everything is a mixture of truth, legend, lies, propaganda, etc.

40k had always been written from the point of view of people within the setting itself, so all of this should come to no surprise.

As for it "torpedoing" anything, I entirely disagree. It means we can have legitimate discussions about the setting, using all the official 40k sources (anything licensed by GW), without having a ****-waving contest about who's sources are "more canon" than the other's.

This, to me, can only be a good thing, and means you can make 40k as best suits you. I, personally, can't think of a better situation for such a large setting that, by nature of now having an RP game attached to it, requires flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MILLANDSON said:

Reverend mort said:

 

There is also, of course, the fact that your quote is a wonderful lil' version of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." If every published material, from codexes to black library books are to be treated as half-truths, rumors and legends, nothing is a credible source.

In which case I could easily argue that Abaddon has done nothing, doesn't even exist, is an Imperial myth, is Horus in disguise, is the Emperor in disguise, is a Daemon, is Tzeentch, is the Changeling or is a giant walking pile of mashmellow fluff. While I have no source, you yourself quote admittance that all your sources are compromised and utterly unreliable and quite possibly not true.

Basically, it torpedoes any legitimate discussion of 40k lore, because there is no lore, only legend.

Though on the upside, I can now bring Narrative Focus in as an in-setting argument for Abaddon being nothing special. It's all just PR. From him to bloat his own legend, and from the Imperium to create an easily vilified figure head for the enemy to rally the people against. The only reason he stays in the limelight now is inertia.

 

 

Which is exactly my point. Everything in 40k is lore and legend, not entirely 100% true facts. GW has made no secret of this over the years, many of their big name employees have said as much. Hell, that's even stated in-game ("Everything you have been told is a lie" is quoted in the pre-face of many of the books, codices, etc) that everything is a mixture of truth, legend, lies, propaganda, etc.

40k had always been written from the point of view of people within the setting itself, so all of this should come to no surprise.

As for it "torpedoing" anything, I entirely disagree. It means we can have legitimate discussions about the setting, using all the official 40k sources (anything licensed by GW), without having a ****-waving contest about who's sources are "more canon" than the other's.

This, to me, can only be a good thing, and means you can make 40k as best suits you. I, personally, can't think of a better situation for such a large setting that, by nature of now having an RP game attached to it, requires flexibility.



The problem is that you can have no common ground. Because all ground is suspect. I can casually claim Space Marines, Eldars, the Chaos Gods and the IMPERIUM all don't exist, and certainly not in a form remotely similar to the one we "know". You can not refute me, because every source that mentions it is quite possibly a lie, a myth or a distortion, by your own admission.

Add to this the fact that if you accept that all sources of information are equally valid, including all the contradictory ones, you must accept every contradiction as fact. The children of the Emperor, the Sensei are both real and fictional, truth and a lie of Tzeentch. This acceptance of all contradictions become a bit problematic when you either wish to involve something covered by such a contradiction, or your players do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess we should all look to you then to define what is relevant and "good" fluff or not?

The problem with discussing these matters with you is that when someone uses thought out arguments, like Millandson, that goes against your own, you turn to  hyperbole. If you want a serious discussion, and to be taken seriously, you should stop doing that.

I suspect you enjoy arguing for arguings sake, but I hope we can continue this discussion without it turning into the atrocity the "delay thread" turned into.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't hyperbole. All of these things exist in 40k somewhere, and if we are to agree they're all equally valid, then their mutually exclusive nature becomes an issue. At some point, you will have to either prioritize one source above another, or introduce personal theory in an attempt to reconcile what is sometimes completely opposed statements.

And while I do admit the Imperium example is a ridiculous extreme, it does highlight the issue of attempting to have any argument about anything were every aspect has a stated basis "Is of utterly unverifiable and possibly untrue". You can provide no facts, references or argument for anything, because it can be handwaved away by a mere "I don't believe that part really happened like that". That makes it rather hard to have any sort of discussion or debate, since either requires reaching common ground to argue from.

Also, sure, he had a thought out argument. I presented a counter argument. The fact that I used exagerations to highlight my point doesn't make it any less applicable.

Also, I find it a bit offensive that you're trying to pressure me into not voicing my opinion on a discussion forum merely because you find it disruptive. So yeah, I think the idea that we should incorporate every aspect of every book, regardless how contradictory they are, somewhat silly, all while writing them all off as unreliable and of unverifiable validity. I will say as much.

So I guess we should all look to you then to define what is relevant and "good" fluff or not?


I suppose I could offer an response to the effect of "how 'bout we instead prioritize fluff according to how well it adheres to the established laws and tropes of the setting, and work to establish a communal baseline to work from?" but I kinda prefer your suggestion. It would go a lot quicker! gui%C3%B1o.gif Also, since I can't help it (sorry!) what was that you said about turning to hyperbole?

I suspect you enjoy arguing for arguings sake, but I hope we can continue this discussion without it turning into the atrocity the "delay thread" turned into.

First of all... yes. We're arguing on the internet. Expecting anyone to change their minds on anything on the internet is, to me, hopelessly naive. Of course I'm doing this because it amuses me! Otherwise, why waste time doing it? Not counting doing it during work hours to kill time, obviously!

Secondly, sure! Let's pick back up from were I so horribly derailed this thread, shall we?

Abaddon is one in a billion. Unfortunately, in 40k, there's quite a few billions. Replacing him will not be easy, but there's far too many powerful, power hungry leaders with a vested interest in leading a crusade for him not to be. It will take time, it will shed enough blood to make Khorne say enough and it will be MESSY, but, in the end, there are several zdequate replacement.

Are they as good as Abaddon is right now? Probably not. May they perhaps grow under adversity and rise to the challenge? Possibly. If they don't, will they perform as well as Abaddon does right now? Maybe not.

Will they perform well enough to keep their Crusade(s) going into the Imperium and keep the Traitor Legions and Chaos Warbands a credible threat to the Imperium? I'd say so. And if not, well, they're on the side of Chaos. Do you really think ANY of the Chaos gods have the humility to accept that they no longer threaten the empire of the upstart (Reincarnated Shaman/Space Baby/Buddha Jesus) human who sought to kill them? HELL NO! If their current followers won't perform well enough, they'll either bless and mutate them until they do or find someone who will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you say: It isn't hyperbole.

And earlier you said: I can casually claim Space Marines, Eldars, the Chaos Gods and the IMPERIUM all don't exist, and certainly not in a form remotely similar to the one we "know". You can not refute me, because every source that mentions it is quite possibly a lie, a myth or a distortion, by your own admission.

Can you seriously claim that what you say here isn't hyperbole?

And I never told you to stop posting. I'm sorry if you get that from my post, but I fail to see how anyone can even remotely construe that from what I said.  It's my belief that if you can't make your point without resorting to hyperbole, then maybe you shouldn't. You're free to do so, but it wont help you make your case.

I do agree with you however, that this thread doesn't need anymore derailing. I'm not gonna change your opinion on Abaddon, and you're not gonna change mine, so I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you seriously claim that what you say here isn't hyperbole?

Yes. I can. It's Reductio Ad Absurdum. Pointing out the absurdity or implausibility of an argument or proposition by taking it to it's logical conclusion, where it's flaws become more apparent. Like, in my case, pointing out that claiming all sources to be unverifiable and possibly untrue means one can claim every core tenant of the setting is untrue, thus invalidating all arguments on grounds of uncertainty, since no other source remains.

And I never told you to stop posting. I'm sorry if you get that from my post, but I fail to see how anyone can even remotely construe that from what I said.  It's my belief that if you can't make your point without resorting to hyperbole, then maybe you shouldn't. You're free to do so, but it wont help you make your case.

I'm sorry, but what's the logic here? Why is hyperbole not acceptable? It's an aspect of everyday speech. It's exclusion strikes me as entirely arbitrary.

Also, I can make my point entirely without hyperbole. To paraphrase:

Several contradictory claims exist in 40k, and if we are to agree they're all equally valid, their mutually exclusive nature becomes an issue. At some point, you will have to either prioritize one source above another, or introduce personal theory in an attempt to reconcile what is sometimes completely opposed statements. One is against your stated goal, the other creates a bad precedent that creates a long series of issues and personal judgements, which you also seem to be against.

There. Not even the slightest hint of exaggeration.

However, if any use of hyperbole invalidates my statement and warrants me to simply not attempt to make my point, then as I pointed out you too used hyperbole so maybe we should both be utterly quiet? serio.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that 40k has been evolving over the years, and fluff was being written and re-written by many people throughout its course. It would be nigh impossible to  avoid contradictions and plot holes.

This, however, is a huge advantage for GMs. It allows them to use whatever elemets of canon are suitable to support their own story.

In my opinion, the only truly detestable part of the 40k fluff is Space Marine fanservice. Stories like the godlike chapter master Draigo (GK), who single-handedly slew several grater daemons etc, or a handful of loyalists killing over 9k cretinous Word Bearers in Battle for the Abyss, wreck the 40k mood more effectively than a million plotholes. Heroic/ epic sci-fi can't be grimdark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somnium said:

Let us not forget that 40k has been evolving over the years, and fluff was being written and re-written by many people throughout its course. It would be nigh impossible to  avoid contradictions and plot holes.

This, however, is a huge advantage for GMs. It allows them to use whatever elemets of canon are suitable to support their own story.

In my opinion, the only truly detestable part of the 40k fluff is Space Marine fanservice. Stories like the godlike chapter master Draigo (GK), who single-handedly slew several grater daemons etc, or a handful of loyalists killing over 9k cretinous Word Bearers in Battle for the Abyss, wreck the 40k mood more effectively than a million plotholes. Heroic/ epic sci-fi can't be grimdark.

This. This, so much. And don't forget Archivist "The Emperor visited a Sororitas Living Saint and thus was I born" Mephiston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somnium said:

Let us not forget that 40k has been evolving over the years, and fluff was being written and re-written by many people throughout its course. It would be nigh impossible to  avoid contradictions and plot holes.

This, however, is a huge advantage for GMs. It allows them to use whatever elemets of canon are suitable to support their own story.

In my opinion, the only truly detestable part of the 40k fluff is Space Marine fanservice. Stories like the godlike chapter master Draigo (GK), who single-handedly slew several grater daemons etc, or a handful of loyalists killing over 9k cretinous Word Bearers in Battle for the Abyss, wreck the 40k mood more effectively than a million plotholes. Heroic/ epic sci-fi can't be grimdark.

 

Well in Chaos books, the Chaos warriors are very dangerous killing machines, each being thousands of years of knowledge and practice. On TT they are the best troops for that, each CSM as 2 CC, bolter, Grenades Offence and Defencive, etc.

In the Space marines books, any initiate and blood claw can take out [CENSURED] Loads of CSM...

 

Canon for 40k is a howitzer with a 20 pds charge inserted but up. It goes boom in your face! The amount of RetConned items makes even Marvel look like amateurs for the amount of RetCon they are doing over time. I mean why destroy the C'tan? Why most SM lords are much more dangerous now, they even have a cheese Wolf Lord that can remove it form game...

What would happen if they removed Abaddon? I know, the story may actually go forward for once instead of rewritting it self all the time... Just think if they invested all that thinking power in going forward? What if, you know, we actually had new material instead of reashed old material where a tiny piece of retconned fluff...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 wow... this got interesting. 

So basically what i'm seeing is:

Abaddon Can't Die

TROLL

the black legion collapses in infighting

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

someone new takes over

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

*defense of 40k canon*

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

The story actually moves forward.

 

I like this very last idea. Look out abaddon, there's a sorcerer in the vortex looking for your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillam Harrow said:

 wow... this got interesting. 

So basically what i'm seeing is:

Abaddon Can't Die

TROLL

the black legion collapses in infighting

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

someone new takes over

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

*defense of 40k canon*

TROLL
TROLL
TROLL

The story actually moves forward.

 

I like this very last idea. Look out abaddon, there's a sorcerer in the vortex looking for your head.

It is a mostly useless thread, and you didn't really help it by necro'ing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Memorare said:

The children will rejoice when he dies cos honestly..he is kinda incompetent imho. No total victory/wheres the conquest of terra!!!

Despite the fact Abaddon has accomplished pretty much every single goal he's set out to complete... sorpresa.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway Abaddon is a nice char but I feel they created over time much more entertaining "evil" characters.

I find Fabious Biles, Lucious the Eternal, Cypher The Fallen, Huron BlackHeart and some more a bit more interestign since you can use them and not be stuck with the OMG impossible power! Zufor or the nurgle sorcerer form Forge Wolrd.... etc.

The Iron warriror books make the different Warsmith sound much more interesting then theman loving space opera involving Abaddon to me anyway... God I hate that series of book... but I must be one of the only.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abaddon's a lot of things, widely known as a douchebag with bad hair and attracting Vindicare bullets on the tabletop, but as tool for the forces of chaos to grind away at the Imperium and the fact he can actually attract all 4 factions into a relatively focused purpose does make him unique. In the long war since the Heresy he's attracted an inordinate amount of firepower to actually budge from anything he's turned up and decided was going to go take over. At the end of 13th crusade the Imperium is in a lot of trouble- to get him the f**k off Cadia they had to strip the entire eastern fringe of ships and soldiers down to the bone, as a result the nids and weeboos became far more of a threat due to a lack of disposable resources in reserve to counter their expansions.

Ultimately, the 4 chaos gods don't really care. If it takes him a year or 10,000 years, what's time to a god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...