Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scarface

Help me improve Downtown skyscraper lighting

Recommended Posts

Well maybe i can't make you care but for example, downtown Houston has got to be one of the blandest looking downtowns in the country at street level due to the stupid ordinance for lack of signs and lighting displays at street level. I'll give credit to Bayou Place, Main Street, Houston Pavilions, and the areas around Discovery Green for doing it but the fact that too much of downtown has no lighting displays at street level creates a giant VOID between these areas. People complain of often feeling unsafe while walking these between voids.

Also the lack of skyscraper lighting at night makes downtown look devoid of character. If i was a visitor, I would think the TMC and the Uptown/Galleria area is where the action is at night, definitely not downtown. Downtown sits in a shadow of these areas at night. Even though i'm glad they quit with the cheap white christmas lights, it still looks like a black hole.

So, what you are saying is that those visitors who follow the lights will invariably end up in the wrong place as far as the "action" goes. Lighted skylines is therefore not a good indicator of the potential for "action", thus obliterating your argument for a lighted skyline.

As for your "one of the blandest downtowns in the country" comment, I invite you to google images of the top 10 largest cities...or, 11, if you want to include Detroit. You won't have to look far to find bland. New York is great, but then there's LA. Booooring! Chicago is nice. Of course, then there is Houston, your self-proclaimed blandest downtown. Next up Phoenix. HA! There's some excitement! Philly, not bad. San Antonio? Please. Then Dallas, which you probably think looks good, but I think looks like a Vegas hooker. San Diego? Keep looking. San Jose? Do they even have a downtown? Pulling in ay Number 11 is Detroit. They actually DO have some lighted buildings. Look what lighting has done for them! Hey everyone, let's light our skyline, so we can be like Detroit!

Come on, find a better reason to demand lighting. A beacon for tourists is perhaps the worst argument ever.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay fair enough but going by that same logic, we could say that's what you guys were doing to C2H.

Nope. We couldn't say that.

I didn't use any formal or informal logical fallacies in my arguments with C2H, whereas you did use an informal fallacy in your argument against me.

I picked up on it just fine.

I happen to believe otherwise. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but no one needs to have a fact-based preference. You either prefer a more progressive lighting scheme in downtown, or you don't. The consensus among most major US cities is to have a more progressive lighting scheme. Houston doesn't and there's nothing "wrong" with that. But some people want more lighting in downtown Houston. I for one am glad that someone over in the Chase building hasn't given up on outdoor lights for their building, and I hope that the other skyscrapers in downtown follow suit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but no one needs to have a fact-based preference. You either prefer a more progressive lighting scheme in downtown, or you don't. The consensus among most major US cities is to have a more progressive lighting scheme. Houston doesn't and there's nothing "wrong" with that. But some people want more lighting in downtown Houston. I for one am glad that someone over in the Chase building hasn't given up on outdoor lights for their building, and I hope that the other skyscrapers in downtown follow suit.

I think your use of the word progressive to describe more lighting is misguided. As the term is often ascribed to liberalism, and as liberalism in general deplores wasted energy and destructive environmental practices, and as having a boatload of lights on at night is wasteful and potentially destructive, I think what you're a proponent of is actually a regressive lighting scheme. No amount of LEED certifications will negate the fact it makes more sense environmentally to leave the lights off than on.

I'm in total agreement with Hanuman on this issue. Let's have more dark space in the city. I'd like to be able to point out Orion or the Big Dipper to my children someday* (without having to go to the boondocks to do it).

*Why won't anyone think about the children?!!

Edited by AtticaFlinch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel like i have to have a reason for feeling the way I feel. Houston could stang to light up more. That's my opinion. I have to respect that you, Niche, or A/F may not understand that, but just respect mine and not attack me because of it.

I'm in total agreement with Hanuman on this issue. Let's have more dark space in the city. I'd like to be able to point out Orion or the Big Dipper to my children someday (without having to go to the boondocks to do it).*

You're in the wrong trype of city for that my friend. You should be living in a rural, small town if that's what you want. That's almost like saying you want to ride a horse to get everywhere you want to go in a big city.

Edited by C2H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're in the wrong trype of city for that my friend. You should be living in a rural, small town if that's what you want. That's almost like saying you want to ride a horse to get everywhere you want to go in a big city.

How do you figure? Is a progressive lighting scheme an antiquated throwback to a bygone era? Hanuman's idea is as simple a flipping a switch, and if enough people think it's a worthwhile idea it'll happen, regardless of geography or place in time.

And if you can't get people to change voluntarily, there's precedent for legislation. During droughts, municipalities have no problem limiting water usage. You can only have your stereo so loud before getting a ticket for noise violation. It wouldn't be that difficult to enact similar measures for nightly light output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, find a better reason to demand lighting. A beacon for tourists is perhaps the worst argument ever.

I don't feel that i have to have a good reason for feeling the way i feel to meet your expectations. Houston could stand to light itself up more. That's my opinion and my right. You, Niche, and A/F have the right to not understand my view but just respect that I have that same right and not attack me for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel that i have to have a good reason for feeling the way i feel to meet your expectations. Houston could stand to light itself up more. That's my opinion and my right. You, Niche, and A/F have the right to not understand my view but just respect that I have that same right and not attack me for it.

RedScare just said that your reason was flawed, but he didn't reject your idea altogether. It appears to me Niche has just been playing devil's advocate and doesn't really care one way or the other, but he did want to hear a compelling reason for your position. I think of the people you listed, I may be the only one who actively disagrees with you, and I don't think I've made one attack. I'm just expressing a differing viewpoint from your own. Why is it you expect me to respect your opinion, but you don't wish to grant me the same regard? I don't understand the mentality of a person who will express a potentially contentious point-of-view and then get upset when people actually have the audacity to disagree. Just because you and I disagree does not mean I'm attacking you. And just because other people want to hear legitimate reasons for your point-of-view doesn't mean they're attacking you either.

Geez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but no one needs to have a fact-based preference. You either prefer a more progressive lighting scheme in downtown, or you don't.

That's a false bifurcation, akin to GWB's claims that "You're either with us or against us."

No. There's a third way. I don't care.

You're in the wrong trype of city for that my friend. You should be living in a rural, small town if that's what you want. That's almost like saying you want to ride a horse to get everywhere you want to go in a big city.

Weak analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weak analogy.

Entirely your opinion.

And just because other people want to hear legitimate reasons for your point-of-view doesn't mean they're attacking you either.

Geez.

Nobody's mad. It's not that big of a deal. Either you are an advocate of better lighting or you aren't. I stand by my original statement though. It seems to create voids. Disagree or not.

Edited by C2H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me Niche has just been playing devil's advocate and doesn't really care one way or the other, but he did want to hear a compelling reason for your position.

I think that that was Attica's PC way of saying that my primary purpose on HAIF is to act as a logician/troll hell-bent on undermining preconceived notions of coolness and/or righteousness.

And yeah, that's pretty close. Every now and then I'll tell you what I actually think. But most of the time, I'm just jacking with people who invoke bad logic to support their positions (using a logical system that is itself necessarily incomplete or inconsistent), or as in this case, trying to draw someone's opinion out into the open where I can attack it. It doesn't really matter who is right. At the end of the day, I am the spaghetti monster. The only thing that matters is that I am inexplicably delighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entirely your opinion.

Nobody's mad. It's not that big of a deal. Either you are an advocate of better lighting or you aren't. I stand by my original statement though. It seems to create voids. Disagree or not.

My opinion is that clouds are made of cotton candy. Disagree or not, it's my opinion and therefore no one can dispute it. I'll never need to justify my words because they're opinions. Reasoned justifications are for those fact-obsessed sociopaths, amirite?

Other opinions I have (and that are therefore impossible to disagree with):

The Holocaust never happened.

Frogs and toads are the same thing, and their urine will give you warts.

2 + 2 = 1 bazillion.

Prayer will cure cancer so doctors are unnecessary.

All Katy residents are racists.

Water is poison; people can survive on Coca-Cola alone.

Adult brown bears make excellent playmates for children.

A barbed-wire tattoo is unique.

The current pope is as good and moral as the last pope.

Mountain tops all need to be removed - regardless of whether or not coal is present beneath.

Other people have valid opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that clouds are made of cotton candy. Disagree or not, it's my opinion and therefore no one can dispute it. I'll never need to justify my words because they're opinions. Reasoned justifications are for those fact-obsessed sociopaths, amirite?

Other opinions I have (and that are therefore impossible to disagree with):

The Holocaust never happened.

Frogs and toads are the same thing, and their urine will give you warts.

2 + 2 = 1 bazillion.

Prayer will cure cancer so doctors are unnecessary.

All Katy residents are racists.

Water is poison; people can survive on Coca-Cola alone.

Adult brown bears make excellent playmates for children.

A barbed-wire tattoo is unique.

The current pope is as good and moral as the last pope.

Mountain tops all need to be removed - regardless of whether or not coal is present beneath.

Other people have valid opinions.

:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entirely your opinion.

You're comparing two things in the context of a big city, 1) a preference for viewing the night sky for recreational purposes, and 2) an individual's personal mandate that equine transportation be used as the sole mode of transportation, whether for recreational or commuter purposes, to any place that that individual would want to go.

Some practical problems assert themselves on the equine analogy. For instance, the individual may not desire to go very many places or too far afield in a big city to begin with. Also, it presupposes that a small rural town would be more equine-friendly than would be a big city and that the individual would have anywhere in the small rural town that they would want to go. Compare the problematic equine analogy to the baseline scenario where an individual merely has a preference to be able to view stars in the night sky and acknowledges that there are multiple ways to fulfill that entirely aesthetic but also entirely achievable goal.

Do you not see how these comparisons are weak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about less bickering, and more pics of good/bad examples for how you want Houston to change?

In that case, let's look at it from a purely evolutionary perspective. We evolved as diurnal creatures that occupy the day. Existing outside this niche disrupts our circadian rhythms, and over a long enough timeline this can cause havoc to us psychologically, neurologically and physiologically. Google works just as well on everyone else's computers, so I'll allow you all to do your own research to verify the accuracy of that statement.

Now, take this concept and stretch it beyond humanity, to a wacky world where other animals exist, and extrapolate the real impact of light pollution to them. If it causes us mental and physical problems to be bombarded by constant intrusive lighting, imagine what it does to those animals that have little to no comprehension of what they do or why they do it nor the impact of external factors on their behavior.

I have no pictures, but here's a little reading material for those who want bigger, better, faster and more powerful night lighting in Houston just for the sake of having it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/klinkenborg-text

If there exists no reason (that can be adequately articulated) for more lighting, then we don't need it. This isn't an opinion. It's a conclusion based on what's best for us and the rest of the inhabitants of this planet. Wanting more light for the sake of more light is irresponsible at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, let's look at it from a purely evolutionary perspective. We evolved as diurnal creatures that occupy the day. Existing outside this niche disrupts our circadian rhythms, and over a long enough timeline this can cause havoc to us psychologically, neurologically and physiologically. Google works just as well on everyone else's computers, so I'll allow you all to do your own research to verify the accuracy of that statement.

Now, take this concept and stretch it beyond humanity, to a wacky world where other animals exist, and extrapolate the real impact of light pollution to them. If it causes us mental and physical problems to be bombarded by constant intrusive lighting, imagine what it does to those animals that have little to no comprehension of what they do or why they do it nor the impact of external factors on their behavior.

I have no pictures, but here's a little reading material for those who want bigger, better, faster and more powerful night lighting in Houston just for the sake of having it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/klinkenborg-text

If there exists no reason (that can be adequately articulated) for more lighting, then we don't need it. This isn't an opinion. It's a conclusion based on what's best for us and the rest of the inhabitants of this planet. Wanting more light for the sake of more light is irresponsible at best.

Wow, nice links. There's a lot of fascinating reading, there. And perhaps not surprisingly, most of the destinations on my international travel wish list have very little light pollution. Mongolia, much of central Asia, and Australia in particular seem to pop out at me (although subsaharan Africa doesn't count, as usual).

mondo_ridotto0p25.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your use of the word progressive to describe more lighting is misguided. As the term is often ascribed to liberalism, and as liberalism in general deplores wasted energy and destructive environmental practices, and as having a boatload of lights on at night is wasteful and potentially destructive, I think what you're a proponent of is actually a regressive lighting scheme. No amount of LEED certifications will negate the fact it makes more sense environmentally to leave the lights off than on.

I'm in total agreement with Hanuman on this issue. Let's have more dark space in the city. I'd like to be able to point out Orion or the Big Dipper to my children someday* (without having to go to the boondocks to do it).

*Why won't anyone think about the children?!!

You probably need to talk to the chemical plants and TxDOT if you want to see stars in Houston. As Niche posted above, the downtown scrapers aren't going to help you see any stars alone.

I stand by my viewpoint that having a coordinated outdoor lighting scheme is progressive as opposed to regressive, while recognizing the fact that a lighting scheme involving indoor lights could also be progressive and/or regressive.

Sounds like we should press the city to develop an ordinance that says we should be "all on" or "all off". That's the only way this argument would ever be solved.

Edited by totheskies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that at around the same time as you posted this statement, you also stealthily modified someone's colorful yet inherently harmless expressions in the 'Big Head on Main Street' thread. You made the world a little bit more beige...and tried to cover it up until called out on it, whereas moderators are supposed to indicate when they've edited content (i.e. "Edited for inappropriate language").

I myself am not suggesting that the questionable content necessarily ought to be restored, but in light of your statements here and your actions in the other thread, the evidence would suggest that you're a hypocrite who can't seem to follow the rules.

*facepalm*

I got edited in this thread, in response to 20th's post. No explanation, just chopped off. Sorry Dude, just trying to add some tongue & cheek to this arena, but I guess that's not allowed if I get too close to your religeon. Guess I'll get edited again... Oh well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably need to talk to the chemical plants and TxDOT if you want to see stars in Houston.

No chemical plants or refineries have been built anywhere in the US since the seventies, yet I clearly remember being able to see many stars at night as a Houstonian child in the 80s. I don't buy that it's just the refineries, or even mostly the refineries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Right. As I said.... TXDOT. Last time I checked, smoke is not flourescent in most cases, but it can definitely obscure vision when combined with light sources. The downtown lighting scheme generates far less light pollution than our ever-constant high-mast freeway lights. So if you want to see stars, you need to either turn off those power-lamps, or cut on up to Cut 'n Shoot.

Edited by totheskies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Right. As I said.... TXDOT. Last time I checked, smoke is not flourescent in most cases, but it can definitely obscure vision when combined with light sources. The downtown lighting scheme generates far less light pollution than our ever-constant high-mast freeway lights. So if you want to see stars, you need to either turn off those power-lamps, or cut on up to Cut 'n Shoot.

I'm down with that. Let's shut off those street lamps too. My disagreement with excessive light isn't limited to Downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like we should press the city to develop an ordinance that says we should be "all on" or "all off". That's the only way this argument would ever be solved.

The argument has already been solved. The people who pay the light bill decide whether the lights should be turned on or off, and for how long.

I like how Houston imitated C2H's old hometown of Denver and copied their lighting scheme.

denver.skyline.night.jpg

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument has already been solved. The people who pay the light bill decide whether the lights should be turned on or off, and for how long.

I like how Houston imitated C2H's old hometown of Denver and copied their lighting scheme.

denver.skyline.night.jpg

For now... hopefully we will continue to "see" disagreements like those from the Chase building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For now... hopefully we will continue to "see" disagreements like those from the Chase building.

How would the Chase building be in disagreement with Red's post? He said that the owners get to decide, and in this case, they have. That is evidence of Red's succinct correctness on the issue.

Now, as for my answer to your hope, I say: Hopefully you don't actually believe what you said and understand that the Chase building, itself, an inanimate object, did not decide to install lights upon itself and turn them on. Anthropomorphism as applies to high rises is creepy and reminds me of the overwrought Ashby controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that the blue lights that we saw a couple of weeks ago were a collective figment of our imaginations? The Chase building is in fact an inanimate object. But being an object that houses living humans, it also houses their actions and conversations... which therefore means that it can and most certainly has housed disagreements. I was not referring to a disagreement between the physical building an arrangement of letters posted into the blogosphere. I was (obviously) referring to the ongoing discussions among people that decide the Chase buildings lighting scheme.

Edited by totheskies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that the blue lights that we saw a couple of weeks ago were a collective figment of our imaginations? The Chase building is in fact an inanimate object. But being an object that houses living humans, it also houses their actions and conversations... which therefore means that it can and most certainly has housed disagreements. I was not referring to a disagreement between the physical building an arrangement of letters posted into the blogosphere. I was (obviously) referring to the ongoing discussions among people that decide the Chase buildings lighting scheme.

obviously. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are Chase Towers new LED lights still lit? What color are they now?

Did Wells Fargo ever turn their back on?

Edited by Metro Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the opinions of the ten people in this thread are going to matter/change too much of downtowns lighting.

You never know...

There are probably more high profile guests floating around on these forums than we realize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay time to drudge up this thread again :)

The Chase building confuses the heck out of me. They have "played with" the lights a few times this season, but won't turn them on with the other buildings. They have several colors up there to choose from too. What gives????

And come on... it's now officially time to stop looking environmentally conscious and start showing some pride in the city. Granted, I see that Denver also has a conservative lighting scheme, but they have a more conservative skyline than Houston anyway, and better natural scenery to boot. We need to accent the cool architecture that we have in our skyline. At night, that is best done through lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And come on... it's now officially time to stop looking environmentally conscious and start showing some pride in the city. Granted, I see that Denver also has a conservative lighting scheme, but they have a more conservative skyline than Houston anyway, and better natural scenery to boot. We need to accent the cool architecture that we have in our skyline. At night, that is best done through lighting.

Agreed. It's almost as if our downtown building owners are embarrassed of their building's architecture. And please don't give me that crap about how they can't afford it. Are you kidding me? An owner of a skyscraper in the 4th largest city in America can't afford to light up their own building in a classy manner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An owner of a skyscraper in the 4th largest city in America can't afford to light up their own building in a classy manner?

What's the difference between a "gentlemen's club" and a "tittie bar"? ...because that's the difference between your definition of "classy" and my definition of "tacky".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downtown shots during MNF tonight looked pretty dark, but I like it.

I thought so too (dark). I also think that we need to bring some bling back. It's Christmas damnit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the difference between a "gentlemen's club" and a "tittie bar"? ...because that's the difference between your definition of "classy" and my definition of "tacky".

So you think all downtown lighting is tacky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think all downtown lighting is tacky?

I like the lighting on the Gulf Building and Neils Esperson Building because it showcases the intricate detail on the facade and complements the color of sandy color. Likewise, the lighting on Bank of America Center was custom-designed from the outset to compliment the building's architecture. I don't even especially like these buildings' over-adorned styles, but their lighting schemes were calculated and deliberate. I can respect that, just as I respect the austere yet random glow of lit offices juxtaposed against deep sky such as characterizes modern office buildings.

Compare that to an afterthought, lighting that practically screams at you, "look at me!" "here I am!" "come and get me!" Or at its worst... "me too!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the lighting on the Gulf Building and Neils Esperson Building because it showcases the intricate detail on the facade and complements the color of sandy color. Likewise, the lighting on Bank of America Center was custom-designed from the outset to compliment the building's architecture. I don't even especially like these buildings' over-adorned styles, but their lighting schemes were calculated and deliberate. I can respect that, just as I respect the austere yet random glow of lit offices juxtaposed against deep sky such as characterizes modern office buildings.

I agree, those two buildings have excellent lighting. It's too bad that many of our buidings downtown just aren't made for classy lighting.

I do like the lighting of the windmills of Hess Tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, those two buildings have excellent lighting. It's too bad that many of our buidings downtown just aren't made for classy lighting.

I do like the lighting of the windmills of Hess Tower.

I'll throw that in as yet another building that I don't especially like, but where I can respect the intent of the lighting.

So are we pretty much in agreement that awesome lighting is awesome and that mediocre lighting incorporated as an afterthought is a tacky distraction not worth having?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Enron/Chevron lighted anymore? I liked the orignal oval lighting scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw that in as yet another building that I don't especially like, but where I can respect the intent of the lighting.

So are we pretty much in agreement that awesome lighting is awesome and that mediocre lighting incorporated as an afterthought is a tacky distraction not worth having?

We're in agreement that there are 2.5 million(ish) people in the City of Houston, and that every one of them likely has a different interpretation of what is tacky. I think the Chase building's lighting is ok, but that they should have a little it of lights down the sides as well. Something that accents the fact that the building is actually five sided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're in agreement that there are 2.5 million(ish) people in the City of Houston, and that every one of them likely has a different interpretation of what is tacky. I think the Chase building's lighting is ok, but that they should have a little it of lights down the sides as well. Something that accents the fact that the building is actually five sided.

No! Bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite view of downtown is from the west side, coming over the Durham bridge over White Oak bayou, and to a lesser extent Shepherd on the bridge over Allen/Memorial (it's closer and the angle is better but there is some tree blockage), just before the sun comes up. The natural light makes downtown look awesome before the sun pops above the horizon. Every morning I come that way, I wish I had my camera (and 2 extra hands).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite view of downtown is from the west side, coming over the Durham bridge over White Oak bayou, and to a lesser extent Shepherd on the bridge over Allen/Memorial (it's closer and the angle is better but there is some tree blockage), just before the sun comes up. The natural light makes downtown look awesome before the sun pops above the horizon. Every morning I come that way, I wish I had my camera (and 2 extra hands).

Exactly. Anyone can look good at night with the right treatment. But how do you look at daybreak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now they're just showing off with Wells Fargo :)

Solid bright white on Thursday, half green and half red last night, and all red tonight.

I guess Mostyn Law Firm finally came through on WF's Ike insurance claim, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I don't know which building it is, but one of them is on hyper crazy mode right now.

Red, green, blue, white, and all in between.

It's cycling at a frequency of about one color every half second.

I'm gonna try to video it, but doubt my camera has good enough zoom.

edit, yeah, video looks horrible. go outside and check it out though.

Edited by samagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I don't know which building it is, but one of them is on hyper crazy mode right now.

Red, green, blue, white, and all in between.

It's cycling at a frequency of about one color every half second.

I'm gonna try to video it, but doubt my camera has good enough zoom.

edit, yeah, video looks horrible. go outside and check it out though.

That's the Wells Fargo building. I can only hope they are trying to pick the perfect color to ruin the nighttime skyline with. Any will do.

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.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...