Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Past Seasons Talk: The Tribe Has Spoken

FormerMod-a1

By FormerMod-a1
in Survivor

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ratgirlagogo
ratgirlagogo

Russel was  annoying - but much more annoying was the way he was presented.  In Samoa he averaged 7 confessionals per episode; while  Natalie White, the winner. averaged 1.07 confessionals per episode

ProfCrash
ProfCrash

JT made it as far as he did in Tocantins because of Stephen. JT won because he played a great social game and was totally willing and able to throw Stephen under the bus for whatever controversial dec

Oholibamah
Oholibamah

Not a terrible list, but this always haunts me: Natalie "road the coattails of Russell", while Cochran "sat behind stronger threats" and "brought two goats to the jury". Natalie is ranked at 30 a

Posted Images

KimberStormer

KimberStormer

Why should Phillip be punished for voting someone out?  Especially first when he is in obvious danger of being the first boot?  On Redemption Island, if I remember, she came out strong anti-returning players (or was that her ally Kristina?) which was certainly a risk worth taking but not terribly surprising that it didn't work.  If Phillip had stuck with those two (a terrible idea, since they were far outnumbered and also terrible allies) Francesca was still doomed -- Kristina would presumably been gone first, to eliminate the idol, but Francesca would have followed soon after, and would have lost to Matt at Redemption Island regardless.  Phillip flipping was just rational.  The fact that Francesca voted for him (so was flipping herself) just makes it obviously so.

The second time was even worse -- at least, as I say, going after Rob was a risk with some reward, but sticking your neck out to get rid of everyone's tractable goat?  Who has plenty of friends on the tribe?  Just because you don't like him?  Why would that ever work?  Why not lay low and if the heat is on you try to put it on Malcolm or Brandon or Corinne?  Voting for Andrea because of Hantzian misogynist paranoia, I don't even know what she thought her plan was; who she thought was going to vote with her.  (Of course, Stephen and Eliza and co all got on Andrea's case for this vote, conveniently ignoring that she was the target of the other side...)

Phillip played terrible Survivor on his first go, on every level, a disastrous social game, a worthless challenge game, a coat-tail riding strategic game, and completely unentertaining to watch, but I don't see why he should be "punished" for voting Francesca.  And personally I agreed with him in Caramoan when he got to Ponderosa and said, with unexpected humility, "I think I had a chance."  They all thought he was a goat, but he was being nice and relatively charming -- no I don't think Mr. Anger Issues Hantz flipping out means Phillip did anything wrong -- and was the ostensible leader of his silly alliance; I think there was a chance that, absent the 10000 idols there for Malcolm to find, poor Andrea (whom I love, don't get me wrong) might have found the goat she thought she was dragging was quite capable of defending himself at FTC.  It was Andrea, for example, who was inexplicably annoyed at other people getting Spies R Us nicknames; Phillip was being inclusive and buttering up jury members, and she was the one taking this silliness too seriously!  Who knows, but I do think he did much better his second time around.

  • Love 5
Hera

Hera

I mentioned in the Gabon thread that I believe that every winner deserved to win, by definition, even if Bob Crowley sort of tests that belief. But I've realized that while I wouldn't make an exception for Gabon, I might for Nicaragua. I was one of the (apparently many) people who thought NaOnka or Purple Kelly shouldn't have been allowed to sit on the jury because they quit. In the vote for the winner, they both went for Jud/Fabio. Without those votes (and assuming that NaOnka and Purple Kelly weren't somehow preventing Fabio from getting even more votes), Chase would have won 4-3, instead of losing 4-5. Of course, I'm not sure it's fair to say that Jud didn't "deserve" to win because of the actions of other players and the rules of the game at the time—it's not like he had any control over anyone in the game, much less the rules. However, I can see an argument for why Chase deserved it more. Really, though, what I remember best about that season was not liking very much.

  • Love 3
NutMeg

NutMeg

2 hours ago, Hera said:

I mentioned in the Gabon thread that I believe that every winner deserved to win, by definition, even if Bob Crowley sort of tests that belief. But I've realized that while I wouldn't make an exception for Gabon, I might for Nicaragua. I was one of the (apparently many) people who thought NaOnka or Purple Kelly shouldn't have been allowed to sit on the jury because they quit. In the vote for the winner, they both went for Jud/Fabio. Without those votes (and assuming that NaOnka and Purple Kelly weren't somehow preventing Fabio from getting even more votes), Chase would have won 4-3, instead of losing 4-5. Of course, I'm not sure it's fair to say that Jud didn't "deserve" to win because of the actions of other players and the rules of the game at the time—it's not like he had any control over anyone in the game, much less the rules. However, I can see an argument for why Chase deserved it more. Really, though, what I remember best about that season was not liking very much.

Funny you should quote these two seasons specifically, because while I liked Bob fine all season, I seriously dislike him as a winner, while, on the other hand, I was vaguely ok with Jud all season, but really loved him as a winner. Not sure why, maybe the way they both played to the jury, Bob leveraging the most unpleasant traits of the jury (bitterness, resentment, anger at the other tribe, etc.), Jud just paying if as if he fell into a win. Which in either case was far from the truth. But while Bob did little more than follow the script and was rewarded almost as a mastermind by jury members who did not want to see him as a pawn, because it would make their game even weaker, Jud constantly undersold his game play (which based on some confessionals I'm convinced was stronger than what was apparent). So as I see it Bob oversold his game after having taken advantage of the "kindness of" Sugar and the bitterness of the Onions, and didn't even have the elegance even way after being crowned a winner, to acknowledge how these two factors were decisive for his win. He might be ungrateful or he might me clueless. Neither scenario endears him to me after the fact. Jud on the other hand has so far only shown glee at winning, left the door open on whether he's a true idiot or a mensa IQ, and never said anything bad about anyone. Not even NaOnka. So if that's why she voted for him, he DID earn it.   

  • Love 6
Hera

Hera

I definitely agree that Jud's apparent airheadedness was an act. I think I remember him saying at one point that he was tired of playing dumb, but he had to keep doing it to stay in the game (until he had to win immunities). I don't actually have a problem with him as a winner either, which is why it only just occurred to me today that he might be the one exception to my belief that there's no such thing as an undeserving Survivor winner. Maybe it's fairer to say that I think Chase should have won [by one vote, because NaOnka and Kelly shouldn't have been on the jury].

I finished Gabon a couple of weeks ago, and I wouldn't say that anyone—including Bob—claimed Bob was a mastermind. Pretty much all the jurors seemed to acknowledge that Sugar had run the game at the end, but because they hated her personally, they voted for either Bob or Susie. I was surprised, because I'm so used to jurors insisting that whomever they voted for "controlled the game" or "made the best strategic moves", but in Gabon they were upfront that personal relationships were what mattered to them, and the Onions didn't like Sugar, while Crystal, Ken, and Matty felt she had betrayed them. Both sides were voting for a member of their alliance (however late an addition that person might have been), it's just that Bob had one more ally on the jury than Susie did. However, I readily admit that I don't know much about what was said in post-game interviews.

  • Love 1
loki567

loki567

One thing I remember is Randy saying he wished he had voted for Susie. If you watch the Gabon Ponderosa videos, Corinne really did a number on those guys to get them in line with an anti-Sugar/Susie mindset. It was a great example of how one negative jury member can completely turn a jury as Charlie and Marcus were happy-go-luck at that point. 

There were a lot of anti-Bob rumors after the season was over. That he was a pervert, that he rubbed up against the women at night, he was caught jerking off, he was a jerk to the crew, etc. You can check Ken's video AMA for more, it's like literally the first question he's asked. 

Oholibamah

Oholibamah

3 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

From Funny115: The one where Cochran doesn't call Julia "vanilla." The funny thing is that I made that quote into a poster when the episode aired. I can't find it . . . I'll post it here when I get home.

Never mind . . . just located it on Flickr. Maybe I should share this with Mario?

motivation436

To this day my boyfriend only knows her as "The Girl". 

ByaNose

ByaNose

Would they formally announce the new cast already?!?!? I'm having Survivor withdrawl. That said, I think it's usually done a month before the premiere episode. So technically speaking it should be February 8th since it starts on March 8th. That's my theory anyway. My life without Survivor is not very full. Yes, I have no life. LOL!!!!!

  • Love 2
thehepburn

thehepburn

7 hours ago, ByaNose said:

Would they formally announce the new cast already?!?!? I'm having Survivor withdrawl. That said, I think it's usually done a month before the premiere episode. So technically speaking it should be February 8th since it starts on March 8th. That's my theory anyway. My life without Survivor is not very full. Yes, I have no life. LOL!!!!!

 

That's correct. Everyone (including Cesternino) is expecting it Feb 8th. 

About 1/3 of the MvGX cast have done 2 hr podcasts so u can listen to those. I didnt like the season so dont care personally. I'm gonna rewatch a season instead (Cambodia). 

LadyChatts

LadyChatts

I've been re-watching Borneo and Palau.  Re-watching Palau has been like watching a brand new season, because apparently I cared so little about it the first time I completely forgot/mis-remembered half of what happened.  Borneo can always be a good re-watch for being the first ever season.  I just got through one of my favorite IC, thanks to the Rudy soundbites of "I don't know, I don't know".  Also nice to see the days when being a castaway named Kelly didn't mean that marked you to be ignored for the entire season by the crew.  Thinking I'll try and squeeze in HvsV and maybe one more before S34 starts.  I'm looking more forward to Jeff's cast assessment for S34 more than anything.  I think it'll be his best spin ever.

  • Love 1
ljenkins782

ljenkins782

9 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

I was thinking Cambodia rewatch myself!

I just did a mini rewatch of Cambodia (skipped around a bit) and it turns out that it's one of those seasons that I really enjoyed as it went along, but was kinda bored by when I rewatched it. I guess the suspense of not knowing how it would turn out is what kept my interest more than anything else. 

Quote

I've been re-watching Borneo and Palau.  Re-watching Palau has been like watching a brand new season, because apparently I cared so little about it the first time I completely forgot/mis-remembered half of what happened.

Palau is kind of the opposite, I still enjoy watching a lot of those episodes despite knowing the ending already because I enjoyed the people. Also, I think the cast commentaries for this season were some of the best, it was very enjoyable to listen to them interact and there was so little bitterness among the commentators. 

thehepburn

thehepburn

I have watched Palau 5 or 6 times. Most of the seasons I have watched at least 3 times which is why I am going S31 since I have only seen that about 1.5 times.

I have different criteria than most for watchability and re-watchability. Generally, the ones whose winna I didnt like fare better now that I can prepare myself. I never change my mind on my favorites bc I can get into the mindset and feelings and delight I originally had when watching the first time.

LadyChatts

LadyChatts

3 hours ago, ljenkins782 said:

I just did a mini rewatch of Cambodia (skipped around a bit) and it turns out that it's one of those seasons that I really enjoyed as it went along, but was kinda bored by when I rewatched it. I guess the suspense of not knowing how it would turn out is what kept my interest more than anything else. 

Palau is kind of the opposite, I still enjoy watching a lot of those episodes despite knowing the ending already because I enjoyed the people. Also, I think the cast commentaries for this season were some of the best, it was very enjoyable to listen to them interact and there was so little bitterness among the commentators. 

Knowing what's coming can be good or bad for me, but knowing Ulong was going to go on a horrible losing streak made me look at it differently.  It was almost comedic in nature.  The only thing missing were the sound effects.  They were such a terrible tribe, because there really was no reason why they should have been losing as much as they were.  They just could not work together.  So it didn't completely bore me, and made me actually pay more attention to the Koror tribe dynamics.  It was obvious if Koror lost an early challenge who was going, but since that didn't happen, it was interesting to see  In addition, my perception of the castaways changed, most for the better.  I'm still happy Tom won, but I can totally see why he's not for everybody.  I did feel bad for Katie and Ian, but hey, they could have blindsided him sooner.  

LadyChatts

LadyChatts

47 minutes ago, enlightenedbum said:

Could they have?  I don't think there was a point in the game where Ian had immunity and the numbers allowed Ian to take out Tom.

The two IC that Tom lost they could have gotten rid of him.  The women outnumbered the men when Stephenie was still there, and that was an idea being floated around.  They also could have banded together after the Gregg boot, since Katie was sore with Ian.  Since Gregg was planning on going after Tom/Ian at some point, maybe Jenn could have convinced him to vote Tom off when Stephenie went instead (despite Gregg being one that was dead set on getting rid of her).  So not many opportunities, sure, but they were there.  Unfortunately the right people weren't there to help execute it.

As for Ian, I should probably rephrase the last part of that statement, because never in a million years do I believe he would have turned on Tom.  And while Tom might have made threats that whoever turned on him wasn't getting his vote in the end, the jury might have actually respected someone like Katie for getting a big threat out.  Who knows.  It's always easy to be an armchair analyst, especially years after the original season aired.

ljenkins782

ljenkins782

9 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

As for Ian, I should probably rephrase the last part of that statement, because never in a million years do I believe he would have turned on Tom.  And while Tom might have made threats that whoever turned on him wasn't getting his vote in the end, the jury might have actually respected someone like Katie for getting a big threat out.  Who knows.  It's always easy to be an armchair analyst, especially years after the original season aired.

Wasn't Ian considering turning on Tom though? Ian very nearly got voted off because he slipped up and revealed that if Tom hadn't won the F4 immunity, he "would have had a hard choice to make." Tom flipped out, voted for Ian and only the fire-making tie-breaker saved him and sent Jenn home. That was part of the slippery slope that eventually ended with Ian jumping off a pole after 11 hours and giving Katie 2nd place. 

LadyChatts

LadyChatts

6 minutes ago, ljenkins782 said:

Wasn't Ian considering turning on Tom though? Ian very nearly got voted off because he slipped up and revealed that if Tom hadn't won the F4 immunity, he "would have had a hard choice to make." Tom flipped out, voted for Ian and only the fire-making tie-breaker saved him and sent Jenn home. That was part of the slippery slope that eventually ended with Ian jumping off a pole after 11 hours and giving Katie 2nd place. 

I don't think in the beginning, though, that he was planning on turning on him.  I didn't see much wavering from Ian until the potential girls alliance, and then the Caryn boot when Katie went at him.  He still seemed loyal to Tom until the final 4.  I don't believe he wanted to turn on Katie, who seemed to be almost as good a guilt tripper as Tom. And he didn't think he'd beat Tom in the end.  But that was the only moment I remember where he seemed to distance himself from Tom.

Eolivet

Eolivet

Hey, everyone who's rewatched old Survivor seasons more frequently than I have: I remember seasons past where contestants would give confessionals about their religion. But while nobody talked about religion last season, three players (Will, Jay and Bret) would each do a very obvious sign of the cross during vote tallying (especially votes where they were in danger). Has that ever happened before? I was struck by seeing the sign of the cross so often last season, but it occurred to me that I could very well be struck by my bad memory.

laurakaye

laurakaye

On 12/18/2016 at 1:43 AM, LadyChatts said:

I just got done re-watching Cook Islands.  Still very much a top 10 season for me, but dang, did my opinion change about Yul.  I still like him, and he totally deserved that win (more so on re-watch than I remember), but he came off as a bit of a jerk.  I remember thinking that initially in the beginning when he clashed with Cao Boi, but even after the merge, there was a little bit of arrogance about him.  On the other hand, my infatuation with Ozzy the first time around made me blind to the kind of game Yul was playing.  I was impressed that he pretty much listed ways he was a threat to win, and yet no one seemed to put the target on him.  Even him having the idol seemed to slip UTR to some people (namely the Raro tribe, who refused to take Jonathan's hint that he might have it).  Also, Becky was more visible than I remember her being.  I think there was more to her game that we were never shown.  I've always wanted to see Becky and Sundra return in a season without Ozzy and Yul, just to see how they could play without the safety net of those two taking charge.  I think Becky could be surprising. 

+++1 to this entire post.  When we got Hulu a couple of weeks ago, the first thing I searched was "Survivor," and the first season I binged was Cook Islands.  I too find it interesting that Yul never had a true target on his back, even though it was clear to everyone that he was calling the shots.  Once he outed his immunity idol it became slightly more complicated, but no one seriously talked about voting him out.  But such was the power of the Aitu 4.  Far and away my favorite season.

I just finished Tochantins and JT's win was also crazy in retrospect.  Every person out there proclaimed JT to be the most likable person on the planet.  So why not take him out?  It does kind of boggle the mind.  But then again, this was the season of Coach (who was way more bizarre than I remembered) and Tyson (who was far more mean-spirited than I remembered).  So maybe everyone's brains were scrambled from having to live with those two for so long.  But JT played a brilliantly low-key, aw-shucks kind of game.  His handling of Coach was masterful - not an easy feat, as Coach was truly delusional - and his play-acting at final TC when Stephen admitted he would've taken Erinn to the final 2 and not JT was worthy of an award.

  • Love 5
ByaNose

ByaNose

5 hours ago, laurakaye said:

+++1 to this entire post.  When we got Hulu a couple of weeks ago, the first thing I searched was "Survivor," and the first season I binged was Cook Islands.  I too find it interesting that Yul never had a true target on his back, even though it was clear to everyone that he was calling the shots.  Once he outed his immunity idol it became slightly more complicated, but no one seriously talked about voting him out.  But such was the power of the Aitu 4.  Far and away my favorite season.

I just finished Tochantins and JT's win was also crazy in retrospect.  Every person out there proclaimed JT to be the most likable person on the planet.  So why not take him out?  It does kind of boggle the mind.  But then again, this was the season of Coach (who was way more bizarre than I remembered) and Tyson (who was far more mean-spirited than I remembered).  So maybe everyone's brains were scrambled from having to live with those two for so long.  But JT played a brilliantly low-key, aw-shucks kind of game.  His handling of Coach was masterful - not an easy feat, as Coach was truly delusional - and his play-acting at final TC when Stephen admitted he would've taken Erinn to the final 2 and not JT was worthy of an award.

I actually hated JT when he played Stephen at FInal Council. He seemed like Mr. Honorable up till that point. Then he turned into Mean JT. Of course, he won the game which worked for him but I was wondering did he have to go that route? I'm looking forward to seeing how far JT goes this season. I don't think he'll win or make the finals but I hope he makes the merge or jury.

  • Love 3
SVNBob

SVNBob

32 minutes ago, KimberStormer said:

Mario is pro-Culpepper, anti-Ciera? 

Actually, more like pro-Culpepper, anti-Probst's-Ciera-hype.  (All the "She voted out her MOM!" crap.)  He doesn't really say anything bad about Ciera herself.

And he does make a pretty compelling case to try to convince readers that we might have been mistaken about Brad.  It does minimize him barking at Monica to burn the idol clue, but beyond that the picture seems pretty fair.  And it does seem to fit with the Brad we've seen thus far in Game Changers.

  • Love 1
Sugar

Sugar

Yea, I liked the Brad entry myself. After Bvs.W I admit to thinking Brad was a colossal douche, but after this last episode I thought back to WHY I hated him and couldn't think of a single reason. I agree with Mario that Brad may have gotten a raw deal. Anyway, I'm willing to give him a clean slate and see what happens in Game Changers.

Also, Ciera sucks, so not seeing why ragging on her is such a crime.

  • Love 1
LadyChatts

LadyChatts

(edited)

Not with me.  I think they are either setting him up to win (please no), or giving him a redemption arc to bring him back again (and again and again).

In any returning player season, I know it's inevitable that people I loved before I'm going to end up disliking, and vice versa.  Then there's the people I won't change my mind on.  I don't care how good of an edit Brad gets, I absolutely refuse to like the guy.

Edited by LadyChatts
  • Love 3
Oholibamah

Oholibamah

On March 17, 2017 at 2:02 AM, SVNBob said:

Actually, more like pro-Culpepper, anti-Probst's-Ciera-hype.  (All the "She voted out her MOM!" crap.)  He doesn't really say anything bad about Ciera herself.

And he does make a pretty compelling case to try to convince readers that we might have been mistaken about Brad.  It does minimize him barking at Monica to burn the idol clue, but beyond that the picture seems pretty fair.  And it does seem to fit with the Brad we've seen thus far in Game Changers.

Eh. I agree with the overall point: my issue with Brad was never that he was some awful tyrant. But as you mentioned, the article self-servingly downplays a lot of Brad's less than pleasant moments. 

Like, the first four people he met just HAPPENED to all be guys? And that's considered normal? That was my first issue with him, and why it was believable when Candice said he "shushed the women". And Brad's defense was to ask John? Why not Katie or Ciera? I think Brad's far from a sexist asshole, but he definitely showed a little casual misogyny that made it hard for me to root for him. 

Ultimately Brad's gameplay can be summarized as "wanting to have his cake and eat it too": he wanted to run an alliance and dictate the boots (or at least have influence over them, much as Mario tries to downplay it), but couldn't handle the backlash that went along with it. The onslaught from Marissa/Candice was perhaps over the top, but it was at pace with the intensity of Brad's gameplay, so I call that one a draw.

I've never really "hated" Culpepper, but I didn't particularly need to see him return, nor would I be pleased to see him win. In fact, the article's pathetic urgency to cleanse Culpepper of everything is more annoying than he himself ever was. At the end it urges the reader to "Go back and find one mean thing he said.  It simply didn't happen" despite blatantly admitting to his mean comments about Gervase. Heh. 

Lastly, insurance fraud. Totally swept under the rug. Sure, that is beyond the game, but pretty damning evidence. 

  • Love 3
Lantern7

Lantern7

Forgot about that. Now I kinda want Brad to win, just to see if the people he wronged curbstomp him afterward. I mean, not like Russell, Jon or any of the show's other assholes robbed people, right? "Brad Culpepper . . . NFL veteran, two-time contestant, winner of Survivor: Game Changers, and currently getting beat like a drum. If he's conscious after the break, we'll talk about the 39 days where he was getting punched and kicked only metaphorically. By the looks of it, maybe we should just give the money to Cirie. Damn."

ETA: Funny115 moves on from Culpepper to Cochran, the geeky gift that keeps on giving.

ETA2: Moving on to Dan. Best line: "Mike STILL doesn't have sex.  And he STILL knows how to fuck you."

  • Love 1
LadyChatts

LadyChatts

(edited)
Quote

 

wow--that is some amount of memory!  Didn't they end up picking rocks and Paschall went--or was that Australia with the other spring/december friendship?  

Yes I suppose someone makes a huge move--or a stupid one and it turns that game upside down.  I think that's harder to call, because that *is* the game and usually done to save your own ass or better position for the final-but I see the other side of the 'game-changers' idea as  who made the moves that season.  I would say JT should fit in that by giving opposing tribe an Idol.  Colton gave up his whole tribe's immunity!  But again those are some 'first time ever done' things. I think if we liked the persons it affected it would be a better memory.  

Mentioning Jerri brought back memories.  I really miss the game when people got voted out just for being obnoxious and they cared less about goats and such when they got rid of her bossy ass in S2 Australia.  

 

Bringing over from the previews thread about game changers and what makes one.

In regards to Paschal, he was the first unfortunate victim of a rock draw-and it was the show's own stupidity there that they didn't realize until the last minute that a rock draw at the final 4 was not going to work how it was supposed to.  From what I remember, Paschal ended up having some kind of medical issue immediately after being voted off, so maybe it was for the best. 

In terms of game changers this season, I'd probably argue Cirie is the best example.  Despite not winning in her previous 3 attempts, and having a poor showing in HvsV thanks to JT, she definitely made moves that did directly impact her seasons.  Her 3-2-1 vote in EI, and she was the one who orchestrated Ozzy's ouster during Micronesia, which was really a turning point in that season.  I guess, again, it depends what one thinks of "game changer".  I look at it as someone who made moves that, like Cirie, impacted the game (for better or worse).  Probst himself said some of the cast was brought back because they made stupid moves their respective seasons.  One could argue Ozzy, being dominant in challenges and an all star provider, could be considered one for setting a certain bar. 

I've been recently re-watching Outback, and I'm amazed Jerri lasted as long as she did.  I wasn't surprised at the Kel ouster, but Maralyn and Mitchell going before her was surprising.  I know why those two were voted off, but surprised Jerri wasn't sacrificed over them.  I was, and still am, a Jerri fan.  So I'm happy she did last as long as she did.  However, I agree with the rest of your point.  I think some people know how to play the 'I'll be the goat' game just to be kept around and make it to the end, even if they know they have no chance of winning.  Goes back to the people who want to be characters and be remembered vs wanting to really win.

Edited by LadyChatts
  • Love 6

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.   Restore formatting

  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.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...