Jump to content

Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"


Undead Medic

What Did You Think Of "His Last Vow"?  

157 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Your Vote Here:

    • 10/10 Excellent
    • 9/10 Not Quite The Best, But Not Far Off
    • 8/10 Certainly Worth Watching Again.
    • 7/10 Slightly Above The Norm.
    • 6/10 Average.
    • 5/10 Slightly Sub-Par.
    • 4/10 Decidedly Below Average.
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
    • 2/10 Bad.
    • 1/10 Terrible.
      0


Recommended Posts

 

If she wanted to avoid "breaking" John, why didn't she come clean with him earlier on, before they were married with a child on the way, when she first realized things were getting serious?

Already answered that one: because it would break him. 

 

I must say, you presume something not in evidence.  You presume she thought she would ever have to reveal her prior life - which was dead to her (as dead as his military life).  She thought she was successfully clear of that life - and would never have to deal with it again.  Telling John her past would do nothing but hurt him.

 

Or are you suggesting that she should never have allowed John to fall in love with a person everyone (including John) agrees is precisely her type - and which he knew, at some level, was dangerous?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm glad you agree that the writers are indicating she is concerned about John.  That concern is the explicit rebuttal to your points:

 

1) no.  to reveal the lie would, as Mary stated, have broken John and she explicitly said she would never allow him to be broken.  She'd seen what Sherlock's death had done to him.  She wasn't about to see him completely destroyed by her revelation.  She loves John too much to see that happen to him.

2) no.  as stated, she risked (and later threatened once more) sherlock's life - again BECAUSE she would never allow John to be broken by revealing the lie.  She loves him too much to see that happen to him.

 

 

 

So, to protect John from being destroyed, she tried (twice) to kill the man whose death she had already seen destroy John? 

 

:nope_sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I can even deal with John forgiving Mary, but at the end of this episode it feels like it's Mary and John together, and Sherlock is on his own again. I deeply dislike that.

You dislike Sherlock loving John enough to let him go?  But if he didn't do that, then he would fit the definition you identify as cowardice.  He would be placing his desires above those of John's well being.

 

  :) No, I definitely do not dislike that - that was my favorite part of the story. But I would have had John thank Sherlock, for one. I would also have had Mary standing on the sideline, ashamed, rather than walking up to Sherlock and kissing him goodbye. I would have both John and Sherlock distrust Mary. I still love the idea of Sherlock protecting her despite her deceit, because it makes him all the better a man, but I would not have him trust her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I again agree that your interpretation here is more in line with the one of the writers than mine.

So you agree that is the story.  You just don't like it. 

 

 

 

If, indeed, Mary is only protecting John from getting hurt, that means that Mary is so important to John that his life will be ruined if he found out the truth - which I strongly dislike the idea of.

Why do you dislike the idea of a man being devastated by being lied to by, not one but both, the most important people in the world to him?  Or is it that you simply dislike the idea of anyone but Sherlock having any importance to him?

 

 

How can she know exactly how much John can take, emotionally and mentally?

She saw what the loss of Sherlock did to him.  That she may have underestimated John's resilience doesn't change her motivation.  It doesn't make her a coward, as you claim.

 

 

are the writers now trying to tell us that losing Sherlock - a second time, even - would not hurt John so much?

No.  But here it is done honestly and directly.  And John knows Sherlock.  He would never conclude Sherlock can't survive - especially when he survived his own death.  He is alive - and thus can come back.

 

 

 

They are ruining the friendship of Sherlock and John.

How.  John recognizes the fact that Sherlock supposedly sacrificed himself for the sake of John.  He cannot do anything to resolve that issue.  Are you, again, claiming the writers should never put Sherlock in the position of having to demonstrate his love by means of sacrifice???  THAT would be bad writing.

 

 

 

I perfectly understand that it is equally frustrating for you to see their friendship suffering in TEH.

You misunderstand my complaint about HEARSE.  It's not that their friendship suffered.  It is that neither of their actions made any sense for the characters.  The writers didn't create bad situations.  They badly wrote the characters.  They wrote them falsely.

 

The same cannot be said here.

 

Sherlock heroically saves John.  And he does so by sacrificing his own life.  If anything, the writing is bad because it is (as Moffat often does) simply a repeat (with less drama) of FALL. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If she wanted to avoid "breaking" John, why didn't she come clean with him earlier on, before they were married with a child on the way, when she first realized things were getting serious?

Already answered that one: because it would break him. 

 

I must say, you presume something not in evidence.  You presume she thought she would ever have to reveal her prior life - which was dead to her (as dead as his military life).  She thought she was successfully clear of that life - and would never have to deal with it again.  Telling John her past would do nothing but hurt him.

 

Or are you suggesting that she should never have allowed John to fall in love with a person everyone (including John) agrees is precisely her type - and which he knew, at some level, was dangerous?

 

 

 

 

You missed the point I was making... she should have come clean with him before things got to the point where the truth would do irrevocable damage to him. If she saw a future with this man at all (which she had to when she moved in with him), she owed it to him to come clean and start that future on a foundation of truth. Every day she waited, letting him fall more and more in love with her, was just another nail in his coffin. 

 

Ex-CIA operative who murdered numerous people and went on the run, changing her whole identity and even adopting a fake accent? And she didn't presume it might catch up with her? As a trained operative, it should have never been far from her mind, she should have always been ready to run at a moment's notice. Settling down for an extended period of time was rather foolish, she should have known better. Especially, as I said, since she chose to settle down with a man with second-hand celebrity status. 

 

And, as an aside, doesn't Watson in the original ACD stories

end up going back to war later, after Holmes retires from detective work?

 

 

"Telling John her past would do nothing but hurt him." Wrong.  It would hurt him, true, but that's not all it would do.  It would put her at risk of losing him if he chose to leave her.  Let me ask you this... if you married a man whom, unbeknownst to you, was a rapist or a murderer or a child molester in his past, but had reformed (but is it really "reforming" if she's willing to kill his best friend to protect her secret?), would you rather not know the truth so you didn't have to have your heart broken?

 

To each his own, but if it were me, I'd take the heartbreak in exchange for full disclosure and the opportunity to choose for myself if I wanted to go to bed every night with a killer/rapist/molester. 

 

And yes, yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting.  And, by the way, that whole "she's exactly your type because you like danger and you knew what she was when you met her" bit was total BS and I can't believe the writers put that in there. I was thinking the whole time,"You know, just because you make Sherlock spout this dribble, it doesn't make it true or believable to an audience." Because, 1) being a danger junkie and enjoying running after criminals doesn't mean you secretly want to marry and impregnate one, and 2) just how, exactly, are they saying that John knew on some level that she was a former assassin? Even Sherlock Holmes was shocked by that. I really got John's anger there because it did sound like they were trying to make it his fault. I wanted him to say "You know what, you deserve each other" and storm out on them both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just wish this show would calm down again. Back off from the superlatives. But I sense that is not going to happen any time soon.

 

 

I would love that too! This series has been one shock after another for me - though the two first episodes I've come to love. That will not happen with HLV, I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So, to protect John from being destroyed, she tried (twice) to kill the man whose death she had already seen destroy John? 

 

:nope_sad:

 

No.  As Sherlock states, she did not try to kill him the first time.  And the second time, she merely made the threat - hoping that both their love of John would serve to prevent such an act.

 

But she had seen him recover from the loss of Sherlock.  So she knew it could be done again.  It wouldn't involve a lie by Sherlock.  And he had already gotten on with his life. 

 

What she believed is that a second lie revealed would break him.  And so she kept trying to keep the lies at bay so as to save him.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

... that whole "she's exactly your type because you like danger and you knew what she was when you met her" bit was total BS and I can't believe the writers put that in there. I was thinking the whole time,"You know, just because you make Sherlock spout this dribble, it doesn't make it true or believable to an audience." Because, 1) being a danger junkie and enjoying running after criminals doesn't mean you secretly want to marry and impregnate one, and 2) just how, exactly, are they saying that John knew on some level that she was a former assassin? Even Sherlock Holmes was shocked by that. I really got John's anger there because it did sound like they were trying to make it his fault. I wanted him to say "You know what, you deserve each other" and storm out on them both. 

 

 

My sentiment exactly! I really felt for John when he said "Why is everything always my fault?" and kicked the chair (or whatever it was).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I can even deal with John forgiving Mary, but at the end of this episode it feels like it's Mary and John together, and Sherlock is on his own again. I deeply dislike that.

You dislike Sherlock loving John enough to let him go?  But if he didn't do that, then he would fit the definition you identify as cowardice.  He would be placing his desires above those of John's well being.

 

  :) No, I definitely do not dislike that - that was my favorite part of the story. But I would have had John thank Sherlock, for one. I would also have had Mary standing on the sideline, ashamed, rather than walking up to Sherlock and kissing him goodbye. I would have both John and Sherlock distrust Mary. I still love the idea of Sherlock protecting her despite her deceit, because it makes him all the better a man, but I would not have him trust her.

 

 

Yes! I was OK with Sherlock protecting her, because he was doing it to protect John (and the baby). That was, after all, his last vow. Did Mary deserve that kindness? No. But it wasn't for her, not really. 

 

I totally agree, she just walks up and kisses him like he's going away on a holiday or something. She nearly killed him, never apologized, and now he's going to his probable death as a direct result of her past. If not for CAM's leverage on Mary, Sherlock never would have killed him.  He sacrificed himself for John Watson's happiness.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If she saw a future with this man at all (which she had to when she moved in with him), she owed it to him to come clean and start that future on a foundation of truth.

Again I am struck by the claims that she shouldn't lie, but it's perfectly fine for Sherlock to lie.  If you are going to say that a relationship must be based on truth rather than lies - and that John must not enter into relationships with people who grievously lie to him, then you must condemn his relationship with Sherlock (from HEARSE onward) as much as with Mary.

 

But the point I'm saying you missed is not whether Mary lied or not - or whether she should have lied or not.  The question was her supposed motivation - and even others admit that it was for love of John that she threatened Sherlock.  Not cowardice.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would have had John thank Sherlock

Yet you excused their lack of appropriate responses like this in HEARSE.  You said they simply weren't emotionally developed enough to do so.  It was claimed that Sherlock had to manufacture a deathly threat because it was agreed John 'didn't do this stuff' well.

 

Now you demand they do it well?

 

The thread running between both complaints here is that everyone wants the characters in a particular place - regardless of how they get there.  That isn't good writing or characterization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I again agree that your interpretation here is more in line with the one of the writers than mine.

So you agree that is the story.  You just don't like it. 

 

 

 

If, indeed, Mary is only protecting John from getting hurt, that means that Mary is so important to John that his life will be ruined if he found out the truth - which I strongly dislike the idea of.

Why do you dislike the idea of a man being devastated by being lied to by, not one but both, the most important people in the world to him?  Or is it that you simply dislike the idea of anyone but Sherlock having any importance to him?

 

 

How can she know exactly how much John can take, emotionally and mentally?

She saw what the loss of Sherlock did to him.  That she may have underestimated John's resilience doesn't change her motivation.  It doesn't make her a coward, as you claim.

 

 

are the writers now trying to tell us that losing Sherlock - a second time, even - would not hurt John so much?

No.  But here it is done honestly and directly.  And John knows Sherlock.  He would never conclude Sherlock can't survive - especially when he survived his own death.  He is alive - and thus can come back.

 

 

 

They are ruining the friendship of Sherlock and John.

How.  John recognizes the fact that Sherlock supposedly sacrificed himself for the sake of John.  He cannot do anything to resolve that issue.  Are you, again, claiming the writers should never put Sherlock in the position of having to demonstrate his love by means of sacrifice???  THAT would be bad writing.

 

 

 

I perfectly understand that it is equally frustrating for you to see their friendship suffering in TEH.

You misunderstand my complaint about HEARSE.  It's not that their friendship suffered.  It is that neither of their actions made any sense for the characters.  The writers didn't create bad situations.  They badly wrote the characters.  They wrote them falsely.

 

The same cannot be said here.

 

Sherlock heroically saves John.  And he does so by sacrificing his own life.  If anything, the writing is bad because it is (as Moffat often does) simply a repeat (with less drama) of FALL. 

 

 

 

You bring out lots of important points, but instead of answering each individually, I think I can explain my general feelings about the friendship of John and Sherlock:

 

I love that the writers have placed Sherlock and John's friendship at the forefront of the show right from the ASiP up until TSoT. Nothing matters more to me than their friendship. Anything that makes it seem like someone else is more important to them than they are to each other, I generally dislike - unless that someone else loves both of the men and puts their friendship on the same level as her own relationship with one of them. Until now, I would have never thought it possible that the writers would do anything else. Now, for Sherlock, John matters the most. For John, Mary matters the most. And that's okay - as long as Mary brings them closer - but I very much dislike it when they place her in a situation where she shoots Sherlock - whether or not it was surgical.

 

So, yes, it is the writing of HLV I dislike - not your interpretation of it :) I think you got it "right" according to the writers. But that doesn't mean I have to like it, though I wish I did. I just simply can't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If she saw a future with this man at all (which she had to when she moved in with him), she owed it to him to come clean and start that future on a foundation of truth.

Again I am struck by the claims that she shouldn't lie, but it's perfectly fine for Sherlock to lie.  If you are going to say that a relationship must be based on truth rather than lies - and that John must not enter into relationships with people who grievously lie to him, then you must condemn his relationship with Sherlock (from HEARSE onward) as much as with Mary.

 

But the point I'm saying you missed is not whether Mary lied or not - or whether she should have lied or not.  The question was her supposed motivation - and even others admit that it was for love of John that she threatened Sherlock.  Not cowardice.

 

 

 

 

Please point out which post I made where I said that it was perfectly OK for Sherlock to lie? I was never OK with that, and if you go back to the TEH thread, you'll see pages of me bemoaning how easily John forgave him.  

 

I have said that I am more inclined to forgive Sherlock in comparison to Mary because his lie to John was never about John, it was about keeping the secret of his fake suicide so he could hunt down Moriarty. Was it wrong of him to do so? Yes. But he felt going after Moriarty's web was something he had to do and that, were John to know the truth, it would jeopardize the mission. And as soon as it was over, the first thing he wanted to do was go to John. And yes, his immature little "joke" at the restaurant (and on the train) was ill advised, but Sherlock is immature and not the best judge of appropriateness in social situations. In the end, though, whatever lie he did tell John... he came clean. He didn't send Mycroft or have Molly or Mrs. Hudson break the news and try to protect him from John's wrath. He went and found him and told him the truth, and even stood by and let himself be attacked three times because John needed to work through his anger and Sherlock knew he deserved it. 

 

Mary lies repeatedly, nearly killed Sherlock, went to his bedside at the hospital while he was still recovering and drugged, and rather than "I'm so sorry, please forgive me" her first and only words to him were "You won't tell John." (And in that scene that felt vaguely like a threat to me.) Then she goes after him and threatens to kill him again if he attempts to tell John, not realizing that she is, in fact, confessing to John herself in that moment. 

 

And in matters of personal opinion, I don't believe it matters how many others "admit" that something is one way, that doesn't serve as evidence that one is more correct than the other. That's why it's called opinion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I would have had John thank Sherlock

Yet you excused their lack of appropriate responses like this in HEARSE.  You said they simply weren't emotionally developed enough to do so.  It was claimed that Sherlock had to manufacture a deathly threat because it was agreed John 'didn't do this stuff' well.

 

Now you demand they do it well?

 

The thread running between both complaints here is that everyone wants the characters in a particular place - regardless of how they get there.  That isn't good writing or characterization.

 

 

I believe they have changed from TEH to TSoT, so yes, they should do it better. And I do not feel entirely comfortable with Sherlock's response in TEH; I just felt it was more understandable than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Anything that makes it seem like someone else is more important to them than they are to each other, I generally dislike

Well, it's a good thing the writers haven't done that then.  But if you are going to claim this to be the case, then you have to claim it right from HEARSE (which you haven't been doing - quite the opposite in fact).

 

In the end, John loves Sherlock more than anyone else in the world - and Sherlock loves John more than anyone else in the world.

 

If you are going to claim otherwise, you have to provide the evidence.  So far, you have not.

 

The only real difference between FALL and VOW is that - after Sherlock's sacrifice - John still has Mary in the end (whereas in FALL he had no one).  That is not the same as saying he chose Mary over Sherlock - or that he loves her more than he loves Sherlock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe they have changed from TEH to TSoT

HEARSE was a change from everything before and after.  If you are going to demand the writers do something different, it should be in the one episode which the characterization contradicts all other characterization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, I am starting to feel like we're talking in circles, and some of it is coming off in a rather nasty tone. Maybe that's just lack of sleep causing me to misinterpret. In any event, I'm going to call it a night. 

 

Happy First Day of the Hiatus, people.  :'(

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And I do not feel entirely comfortable with Sherlock's response in TEH; I just felt it was more understandable than this.

What's not understandable about Sherlock's response here?  It is exactly the same response as both FALL and HEARSE.  He sacrifices himself (FALL) - then uses humor to deflect/express his true feelings(HEARSE).

 

If one wants to complain about the writing, one should really be complaining about the cliched stories.  We only have 9 now and already we are repeating them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please please talk about the fact that Mycroft was totally willing to send his brother to certain death because he killed a man everyone wanted dead anyway, but turns the plane around second Moriarty is back in the picture???  For me, the whole Mary "betrayal" thing is nothing compared to what Mycroft did!

 

It's not like Mary went to Baker street and hunted Sherlock down--she was trying to kill Magnussen to free herself from her past, and it wasn't her fault that Sherlock and John interrupted her.  Plus, Sherlock and Mary both understand that John loves them because of, not in spite of, their cunning/duplicity.

 

 Mycroft, on the other hand, what on earth was his excuse?   :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, we're probably talking a bit in circles, some of us, but that's because we view things differently. I certainly would like to believe more in Sherlock and John's friendship than I do now. Maybe I'll try to forgive Mary myself, but right now I can't. I will try to point out the things I liked about the episode tomorrow or the day after, because there was definitely some of that too - and I will need it to stay positive :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dreamt about Sherlock (the show, sadly not really the man himself) and I woke up thinking about it and I still can't forgive Mary. For lying, yes. For having a dodgy past, yes. For planning to kill Magnussen, yes. For shooting Sherlock? No. Never. And John DOES forgive her. For trying to kill his best friend (because I can't swallow that guff about her "saving Sherlock's life" - it WAS a kill shot because he DIED and only survived because he saved himself). I just can't forgive her, which makes me unable to see why John can, and Sherlock as well who seems to forgive her with such ease ("we can trust Mary," "give my love to Mary," "that's my girl").

 

After TRF I was DEVESTATED but satisfied with the episode and my heart was so full of Sherlock and John's love for each other. Now all I can think about is how the hell Mary got away with what she did, how she's ruined my love of her and how I now see her as a real obstacle to the Sherlock and John-ness that is at the heart of the show.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

/>

Can we please please talk about the fact that Mycroft was totally willing to send his brother to certain death because he killed a man everyone wanted dead anyway, but turns the plane around second Moriarty is back in the picture??? For me, the whole Mary "betrayal" thing is nothing compared to what Mycroft did!

 

It's not like Mary went to Baker street and hunted Sherlock down--she was trying to kill Magnussen to free herself from her past, and it wasn't her fault that Sherlock and John interrupted her. Plus, Sherlock and Mary both understand that John loves them because of, not in spite of, their cunning/duplicity.

 

Mycroft, on the other hand, what on earth was his excuse? :angry:

I like to think that Mycroft planned to rescue him from the situation like he did at the beginning of TEH. He did say after all that losing Sherlock would break his heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I fully expected something like this happening with Mary, but I still don't like it. An assassin. Oh come on. It's just so over the top. Well, now we can really look forward to the crime solving (action) trio, can't we. I bet the baby has superhuman powers.

 

Hadn't even though about that side of it, but I agree. I feel it's becoming too much like an action-movie. Makes you wonder what they will do next.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hmmmm.... We don't really find out much about her background though. Sherlock says she has an English accent now but that it isn't her own (did I read on here/hear in the show that she may be American??) Perhaps she had some career which involved killing (CIA or something similar maybe??) and something went wrong somehow. Perhaps she fled in desperation and took on a new identity to protect herself (a bit like Irene Adler faking her death)??

 

Plus, Sherlock seems to like her so I trust his judgement. AND Sherlock thought that Magnussen was the worst man he'd ever come across so he must have had a really strong hold over her. He knew that John's weakness was Mary, but Mary's weakness was obviously John because she did what she did to protect him - to stop him being convicted of murder she deliberately didn't kill Magnussen and also to stop her past getting to him because she knew it would destroy him.

 

I dunno, I'm just trying to justify still liking her!

 

 

I don't feel the need to justify my still liking Mary. My reasons are there in the text presented to us, and also in the characters evaluations of themselves.  She was CIA and did some sort of 'wetwork' - so possibly a bit of a sociopath herself, yes? Well John LOVES himself a sociopath, doesn't he? Sherlock laid it out pretty clearly and John didn't disagree. Also it didn't seem like he forgave her quickly or easily. It appeared to me that John and Mary hadn't really talked or been in close proximity for a at least three months by the time they're all together at Christmas - she actually says something like that. 

 

Mary is a bigger-than-life character in a show about bigger-than-life people.I liked that she was ... unusual. I could be distressed that the love interests in Sherlock end up being killers or extortionists. But I can go with it because for me it made for an interesting story. Sherlock believes she didn't want to kill him. She called the ambulance and saved his life. I also trust his judgement. It's his judgement that counts here.  He's the person who was shot.

 

Anyway, I thought it was a good episode with many jaw-dropping twists.

 

Also can I just say that I assumed Sherlock was having sex with Jeanine because that was all part of selling the lie. I didn;t hear him deny it. (Perhaps on the next viewing I will). This, as I think someone has already mentioned, was also in ACD canon. Holmes coldly wooed a maid long enough to get engaged to the poor thing just to get access to her employer. He treated her horribly but pointed out she was a dull girl and easily duped. He was kind of a dick. If Jeanine didn't get sex out of it with this 21st century version than she was an idiot. She didn't seem like an idiot to me. Didn't she go to the papers after she found out he was using her? That's what I heard. Maybe it's revealed they never really did it in that scene?  I mean does not sleeping with her make him somehow more honorable in using her the way that he did?  Because in my book that still makes him a dick.

 

Moffatt and Gatiss have both said that all of Sherlock Holmes is fair game, all the films, books, pastiches, plays, etc. I'm assuming they've read all the same books I have. The name William Sherlock Scott Holmes is another one of those things (like the possible other sibling and Sherlock's birthday date) that was made up by fanboys in the past, the Baring-Gould's etc, who couched their obsessive fanboy speculations in quasi- academic language. Much in the way some old school fans of Doctor Who and Star Trek have done for lo these many years. Sherlock Holmes fandom is one of the first fandoms to gather in convention-like atmospheres for the sole purpose of picking at and trying to explain discrepencies and continuity errors in the stories.  The Baker Street Irregulars (fan club) did not allow women to be official card carrying members until the 1970's I believe (although women could submit essays and type up newsletters) .

 

I did a lot of research myself when I was writing my book, back in the days before search engines, and I have to say there is very little difference between The Encyclopaedia Sherlockania and the Star Trek Compendium or The Baker Street Journal and The 500 Year Diary.  And now Moffatt and Gatiss have added their own fanfic backstory to the milieu and I'm perfectly okay with that.  It's a beautiful thing. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.