Jump to content

Thummer(tm)-brand Jammer Unveiled!


Plamondon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gentlepersons,

 

It is with great pleasure that I am able to share with you the recently-announced details of Thumtronics' forthcoming Thummer-brand jammer.

 

First, some terminology. “Jammer” is the name for all instruments of the kind that Thumtronics has invented. It is a generic word, just as are “piano,” harmonica,” and “guitar.” It is not trademarked; anyone can use “jammer,” without restriction, to describe instruments of this new type.

 

“Thummer” is a trademark of Thumtronics Ltd for its brand of jammer. Just as one would say “a Fender® Stratocaster® electric guitar,” one would also say “a Thumtronics Thummer jammer.” They are both a mouthful, I admit, but the latter is no more so than the former.

 

All jammers are electronic musical controllers or instruments which include

1. at least one thumb-operated effect-controlling device, and

2. at least one two-dimensional array of note-controlling buttons, the physical arrangement of which is optimized for

a. the Wicki/Hayden note-layout, and

b. use by the fingers of one hand.

 

A couple of dozen Thummer-brand jammer prototypes, as shown on www.thummer.com, exist today and are in the hands of Australian beta-testers. Hundreds more prototypes are expected to become available in March/April (although they may only be available in Australia). Thumtronics’ first commercial jammer – the Freedom Thummer jammer – is expected to become available in late 2006, at a price of AU$497, excluding shipping and any applicable local taxes.

 

In US dollars, that’s about $365 at the time of this posting.

 

Thumtronics’ first jammers will be musical controllers, which must be connected to a computer (PC, Mac, Linux – generically “PC”) via USB. Sound can then be generated either by a computer-based software synthesizer or from a MIDI-compatible hardware-based synth attached to the PC. Subsequent models may include sound-generating electronics, and thus be musical instruments.

 

The Thummer-brand jammer – henceforth simply “the jammer” – has three key benefits:

1. Expressive

2. Easy to Learn

3. Expands Musical Horizons

 

Each of the benefits above is discussed on www.thummer.com, so I won’t repeat that discussion here. Instead, I will address those issues which I suspect are most likely to be of interest to readers of this forum.

 

In a concertina.net posting roughly two years ago, Alan Atlas was kind enough to discuss many aspects of the concertina’s history and design. Two points struck me. First was that the Wheatstone English concertina probably was originally tuned (at manufacture) in (1/4-comma) meantone, only later being tuned to 12-tone equal-temperament. Second was Alan’s conclusion that the concertina lost popularity in large part due to its inflexibility of tone and timbre. Let me discuss the latter point first.

 

The jammer has more flexibility of tone and timbre than any previous polyphonic instrument. The evidence supporting this conclusion is detailed at www.thummer.com, and is supported by quotes from relevant experts at www.thummer.com/reviews.asp, so I won’t detail those reasons here.

 

Suffice it to say that the basic jammer supports five degrees of freedom (DoF) as shipped, with optional accessories raising that to seven, nine, or eventually thirteen DoF, without limiting polyphony. No other polyphonic musical instrument has this much expressive potential. That’s not hype; that’s a simple statement of fact.

 

If “flexibility of tone and timbre” is so musically-important that the concertina’s lack thereof contributed to its decline in popularity, then perhaps the jammer’s strength in this area will tend to increase its popularity.

 

The second point, regarding the concertina’s tuning, requires two brief digressions, one to discuss the Wicki/Hayden keyboard layout and a second to discuss the meantone family of tunings. Let’s discuss the Wicki/Hayden layout first. (You can find an image of the jammer keyboard here.)

 

Robert Gaskins – for whom I have the highest respect – made a detailed comparison of the Wicki/Hayden layout to the Maccann layout a year or so ago, in which he concluded that:

The compromises required to fit the “Wicki-Hayden” system onto a concertina, no larger than most people can play and light enough to be responsive, seem to limit or remove entirely most of its advantages.

 

This is entirely true of the concertina, but not of the jammer (of which Mr. Gaskins was unaware, as it had not yet been invented when he wrote his comparison). A jammer’s buttons can be placed much more closely together than those of a concertina (for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this discussion), so on the jammer three entire octaves of 19 buttons per octave can be spanned by the fingers of a single hand. Having 19 buttons per octave provides the same fingering in all 12 chromatic keys, eliminating Mr. Gaskins’ chief complaint about the Wicki/Hayden layout when applied to concertinas.

 

Mr. Gaskins’ comparison also noted that electronic transposition could deliver the benefit of “having the same fingering in all keys” to a Wicki/Hayden concertina with fewer than 19 buttons, but pointed out that electronic transposition could give the Maccann layout “the same fingering in all keys,” too. This, he concluded, nullified the chief advantage of the Wicki/Hayden layout, that being its “self-transposing” nature.

 

This conclusion is, however, based on a misunderstanding that is rife within the concertina community, that being that the chief benefit of the Wicki/Hayden layout is that “it has the same fingering in all keys.” That is not correct. The chief benefit of the Wicki/Hayden layout is that it is “isomorphic,” meaning that any given interval has the “same shape” wherever it occurs on the keyboard – within a key, as well as across keys. Being self-transposing is a consequence of isomorphism.

 

Isomorphic note-layouts – and especially the Wicki/Hayden layout – expose the fundamental structure of the meantone family of tunings (my second digression).

 

A meantone tuning is any tuning in which (a) the syntonic commas is tempered to unison and (B) the major second is tempered to half a major third. There are an infinite number of meantone tunings.

 

Many non-Western cultures play music using meantone tunings, including Indonesia, Thailand, parts of Africa, and (I think) Arabia.

 

The most common meantone tuning in Europe, for about 400 years, was 1/4-comma meantone. It was so common that it is often called “meantone tuning” as if there were no other meantone tunings, but many others – 1/3-comma, 1/6-comma, etc. – were explored before 12-tone equal-temperament came to dominate Western music. More recently, academia has actively explored 19-tone and 31-tone tunings, both of which are also meantone tunings.

 

It is very important to note that 12-tone equal temperament tuning – the tuning that is now standard on all piano-style keyboards, guitars, and concertinas – is also a meantone tuning. It is currently the most popular member of the meantone family.

 

Now, we can tie together both of my digressions by pointing out that the Wicki/Hayden note-layout has the same fingering not just in all keys of 12-tone equal temperament, but in all keys of all meantone tunings. (This was discovered not be me, but by Andy Milne.)

 

Having the same fingering in all meantone tunings, combined with electronic music synthesis (which can produce tones in any tuning), expands musical horizons in ways which are discussed elsewhere and therefore will only be summarized here.

 

This combination of isomorphism and electronic music synthesis allows musicians to conveniently explore:

(a) the music of many different cultures and times on the same instrument, eliminating the need to acquire and master each individual culture’s different instruments;

(B) the use of “tuning progressions” as musicians of the Common Practice period explored the use of “chord progressions” and “key modulations,” and

© the use of dynamic polyphonic retuning across the range of meantone tunings as an expressive effect in real time (like pitch-bending or wiggling a whammy bar).

 

One might wonder, “these other tunings all sound like crap, so who cares?” While it is tempting to dismiss such musings as being merely ethnocentric, it is more practical to say that (a) consonance (“not sounding like crap”) is the result of aligning a timbre’s partials with its tuning’s steps, or vice versa (as per Sethares), and (B) by using electronics/software to "temper" the partials of a given sound into alignment with a given meantone tuning, the resulting combination of meantone tuning & timbre be as consonant as is the combination of Just Intonation and harmonic timbres. Alternatively put, "yes, these tunings sound like crap when played with the wrong timbres, but we can electronically temper any timbre to sound good in any meantone tuning."

 

One might similarly wonder, “but don’t meantone tunings have ‘wolf intervals,’ which restrict their use to only a few keys?” Yes, if (a) one tries to shoehorn a meantone tuning which requires (say) more than 12 tones per octave onto a keyboard that has only 12-note-controlling devices per octave, and (B) electronic transposition is not available. Those restrictions imposed wolf intervals on meantone tunings used on piano-style acoustic keyboards. The jammer, having 19-buttons per octave and electronic transposition, has no wolf intervals. Alternatively put, "don't worry about wolf intervals -- they don't exist on the jammer."

 

Thumtronics’ innovations could prove to be a milestone in the history of music. For over 500 years, music theorists and instrument makers have struggled to find the ideal balance between beauty (perfect consonance) and freedom (unrestricted modulation).

- They could temper their tunings, but without electronics, they could not temper their acoustic instruments’ timbres. We can (as per Sethares, ibid).

- They could shoehorn meantone tunings onto the piano keyboard, but without isomorphism and electronics, they could not deliver an arrangement of note-controlling devices that delivered unrestricted modulation. We can.

 

The jammer’s novel combination of isomorphism and electronic music synthesis resolves this centuries-long struggle, delivering the beauty of consonant intervals and the freedom of unrestricted modulation.

 

But, wait! There’s more. :-)

 

While the jammer’s isomorphic keyboard is easy to learn to play without any notation, or with traditional notation, its combination of isomorphism and electronic transposition allow the use of a much simpler (and more powerful) system of displaying musical information we’re calling the ThumMusic System. Many expert music educators are very excited about the potential of the System.

 

The combination of the jammer and the ThumMusic System could make music significantly easier to learn, giving more people than ever the ability to understand and create music of their own.

 

In summary, then, the jammer’s expressive power should appeal to working musicians; its ease of learning should appeal to novices and music educators; and its expansion of musical horizons should appeal to creative artists – categories which overlap in many individuals, of course.

 

If you would like to learn more about Thumtronics’ innovations, please visit www.thummer.com. If you’d like to help, or be kept informed, please join the ThumClub. If you'd like to consider investing in Thumtronics Ltd, see our online Offer Information Statement.

 

Looking forward to the concertina community’s response, I remain

 

Sincerely Yours,

 

Jim Plamondon

CEO, Thumtronics Ltd

The New Shape of Music

 

P.S.: You can also find some videos of the jammer online, but their audio and video are out of sync. When the problem has been resolved, more and better demos will be made available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlepersons,

 

The jammer is about the size and weight of a thick paperback book, partially opened. In fact, our engineering target was Richard Branson's "Losing My Virginity," 2nd edition (although this does not imply any endorsement of the jammer or of Thumtronics by Branson or by the Virgin Group). Call it 400g, or 14 ounces -- less than a pound, anyway. The jammer is getting smaller and lighter with each new design change.

 

As you can see on www.thummer.com, the jammer consists of two separate units -- one for each hand -- joined by a cable. The "hand-units" can be bolted to a "body unit" that joins them together (we'll come up with sexier names eventually, I'm sure).

 

One simple body unit attaches the two hand-units back-to-back, resulting in a concertina-like shape. This body unit -- still in design -- is suspended, stabilized, and positioned by a forearm brace, rather like the elastic-and-velcro braces people sometimes wear if they have repetitive stress injury (carpal tunnels) in their wrists. So the 400g weight of the instrument is NOT borne by the wrists, but rather by one forearm. Taking the weight off of the wrists and moving it back closer to the elbow joint -- and having no bellows -- should give the jammer better ergonomics than the concertina. (Goram, I was reading your postings carefully!)

 

The forearm brace leaves the wrist free to bend and flex across the jammer button-field while holding the jammer in a constant, fixed position, independent of the wrist's movements, significantly increasing the area that one's fingers can reach with comfort and control.

 

The forearm brace stabilizes the jammer sufficiently that one's digits are entirely free. They don't need to be devoted to stabilising the instrument (or working a bellows), so the fingers are free to play notes and the thumbs are free to control their little joysticks.

 

The jammer connects to a computer via a USB cable, which provides power to the jammer as well as data transfer. Eventually, we expect to deliver a belt pack that contains batteries and wireless communications. The jammer would connect to this belt-pack via its USB cable, and the belt pack would wirelessly connect the jammer-player to the computer, which could be across the room -- so the musician would not be tethered to the computer.

 

Don't let the jammer's low price fool you. It's just soooo much less expensive to make things out of plastic and silicon these days, and also to cut out the middlemen via Internet-based direct sales, that I can (profitably) sell a high-quality, expressive, flexible "electronic concertina" at a tiny fraction of the cost of an acoustic concertina.

 

I don't suggest that the jammer is for everyone -- indeed, I'm sure it's not. You have to plug it into a computer, first of all, which is a significant turn-off for a lot of people. That's OK! I'm trying to GROW the market for music products (by making music easier to learn), not conquer it. We can all benefit from this. If the jammer becomes successful, sales of Wicki/Hayden-layout concertinas could increase, too. :-)

 

Jim Plamondon

CEO, Thumtronics Ltd

The New Shape of Music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intuitively I am intrigued. (I promise to go back and try and read as much of the information as I can and use more of my left brain.)

 

I am optomistic enough concerning the potential of the "Thummer" that I would seriously consider: learning yet another system, Wicki/Hayden ; and become more familiar with my computer's ability to enable electronic music.

 

I will eagerly await the critiques of our more analytical community.

 

But I will extend my congratulations to Jim Plamomdon for seeing his dream and this project through to this stage of developement. I hope the "Thummer" is all he hopes it will be.

 

Regards,

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumtronics’ first jammers will be musical controllers, which must be connected to a computer (PC, Mac, Linux – generically “PC”) via USB. Sound can then be generated either by a computer-based software synthesizer or from a MIDI-compatible hardware-based synth attached to the PC. Subsequent models may include sound-generating electronics, and thus be musical instruments.

Any chance of a MIDI controller implementation, i.e. like the current version but without the need for PC to generate the MIDI output?

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlepersons,

 

The jammer is about the size and weight...

...

...

Jim Plamondon

CEO, Thumtronics Ltd

The New Shape of Music

Hats off! This is definitely going to be interesting to watch. It is fascinating to see an idea taken to its completion.

Not a new synthesizer from a Japanese company with "exiting triple-convolutial-post-hyperbolic-dual-modulation-synthesis" tone generation, but a genuinely new thing, instrument, teaching tool, performing tool - *insert favorite expression*...

 

Thumbs up, Mate!

All the best!

/Henrik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a new synthesizer from a Japanese company with "exiting triple-convolutial-post-hyperbolic-dual-modulation-synthesis" tone generation, but a genuinely new thing, instrument, teaching tool, performing tool - *insert favorite expression*...

/Henrik

Be fair to the Japanese, mate. As currently configured, the Thummer requires a synthesiser (probably made by a Japanese company) or at the best a computer running a program that imitates a synthesiser. Without the synths you couldn't separate the means of sound control from the means of sound production. That separation has given Jim a freedom in the development of his ideas that, for instance, Charles Wheatstone didn't have.

 

Chris

 

Edited 'cos I can't spell Thumber (sic)

Edited by Chris Timson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a new synthesizer from a Japanese company with "exiting triple-convolutial-post-hyperbolic-dual-modulation-synthesis" tone generation, but a genuinely new thing, instrument, teaching tool, performing tool - *insert favorite expression*...

/Henrik

Be fair to the Japanese, mate. As currently configured, the Thummer requires a synthesiser (probably made by a Japanese company) or at the best a computer running a program that imitates a synthesiser. Without the synths you couldn't separate the means of sound control from the means of sound production. That separation has given Jim a freedom in the development of his ideas that, for instance, Charles Wheatstone didn't have.

 

Chris

 

Edited 'cos I can't spell Thumber (sic)

You are right, Chris, I am being unfair to the Japanese innovations - I was genuinely intriged by Yamaha's FM-synthesis principle when they introduced the DX-7. I am mixing up the man-machine interface with the machine :)

 

/Henrik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlepersons,

 

The Thummer-brand jammer is unlikely to sport a MIDI connector, for three reasons:

1. The MIDI connector/cable is fading rapidly as a standard, althrough the MIDI *data format* is still going strong. MIDI data over USB, FireWire, WiFi, etc. are becoming very common -- USB especially. USB has emerged as the standard connector for NEW hardware-based synths, since they always connect to PCs anyway. Also, the new video-game concolses (PS3, XBox 360, etc.) -- which are going to be amaxingly-powerful music synthesizers -- also have USB ports, but not MIDI ports.

 

2. The jammer DOES emit MIDI data -- it just does so over a USB cable rather than a MIDI cable. The MIDI connector is too large, and the MIDI connector/cable data rate too slow, for an instrument that's as small and as expressive as the jammer.

 

3. A USB cable supplies power; a MIDI cable does not. By using USB, we don;t have to ship a power brick with every Thummer, or deal with international power-mains or power-plug differences, or deal with different nations' electrical safety standards. With USB, we can ship exactly the same product world-wide; with a MIDI cable, we can't.

 

In effect, we decided that forward compatibility with computers and video-game consoles was more important than backward compatibility with hardware-based sound modules (which we can get through the PC, anyway -- just not directly).

 

Do you think that this is the wrong decision?

 

Thanks!

 

--- Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it has made me think again about what instrument I am likely to be buying in the future.

 

Being a awkward cuss and a bit of a tinkerer, my question would be how much capacity is there for the user to program the buttons, thumb joysticks etc. to do what the user wants. Could I reprogam it as an anglo if I wanted (yes I know i'd have to let it know if I was pushing or pulling)?

 

Robin Madge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In effect, we decided that forward compatibility with computers and video-game consoles was more important than backward compatibility with hardware-based sound modules (which we can get through the PC, anyway -- just not directly).

 

Do you think that this is the wrong decision?

I can only speak for me, but yes, I think so. I can use my MIDI anglo with a sound module and an amp and be able to play most places with not too much difficulty. Add a computer, even a laptop, in and it's a little more complex than I want to have to handle. Sound modules have a history of stability, computers, frankly, don't. Sound modules frequently have USB ports, but they aren't of the point to point variety, and they always have a MIDI port.

 

As I say, just my opinion, but if I have to have a computer to play it I'm very much less interested. I'd far rather have something I could just plug in to my existing hardware based setup than something that would require me to build a new setup around it.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In effect, we decided that forward compatibility with computers and video-game consoles was more important than backward compatibility with hardware-based sound modules (which we can get through the PC, anyway -- just not directly).

Jim, I think this decision may cost you some sales to "high-end" users such as Chris and others who own dedicated sound modules. On the other hand, I think your approach is spot-on for the broader market.

 

The MIDI connector is too large, and the MIDI connector/cable data rate too slow, for an instrument that's as small and as expressive as the jammer.
I'd far rather have something I could just plug in to my existing hardware based setup...

Chris, if I understand Jim Plamondon's comment correctly, the data transfer capability of a MIDI cable is too low to support the volume of MIDI messages that are transmitted by the jammer, so you wouldn't be able to use it with your sound module even if there was a MIDI cable interface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, if I understand Jim Plamondon's comment correctly, the data transfer capability of a MIDI cable is too low to support the volume of MIDI messages that are transmitted by the jammer, so you wouldn't be able to use it with your sound module even if there was a MIDI cable interface.

Which surprises me, if true. My MIDI anglo generates considerable control data, as you would expect from an instrument where aftertouch is a key (pardon the pun) feature, yet the MIDI interface copes with it fine. People who mod accordions for MIDI have considerable experience in this field. I put it forward as a serious suggestion that if he hasn't already, Jim should take advice from someone like Roy Whiteley about the efficient production of MIDI data.

 

I'm not sure, BTW, that I recognise the description of myself as a high end user. I've just bought a Roland JV1080 synth second hand off eBay for 155 pounds (10 years old, hence the price). Lovely machine, massive range of patches, works a treat. If I wanted to get the same functionality combined with portability out of a computer I would have to replace my very elderly PII laptop with something a lot more up-to-date, and then I'd have to buy the virtual synth software. High-end? Cheap-skate more like!

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there a "midi over usb" standard that all synthesizer makers have agreed to so you can connect usb-enabled synthesizers together without a computer? do video game consoles recognize midi devices over usb in the same way too? and if midi over usb is a standard, is there a device i can buy that will take usb input and send midi output? how well supported is midi over usb on linux? having to install drivers on a computer to use this product would be a deal-breaker for me, especially if only microsoft and apple operating systems are supported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a point-to-point USB protocol that has been defined recently (known rather cringingly as USB On-The-Go) to allow devices to connect directly without needing a master such as a computer; however to the best of my knowledge no synth makers have adopted it. Yamaha tried m-Lan a while back but that got nowhere. The full MIDI spec remains the only standard that everybody still actually follows.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlepersons,

 

The Thummer-brand jammer is unlikely to sport a MIDI connector, for three reasons:

1. The MIDI connector/cable is fading rapidly as a standard, althrough the MIDI *data format* is still going strong. MIDI data over USB, FireWire, WiFi, etc. are becoming very common -- USB especially. USB has emerged as the standard connector for NEW hardware-based synths, since they always connect to PCs anyway. Also, the new video-game concolses (PS3, XBox 360, etc.) -- which are going to be amaxingly-powerful music synthesizers -- also have USB ports, but not MIDI ports.

...

Yes, it certainly seems to go the USB way, but after studying USB+MIDI on the web for a while (been away from MIDI a looong time, wrote a book about in '88) it seems that USB is providing "motorway": a lot of high-speed people can go there at the same time, but when they decide to get off, they are back at the good 'ol country road - you can still speed, but not with too many cars at the same time.

 

...

2. The jammer DOES emit MIDI data -- it just does so over a USB cable rather than a MIDI cable. The MIDI connector is too large, and the MIDI connector/cable data rate too slow, for an instrument that's as small and as expressive as the jammer.

...

With "speed" I am thinking of Chris' comment - he points out that his MID Anglo churns out lots of control data without clogging the device. I haven't heard about this speed problem before - but when we talk several instruments, lots of traffic, then it could be so. And that's where the modern (MIDI is a sub-set of RS-232, not the sexiest thing today) interfaces seem to come in. Here is an extract from http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/midi10.pdf:

 

"4 USB-MIDI Event Packets

MIDI data is transferred over USB using 32-bit USB-MIDI Event Packets. These packets provide an efficient

method to transfer multiple MIDI streams with fixed length messages. The 32-bit USB-MIDI Event Packet

allows multiple "virtual MIDI cables" routed over the same USB endpoint. This approach minimizes the

number of required endpoints." See? "virtual MIDI cables", sounds like a good thing.

 

...

3. A USB cable supplies power; a MIDI cable does not. By using USB, we don;t have to ship a power brick with every Thummer, or deal with international power-mains or power-plug differences, or deal with different nations' electrical safety standards. With USB, we can ship exactly the same product world-wide; with a MIDI cable, we can't....

...

Grrrr - this is the hardest nut to crack! I can understand the frustration here - USB would solve it elegantly; with MIDI, a silly power brick with all kind of silly mains plugs would have to be provided. But USB OUT could lead to some folk saying: "USB? - no problem, I'll buy a USB to MIDI converter" - and end up with no power.

 

There's no getting away from the fact that MIDI is one of those rare cases where a standard and a de facto standard is is the same thing. So it's probably going to stay with us for a long time.

 

Batteries then? Rechargeable batteries would bring back the power brick dilemma... no way of escaping...

 

I have forgotten how your Anglo is powered, Chris -?

 

/Henrik

 

- and A Happy New Year to you all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating - I hope it does well, although I've no interest in owning one myself! I realised, reading the web page, that at the ripe old age of 30 I've come full circle and gone from being someone who used to relish electronic musical machinery ten years ago to rejecting it almost completely. I'm officially a luddite! :lol:

 

Personally I'll take an organic and "considerably less expressive" piano any day ;) , but I can see that the Thummer has plenty of potential for those with the will to explore it.

Edited by stuart estell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ersonally I'll take an organic and "considerably less expressive" piano any day ;) , but I can see that the Thummer has plenty of potential for those with the will to explore it.

A good point, which raises an interesting question over the future of the Thummer. The reason one chooses a particular instrument as opposed to another is extremely personal. Why did I choose an anglo and you an English concertina? Why is my partner Anne's heart given to the fiddle even though she can play the English concertina very competently? Why does anybody choose one instrument over another? Logic doesn't enter fully into it. The long term future of the Thummer , I suggest, lies in whether it appeals to enough people on this non-logic level as well as the theoretical level. This is something only time will tell.

 

Chris

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.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...