Jump to content

Menu

S/O Rethinking School


Recommended Posts

There were a few questions directed toward me about early reading on the Rethinking School thread.

 

My main goal of posting originally was to be supportive of Susan Wise Bauer's idea of teaching a child to read before school.  I gave an example of my own experience because if a two year old could easily learn to read in a low stress, no output home setting, then certainly it could be appropriate for a 4 year old too.

 

This is really only for people interested in it.  I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do.  There is nothing damaging or wrong about NOT doing it.  You are not wrong, bad, or missing out on anything by not doing it.  I am just sharing my own experience.

 

I am in agreement that being pushy about teaching anything, especially in a classroom setting could be damaging.  The freedom teaching at home brings is the luxury of time, connection, playfulness and to require very little to NO output.  I would absolutely not start a baby on a reading program meant to teach a school age child to read.

 

That is really the distinction between being "developmentally appropriate" or not.  If you are only telling your baby or child something and not requiring them to spit anything out, teaching a child to read the way I did it, isn't really any different than reading to them.

 

I gave the example of my second child, DS5, who read before two.  His reading is the most successful of my efforts and the most extreme.  I think he would have been easy to teach to read at any age. 

 

I'm pretty sure my definition of reading isn't any different than anyone else's.  DD2 read the words "jealous," "adventure," and "shadowy" last night.  I am pretty darn sure she doesn't know what any of those words mean.  I am pretty sure she knew what most, if not all, of the words she read in her biscuit books meant.  She is also a bit extreme because of how often she wants to spend looking at books and flashcards and alphabet books, etc...  She is my only girl. Maybe it is a girl thing?

 

I can understand what she is saying but it isn't easy.  She has the worst diction of all my 4 children.  I think it is a lot like other two year olds.  Their mothers can tell what they are saying, but no one else can.

 

I do have two more typical boys who I don't spend that much time on reading activities because they don't want to.  I only do this stuff to the degree that the kid wants to and if they didn't want to I wouldn't do it at all.   They can still read though.  DS2 is the one who seems to read the least.  He will read some things out loud but only maybe 1/2 of the flashcards that he pops in to look at when his sister is reading all of them.  Does he know how to read the other 1/2?  I don't know and I don't care.  I'm not going to ask him to read them, that is output and I only do input at his age.

 

I am not extrapolating out to other babies/children because of my own experiences.  I heard from other people doing these types of things before I did it that babies can learn to read before they can speak, that it is easier than speaking, that it is joyful, that they really seem to like it. When I saw it myself, then I agreed with them.

 

It IS hard to believe until you see it yourself.  I don't blame anyone for being skeptical. 

 

The way I knew my DS5 could read some was shortly after he learned how to walk at 15 months old (I thought that was a little late, but my twins were even older), he picked up a card that had the word "all" on it and he said "all."  He had never used the word all before and barely said anything other than Dada and Momma.  A month or two later we were visiting my dad and my husband was showing that he could read the word "all."  My husband just kept going.  We found out he knew every sight word we had ever shown him, at least 200 of them. He was 17 months old.  He spoke them. The words came out of his mouth but he didn't regularly use that many words.  He is five now and he still isn't super talkative.

 

There are other moms on this board who have done this.  It isn't a super common thing to do, so there aren't many and they don't mention it because there are people here who are very hostile to the idea.  I have a thick skin from being a chiropractor for mumble, mumble years and used to thinking WAY outside of the box.

 

I think my children are above average intelligence.  I have heard one parent saying they tried this and it didn't work, so apparently it doesn't work for everyone.  I wouldn't have been terribly upset if my children didn't read early, but I wanted to know early if there were any problems I needed to address.

 

This is long and I will post later about nuts and bolts of what I did if anyone is still awake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure my definition of reading isn't any different than anyone else's.  DD2 read the words "jealous," "adventure," and "shadowy" last night.  I am pretty darn sure she doesn't know what any of those words mean.

 

I think your definition of "reading" is actually quite different than many other people's definition.

I (and quite a few others) cannot separate "reading" ability from comprehension. A student who does not comprehend the words is sounding out words, or recognizing the image of a sight word. I do not considers this actually reading; it is blending sounds or matching a visual pattern.

 

If I can "read" aloud Italian texts and make them sound very nice and Italian, but have no clue what they mean, I am not reading in Italian.

 

 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because they cannot make the sounds doesn't mean they aren't trying or comprehending. I have been told by a nonverbal person that her baby learned to sign very very young, and by 1 was signing fluently. As in able to converse with an extensive sign vocab 

 

 Just because a child cannot speak doesn’t mean they are not reading.

 

 

Sigh! for me my children all learned to speak, crawl and walk at a very young age...  all talking fluently before 1, all crawling by 4-5 months, all walking before 9 months, one even walking at 6 months.......but not one learned to read before 8, even with me actively teaching phonics/reading instruction from infancy. ds14 has only been able to comprehend what he is reading when he TURNED 14

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Regentrude and Lewelma.  I am always so excited to hear about your children.  I have greatly enjoyed many of your posts and am thrilled and encouraged by their achievements from afar.

 

Okbud.  I am not remembering your child or children specifically but have enjoyed many of your posts too.  Some people know their children can read before speaking by asking them of three cards, "show me which card says apple."  I just never did that because I was pretty strict on the "no output" rule.

 

To Lewelma: She understands the level of reading she does in her Biscuit books, which I think is about right for a two year old.  She read every word of three of them last night.  No, she is only phonetically decoding those bigger words, not comprehending them. I am extremely happy with her ability to phonetically decode at that level.  I won't have to worry later that some classroom teacher will not have enough attention to divide up to her to make sure she is able to do it.

 

To Lewelma.  The goal would be the same as reading or speaking to a young child, to encourage literacy, to build vocabulary, to increase their understanding and communication with the world and other people, to build my relationship with them in a joyful way, to build neural connections, to create neuroplasticity for learning, to share with them my excitement for learning, to improve speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things converged to make me interested in this early learning thing.  One, I took all of  Dr. Robert Melillo's (owner of Brain Balance Franchises for treatment of ADHD/Autism/Developmental delay) courses for doctors pertaining to childhood developmental delays. These courses had nothing to do with early reading.

 

Melillo repeatedly referenced Glenn Doman.  So many times that I decided to read Glenn Doman's book, What to do About Your Brain Injured Child.  I don't remember that book having anything to do with early reading either. I was super impressed with this book.  One, that Glenn Doman was describing and talking about neuroplasticity many decades before anyone else, and two, his reverence for mothers.  I am really into neuroplasticity.

 

I have always had a reverence for mothers and women who vowed to take their jobs as mothers extremely seriously.  His extreme reverence for mothers matched my feelings.  I think that is why I like this forum.  There are a lot of moms and dads here like that.

 

The other thing that happened was a video a patient showed me who is a kindergarten teacher in a disadvantaged school.  I always loved this patient.  She told me that she wasn't supposed to hug the kids, but that might be the only hug they got that day so she did it anyway.

 

She showed me a video on her phone of her 2 year old granddaughter reading.  She had bought her "Your Baby Can Read," and there that 2 year old was, reading.  When I looked into that program, I found out it was based on Glenn Doman's work.  When I investigated further there was a computer program that had 10 times more words on it than the YBCR program and was easier than doing the somewhat cumbersome Doman early reading program.  The Brillkids computer programs, Little Reader and Little Musician are what I used.

 

The Little Reader program has a very large word, then a picture, then a video that describes the word. Each word is covered very quickly.  It covers about 2500 words in two semesters.  The Little Musician program is to attempt to teach perfect pitch.  I doubt my kids have perfect pitch.  I was doing it because I was taking a lot on faith. Now I understand the importance of auditory discrimination in reading.

 

Here are some basic tenets of Doman's early reading program.

 

Work on visual discrimination (large black and white pictures, for example) first and auditory discrimination (having them attempt to match pitch, for example).

Physical development should be done along with it and precedes academic development.

All input, no output.

Very, Very large words.

Must be joyful and delivered with enthusiasm

Very quick short lessons to keep ahead of boredom

Stop at first sign of child being uninterested or "over it," preferably before then.

 

For my oldest two who are now 5 and 6 I attempted to do the computer program 7 days a week at breakfast and lunch.  It took about 5 minutes each time.  In reality I did it about 3-5 days a week.

 

They liked it a lot.  I don't think they would have watched it at all if they weren't strapped into their highchairs eating anyway.  The youngest was in my lap when before he was eating.  If left to run around, I don't think they would have even looked at it.

 

You are also supposed to show physical flashcards daily and I wasn't very consistent with that.  I never showed them more than once per week with my first two.  Only my DS5 was interested in the physical flashcards, so I only showed them to him.

 

My DS6 was over two and I let him watch a 1/2 an hour learning DVD twice per day which consisted of Leapfrog phonics and Preschool Prep phonics and sight word DVDs.

 

I thought 5 minutes twice a day was plenty of screentime for my youngest (at the time) and he didn't watch those DVD's until after he was two.  He did hear them though.  I just put him out of sight of them.

 

We also used the Preschool Prep sight word books which have very large bolded words and cover 45 sight words.

 

I also over taught letter sounds and completely avoided letter names.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, I appreciate you starting a separate thread and opening up this discussion.  I hope we can explore this without things turning negative.  I have run out of time for the moment but I find this topic quite interesting.

 

FWIW, I do want to get something out there for clarification.  I do not dispute that some two year olds can read.  Even some children younger than two.   I know some can.  I have seen a two year old in my extended family learn to read, genuinely read.  I dispute the implication that exposing all 2 year olds to ANY kind of reading program, no matter how well it may work for some, will guarantee that ALL 2 year olds can read at the age of 2 if they just use that program.  (I am not debating whether reading at 2 is useful or even desirable or not, just the idea that all 2 years are able to learn to read.) Some of your responses seemed to imply that all 2 year olds can learn to read if they use what you used.  I disagree, but perhaps that was not your intention?    

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing!  I'd come across some discussion of Glenn Doman's work about teaching kids to swim and saw a little bit about the early reading but just kind of glanced past it because my oldest child had such an awful experience of being taught with sight words and guessing. What you describe sounds like an entirely sight words approach, is that right? Have your kids moved into being able to sound out unfamiliar words, and was there anything you purposefully taught to make that happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I have seen kids on videos reading and even reading cursive script at a very young age.

 

Given that kids can learn to name shapes, colours and identify animals etc by their body shapes at a young age I guess it makes sense that identifying letters by their name and maybe blending shouldn't be Impossible.

 

I do somewhat question whether it would work for every child. For example I have been with friends whose kids are very tuneful at age three whereas one of mine is only getting approximately near the tune at nine. I had a baby that could whistle at 18 months and yet have seen kids who can't for years.

 

However as long as there no forcing I can't see it as being harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a very interesting post, OP.  I have a good friend who introduced me to Donnan and used his materials herself quite a bit.  

 

Here is my concern:

 

- Children are obviously incredibly intelligent creatures, capable of learning amazing things.  But most children's learning, in the evolutionary sense, has to do with understanding surroundings and survival, watching and mimicking social cues, etc, etc.  Academic-style learning is quite new to us, as a species.  We know human brains are born very premature compared to other animals and the amount of "wiring" occurring in the first months and years of childhood is truly phenomenal.  Brain plasticity IS a big deal.  We also know that when the wiring goes wrong, even for short periods of time in infancy and early childhood, the consequences can be life-long.  So plasticity isn't a cure-all either.  

- So what happens when we fundamentally change a very young child's learning environment?  What happens when infancy is not spent ENTIRELY on survival and social skills?  It may be that five minutes a day of flashcards has zero effect on the wiring of a child's brain.  Or it may be the brain of an "academic baby" IS wired differently.  We just don't know.  When we call a child's attention back to something, over and over throughout days and months, we are definitely creating circuits that would not usually be present at those age ranges.  We are taking emphasis from one area and putting it on another area, even for five minutes.  We are doing it in a deliberate, "unnatural" way that doesn't resemble a more natural "osmotic" (sorry, can't think of a better word) learning process that comes automatically to the baby/toddler.  

- I suppose it is very likely that there is no harm, no foul here.  Flash cards or no flash cards, baby will be just fine.  Who knows?  But that's the thing for me, we *don't* know.  I think there are big, big differences between teaching reading through flashcards to a 12 month old and teaching reading through phonics to a 3-6 year old (This age span corresponds to when my own kids were actually ready to read phonetically).  I assume there are also some wiring differences between having a large visual vocabulary vs understanding a method for decoding and applying that method.  

 

All that to say, proceed with caution.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know if it would work for all kids. It is working so far for 4 of my very different children and it is working differently for each of them. The oldest of these children was in the foster care system when I got him. Drugs and abuse were involved.

 

Brillkids has a very active forum full of parents who did this type of thing and that is where I remember one parent saying it didn’t work for their child. There were videos of 9 and 10 month olds repeatedly and correctly choosing the correct card when asked, so before two was the earliest of my children, but not out of the ordinary out of those parents.

 

I think this forum (WTM), has a larger number of people and posts than the Brillkids forum, (their forum is very inactive now, but was busy back when I was reading it) so it isn’t perfectly representative, but I’ve read of far more people here whose children have had problems learning to read than among those doing Doman type stuff.

 

Even the Doman people say that they might not get a brain injured child to walk or talk, but they usually get them to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the Teach Your Baby to Read and Doman being around when my oldest teen was a baby. As I recall, they sold the reading program in bookstores then.

 

A quick google shows that there was a huge settlement resultant from a lawsuit by the FTC for false advertising with this program, and now it isn’t called Teach Your Baby to Read. They lost the lawsuit due to lack of any evidence to support their claims. Doman also had a book on Teach Your Baby Math, interesting.

 

I don’t see a benefit of children being able to read in toddlerhood, and IMO babyhood is so short and there are so many other ways to spend time with your baby, that there is no way I would want to spend any of it on flash cards. But, to each their own.

 

As to fewer problems learning to read by using the sight word approach, research has actually shown the opposite.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as being strictly a sight words approach, I had heard criticisms of sight word only approach so I exposed at least my oldest to a lot of phonics through DVDs and alphabet books that I used as letter sounds books. I really hadn’t gotten around to exposing my 2nd to much other than letter sounds when it became obvious that he could phonetically decode just about anything. He either extrapolated from sight words or just learning letter sounds was enough or he picked up some from what his older brother watched even though he wasn’t watching it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because they cannot make the sounds doesn't mean they aren't trying or comprehending. I have been told by a nonverbal person that her baby learned to sign very very young, and by 1 was signing fluently. As in able to converse with an extensive sign vocab 

 

 Just because a child cannot speak doesn’t mean they are not reading.

 

 

Sigh! for me my children all learned to speak, crawl and walk at a very young age...  all talking fluently before 1, all crawling by 4-5 months, all walking before 9 months, one even walking at 6 months.......but not one learned to read before 8, even with me actively teaching phonics/reading instruction from infancy. ds14 has only been able to comprehend what he is reading when he TURNED 14

 

Well, maybe.

 

However - our writing is phonics based.  And it's my understanding that in children who cannot make certain sounds, it isn't necessarily the vase that they can really even hear the sounds.  THat's been my observation with my son and it's what my speech path sister tells me too.

 

So - I think that could be a real issue.

Edited by Bluegoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your definition of "reading" is actually quite different than many other people's definition.

I (and quite a few others) cannot separate "reading" ability from comprehension. A student who does not comprehend the words is sounding out words, or recognizing the image of a sight word. I do not considers this actually reading; it is blending sounds or matching a visual pattern.

 

I agree.  Whenever I tell people about my kids' reading progression I always qualify what I mean be "reading" each step of the way.  So, just being able to decode is, IMO, separate from true reading.  Reading to me unites decoding, fluency, and comprehension, so when I say a kid is "reading on a fourth grade level" I mean that she is able to do all of those things at that level, not just haltingly decode fourth grade words.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you teach a 2 year old to read?  What is the goal?

 

I taught my younger son to read when he was 2yo because I wanted to see if I could do it. 

 

I noticed he was able to name any object, including pictures of shapes, after one exposure and I thought that learning the letter sounds would be the same thing.  I was right.  So then I taught him to blend.  And then more advanced phonics.

 

He could decode CVC words prior to his third birthday and was reading on a first grade level (meaning fluently and with comprehension) at age 3.  Some undiagnosed vision problems caused him to stall at an end of second grade level until he was about 4.5yo, but after getting glasses he took off again.

 

He enjoyed our reading lessons and asked to do them.  They took just a few minutes each day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern, as was expressed above, is not so much what the capabilities of a 2 year old are, but that focusing on reading is displacing some other invisible learning essential for proper development. I was an eager teacher of my gifted oldest who picked up on things so quickly (and self taught decoding CVC words at two), and as my kids (gifted and neurotypical) grew I soon realized the serious work of childhood is play, is out of doors, and that it is invaluable. My youngest, though bright and willing, I have delayed teaching reading to until just recently. She learned CVC organically but I just didn't do anything more with it. We have focused on being in nature, discussions, sharing stories, trying things out and failing (and succeeding) just to gain confidence in ourselves. I wish, especially with the oldest, earliest reader, I would have waited as long with each.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree that the primary learning work of children is physical and social and imaginative--running, climbing, imitating, interacting, acting out stories, cuddling in mom's lap and being read to.

 

If all those are happening in large quantities I'm guessing that some word flashcards are not going to be harmful.

 

I've read enough hyperlexia stories that I feel a bit uncomfortable with anyone celebrating two year old reading as a necessarily good thing. I'm sure most two year old readers don't develop hyperlexia though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, 2 year olds can learn to read, but there is no advantage to learning to decode early that I know of (besides, perhaps, alleviating parental worry that your child might have a problem learning to decode one day). In fact, I think a lot of us who are inclined to accelerate our children (or our oldest child) do so out of just wanting to make sure they can do it/we can do it.

 

And in a way, if you read TWTM or Rethinking School, this is, in a way, why teaching reading early is suggested: if your child has an issue, you will discover it early enough to be able to find another method, or seek help. They won't have to suffer in kindergarten.

 

But she doesn't recommend doing this at 2, or even 3, that I can tell, because at those ages it really is pretty hard to know whether your child has an issue or just isn't ready yet. And I would recommend anybody who is planning to send their child to public K examine this recommendation critically in the context of their school system. My school system does an excellent job of teaching children to read. It's the priority in the K year. If you live in my neighborhood, you can probably chill and just enjoy reading beautiful picture books to your child and focusing on giving your child the kind of language-rich experiences that create great parental bonds and enable kids, often enough, to spend as little time as possible with those linguistically uninteresting early readers.

 

Sure, 5 minutes looking at flashcards isn't a big deal (although the folks I know who have encouraged early decoding seem to use screens for it, which makes it more appealing, but is a whole 'nother can of worms in my book), but I have huge, long word lists (because I am fortunate to have early talkers) of vocabulary my kids actually could use correctly and understand (if not pronounce wholly intelligibly) at age 2. They are written on napkins and scraps of paper, and when I pull them out of storage and look at them, they make me laugh and remember. Because being able to express themselves orally helped me to understand who my children are and what was going on deep inside them. It brought us closer. And while, ultimately, being able to express oneself in writing and to read what others have written also can nurture relationships, that would not have happened at 2 or 3 or 4, no matter how well they decoded.

 

This is all a long way to say that I think it's more important for a 2 year old to understand the meaning of the word "jealous" than to be able to read "jealous." And I am wholly skeptical of "experts"  who claim children who read this early pick up more vocabulary than children who don't; you don't start learning from books until you've had enough life experiences (and oral language) to put it in context for you. Decoding early really gives less of an advantage (academically, or relationship-ly) than all of the other language-related things one could be doing in that short space of time when one's child is small enough to sit on one's lap without putting one's legs to sleep.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Fralala, I did the early reading out of concerns there could be problems later and I wanted time to remediate if needed. That is why I agreed with SWB/s sentiment and I stated in my first post on this topic that she didn’t mean reading as early as I did it.  All four of my children have at least one parent with reading problems.

 

I even took my oldest to a behavioral optometrist when he was 3.  He pointed out that he moved his head when he moved his eyes, but that was the only problem he found.  I think he does that because of a retained ATNR (retained primitive reflex).  He still does that and still has the reflex.  I need to work on that, but having that hasn’t hampered his reading so far. I think that it eventually will if I don't fix it.  His Moro (a different retained primitive reflex) went away on its own, or at least with only doing gymnastics, swimming and oodles of park time.

 

I also wanted to address a couple of concerns.  I believe that hyperlexia is defined by early decoding combined with poor comprehension when a child was not explicitly taught to read.  Even though I have heard of hyperlexia, I have never heard in real life or on the learning challenges board here of a child who actually had it. It must not be very common.  It is believed to be associated with autism, although not in all cases.  None of my children have any symptoms of autism.

 

It is my opinion that my children are comprehending a lot of what they can read.  Yes, their decoding far outstrips their comprehension at age two, but the vocabulary in Biscuit books is within my 2 year old’s understanding.

 

My DS5 started in his Montessori classroom at age two, 7 weeks before he turned 3.  His teacher was the reading specialist for the whole school.  Within a few weeks of him starting school, she said he was reading on a first grade level.  My DS6 was in her class the following year in kindergarten and the first week of kindergarten she said he was reading at a 3rd grade level.  She did not say they were decoding at a 1st or third grade level.  They decoded at a much higher level than that.  I believe that their early ability to “decode†aided in their early ability to “read.â€

 

I’m not sure, but I don’t think my 5 or 6 year old know what jealous or advantage mean either, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t reading.

 

The increase in vocabulary that is gained from showing a large word, a picture and a video for 2500 different common English words (each repeated several times) aids in their comprehension also.

 

As far as Your Baby Can Read, I didn’t choose to use that because it is a half hour DVD program rather than 5 minute computer session.  I was trying to limit screen time.  It also only covers around 200 or 250 words.  I do think it would be hard to teach a baby to read with exposure to only that small number of words.  I did buy all those DVDs and they are very well done and I really like them.  I especially like the Your Baby Can Discover, and Your Child Can Discover from the same people.  There are so many valuable lessons on those DVDs, especially the music portions and some great math sections on subitization.

 

I am in agreement that the main portion of a baby or child’s time should be outdoors and playing and being active and loved on.  My goal for my children is to be outside three hours per day minimum.  I usually accomplish that and sometimes much more.  I think being outside counteracts the short focal distance that the eyes of a child at any age would be held at either reading themselves or looking at books while they are being read to.

 

I think that movement is the most important thing for human brains of any age.  There are living things that don’t even need brains because they don’t move.  They are called plants.

 

I read the quote once that, “Reading is developmentally inappropriate at any age.† I think I am in agreement with that.  It just isn’t a “natural†thing to do at any age.  I like it and want it for my children anyway.

 

Now discipline and getting my children to entertain themselves, I need to work on.  I appreciate 8fillof theheart’s repeated suggestions on the value of getting children to entertain themselves.  She kind of says it in a different way each time that I need to hear.  Keep saying it.

 

I also can’t believe I’m such a health nut and I’m kind of mediocre, or less than mediocre at feeding my children well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep debating posting. I have a kiddo who learned to read at about 2.5. It was a boy not a girl. He was obsessed with books and words and I didn't teach him to read. He memorized favorite books, like all kids do, but then started being able to recognize those words outside of books and being able to decode words that were new to him. Other than reading to him, letting him read to me, and helping him figure out words he didn't know, I didn't do any teaching. There was no flash cards, no intentional memorization, no formal phonics instruction, etc. 

I don't think most kids are ready or interested in reading at two and I don't think there is any point in trying to get them to do it. In fact, generally, I think that trying to force any learning before the child is developmentally ready is harmful. However, I see the value of a language rich environment with verbal and visual language surrounding children, and if they decide they love books and words and want to read there is nothing wrong with letting them or helping them. 

  • Like 2
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...