quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Good job saying unsubstantiated crap asshole.
What I like the best about your china fanboyism is that you can't even be a polite apologist. You just become a raging hothead and then start childishly namecalling.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
And things like "hard on for China" are the paragon of respectful debate and mutual respect for your peers, screw off.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: People, please dial it down. Personal attacks are not ok. Not out of the blue, not as a "proportional response," no matter how well-deserved you may think they are. Bad logic is bad logic, but it's not against the rules. Unsubstantiated and un-agreed-upon premises remain so, but they are not against the rules. Ignoring someone's argument is poor communication, but it's not against the rules.
You're free to be upset. You're free to voice your frustration. You're free to ignore people who make ridiculous claims (whether as opinion or as fact). What you aren't free to do is make personal attacks.
posted
I'm not going to touch on most of the political part of this clusterf***. But I'll just quickly note that while there is an obvious incompatibility between the CCP and the Tibetans, there is no real incompatibility between Chinese culture and Tibetan culture.
So in this case for example,
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: ... Pretty much... Not to mention that Tibetan language and culture is entirely different from Chinese language and culture ...
Buddhism has long been one of the most important cultural pillars of China and thus related Tibetan influences are pretty widespread.
And in areas of Chinese people, but no CCP, this explains the 20,000 followers in Taiwan that met him there after the typhoon http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8231009.stm
And as a fun fact, Jet Li is a follower of Tibetan Buddhism.
quote:Jet Li, a prominent follower of Tibetan Buddhism, said he has met with the Dalai Lama and respects his teachings but believes Tibet and China are part of one country.
The 44-year-old action star also said at a taping of an interview for CNN's "Talk Asia" in Hong Kong late Wednesday that Taiwan and China should be unified.
"From the religious point of view, he's the master," Li said of the Dalai Lama, adding when he met him in 2000 he told the spiritual leader he backs having the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you believe that the Chinese government is undemocratic, then you can't simultaneously claim that the CCP consistently speaks for Chinese people. The disagreement between Tibet and China is political, not cultural.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Didn't something like a couple million Tibetans die when the Chinese took over?
The actual claim that is often cited is the government-in-exile's claim that that 1.2 million died. But there is little independent corroboration for this claim which is usually why it is reported like so, "Dalai Lama says 1.2 million people were killed under Chinese rule. China disputes this" BBC link
Among those that are unbiased, you usually won't find all that much agreement on this issue.
For example:
quote:Barry Sautman, Associate Professor of Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, spoke at UCLA December 2 to defend the thesis that claims of cultural repression against Tibetans by the Han Chinese are greatly exaggerated by Tibetan exiles in India and by the liberal Western press. His talk was met with some skepticism from discussant Nancy Levine (Anthropology, UCLA) and by some members of the audience, but he presented a wide range of data to support his view. The talk was sponsored by the Center for Chinese Studies. ... Barry Sautman responded on several fronts. On claimed declines in Tibetan population, he cited articles in the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and by an Australian Chinese demographer in Asian Ethnicity in 2000. "What I think these articles show is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during he Great Leap Forward but these were less in Tibetan areas than in other parts of China. Where these were serious were in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China. There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis."
posted
While I agree that there aren't any hard, reliable numbers to look at here for the 1.2mil claim...whose fault is that, exactly? It's not as though the PRC lets foreign reporters enter and examine the situation for themselves.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
China's claim on Tibet has been given international respect. Bush gave the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal and Obama refuses to meet with him. Just as talking to Hamas legitimizes that organization, I hear the current administration is considering talks with Al Qaeda. Doing so only validates them as a legitimate political organization.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And things like "hard on for China" are the paragon of respectful debate and mutual respect for your peers, screw off.
So if you mock it as falling short of your criteria for respectful debate and mutual respect for peers, why do you subsequently react to it in a way which is decidedly more personal and more abusive and less mature? Is there a sort of "they did it first, now I can sling all the insults I want" mentality going on here?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And things like "hard on for China" are the paragon of respectful debate and mutual respect for your peers, screw off.
So if you mock it as falling short of your criteria for respectful debate and mutual respect for peers, why do you subsequently react to it in a way which is decidedly more personal and more abusive and less mature? Is there a sort of "they did it first, now I can sling all the insults I want" mentality going on here?
Partly because I don't care anymore and partly because I don't like half of you and partly because all of you jumped onto insulting me first.
IP: Logged |
posted
So you don't care anymore about even trying to be mature? You'd rather just jump to breaking the forum rules (granted, it's not like you seem to suffer anything even through repeated rule-breaking)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Show me respect and I'll show you respect, pro quid quo.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, if 'half of you' aren't showing you respect, it might be productive to look inward and see if some of the problem isn't with you, as opposed to half of everybody else.
---
And no, Mucus, you didn't. Though I do wonder why not, really. Saying, "There's no hard evidence saying such and such is accurate," without addressing why there is no hard evidence seems to me only half a point.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And no, Mucus, you didn't. Though I do wonder why not, really. Saying, "There's no hard evidence saying such and such is accurate," without addressing why there is no hard evidence seems to me only half a point.
Well, I mentioned it earlier. Blayne's participation has already rendered the discussion rather free of nuance and thus I'm confining myself to matters of easily verifiable (viewed as relatively bias free by foreigners, if not necessarily by the Chinese community) facts through international sources.
"Why" questions are much more broad and subject to supposition. After all, even the question of which media organizations were allowed into Tibet at which times is not a straight-forward question to answer.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Show me respect and I'll show you respect, pro quid quo.
Well, how about not responding to people disagreeing with you with swears? Name calling on any side doesn't really accomplish much.
Also, I politely disagree with your opinions on Chinese history.
Please politely disagree with verifiable historical facts and not supposition, until then its pretty much pointless discussing it. The idea that Tibetan and Han Chinese cultures being incompatible I don't think is within your qualifications to determine, and the current statistical facts show a net increase in the Tibetan population and any assertions of its decrease rely on highly inaccurate Tibetan In Exile sources and on their manipulation of statistics that include considering what constitutes Tibet to include territories as large as Schechuan, half of Sinking, and the Yumen area or 'Greater Tibet' which hasn't been under Tibetan control for centuries heavily distorting figures.
Glad to see no one asserting that Tibetans are currently a minority in Tibet something that is even more easily disproved.
IP: Logged |
posted
Verifiable historical facts when they concern the PRC don't mean much with you, Blayne. Though of course you won't even acknowledge that possibility, completely secure in your objectivity and expertise.
Really the only productive question anyone can ask you at this point concerning the PRC is simply this: is the problem with everybody else in these discussions, or is the problem with you?
When those kinds of questions are asked, the answer is very often the latter rather than the former no matter who it's asked of, but I'm sure this is one of those rare exceptions, and everybody else is the one discussing things incorrectly, and not you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No that is a fallacy and a distraction to the issue, everybody else is wrong because they and you don't bother with sources because you think those sources are tainted and interfere with your own predetermined view of the PRC as the next Big Bad.
Regardless of my views or my opinions my facts and arguments are correct and verifiable I have yet to see any of yours that don't derive from attacking the only available source material.
IP: Logged |
posted
It is a fallacy, yes. It's also helpful advice to consider. Note that I'm not saying, "You're doing it wrong because everyone disagrees with you," I'm saying, "If everyone disagrees with you, it's time to take a critical look at what you're doing and see if they're right."
I don't think the PRC is the next 'Big Bad', though I'm not surprised your understanding of my (and others') PoV is so incorrect and simplistic. I do think that they're going to be one of the, if not the, biggest players on the world stage in the 21st century...and I know that they're not especially nice to people who don't toe the appropriate line.
How do I know that? It's simple: freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, and freedom of information are all sharply restricted in the PRC. And as far as demonstrating that the PRC is a repressive regime, that's really all I need to demonstrate. If those things all true, it's a repressive regime. End of story.
Oh, and of course the sources are tainted if they come from the PRC, and the PRC doesn't allow anyone else to verify them. You are so much more credulous when it comes to the PRC's government statements than you are towards any other government's, even your own I suspect, though you talk very, very rarely about Canadian politics, that it's at times baffling, irritating, and jarring.
Listen to yourself in the very next sentence: 'my arguments are verifiable'. You trust the government of the PRC to tell the truth about itself to others about its own scandals!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Show me respect and I'll show you respect, pro quid quo.
It only rarely works that way with you. It'll also never work in general considering the way which you argue subjects involving China.
You're basically declaring that respect is infeasible whenever you opt to argue on the forum, and then you're handwaving away any responsibility for your own loss of maturity and respect when you subsequently capitulate to namecalling.
Also: 'pro quid quo?'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Please politely disagree with verifiable historical facts and not supposition, until then its pretty much pointless discussing it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
OK, but you'd only state that I am wrong despite having trying to make some sort of attempt to learn more about Chinese history for quite a while. I don't even trust my OWN government most of the time, let alone the Chinese government when it comes to responding to criticisms about their human rights violations.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...and I know that they're not especially nice to people who don't toe the appropriate line.
Well, it depends
quote:And, as a columnist, Michael Chugani, puts it, the democratic fight is waged with democracy-style freedoms. People take to the streets, mock their rulers in the press, or take them to court. When Britain handed Hong Kong to China in 1997, these freedoms were not certain to endure. Yet the Communists in Beijing have endured too. Their opposition to radical change has given politics the air of a theatrical set-piece. Everybody knows his part. ... Though democrats rarely admit it, political theatre, within bounds, has brought incremental improvements. In 2003 protests led the government “temporarily” to suspend a deeply unpopular anti-sedition law imposed at China’s behest. In the 2005 debate about political reform, democrats’ main beef was the absence of a timetable for universal suffrage, promised in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law. But in 2007, aware of growing local anger, China ruled that it would apply starting in 2017 for electing the chief executive, and from 2020 for Legco.
On the Reporters Without Borders index, Hong Kong maintains a position as 48 out of 175 places, above local points of comparison such as Taiwan or South Korea.
It can be said that they might be playing a long game and biding their time. But it cannot be said that don't play nice across the board.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if we're getting strictly literal here, much like you earlier didn't say anything about fault, I didn't say they didn't play nice across the board, either:)
If you lived in the PRC today, Mucus, would your posting habits on the Internet be the same? Would Blayne's?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: How do I know that? It's simple: freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, and freedom of information are all sharply restricted in the PRC. And as far as demonstrating that the PRC is a repressive regime, that's really all I need to demonstrate. If those things all true, it's a repressive regime. End of story.
Please demonstrate them, last I checked China has roughly 74,000 protests a year occuring in China over a variety of issues (protests defined as having at least 100 participants), there are thousands of privately owned newspapers and magazines in China and has over 300 million internet users and a wide travel and tourism service.
Various bureaucratic restrictions etc on these subjects doesn't count as authoritarian repression.
IP: Logged |
quote: How do I know that? It's simple: freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, and freedom of information are all sharply restricted in the PRC. And as far as demonstrating that the PRC is a repressive regime, that's really all I need to demonstrate. If those things all true, it's a repressive regime. End of story.
Please demonstrate them, last I checked China has roughly 74,000 protests a year occuring in China over a variety of issues (protests defined as having at least 100 participants), there are thousands of privately owned newspapers and magazines in China and has over 300 million internet users and a wide travel and tourism service.
Various bureaucratic restrictions etc on these subjects doesn't count as authoritarian repression.
You do know that the PRC puts heavy restrictions on internet access, right, Blayne?
Bro, you just lost me. You went from being funny, goofy, and immature, to being scary, weird, and varelse.
NOBODY has the right to mess with my internet access. Any government that restricts internet access is a pile of worthlessness, period.
That's what's up.
I'm not saying they're as bad as Iran. But so what?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Restrictions that are acceptable within cultural norms and frankly the very same restrictions certain democratic governments like Australia currently impose (or in the process of imposing).
I converse with dozens of Chinese who played WoW or EVE-Online, the anti poop socking measures only in effect if your under 18 and even then if you at a internet cafe there's no such measures.
IP: Logged |
posted
Have you even researched the issue, Blayne?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I raise you Susan L Shirk: China Fragile Superpower How China's internal politics could derail its peaceful rise.
Like c'mon I've read dozens of books and magazine articles and regularly interact with Chinese nationals and subscribe to Janes Defense Weekly and Sinodefence.com I know my shit.
IP: Logged |
quote:Restrictions that are acceptable within cultural norms and frankly the very same restrictions certain democratic governments like Australia currently impose (or in the process of imposing).
The PRC's restriction of access to information isn't purely a cultural thing, Blayne. It's also profoundly political. Just because other nations are considering doing it doesn't make it any less repressive, Blayne. "Australia's considering doing it." How's that for a fallacy?
quote:Please demonstrate them, last I checked China has roughly 74,000 protests a year occuring in China over a variety of issues (protests defined as having at least 100 participants), there are thousands of privately owned newspapers and magazines in China and has over 300 million internet users and a wide travel and tourism service.
As usual, you're simply not listening. Nowhere did I say that PRC repression was universal. Even if I believed they wanted it, it would be impossible to achieve. But it happens a lot. Secret 'black jails', for example. Now I'm quite sure that you'll respond that this isn't an officially state-sanctioned policy, that it's done off-the-books, that etc. etc. CHINARAWKS!, with maybe a few, "America does it too," for good measure.
But the reality is that for all the facts and figures you know about the PRC - and I do grant you know quite a bit - you're remarkably good at simply ignoring or handwaving away stuff you don't want to consider.
I think your response to this post will prove me right about that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Restrictions that are acceptable within cultural norms and frankly the very same restrictions certain democratic governments like Australia currently impose (or in the process of imposing).
I converse with dozens of Chinese who played WoW or EVE-Online, the anti poop socking measures only in effect if your under 18 and even then if you at a internet cafe there's no such measures.
People in the PRC have been unable to play WOW for about 7 months now Blayne, with that likely never changing in the near future. Not that that necessarily has to do with censorship but Blizzard has failed to get the proper Government approval to run their game in the PRC after the last contract expired.
Also when you talk about protests you need to consider what sorts of things are being protested. Farmers disenchanted with incomes being too low, check. Protests that the same freedoms Hong Kong enjoys ought to be nationally implemented, fraid not.
Come on Blayne, I was impressed when you came around with agreeing that The Great Leap and The Cultural Revolution were devastating. Agreeing that the Mainland Chinese government, while vastly improved over the last few decades, is still too totalitarian, is something you can say without also sacrificing any dignity. People on this forum do bait you from time to time, and we both know that you sometimes let them get your dander up. But back peddle, learn to control your own responses. Let them expose themselves as less than polite, it doesn't mean you have to play by those rules.
Ironically, I am asking you to be more of a China fanboi in that you actually acquire some of the traditional traits of a Chinese gentleman. Namely, remaining stoical when discussing things, recognizing the virtues and achievements of others - openly stating them, showing respect for others even if you cannot come to a consensus.
posted
Umm, quibble, Totalitarian NOT EQUAL Authoritarian which is a radically different concept, China has a large number of personal and economic freedoms that were unheard of in north Korea and the former USSR.
And as for not playing WoW in the last 7 months could've fooled me with all the farmers I see, but doesn't change that Chinese make up a LARGE portion of the EVE player base with CCP (funnily enough same accrynom as CPC) having an office in Shanghai and actively developing Dust 541 there (FPS tie in to EVE Online).
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: Alright, authoritarian is a better word than totalitarian.
WOW wasn't really my point, but more of a nitpick. Every other paragraph, is really what was important in my post.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Umm, quibble, Totalitarian NOT EQUAL Authoritarian which is a radically different concept, China has a large number of personal and economic freedoms that were unheard of in north Korea and the former USSR.
China also leads the world in the death penalty. Woo-hoo.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Umm, quibble, Totalitarian NOT EQUAL Authoritarian which is a radically different concept, China has a large number of personal and economic freedoms that were unheard of in north Korea and the former USSR.
Maybe this is where we're going wrong. 'Authoritarian' doesn't start at the USSR or North Korea, Blayne. Just because you're better than North Korea (for pity's sake!) doesn't mean you can't still be authoritarian and repressive!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Umm, quibble, Totalitarian NOT EQUAL Authoritarian which is a radically different concept, China has a large number of personal and economic freedoms that were unheard of in north Korea and the former USSR.
Maybe this is where we're going wrong. 'Authoritarian' doesn't start at the USSR or North Korea, Blayne. Just because you're better than North Korea (for pity's sake!) doesn't mean you can't still be authoritarian and repressive!
Hint: the lesson is easier for the student to accept when you include a little more of the funny. Granted, I tried and failed to come up with a suitable funny when I tried to express what you just said, and so I gave up on it. However, that comment was just begging for a hilarious TomD-style one-liner.
Oh well. It's still there. We can try again later. So can others. I mean, it's just begging for it. It's a fastball, right over the plate, the fattest pitch on this thread.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
What does having the death penalty have to do with anything, it has no bearing on whether a state is repressive or not.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Please demonstrate them, last I checked China has roughly 74,000 protests a year occuring in China over a variety of issues (protests defined as having at least 100 participants), there are thousands of privately owned newspapers and magazines in China and has over 300 million internet users and a wide travel and tourism service.
Various bureaucratic restrictions etc on these subjects doesn't count as authoritarian repression.
China heavily censors the internet and regulates information through state-owned media, and the people who take opinions critical of the government are handled by being charged with revealing state secrets and sent to prison, often for decades.
And you call this "Various bureaucratic restrictions"?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Doesn't make it totalitarian and is arguably necessary to maintain social stability in a country you could fit three times the population of Europe in.
Not only that people can be critical of the government, the line stops at questioning the authority of the CPC until then anything is fair game to discuss within reason but however to say it represses and censors everything is incorrect, there's alot of wiggle room on anything that isn't politics and alot of wiggle room on foreign and world events commentary.
There's alot of stories of people who make a critical blog who get shutdown or arrested but are quickly released especially when there's public protest, the government listens to the people and takes protests seriously in what is relatively speaking a very pragmatic and progressive manner that allows for progress.
People protest for many reasons and is seen that the majority of their demands are met a clear majority of the time, isn't this to a degree direct democracy that can quickly get government action on their side?
I stand that the current chinese formula of political centralization and consolidation on one hand with a wide range of economic freedoms on the other is the correct formula for such a large nation and is a significant and gradual improvement over previous governments that the country has a large support of because it provides economic growth, national pride, and a fair government, there are many worries in the documentaries I have seen that many Chinese intellectuals are worried that a western style democracy would put to much say in the hands of the currently economically downtrodded who may not be qualified to make national decisions until the level of development has increases and caught up with the more wealthier coastal provinces.
IP: Logged |
posted
So, the poor don't vote because they are not smart enough? What?!
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: So, the poor don't vote because they are not smart enough? What?!
They have their own and relevent local elections for village and town leaders which have direct democracy where you do not need to be a party leader or member to be a candidate and are multiple candidates per position.
In theory they vote for and elect members to the 4000 member People's Congress which only recently started excersizing its constitutional powers to be something more then a rubber stamp organ of government.
Real power is in the selectorate, the various positions and powerblocs that select the next leader, and in the power control cartel of the propoganda office, the ministry of state security and the People's Liberation Army.
The Chinese government is scared of the idea of their people ever becoming dissatisfied with its rule and thus is putting every effort to fix the income gap, appease the army by increasing spending, showing a strong show on the international scene and putting huge investments into the poorer regions of China whose representatives in the Politburo/Selectorate have less say but a large population.
Your statement is too simplistic, but basically the idea yes everyone has the right to vote but the decision making power doesn't lie in the Legislature.
IP: Logged |
posted
So they get to vote, but it doesn't matter because the elite feel they are not "qualified to make national decisions". Sounds better that way, doesn't it?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Doesn't make it totalitarian and is arguably necessary to maintain social stability in a country you could fit three times the population of Europe in.
Yeah, I'd sure like to hear that argument.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: So they get to vote, but it doesn't matter because the elite feel they are not "qualified to make national decisions". Sounds better that way, doesn't it?
Unlike in your screwed up country elite actually means something positive in other countries, as in people who are actually better educated and qualified to lead the nation choosen because of their credentials not because they happen to appeal to 50+1 percent of the population at a given time on false promises.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that idea works if there's a sort of objective governing body that determines who is qualified in a way that prevents issues of corruption and self-serving maintenance of party power from turning the idealistic pipe dream of authoritarian self-review into the morass of China's regional corruption, crackdown on civil liberties to defend the stability of the government, and policy centered on the zealotic defense of the communist party from popular review.
It's an easy way to handwave away the issue by introducing a circular tautology. Why do the elite lead the country? Because they are qualified to lead. Because they are qualified to lead, they lead the country. Maybe it doesn't work out so well in practice, but Blayne isn't hearing a word of it. The Chinese Communist Party says that the Chinese Communist Party is working fine, so Blayne can conclude that it is a better system than democracy.
The same line of reasoning brings about this interesting point where Blayne Pro-Quid-Quo Bradley is stuck arguing in defense of China's system, not only through tautology, but through intended favorable comparison to North Korea. North Korea. Dear lord. When that's your defense of an authoritarian regime (alongside "it's okay to keep them ignorant; there's just too many of them to control otherwise"), well, you've definitely conceded something, even if you're not aware of what.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
