|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT GRAND GOVERNING COUNCIL DECLARES |
This is not PC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
I think the white imperialistic settlers deserve whatever they get. It was only a hundred years back they wiped out Native indians in a massive genocide and imported millions of negro slaves from africa. Bring on the day white Americans are forced back to their real home in Europe.
|
So you don't at all mind your family was stripped of its farm and forced to pack their bags and move to Europe? Since you lost everything you had in life, we should too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| rapier wrote: |
I think the white imperialistic settlers deserve whatever they get. It was only a hundred years back they wiped out Native indians in a massive genocide and imported millions of negro slaves from africa. Bring on the day white Americans are forced back to their real home in Europe.
Once a lot of latinos, Arabs and so on take over the U.S. and send you back to the satanic mills of Western Europe, you could perhaps forge a living out of teaching esl somewhere in asia. |
Well wait a minute. Many Africans were involved in the slave trade--capturing rival Africans and selling them to the highest bidder.
Then there was the rather brisk trade in the slaving markets run by the Arabs in North Africa/the Mediterranean--which continued on long after Britain and other countries banned slavery. They had to be forced to stop. Actually it still takes place, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Then there was the slave trade in South America--run by "Latinos" and mixed bloods. They had to be forced to stop too. |
Sorry, but this is, and always has been, a straw man argument. The wholesale slave industry was pursued internationally by western interests, so if it was also participated in by some other peoples.
There are other responses to Rapier's comments, but blaming slave trade on Africans and Latinos is disingenuous.
Slavery and colonialism were co-components of the development of western economic power. As was the slaughter of native Americans.
It may be history, but it is a nasty, bloody history that should at least be acknowledged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
| rapier wrote: |
I think the white imperialistic settlers deserve whatever they get. It was only a hundred years back they wiped out Native indians in a massive genocide and imported millions of negro slaves from africa. Bring on the day white Americans are forced back to their real home in Europe.
Once a lot of latinos, Arabs and so on take over the U.S. and send you back to the satanic mills of Western Europe, you could perhaps forge a living out of teaching esl somewhere in asia. |
Well wait a minute. Many Africans were involved in the slave trade--capturing rival Africans and selling them to the highest bidder.
Then there was the rather brisk trade in the slaving markets run by the Arabs in North Africa/the Mediterranean--which continued on long after Britain and other countries banned slavery. They had to be forced to stop. Actually it still takes place, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Then there was the slave trade in South America--run by "Latinos" and mixed bloods. They had to be forced to stop too. |
Sorry, but this is, and always has been, a straw man argument. The wholesale slave industry was pursued internationally by western interests, so if it was also participated in by some other peoples.
There are other responses to Rapier's comments, but blaming slave trade on Africans and Latinos is disingenuous.
Slavery and colonialism were co-components of the development of western economic power. As was the slaughter of native Americans.
It may be history, but it is a nasty, bloody history that should at least be acknowledged. |
This cuts into a very hotly-contested and extremely polemical debate.
When Wallerstein published his multivolume world-systems work -- which is what I believe you refer to here, Desultude -- it precipitated a war between intellectuals, and it has not been settled one way or the other as of yet. This historiographical conflict is at least as important to acknowledge as any perceived injustices that occurred as world history actually unfolded.
Part of this war, a microcosm of the larger intellectual clash, was carried out in the American Historical Review. See Steve J. Stern, "Feudalism, Capitalism, and the World-System in the Perspective of Latin America and the Caribbean," AHR 93 (1988): 829-897 -- and this includes a response from Wallerstein and a reaction to that response from Stern, all of which were only slightly more professional in tone than some of our discussions on this board.
Stern represented more voices than merely his own, and, I am told, a great number of colonial-era area and world historians supplied him with much ammunition.
Gunder Frank, with experience living in Chile, and a giant in dependency theory and world-systems theory, is very much with Wallerstein, and when I brought the debate up in a private conversation with him a few years ago, he refused to even acknowledge Stern's points -- which should tell you something about the feelings that still course through the academe's veins on this issue.
In any case, insisting that local conditions and local actors played major, if not decisive, roles in driving and shaping their own history -- which included forcing the center or the metropolis to constantly react, readjust, and, at times, abandon its original plans and objectives, and in multiple ways across three centuries or so -- in no way must imply that the person making such an argument is "blaming" locals for anything, including any "slaughters" that occurred.
The European expansion into the Third-World was not a peaceful event. It was extremely violent and destructive.
But it was very, very complex, interactive, and fluid and dynamic throughout the entire chaotic and unpredictable process. And this chain of events also included much unconscious and accidental phenomena, such as the transmission of disease, weeds, wild grasses, and more variables than we could possibly account for in a single discussion -- although Diamond and Crosby did make much headway on this problem between the 1980s and the 1990s.
I have long been persuaded by Stern's (and the others who were behind him) arguments that claiming that one side, the Western side, somehow willed or dominated the entire thing is incomplete and inaccurate, and tends to the simplistic.
I can easily surmise where you plant your flag, Desultude, and I will readily admit that this is a contested and undecided thing, with no consensus on the horizon.
But all of these things should probably be acknowledged at the outset of such a discussion as this one.
And I reiterate that bin Laden and company show no signs of appreciating these kinds of subtlties and nuances when they look at the world and define "the problem." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| desultude wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
| rapier wrote: |
I think the white imperialistic settlers deserve whatever they get. It was only a hundred years back they wiped out Native indians in a massive genocide and imported millions of negro slaves from africa. Bring on the day white Americans are forced back to their real home in Europe.
Once a lot of latinos, Arabs and so on take over the U.S. and send you back to the satanic mills of Western Europe, you could perhaps forge a living out of teaching esl somewhere in asia. |
Well wait a minute. Many Africans were involved in the slave trade--capturing rival Africans and selling them to the highest bidder.
Then there was the rather brisk trade in the slaving markets run by the Arabs in North Africa/the Mediterranean--which continued on long after Britain and other countries banned slavery. They had to be forced to stop. Actually it still takes place, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Then there was the slave trade in South America--run by "Latinos" and mixed bloods. They had to be forced to stop too. |
Sorry, but this is, and always has been, a straw man argument. The wholesale slave industry was pursued internationally by western interests, so if it was also participated in by some other peoples.
There are other responses to Rapier's comments, but blaming slave trade on Africans and Latinos is disingenuous.
Slavery and colonialism were co-components of the development of western economic power. As was the slaughter of native Americans.
It may be history, but it is a nasty, bloody history that should at least be acknowledged. |
This cuts into a very hotly-contested and extremely polemical debate.
When Wallerstein published his multivolume world-systems work -- which is what I believe you refer to here, Desultude -- it precipitated a war between intellectuals, and it has not been settled one way or the other as of yet. This historiographical conflict is at least as important to acknowledge as any perceived injustices that occurred as world history actually unfolded.
Part of this war, a microcosm of the larger intellectual clash, was carried out in the American Historical Review. See Steve J. Stern, "Feudalism, Capitalism, and the World-System in the Perspective of Latin America and the Caribbean," AHR 93 (1988): 829-897 -- and this includes a response from Wallerstein and a reaction to that response from Stern, all of which were only slightly more professional in tone than some of our discussions on this board.
Stern represented more voices than merely his own, and, I am told, a great number of colonial-era area and world historians supplied him with much ammunition.
Gunder Frank, with experience living in Chile, and a giant in dependency theory and world-systems theory, is very much with Wallerstein, and when I brought the debate up in a private conversation with him a few years ago, he refused to even acknowledge Stern's points -- which should tell you something about the feelings that still course through the academe's veins on this issue.
In any case, insisting that local conditions and local actors played major, if not decisive, roles in driving and shaping their own history -- which included forcing the center or the metropolis to constantly react, readjust, and, at times, abandon its original plans and objectives, and in multiple ways across three centuries or so -- in no way must imply that the person making such an argument is "blaming" locals for anything, including any "slaughters" that occurred.
The European expansion into the Third-World was not a peaceful event. It was extremely violent and destructive.
But it was very, very complex, interactive, and fluid and dynamic throughout the entire chaotic and unpredictable process. And this chain of events also included much unconscious and accidental phenomena, such as the transmission of disease, weeds, wild grasses, and more variables than we could possibly account for in a single discussion -- although Diamond and Crosby did make much headway on this problem between the 1980s and the 1990s.
I have long been persuaded by Stern's (and the others who were behind him) arguments that claiming that one side, the Western side, somehow willed or dominated the entire thing is incomplete and inaccurate, and tends to the simplistic.
I can easily surmise where you plant your flag, Desultude, and I will readily admit that this is a contested and undecided thing, with no consensus on the horizon.
But all of these things should probably be acknowledged at the outset of such a discussion as this one.
And I reiterate that bin Laden and company show no signs of appreciating these kinds of subtlties and nuances when they look at the world and define "the problem." |
To be quite honest, when I was doing my work in Political Science, I concentrated on theory and philosophy, American Politics (try to get a US academic job without that), and ethnic and gender politics. The irony is that I studied at the time with Wallerstein and systems theory was the hottest, and I was a bit dismissive of those inclinations from my own postructuralist perspective.
Now, with the way the world has unfolded (come undone?) in the last however many years you care to argue for, and having finally read Wallerstein, I find myself with some cognitive dissonance- what I know of history and of American Politics makes me agreee uncomfortably with Wallerstein- which runs counter to my still deeply held postructuralist views.
Sure, history is much more complicated that can easily be grasped, or argued on a discussion board, and dependencia theory is too dismissive of forces on the ground, but it is hard to argue who had the upper hand in the previous 500 years.
I sure am not going along with the "Native Americans raped the environment too, and Africans participated in the slave trade, therefore, we are not responsible" sort of arguments.
Capitalism and technology did not invent oppression, but it made it extremely more efficient and effective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Desultude wrote:
| Quote: |
Sorry, but this is, and always has been, a straw man argument. The wholesale slave industry was pursued internationally by western interests, so if it was also participated in by some other peoples.
There are other responses to Rapier's comments, but blaming slave trade on Africans and Latinos is disingenuous.
|
Westerners' views of slavery is often focused only on colonial times and bad 'ole whitie.
Well I guess I just don't agree--the historical record shows otherwise as well.
My point was not to "blame" Africans and Latino's, it was to add a little contrast to Rapier's seemingly bitter denunciation solely of westerners-victimizing-whomever by pointing out that historically, whities weren't the only ones participating in the sale in human flesh internationally--especially in Africa!
Arab slave markets in Africa were alive and well in 700 AD--predating that of colonial times by 8 to 10 centuries. Historically, this is well-documented.
Here's one link:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/easterntrade.html
...and another:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SStephan/islamic_slavery.htm
| Quote: |
In his fact-filled work on the history of the Muslim Arab slave trade in Africa, Murray Gordon notes that this trade pre-dated the European Christian African slave trade by a thousand years and continued for more than a century after the Europeans had abolished the practice. Gordon estimates the number of slaves �harvested� from Black Africa over the period of the Muslim Arab slave trade at 11 million � roughly equal to the number taken by European Christians for their colonies in the New World.
�Despite the long history of slavery in the Arab World and in other Muslim lands, little has been written about this tragedy,� writes Gordon in his introduction. �Except for the few abolitionists, mainly in England, who railed against Arab slavery and put pressure upon Western governments to end the traffic in slaves, the issue has all but been ignored in the West.� |
...and some estimate Arabs traded up to 100 million people over 14 centuries of slavery.
This describes the enslavement of "Westerners":
| Quote: |
This book illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the West but which is now somewhat neglected: the enslavement, over several centuries, of tens of thousands of white Christian Europeans and (later) Americans in Muslim North Africa -- or the so-called �Barbary� states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli. Over the course of 10 centuries, tens of thousands of these unfortunates became the possessions of Muslims in North Africa courtesy of the feared Barbary pirates. These pirates cruised the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean in search of European and, later, American ships to pillage and plunder.
Edited by a lecturer at the University of Minnesota, Paul Baepler, this book focuses on first-person accounts of American Christians who served as slaves to high-ranking Muslim officials in North Africa. Baepler also provides fascinating background commentary that puts the narratives into historical perspective. He includes two �fictional� narratives of female captives. (According to Baepler, Christian women captives of the Barbary states � unlike male captives � usually did not publish their testimonies under their real names, due to the fact that many of them had been �dishonored� by service in the harems of Barbary potentates.)
As Baepler notes in his introduction, Christian slaves of European ancestry were hardly an uncommon phenomenon in the Barbary States. The Barbary pirates were excellent seafarers and, from the Coasts of North Africa, sailed as far north as Iceland (where they went ashore and captured 800 slaves during one incident) and as far West as Newfoundland, Canada, where they pillaged more than 40 vessels at one time. By 1620, reports Baepler, there were more than 20,000 white Christian slaves in Algiers alone, and by the 1630s that number tolled more than 30,000 men and 2,000 women. The most famous of all white Christian Europeans to serve as a slave in the Barbary States was probably Miguel de Cervantes, the great Spanish author of the �Don Quixote� epic, who was taken as a slave in the late 1500s.
|
As I mentioned before--they had to be forced to stop (remember your history class--the American raid on Tripoli?)
The Arab/African slave trade certainly wasn't small, or what you'd call "local." And it still goes on today.
Slavery predates Christianity:
| Quote: |
Slavery long predated Christianity and many of the early Christians were slaves in the Roman Empire. Without exception, the pre-Christian world accepted slavery as normal and desirable. The Greek philosopher Aristotle claimed: "From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." The great civilisations of Mesopotamia, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and all the civilisations in Central America and Africa were built upon slave labour.
People became slaves by being an insolvent debtor, or sold into slavery by their parents, or by being born to slave parents, or by being captured in war, or through kidnapping by slave raiders and pirates. Slave dealing was an accepted way of life, fully established in all societies. Most of these slaves were white people, or Europeans. In fact the very word "slave", comes from the people of Eastern Europe, the Slavs.
|
So I think it's a little disingenuous (and ill-informed) to be placing the blame for slavery on whitie and colonial times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The wholesale slave industry was pursued internationally by western interests |
The international slavetrade (from Africa to Arabia) was carried out by Arabs long before Whites, and it ended long after the White man had deemed it morally reprehensible. In fact, it was Western pressure that made the Arabs abandon slavery. There was no Muslim William Wilberforce.
Slavery has been a constant in human history. What seperates the European experience, is that it was the first society to deem it morally wrong. Yet this is almost never pointed out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
To be quite honest, when I was doing my work in Political Science, I concentrated on theory and philosophy, American Politics (try to get a US academic job without that), and ethnic and gender politics. The irony is that I studied at the time with Wallerstein and systems theory was the hottest, and I was a bit dismissive of those inclinations from my own postructuralist perspective.
Now, with the way the world has unfolded (come undone?) in the last however many years you care to argue for, and having finally read Wallerstein, I find myself with some cognitive dissonance- what I know of history and of American Politics makes me agreee uncomfortably with Wallerstein- which runs counter to my still deeply held postructuralist views.
Sure, history is much more complicated that can easily be grasped, or argued on a discussion board, and dependencia theory is too dismissive of forces on the ground, but it is hard to argue who had the upper hand in the previous 500 years.
I sure am not going along with the "Native Americans raped the environment too, and Africans participated in the slave trade, therefore, we are not responsible" sort of arguments.
Capitalism and technology did not invent oppression, but it made it extremely more efficient and effective. |
World-system theory has much explanatory power but the concept simply lacks sufficient elegance to persuade everyone.
By the way, in the very late 1990s, Gunder Frank turned Marx, Engels, himself, Wallerstein, on their heads, saying they were too Eurocentric in outlook, and pushed the capitalist world-system back from 500 to 5,000 years in its origins, focusing attn on East Asia as the point of origin.
So it is much more complex than at first recognized. BigVerne is on to something here in that this is part of the human condition and not a fault exclusive to Western Civ.
EDIT: This by no means excuses anyone's behavior, by the way.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:45 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wbkotw
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:18 am Post subject: Rapier? |
|
|
You confuse me son.
Rapier: "Bothers me that westerners so freely joke about the religion that is the founding of our freedoms and ideals in the west, as I see it."
Dec. 5th, 2005
Now you are saying they deserve what they get. I'm assuming you mean the Protestants, and you are North American. If not, I'm even more confused. Now that you are a big boy in this time in history, they deserve what they get? Hey, thanks for the nice little black paperback, but you are all damned now? Are these not the same people you thank for your sacred alter. Are you bi-polar or just a hypocrite. As a casual reader of these forums you are starting to nerve me with your wanting to appear educated opinions. Get your personal house in order and please post less.
To the other posters. Am I alone? Is this guy some famous annoying person hanging out here. 99% of you are funny and searching for answers. Sorry dude but WTF? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
To the other posters. Am I alone? Is this guy some famous annoying person hanging out here. 99% of you are funny and searching for answers. Sorry dude but WTF?
|
Rapier For Beginners:
Rapier prefers western civilization over almost any other civilization, especially Muslim. However...
He regards Rhodesia as having been unfairly maligned by the other western nations, for its treatment of blacks.
In defense of Rhodesia, he likes to draw attention to the horrors inflicted upon the North American natives by white Europeans and their North American descendants.
So Rapier's bloodlust against North Americans is motivated not by hostility to western culture(much less support for bin laden), but rather anger at North American treatment of natives. And the cynical among us will tell you that Rapier's concern for North American natives is simply a cover for his agenda of proving that Rhodesia wasn't so bad. If it were Mugabe threatening to kill thousands of white farmers, Rapier would almost certainly not be saying that the farmers deserve anything they get, and would in fact be holding them up as exemplifying the wonders of Christendom.
Last edited by On the other hand on Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and one more thing...
| Quote: |
| I'm assuming you mean the Protestants, and you are North American. |
Rapier is from Zimbabwe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wbkotw
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: Thank You |
|
|
Thank you. I see he also advocates the murder of Mugabe, yet is a hard core bible thumper at times. Again WTF? I'm just seeing these things casual glancing. I've been home sick this week. Started to see patterns. It's not my habit to coddle but, I'll take it easy on him. Better yet, I'll ignore his spiel from now on. I promised myself years ago I would not get sucked in to these forums. Thank you for some perspective. i hope he continues to get the attention he craves.
Out... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
To the other posters. Am I alone? Is this guy some famous annoying person hanging out here. 99% of you are funny and searching for answers. Sorry dude but WTF?
|
Rapier For Beginners:
Rapier prefers western civilization over almost any other civilization, especially Muslim. However...
He regards Rhodesia as having been unfairly maligned by the other western nations, for its treatment of blacks.
In defense of Rhodesia, he likes to draw attention to the horrors inflicted upon the North American natives by white Europeans and their North American descendants.
So Rapier's bloodlust against North Americans is motivated not by hostility to western culture(much less support for bin laden), but rather anger at North American treatment of natives. And the cynical among us will tell you that Rapier's concern for North American natives is simply a cover for his agenda of proving that Rhodesia wasn't so bad. If it were Mugabe threatening to kill thousands of white farmers, Rapier would almost certainly not be saying that the farmers deserve anything they get, and would in fact be holding them up as exemplifying the wonders of Christendom. |
Rapier: I was someone important in Africa! I was served hand and foot!
ESL Community: We don't care.
Rapier: I was someone! My daddy was important until he ran screaming when someone came around with a machete and told him his farm was now owned. It was Jesus's plan. I'm sure. Jesus has a plan for me.
ESL Community; We don't care.
Rapier: You should! You should all give up what you've stolen in North America and follow my lead and move back to Europe. I did it voluntarily, if you define voluntarily as having daddy cut off the money because he'd rather run than fight to save what he built. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ran screaming when someone came around with a machete |
Quite the opposite-have you not heard of the war??? Yep, there was a war for 17 years over this.30.000 people died. Rhodesian forces never lost a single military battle. However, the country was betrayed by western powers who had not only blockaded it with sanctions but also bribed the South Africans to cut off their lifeline of support (fuel/personnel). I believe your Henry Kissinger had a lot to do with it. The South Africans were told that they would be left alone in future if they withdrew backing for Rhodesia. They were promised they would not be subjected to political pressure from the international community in future. Finally, the US & Britain installed a terrorist as new leader, and then inserted their multinational companies to exploit the faltering state afterward. A lot easier to do, once a corrupt and clueless government was in plcae (Mugabe).
The recent farm invasions are little more than a final death throw. Whites are far less than 1% of the population, and the youth have left in droves. What you saw recently was the last dwindling remnant, mostly old-aged folks on isolated homesteads being forced off as the war was already over 20 years earlier and there is no possibility of holding the line now. Its like all the esl teachers here declaring war on Korea. (ie 100.000 eslers vs 40Million people.
So, when I see terrorism coming home to roost in the west nowadays, they are experiencing the reality of what they encouraged in other countries before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Q:
Why is bin Laden threatening/encouraging attacks on Darfur and Kashmir? Why not Iraq, Israel/Palestine, or the West, or Saudi?
He's not exactly striking at the heart of the enemy here, is he?
And Muslim extremists are already pretty active in these areas, most likely with at least tacit govt support.
So what's the strategy here?
A way to claim some easy victories to bolster sagging support?
Interesting too that Hamas renounced his support of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
