Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:43 am

Franklin wrote:
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass. And, that sort of slip is important to point out precisely because it gets to the erroneous underpinnings of Peacedog's analysis which always come down to race, nation, and a hodgepodge of talking points from right-wing podcasts. It erases the diversity of agency and contingency that are part and parcel of historic understanding. Instead, everything boils down to some version of the white man's burden.

How old do you think the PRC is? Or China? Or conceptions of the Han people as understood today?



re-
"Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass."

huh ??? i really don't understand this...

i thought he was referencing - people in the region having those goal...

as in
if the people who control that region (or a majority of that region) have certain goals in which they are carrying out
then wouldn't we say
the goals in that region seem to be...

i really don't understand the nuance that you are trying to convey


It's not nuance, it's English grammar. I do appreciate that not everyone is a native speaker. If one wants to say, "people in the region hav[e] those goal[s]," one should write that. It has a different meaning. It seems like you are the one injecting nuance into what was written. I already explained why it matters and how it ties into the underlying argument being made.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Franklin on Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:05 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
Franklin wrote:
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass. And, that sort of slip is important to point out precisely because it gets to the erroneous underpinnings of Peacedog's analysis which always come down to race, nation, and a hodgepodge of talking points from right-wing podcasts. It erases the diversity of agency and contingency that are part and parcel of historic understanding. Instead, everything boils down to some version of the white man's burden.

How old do you think the PRC is? Or China? Or conceptions of the Han people as understood today?



re-
"Of course the statement is anthropomorphizing a landmass."

huh ??? i really don't understand this...

i thought he was referencing - people in the region having those goal...

as in
if the people who control that region (or a majority of that region) have certain goals in which they are carrying out
then wouldn't we say
the goals in that region seem to be...

i really don't understand the nuance that you are trying to convey


It's not nuance, it's English grammar. I do appreciate that not everyone is a native speaker. If one wants to say, "people in the region hav[e] those goal[s]," one should write that. It has a different meaning. It seems like you are the one injecting nuance into what was written. I already explained why it matters and how it ties into the underlying argument being made.



my understanding of the english language would be that if you wanted to anthropomorphize the landmass

the correct way to write that would be:

"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal of the Chinese subcontinent."

when he wrote:
"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent."

my understanding is that -- in the Chinese subcontinent
would indicate the location the action was taking place in

but like I said -- I am not an expert...

this is very interesting, learning something new about english today


can you give me any examples- where the subject of a sentence/statement
is written -- "In XXXXX"
where XXXXX would be the one preforming the action (of the verb)

I can't think of any...


thanks
Franklin
Franklin
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:56 am
Location: Taipei, Taiwan

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby GrahamB on Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:26 am

"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent."

I'll let you two argue about the grammar, but historically it's not true if you take it he did mean "always" literally - The Ching Dynasty, for example, was not about the Hanification of the Chinese subcontinent. Quite the opposite. The dynasty was founded by the Manchu Aisin Gioro clan in Manchuria.
Last edited by GrahamB on Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
If you don't become the ocean you'll be seasick every day.
Heretics podcast | The Tai Chi Notebook
User avatar
GrahamB
Great Old One
 
Posts: 12456
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:30 pm

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:29 am

Franklin wrote:
my understanding of the english language would be that if you wanted to anthropomorphize the landmass

the correct way to write that would be:

"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal of the Chinese subcontinent."

when he wrote:
"long term "Hanification" has always been the goal in the Chinese subcontinent."

my understanding is that -- in the Chinese subcontinent
would indicate the location the action was taking place in

but like I said -- I am not an expert...

this is very interesting, learning something new about english today


can you give me any examples- where the subject of a sentence/statement
is written -- "In XXXXX"
where XXXXX would be the one preforming the action (of the verb)

I can't think of any...


thanks
Franklin


Franklin, I'm very sorry, you are right. I was reading the preposition as "of" for two reasons. 1) It's a really common mistake and completely forgivable, and, 2) the alternative (what was actually written) is so completely ludicrous that it wasn't even on my radar. I guess the entire mess would have been avoided if agency was attributed to a subject. That's really what I was trying to get at either way. Was the Hanification a goal before the Han Dynasty? What did the Hanification mean before modern times? Or, before contemporary times? Either way, there is a strong teleological error in the statement.

Nevertheless, I sincerely apologize for my misreading and continued confusion. Mea culpa. And, thanks for the correction.

But, all of that aside, do you take issue with the core of my issues regarding the Hanification always being the goal in the subcontinent?
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Franklin on Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:34 pm

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Franklin, I'm very sorry, you are right. I was reading the preposition as "of" for two reasons. 1) It's a really common mistake and completely forgivable, and, 2) the alternative (what was actually written) is so completely ludicrous that it wasn't even on my radar. I guess the entire mess would have been avoided if agency was attributed to a subject. That's really what I was trying to get at either way. Was the Hanification a goal before the Han Dynasty? What did the Hanification mean before modern times? Or, before contemporary times? Either way, there is a strong teleological error in the statement.

Nevertheless, I sincerely apologize for my misreading and continued confusion. Mea culpa. And, thanks for the correction.

But, all of that aside, do you take issue with the core of my issues regarding the Hanification always being the goal in the subcontinent?



no need to apologize...

you had a take on something, and i was literally - "huh" i don't understand where that is coming from..."
so i figured i must be missing something...
and if i am missing something - i want to find out what i am missing...


re:
But, all of that aside, do you take issue with the core of my issues regarding the Hanification always being the goal in the subcontinent?


i would say to state something has always...
or to argue that something has not always...
are two sides of the bullshit coin... -- as in its kind a worthless thing to argue
always is an imprecise qualifier....
if you disagree - i would challenge you present 1 thing that has always existed in a certain state or form..

and come on -- we really can agree that Whitney Houston will not always love me.....
;D


but on a serious note --
historical precedence
i don't see how it is relevant to genocide, oppression, discrimination taking place at the current time...

we can use it to understand the root of present situations...
but it is never going to validate those things when they do take place....

as to the hanification of the region that we call the PRC
what is it like 92% of the population are Han...
it is pretty much already hanified....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese

the current gov of the area is communist
and that ideology doesn't really place value on diversity and the individual...

the areas where we have reports of this type of discrimination...
the border areas, the outskirts....
traditionally speaking - these areas were the ones furthest from the emperor's court
and the ones with the least amount of direct control from the central authority....
historically - the further from the central court - the more corruption in ancient times...
and the minorities in the area might be less likely to see themselves part of the "unified whole" and might want to do their own things...
so maybe crackdown and suppression of different minorities and also the outlying regions has been going on for a long time...
is it hanification or solidifying control over the territory claimed by the central government....
no matter the motivation - the acts still occur....

as to lack of evidence...
even people on this board have reported that small uprisings/protest happen all the time throughout china
they are quickly subdued...
and they are not widely reported... (to most likely prevent more large scale widespread unrest from happening - like arab spring type stuff...)
so technically for most people inside and outside china there is little or no evidence that these small uprising/protest happen in china
but we know that they do - even though we lack the ability to know how widespread the issues actually are...

so to say other things have no widespread evidence
is not really a proof or disproof of existence...

and we can all conclude that with the evidence that we do have
and erroring on the side of probability and morality
that yes these things are occurring
but to what extent- we can not say
but it might be also safe to say that it is probably worse than what we have heard...


Franklin
Franklin
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:56 am
Location: Taipei, Taiwan

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Steve James on Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:01 pm

Nice to see that ya'll resolved the grammar issue by finding out what the other person meant --which is always more important than the grammar, because words can be unclear.

as to the hanification of the region that we call the PRC
what is it like 92% of the population are Han...
it is pretty much already hanified....


In this case, I think the problem is that "hanification" is something that someone does or is doing. So, it has to be assumed that the "Han" are doing something. The video points out that the idea of a "Han" people is relatively recent, and doesn't go back to the Yellow Emperor or indicate a genetic link. Therefore, "someone" is doing something called Hanification. However, as you point out, if a population is 90% Han, it's already hanified.

My Taiwanese teacher would speak in terms of a Chinese identity of which the Han were the majority and dominant "ethnic" group. Otoh, he would say that the PRC is "not" Chinese; it's communist. And that the communists were the ones seeking cultural control and domination for purely political reasons.

At any rate, hanification and controlling terrorism are different issues. In Germany, there used to be "blood laws", and you were German only if you had German blood. But, that was a specific way to define German identity, and it could determine the rights of a non-German --no matter how culturally German he was. (Btw, I'm not suggesting that is what's happening in China. I'm just pointing out that "Xification" in a predominantly "X" nation is not a unique paradox.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 19655
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Franklin on Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:42 pm

Steve James wrote:Nice to see that ya'll resolved the grammar issue by finding out what the other person meant --which is always more important than the grammar, because words can be unclear.

as to the hanification of the region that we call the PRC
what is it like 92% of the population are Han...
it is pretty much already hanified....


In this case, I think the problem is that "hanification" is something that someone does or is doing. So, it has to be assumed that the "Han" are doing something. The video points out that the idea of a "Han" people is relatively recent, and doesn't go back to the Yellow Emperor or indicate a genetic link. Therefore, "someone" is doing something called Hanification. However, as you point out, if a population is 90% Han, it's already hanified.

My Taiwanese teacher would speak in terms of a Chinese identity of which the Han were the majority and dominant "ethnic" group. Otoh, he would say that the PRC is "not" Chinese; it's communist. And that the communists were the ones seeking cultural control and domination for purely political reasons.

At any rate, hanification and controlling terrorism are different issues. In Germany, there used to be "blood laws", and you were German only if you had German blood. But, that was a specific way to define German identity, and it could determine the rights of a non-German --no matter how culturally German he was. (Btw, I'm not suggesting that is what's happening in China. I'm just pointing out that "Xification" in a predominantly "X" nation is not a unique paradox.



my overall point about hanification....
or motivations in general....

was that -- if hanification is the goal
or if controlling terrorism is the "goal"
or consolidating control over claimed territories is the goal...

if "goal" is creating persecution, oppression, death (of people or culture)

then should we really be arguing over what the goals may be
seems the real issue is the results being achieved no matter what the stated goal is....

even if the gaol is something we deem as "OK"
if the result is genocide...
maybe still not that good huh?

regardless of what other people throughout history did or did not do...
or what people in other countries are doing or did in the past...


you did make a very good point -
that i think might have been lost in the "flow" of the thread
and would just like to point it out again
because I agree with this...

Anyway, here's the important aspect from my perspective.

n China there are 55 minorities. Most of them have their own languages and culture. They are all bi-lingual and speak their own dialects or languages at home....
Do you really believe that if there was a genocide going on in the close neighbourhood that people would even dare to speak up?



The problem is that you're speaking for them. And, the fact that some are complaining doesn't mean that it's not happening. I didn't read that they were claiming genocide. I thought it was about attempts to erase their cultures.





Franklin
Franklin
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:56 am
Location: Taipei, Taiwan

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Steve James on Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:04 am

even if the gaol is something we deem as "OK"
if the result is genocide...
maybe still not that good huh?


Well, the question is whether "genocide" is the "goal" of hanification. So, from my perspective, it isn't genocide because it isn't about genes. Ok, it may be that the PRC simply executes millions of people to get rid of them, but that's an extraordinary assertion --and when the claim accompanied by or based on anti-Chinese, anti-Han, or anti-communist sentiment, I don't accept it as a strong argument.

Otoh, I do think that the camps are an indication of the PRC government's goal of bringing the entire population under control, not kill them off. I still don't think it's a "good" practice --and I compared it to the practice of "Americanizing" Native Americans by educating them to be culturally more like White Americans. That used to involve the destruction of cultures that could not be isolated. Most people have to visit a reservation to see any authentic representation of Native people. That is, unless you call naming a car, helicopter, team, or some product a representation. Anyway, I believe that the Chinese are equally capable of attempts to eradicate ethnic cultures. I don't think it's "good." Otoh, I don't think providing universal education (or healthcare) the way some countries do is "bad."

Yes, if a Uighur or member of some other ethnic minority in China says there are atrocities, I don't dismiss it because I think the PRC "wouldn't do that" or because the media is anti-China. In general, I object to anyone telling me what someone else (or I) think or who to hate. And, if I knew for a fact there were extermination camps running 24/7, what would I do? ... The same thing as if someone on the internet said the same.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 19655
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Franklin on Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:16 am

Steve James wrote:
even if the gaol is something we deem as "OK"
if the result is genocide...
maybe still not that good huh?


Well, the question is whether "genocide" is the "goal" of hanification. So, from my perspective, it isn't genocide because it isn't about genes. Ok, it may be that the PRC simply executes millions of people to get rid of them, but that's an extraordinary assertion --and when the claim accompanied by or based on anti-Chinese, anti-Han, or anti-communist sentiment, I don't accept it as a strong argument.

Otoh, I do think that the camps are an indication of the PRC government's goal of bringing the entire population under control, not kill them off. I still don't think it's a "good" practice --and I compared it to the practice of "Americanizing" Native Americans by educating them to be culturally more like White Americans. That used to involve the destruction of cultures that could not be isolated. Most people have to visit a reservation to see any authentic representation of Native people. That is, unless you call naming a car, helicopter, team, or some product a representation. Anyway, I believe that the Chinese are equally capable of attempts to eradicate ethnic cultures. I don't think it's "good." Otoh, I don't think providing universal education (or healthcare) the way some countries do is "bad."

Yes, if a Uighur or member of some other ethnic minority in China says there are atrocities, I don't dismiss it because I think the PRC "wouldn't do that" or because the media is anti-China. In general, I object to anyone telling me what someone else (or I) think or who to hate. And, if I knew for a fact there were extermination camps running 24/7, what would I do? ... The same thing as if someone on the internet said the same.



just out of curiosity....

even though what i am going to ask can pertain to the topic of what we are discussing regarding the happenings within the geographical border of the area in which we are currently labeling the PRC
it could also pertain to events around the world that seem much at the forefront of people's thoughts currently

even though this question could pertain to such things listed above specifically

my question is a general one of classification
without taking specificity into account...

in general how would you label the act(s) of
institutions of power that seem to target groups of people based on ethnicity, race, culture, gender, etc

Franklin
Last edited by Franklin on Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Franklin
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:56 am
Location: Taipei, Taiwan

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Steve James on Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:50 am

in general how would you label the act(s) of institutions of power that seem to target groups of people based on ethnicity, race, culture, gender, etc


I wouldn't label them further than to say that all human societies are capable of doing so. A specific example would be the US where people identify so much with a particular political party/position that they feel free to target each other. So, if I were to generalize, I would say that these institutions are self-destructive. Cambodians massacred Cambodians, if you see my point. Americans do the same, and I'd say that the Chinese are also guilty.

Now, whether the categories used to target (oppress, repress) people are valid is often a cultural decision. Many people in the US are willing to restrict the rights of lgbt people or others. Some think it's a patriotic or religious obligation. What can I say, history shows Christians killing Christians, Muslims killing Muslims, and Chinese doing the same.

I'm not saying that all of these are equivalent. But, I don't think it's being virtuous to say that I'm against genocide, ethnocide, racism, gender discrimination. You know. To me, it's like saying I'm against rape, theft, or murder.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 19655
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Franklin on Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:19 am

Steve James wrote:
in general how would you label the act(s) of institutions of power that seem to target groups of people based on ethnicity, race, culture, gender, etc


I wouldn't label them further than to say that all human societies are capable of doing so. A specific example would be the US where people identify so much with a particular political party/position that they feel free to target each other. So, if I were to generalize, I would say that these institutions are self-destructive. Cambodians massacred Cambodians, if you see my point. Americans do the same, and I'd say that the Chinese are also guilty.

Now, whether the categories used to target (oppress, repress) people are valid is often a cultural decision. Many people in the US are willing to restrict the rights of lgbt people or others. Some think it's a patriotic or religious obligation. What can I say, history shows Christians killing Christians, Muslims killing Muslims, and Chinese doing the same.

I'm not saying that all of these are equivalent. But, I don't think it's being virtuous to say that I'm against genocide, ethnocide, racism, gender discrimination. You know. To me, it's like saying I'm against rape, theft, or murder.



i hear you...

although speaking of institutions -- i was more referring to organized institutions with the power to do it, that do it.... and I agree they are destructive
rather then the innate capabilities inherent in human beings, or issues of identity (where a person can justify their thinking based on a conception that their thinking is congruent with a majority or just a body larger then themselves)
if your point was that innate capabilities and the human need to identify with groups larger then themselves allow such institutions to exist and do what they do
then i would agree

as to if the target is valid... yes- that depends on cultural norms..
and yes it would depend on how you see the issue- obviously people on the side of things that are doing the targeting - feel that it is valid...
and historically (for the most part) when people look back on things like this - it would very much depend on who was the winner and who was the looser in such struggles
as it was pointed out by one poster - there are many times in history where genocide took place - and we do not know anything about it - or maybe we have as much as a footnote saying - a people called this used to exist until this time...

if your point about not being virtuous -- was a sort of critique of and dig at the sort of virtue signalling that has become rampant recently
i agree with you

and i am going to assume that your views on rape, theft, and murder - would be similar to mine
and that we would both put - genocide, ethnocide, racism, gender discrimination.... rape, theft, or murder
firmly in the "f$ck that Sh$t" category....


and not that I imagine that any of us talking about these issues on a martial arts forum
will have any direct and noticeable effects on what might be happening...
at the very least
not denying that they could be occurring
should have a small amount of importance...


Franklin
Franklin
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:56 am
Location: Taipei, Taiwan

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Steve James on Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:09 am

i am going to assume that your views on rape, theft, and murder - would be similar to mine
and that we would both put - genocide, ethnocide, racism, gender discrimination.... rape, theft, or murder
firmly in the "f$ck that Sh$t" category....


I hope I haven't been so unclear that you need to assume. I think most would agree that genocide is wrong. The question is whether the term actually applies in specific cases. It's easy to make a list of confirmed cases from Biblical times to the late 20th century.

Do I believe that it is possible that the Chinese government is trying to exterminate a particular group ("f$ck that race Sh$t) of people? Sure. It's possible. And, it's easy for me to say it isn't. So, then it comes down to persuasion, and people give their reasons "why" they believe it is happening. Do they believe it because of a genetic fallacy? I.e., that the "Han" or the "Chinese" or the "Muslims" or the "Communists" are just bad and are prone to committing atrocities. I don't accept any of those as reasonable arguments.

Ah, do I believe that the Chinese government could be forcibly promoting conformity? Oh hell yes. And the Chinese government does not have a monopoly on doing so. For me, it would be better to use the term ethnocide, but that's just a word. When people want to make it sound nice, they call give it names like "assimilation," and say that others need to fit in. And that may require "re-education," often through labor --arbeit macht frei just makes the country better. Or, they might call it "modernization."

None of those goals are bad, in themselves. How they get done is another question altogether. Force is force, even if the excuse is that "It's for their own good." Jmo.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 19655
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:23 pm

Protestations against "virtue signaling" fall into the same category as attacks on "political correctness." There may be some extreme cases that are obviously over the top and therefore don't need any sort of special designation, but for the most part, it's a reactionary right-wing tactic to attack common decency. Most people who gripe about PC culture just want to be able to use racial slurs. People who make a big deal about "virtue signaling" are in the same camp.

I've been told I was virtue signaling for wearing a mask (not even saying anything about it).
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby yeniseri on Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:27 am

GrahamB wrote:I'll let you two argue about the grammar, but historically it's not true if you take it he did mean "always" literally - The Ching Dynasty, for example, was not about the Hanification of the Chinese subcontinent. Quite the opposite. The dynasty was founded by the Manchu Aisin Gioro clan in Manchuria.


Qing (Manchu) were steppe horse people who, when they settled into the heartland, by virtue of lifestyle and became Sinified through changed culture, language immersion and environment. After a few generations, it would makes sense that loss of their original cultural memory would be erased ???
What is being done to Uighurs and those from the Western provinces is a forceful and explicit strategy to 'SInify' those whom the Central government deem to be 'foreigners' despite the obvious. Qing presence was never like that meaning part of a campaign that removed people from their heritage as it happened on its own 'energy'. That is why Beijing invaded Tibet, ie. to make it clear they own Tibet and no one else could have reached Lhasa unless they had some type of control over the landmass.
When fascism comes to US America, It will be wrapped in the US flag and waving a cross. An astute patriot
yeniseri
Wuji
 
Posts: 3312
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: Bokh wrestling and the cultural genocide in Inner Mongolia

Postby Peacedog on Mon Dec 14, 2020 12:48 pm

More news from inside China. This time referencing their Jewish population.

https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2020/12 ... s-history/
Peacedog
Great Old One
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 5:22 am
Location: Standing right next to your girl....

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests