| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scherezad
Hobgoblin Marketeers
108
    |
Posted - 2012.07.25 15:23:00 -
[91] - Quote
Urthel Drengist wrote:I feel a bit offended Ms Scherezad by this statement. Because it treats me like you believe I am missing the most important part of debating and exchanging opinions which i can assure you and if you take a more closer look to my argumentantive style you ll see that i do know that part.
I never said i am directly and undenyingly right. NEVER. But what i have done and keep doing even now is trying to get closer to the truth by investigating your and others opinions, by debating for my own reasons. Because if i dont ''push'' and dont disagree with any of you then you will never try to share enough will you? Thus, i do know how to ever get closer to the truth as you put it. Or even at least try
Although i am sure its just a misunderstanding and you will tell me what you mean and i am sure you didnt try to offend me.
I fear that you've missed my point, sir. Only the most arrogant amongst us thinks that they are directly and undeniably right at all times. Most of us, when pressed, will admit that we are likely wrong on some point, and would change our minds if the right evidence came along. This is, in fact, the heart of the problem. We claim that we are willing to change our mind, and in so doing can feel comfortable in not doing so - it puts the owness of changing our mind on others. To my mind, this is the heart of disagreement.
I have not meant any word in spite or condescension, sir, and I apologize if it was interpreted as such. I did my best to keep my words mild. Though it risks causing offense again, I would gently suggest that your feelings of outrage are indicative of my statements being contrary to a deeply-held belief of yours, and is a sign that you should examine it more closely.
I hope you find the path to truth, Captain Drengist. If you do, please let me know so that I can follow you on it. |
Gottii
Lutinari Syndicate
Electus Matari
84
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 15:59:00 -
[92] - Quote
Aria Jenneth wrote:Gottii wrote:And, to refute that principal, I gave a counter example, in this case the Federation's experience with the Matari. You refuted my pained "not always" with a glad "not always." Do we, then, disagree? You mistake my "principle," a little, Gottii. It's not that "action based in simple morality will cause harm." It's that things are often more complicated than that simple morality would have them be. If anything, the dynamics within and among nation states make families look simple. I think you will find, if you read my remarks again, that I regretted the lack of "meddling" in my own case, though the neighbors were "outsiders" by the standards of the place and time. I do not call for a principle of inaction, Gottii; only for a principle of care.
Indeed. My point is that morality is not an outcome based proposition, especially in the short term and on a micro level.
Often the moral choice will lead to unpleasant consequences. The woman in your situation would likely react with hostility to such action, certainly initially. Hers is an understandable reaction, a denial of her victimization, a coping mechanism. She would not let herself think herself a victim until your actions would force her to confront it, and she would likely resent you for it. Such is life. The good is rarely easy, and often unrewarded. To help her would still be the right choice. Your goal is to not placate her, but to help her.
Care and how and when you intervene is of course essential. Otherwise we would be as the Amarr, forcing others to do our bidding "for their own good". But to practice discretion to the point of paralysis makes us all accomplices to the evil we see around us and do not stop.
And, yes, nation states and their choices are often easier to navigate that the winding paths of family and clan, which perhaps makes the analogy a poor one when used in a thread to discuss the policies the Gallente should and should not do.
But, I would say that most of the harm we do in this world is likely caused by our inaction, not our actions. I would rather someone try to do good and fail, than do nothing and become an accomplice by default. |
Azdan Amith
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 16:10:00 -
[93] - Quote
Gottii wrote:
Care and how and when you intervene is of course essential. Otherwise we would be as the Amarr, forcing others to do our bidding "for their own good". But to practice discretion to the point of paralysis makes us all accomplices to the evil we see around us and do not stop.
But, I would say that most of the harm we do in this world is likely caused by our inaction, not our actions. I would rather someone try to do good and fail, than do nothing and become an accomplice by default.
Mister Gottii,
First, I wish to express the wisdom behind your words and my agreement to this particular sentiment, that great harm comes from inaction more oft than action and that it is preferable to try and fail than not try at all.
I understand the perception that the Amarr seek only to force others to do our bidding for their own good, and I have no doubt that it has been expressed as such by many Amarr themselves. This is disheartening for it is both wicked and unfaithful to the truth behind our motivations. I would not seek to usurp this discussion with the affairs of our own struggles and conflict but I would ask the opportunity to speak with you over a different discussion or even in a more personal setting (over the fluid router, for instance) if you could find it in yourself to grant me, an Amarr, this request. |
Vikarion
Blackened Steel
37
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 02:56:00 -
[94] - Quote
Gottii wrote:But, I would say that most of the harm we do in this world is likely caused by our inaction, not our actions. I would rather someone try to do good and fail, than do nothing and become an accomplice by default.
This is foolish. There are innumerable ways in which one may fail to achieve a goal, few, or even only one, to achieve it. Since all actions occur in time, time in which multiple attempts may be impossible, and since all attempts must also deal with the consequences of previous failures, inaction until one can be at least mostly sure of the correct course of action is the wisest choice.
Would you prefer that your physician began cutting on you as soon as he thought he had an explanation for your ailment, or would you rather be sure? Would you want your government to imprison a criminal as soon as he was suspected, or carefully investigate a case, and let the man go free if he cannot be found guilty? Of course, inaction is, in its own way, an action, so perhaps you'll semantically define any inaction you prefer as action.
Most of the harm we do is caused by our actions. Remember, in this unfortunately chosen example, the husband chose to beat the wife first. He would have had good reasons for that, in his mind. Poor reasons to the rest of us, certainly. And the reasons of the Amarr don't particularly enjoin themselves to the ethics of the Minmatar, Caldari, or Gallente. How you compensate for moral relativism, I don't know, and you do not explain. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", after all, is precisely what the Amarr claim they are doing, in their own, moralistic way, and that's probably the closest you can get to an absolute principle.
Even if you were to come to such a principle, you aren't omniscient. Suppose you come to the absolute principle of the human right to life. Good luck, then, when you rescue a sociopath who goes on to murder dozens. Oh, but that is his fault? How so? He's a sociopath, he knows nothing of your "right to life". He was a weapon you saved. Good luck when you have to choose between saving 10 lives now or 100 possible future lives. Your principle is absolute. Or, if it isn't, the rest of us need not listen to you.
Action is arrogance. We all need a little arrogance now and then - sometimes, it's even justified. We don't need the sort of arrogance that says "act now, act somehow, do something!". Inaction isn't morally superior, but thoughtful inaction is the recognition that we are very small - tiny - thinking machines in a universe which we do not understand or comprehend in any major way. |
Gottii
Lutinari Syndicate
Electus Matari
85
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:04:00 -
[95] - Quote
Azdan Amith wrote:
I understand the perception that the Amarr seek only to force others to do our bidding for their own good, and I have no doubt that it has been expressed as such by many Amarr themselves. This is disheartening for it is both wicked and unfaithful to the truth behind our motivations. I would not seek to usurp this discussion with the affairs of our own struggles and conflict but I would ask the opportunity to speak with you over a different discussion or even in a more personal setting (over the fluid router, for instance) if you could find it in yourself to grant me, an Amarr, this request.
If you wish it Lord Amith, I would speak with you. Though I've little idea what you wish to gain from such a conversation. Im quite set in my ways as a heathen. But little harm could be done in being a diplomatic heathen, I suppose.
As for Vikarion, you must have missed the part where I said "Care and how and when you intervene is of course essential."
You say that action for the sake of action is meaningless, and that one should be aware of the limits of ones ability to affect change, and such, of which I agree with, quite readily. You mentioned that waiting for the right time and place and time to discern the right course of action is important, and, again, I agree. There are limits to what we can change, and should try to change.
Though, that being said, such knowledge is learned from trial and error as much as foresight. Alas, we are born savage creatures, and try to learn how to be more than such in our Walk. It takes practice, and mistakes, and learning from those mistakes.
Then you warned me about rescuing sociopaths, and the dangers therein, and I will make it a point to try not to rescue sociopaths in the future. |
Vikarion
Blackened Steel
37
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 03:51:00 -
[96] - Quote
Gottii wrote:
As for Vikarion, you must have missed the part where I said "Care and how and when you intervene is of course essential."
You say that action for the sake of action is meaningless, and that one should be aware of the limits of ones ability to affect change, and such, of which I agree with, quite readily. You mentioned that waiting for the right time and place and time to discern the right course of action is important, and, again, I agree. There are limits to what we can change, and should try to change.
You are redefining what you meant. This is perhaps your privilege, but I think it's a little less than fair. Aria's point was not that we should never act, but that sometimes action, even action that seems good, will be of little benefit. Sometimes there are situations in which action, even if it might seem to promise benefit, will be rejected or of little aid.
Gottii wrote:
Though, that being said, such knowledge is learned from trial and error as much as foresight. Alas, we are born savage creatures, and try to learn how to be more than such in our Walk. It takes practice, and mistakes, and learning from those mistakes.
Then you warned me about rescuing sociopaths, and the dangers therein, and I will make it a point to try not to rescue sociopaths in the future.
I'm not sure that trying to be other than savage, at least in some ways, is at all a good idea. The Caldari are survivalists, first and foremost, and survival always requires the willingness to be savage.
My example regarding sociopaths was not that one should not rescue them. It was an attempt - perhaps badly made - to show that we are not all knowing or all seeing, and therefore that we should be very careful about assuming that we have the final understanding of a solution to a problem, and that how much of a problem a situation is is dependent on one's viewpoint.
Suppose that, one hundred years from now, the Federation has assimilated the Minmatar and erased much of their tribal culture. Would you then see Federal intervention as a "good" thing? In such a situation, the Federation certainly would. The Caldari probably would not, the Empire certainly not. On the other hand, suppose that, fifty years from now, the Minmatar have won their battle and the Caldari have conquered the Federation, and suppose that this was due to Federal resources being diverted to the aid of the Republic. This would be good from my point of view, and probably reasonably alright from yours, but very bad from the standpoint of those who made the decision. The right thing to do, then, the right action, is dependent on perspective, knowledge, and intention, and even then it may go quite wrong.
|
Aria Jenneth
Wiyrkomi Honor Guard
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 04:14:00 -
[97] - Quote
Gottii:
Apologies for taking so long to respond.
Much of what you say seems sensible at face value, and certainly understandable-- even mandatory-- given your people's history. I'll come to that in time, and I'm sure we'll have plenty to say to each other when I do.
For the present: you say that international relations are less complicated than dealing with domestic violence. I am not sure that is true.
Domestic violence (beyond the usual, troublesome historical and cultural differences over whether it's okay to physically discipline dependents) entails at least one badly damaged participant: the abuser. Leaving the "good" or "evil" of the situation out of it (you'll excuse me if I remember Father as something slightly more ambiguous than "evil"), there's little question that the family is ... broken. Damaged. It does not function well on its own terms.
This "broken" -ness can be laid predominantly at the feet of the abuser (though one or more of the abused may believe themselves responsible). In this case, nearly any change, including the forcible division of the family by order of civil authorities, is probably preferable to the status quo.
Though you may think otherwise, I know of no present nation-- not the core powers, not the outer ones-- that is so unambiguously broken. The sole exception is Sansha's Nation, and that's only because it's ... well, Mastered ... by the ultimate domineering father-figure.
Look at any nation that does, basically, what it is supposed to do, that is, provide civilization, and you're looking at a functional nation-state. Interfere in that, and you have problems, almost all of which fit under the heading of "unintended consequences" and entail fun things like backlash, multi-generational grudges, and chaos. These are not predictable or reliably avoided by any means, aside from staying out of the mess to begin with.
Even getting involved where there is no civilization to speak of is begging for trouble, not only for yourself, but also for the people you'd like to be helping.
There is no level of caution that is safe, here, Gottii, and no good deed that is likely to go unpunished.
You speak of Patriot isolationism as though it were something amoral, blind to a suffering universe. The argument has been made often enough that we should each look after our own, first, but that seems to rhetorically assume that "our own" situation is fixable to a degree where we'd be situated to look after others. I think the better answer is this:
We look after those we best know how to help.
I'll look forward to discussing with you what you plan to do for or with the Empire, once it is conquered. It seems to me that there is one people about that has great experience helping those who do not know that they need help and civilizing those who already think themselves civilized. The Gallente have tried, many times, and not always succeeded. Your own experience aside, the Amarr have a less troubled track record when it comes to extinguishing the factors that would cause strife between a people and its ... liberators.
I wonder how much you intend to emulate them. |
Aria Jenneth
Wiyrkomi Honor Guard
166
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:30:00 -
[98] - Quote
Ms. Gessenier:
Apologies to you, as well, for taking so long to respond. I've been considering how best to go about it.
To start, you're quite right about my gloss on your planet's blood-soaked history. If you will read the rest of the discussion, however, you'll notice a refinement in my understanding: the added realization that human-induced strife was a central issue and that it was precisely your planet's lovely warm climate that made such merry horrors possible: your resources were scarce enough to make fighting worthwhile, but abundant enough that you didn't need everybody seeing to supplies all the time.
A good recipe for many centuries of entertaining strife, yes?
However, judging by the face the Gallente have projected to the rest of the cluster for centuries, you represent more what the Gallente once were than what they are, now-- or what they have real potential to become again. The philosophies of Caille, as you would have it, have seeped deep into your nation's consciousness. A few outlying groups aside, I think that an effort by you and yours to steer the fate of the Federation is likely doomed: you represent too plainly what the Gallente now spend a great deal of time telling themselves they are not.
What you have seen become of your "grand culture," its erosion by Caillean liberalism, is precisely what the Achura and Caldari fled the Federation for fear of, and your "original" Gallentean culture has been steeping in it for literally as long as it has existed. To the degree that your grand culture of martial conquest was ever worth saving to begin with, it has become a cautionary tale for the rest of us.
I am sorry, but it appears that your struggle is long-since lost-- though it is interesting to see that the ghost of military glories past is difficult for even the Gallente to exorcise.
Ms. Mekhana:
I do not think that "defending the Federation" is by any means the limit, or even focus, of what Ms. Gessenier has in mind. |
Caellach Marellus
Aideron Technologies
Sspectre
579
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:36:00 -
[99] - Quote
Something seems to be a repeat trend in this discussion which I've found amusing.
People (and with some valid points to their argument) critisise the Federation, stating how it attempts to force it's opinion and way of life on others, and yet at the same time are stating their opinion of how the Federation should be acting and how it should grow and develop.
There's a beautiful piece of irony there that makes me wonder how many of the Federations ideals are rejected because people disagree with them, or out of principle for who's ideals they're tagged to be.
Having an opinion, having a belief, having the self given right to think or choose how you feel about something isn't a Federation or Gallentian ideal. It's part of being human. What our different societies do is merely apply pressure through various means into trying to get you to believe that you want these things or not. They cannot stop you from doing it, but they can put you off the idea.
For example, the State will go on about how (and I paraphrase at the roughest and most basic level here, but you get the gist) "Liberty and freedom are Federal ideals, and the Federation is bad." By tying these notions to the Federation and the Federation being de-facto everything you as a good citizen of the State don't want to be like! You're put off the idea.
Try telling a Matari that freedom and liberty are Federal ideals, I'm pretty sure they didn't need the Federation to put the thought in their heads that this was what they wanted for themselves.
Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Lyn Farel
Kitzless
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:40:00 -
[100] - Quote
The irony lies in the constant denial and delusions of the people criticizing the Federation for its expansionnist, invasive culture. This is a great fallacy, since if its culture spreads, then it means that foreigner citizens accept it and live with it. This is what is quite vicious with it : opposing it may be the right thing to do when one believes it to be dangerous or not to his taste, but eventually it equates to oppose one's own brethrens that have already accepted that culture.
This is what cultural expansion is about. This is eventually what all cultures do, willing it or not, when exchange between cultures is possible. Global culture moves, evolves, merges, adapt, and is born again and again. The only difference with the Federation is that they decided to use it at another level.
Culture that can not accept that are more or less already doomed. Either they adapt and do the same, either they turn into internal conflict, between progressives and purists. It is easy to blame another culture for one's own people shortcomings on the same field. It is harder to understand the "weaknesses" of one's own culture. |
|
Roga Dracor
Mental Disorders Inc.
Intergalactic Brotherhood
141
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 14:07:00 -
[101] - Quote
I find much irony in this simple statement. You agree, then, that the Federation has an invasive, expansionist agenda. And then, go on to imply that this is something more than simple cultural genocide for those who lack the will or the intellectual strength to dispute it on Gallente terms.
With no backing argument as to why. Simply that the cluster must, inevitably see the right of it. Which they will, under your assumptions, once the Federation has crushed all resistance to it's ideological preconceptions. The Caldari have been a part of your Federation, in the past. We suffered under the onus of requisite adaptation. We rejected it and moved on.
The majority of our citizenry did this. We built an Empire, that, while smaller and supposedly inferior to the Federation, has managed to survive and flourish in direct competition with it.
We have adapted. We have chosen, under the GG#free willGG% you so ardently espouse, to go in another direction. To hold on to our notion that the needs of our society outweighed the needs of our individual right to success at the expense of the whole. And we are decried for it. So, your live and let live stance is only valid if it conforms to your personal worldview?
Many of you would use Tibeth Heth as an example of our failings. Yet, it was the direct result of Gallente arrogance that his opportunity to assume power was created. Arrogance in assuming that you know what is best for everyone else. Ethics, morality and the way things should be is not always so simple.
Capsuleers are a perfect example of anarchistic, cultural adaptation at it's finest. Those who hold the power, the intelligence, the ISK, make the rules and those less fortunate or less able to adapt, for whatever reason, become extinct. What I really hear, then, is that the Gallente prescribe to a GG#survival of the fittestGG% dogma. Then, they have abandoned any moral high ground they may once have commanded. They have abandoned the cause of humanity for the narcissistic desires of the individual.
Individualism will never lead to a Utopian society. The average individual, above all, desires one thing, survival. Once that requirement is met, they desire comfort and stability of the status quo. It is evident in every power structure in New Eden. While I would agree that the desire of individual freedom is inherent in the majority of New Edenites, I disagree emphatically that the realization of that desire, is, in fact, desirable.
I have a hypothetical for everyone. What if the majority of Federal citizens, for whatever reason, no matter how outlandish, chose to accept a religious monarchy as their direction of choice? Would Federal politicians accept this, or would they stamp it out as a cultural ambiguity that should never be? Strength of character is most often illuminated in the light of adversity. Does the leadership of the Federation truely possess it? Or is it an ideological sham behind which they retain the comfort mechanisms that they have instituted? |
Pierre Echerie
Horseshoe Industries
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 17:08:00 -
[102] - Quote
Before you begin throwing some rotten fruit at my face, let me mention that I am one gallente citizen that spent too much time in Jita for his own good, plus I'm enjoying a rather violent mixture of rum and some other stuff at the moment of writing this.
Now, what I want to say is to clarify what relation exists between the words 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy' in their current implied meaning, but that's my personal drunk opinion. Agree with me or not, it's your choice.
You see, a state is like a public toilet. You absolutely need one, unless you got your own, or are perfectly ok using something less elaborate. The quintessence of liberty would be walking into one and having a choice of ceramic, stone, plastic, golden and glass WC's with music/videos/silence/sexy poster/whatever else you so desire. Freedom, however, is your choice whether to use one at all. Obviously, you don't have a choice like that at times. You do get a choice which stool to use among those that are already installed there.
And delegated democracy means that you had once selected among several architects the one who will build that public toilet in a place of his choosing and equipped by his design. At best he gave you a speech about what it exactly was he planned to build. Mind you, if there are twenty customers, and fifteen of them chose the guy that offered marble seats, you're not getting a wooden one even if you ask for it.
So, make it so that you are prescribed a certain stool in there, or that you are given one based on your current wealth, you still don't get to make the choice of whether to use one at all, nor you can choose what to choose from (pardon the pun). I guess, in these terms, the Caldari weren't happy about how WE chose to build toilets for THEM. And we didn't like THEM for demanding wooden seats in the neighbourhood that favours marble.
So, our mistake is, we assume everyone to be perfectly happy with the idea that what is good for most, is good for everyone, and the system that favours most will undoubtedly prove it's merit to all within it. Maybe, if Caldari had a small voting on their own public toilet, they would get wooden seats and be happy with them, so to speak. But that would mean having a state within a state, something that doesn't sit well with ideas of being united through diversity; rather being divided by it.
/irony |
Rhiannon Dellacorte
Azure Industrial Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 17:48:00 -
[103] - Quote
Echerie, I owe you a drink. |
Pierre Echerie
Horseshoe Industries
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 18:02:00 -
[104] - Quote
Rhiannon Dellacorte wrote:Echerie, I owe you a drink.
Thanks, but I got my grog right here. Plus, if I go on, I'm going to need that metaphorical state I mentioned above quite literally soon.  |
Evet Morrel
Kadavr Black Guard
Shadow Cartel
54
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 11:34:00 -
[105] - Quote
Nicely put Aria, I will write something in reply to reciprocate - if I try I might even be able to find something argue about in there.
Appreciatively |
Evet Morrel
Kadavr Black Guard
Shadow Cartel
58
|
Posted - 2012.08.24 20:22:00 -
[106] - Quote
Review of GGSmall Truths: The GallenteGGV
(or) One fine day in the middle of the night GG*
Aria Jenneth begins her elegant series of reflections upon the national character of each Empire: Small Truths, by examining the Gallente. She begins by taking their homeworld, the temperate Luminaire - planet of light, as her central motif, but rather surprisingly devotes a good deal of the article to GGGallente rightsGGV.
She is by turns both complementary and skeptical. She agrees that rights, so conceived, must necessarily be universal but would have the Gallente admit GG* GG#that their rights are forged by humans, and not by the universeGG%. One is powerfully reminded of the Deteis attach+,GGVs comment when witnessing the ratification of The Federal Constitution, "... more strange fruit from the Gallente glass-house.GG% These rights exist at the crux of approaches to liberty that are antagonistic. They limit the power to treat people as mere instruments of the collective good, but they also limit autonomy: the absolute property right of the individual to herself, and her ability to bind herself by agreement, disentangling preference from coercion.
The Gallente obsession is portrayed, with a degree of embarrassment by all but the Gallente, as idealistic, individualistic and ahistorical, or simply as plain ideology, all with some justification. ItGGVs true that these rights have no existence independent of the words used to express them. Their language requires agreement, and one can not take deliberation and agreement about words and make a truth. What you may say is this: these are the ideas exposed by the failure of authority when challenge by pluralism.
GG#... the small truths that limit the power of human to prey on human become predatory, themselves.GG% Aria Jenneth
If they have been used rhetorically to assume the moral high ground, what then? What might the enemy expect as the outcome of the pure vengeful violence of a Gallente victor? The obliteration of their society, children stolen, women made into slaves, men cut to pieces?
Agreement upon the meaning of these rights makes spotting bad faith easier. The freedom fighter who intends to slaughter the innocent to secure their freedom. The professor who believes that a little torture is necessary to protect the majority. There is a small truth however: Gallente democratic and legal process are in constant danger of being overwhelmed by the powerful, while its public culture is increasingly filled with the noise of demonising populism.
One Gallente will admit it Aria, natural or human rights are a fiction. However, I will have by body treated with dignity for all the ignorance of my talkative mind.
Evet Morrel |
Paul Oliver
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.25 08:58:00 -
[107] - Quote
I gotta admit Aria Jenneth's essay was pretty spot on. Growing up my parents would often tell me about the nature of freedom and how it was the essential right of all living beings to be free, and that life should be respected for all forms are aspects of Ida.
Naturally when I grew up and moved out into the universe I found it to be a bit of a shock and even a little mortifying living among cultures that did not share these values. As naive as it may sound I often thought to myself, how can human beings enslave or otherwise force into servitude other living beings, much less a fellow human, when even the very concept of servility fills me with such a profound sensation of gloom and despair.
I suppose in the end one of the reasons I enrolled in the Federal Naval Academy was because I realized that it is indeed a cold and dark universe, and that the freedom and liberties I took for granted growing up are something worth fighting to protect, at any and all costs.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of-afreedom must undergo the fatigues of supporting it. |
|
|
| |
Reply to Topic |
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |