| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
   |
Posted - 2011.01.22 22:47:00 -
[301]
What I find very dishonest is people coming here to ask a question of a fact that is well known and then pretend they didnÆt know. Our privacy policy is not to disclose account information. This is not something new. Our business is very transparent and if you think any other business out there give a better wealth of information, then go ahead and invest with them. IÆm not going to stop you. Perhaps you could tell people where to invest their money. Show them all those businesses that are so transparent like you claim. So come here and give your opinion. Tell me of all those great places to invest.
As for the slogan, yes I like my slogan. I wasnÆt aware I could not tell people my opinion in my own thread.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Caldariftw123
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 22:53:00 -
[302]
 Originally by: Block Ukx
What I find very dishonest is people coming here to ask a question of a fact that is well known and then pretend they didnÆt know. Our privacy policy is not to disclose account information. This is not something new. Our business is very transparent and if you think any other business out there give a better wealth of information, then go ahead and invest with them. IÆm not going to stop you. Perhaps you could tell people where to invest their money. Show them all those businesses that are so transparent like you claim. So come here and give your opinion. Tell me of all those great places to invest.
As for the slogan, yes I like my slogan. I wasnÆt aware I could not tell people my opinion in my own thread.
a) if you broke the figure down and said "OUR investment amounts to XXX therefore the public amount is YYY" I don't see how that would breach PRIVACY, unless you think your own stake in this company is a privacy issue? As you will not be revealing individual investment amounts, you will merely be clarifying the PUBLIC exposure in this company.
b) All that irrelevant stuff, just because there is not another company doing this and doing it better, does not mean you are doing it great - you are doing it one way, but it could be better
c) Not revealing this information goes very much AGAINST your supposed transparency, as it is a very fundamental aspect to any risk assessment - how much would the public lose if your an off with isk is the very first question infact, and you are outright saying nobody can have access to that information. Claiming "the full 700billion is what people should use" is blatantly incorrect because you cannot steal your own isk if you run off with it, so your own investments do NOT count. Imagine if another MD IPO launched and said "I wont tell you how much isk I get from this, all investments are private" and the crapstorm that would ensure about "this is clearly a scam" - well guess what, you are not privileged, why should you not disclose how much OUTSIDE investors have put in?
d) use the slogan all you want, but it is hypocritical to claim transparency is important for you to invest but you will not give out the same information in return about your own company
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 22:55:00 -
[303]
You still didn't answer my question.
Tell people where to invest their money. Show them all those businesses that are so transparent like you claim.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Caldariftw123
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:04:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Block Ukx
You still didn't answer my question.
Tell people where to invest their money. Show them all those businesses that are so transparent like you claim.
Flippant and avoiding the valid points made, how could I expect anything else at this point? These discussions started on very simple questioning terms and have devolved completely since then, it is very clear to me now and many others that you are a misleading and deceitful person and anyone reading through the 2 threads will see this for themselves.
Until your total NAV is independently verified and your PUBLIC exposure is clearly stated you look no different to all the other scams/business flops that have occurred in MD before and I see no reason to treat you as otherwise and warn anyone off investing in what is most likely either a failing or a ponzi ship.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:10:00 -
[305]
Go ahead and continue your agenda of labeling BSAC as a ponzi scheme. Somehow you don't find that misleading.
Originally by: Caldariftw123
Claiming "the full 700billion is what people should use" is blatantly incorrect because you cannot steal your own isk if you run off with it, so your own investments do NOT count.
Statements like that show how ignorant you are.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Caldariftw123
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:17:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Go ahead and continue your agenda of labeling BSAC as a ponzi scheme. Somehow you don't find that misleading.
Originally by: Caldariftw123
Claiming "the full 700billion is what people should use" is blatantly incorrect because you cannot steal your own isk if you run off with it, so your own investments do NOT count.
Statements like that show how ignorant you are.
.. so you are trying to tell us that you can steal your own isk? lol
That's laughable. The PUBLIC exposure does not include your own isk, that is pretty simple to comprehend.
Stop making a fool of yourself Block, anyone reading the thread can see the truth of what has happened here, you look either incompetent or worse a liar and continuing is just bad business sense. Answer the fundamental questions, get the audit.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:21:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Caldariftw123
Originally by: Block Ukx
Go ahead and continue your agenda of labeling BSAC as a ponzi scheme. Somehow you don't find that misleading.
Originally by: Caldariftw123
Claiming "the full 700billion is what people should use" is blatantly incorrect because you cannot steal your own isk if you run off with it, so your own investments do NOT count.
Statements like that show how ignorant you are.
.. so you are trying to tell us that you can steal your own isk? lol
That's laughable. The PUBLIC exposure does not include your own isk, that is pretty simple to comprehend.
Stop making a fool of yourself Block, anyone reading the thread can see the truth of what has happened here, you look either incompetent or worse a liar and continuing is just bad business sense. Answer the fundamental questions, get the audit.
Yes, you are so smart. Somehow you can prevent me from selling my own stake in BSAC. Hmmà
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Poison
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:22:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Caldariftw123
Originally by: Block Ukx
Go ahead and continue your agenda of labeling BSAC as a ponzi scheme. Somehow you don't find that misleading.
Originally by: Caldariftw123
Claiming "the full 700billion is what people should use" is blatantly incorrect because you cannot steal your own isk if you run off with it, so your own investments do NOT count.
Statements like that show how ignorant you are.
.. so you are trying to tell us that you can steal your own isk? lol
That's laughable. The PUBLIC exposure does not include your own isk, that is pretty simple to comprehend.
Stop making a fool of yourself Block, anyone reading the thread can see the truth of what has happened here, you look either incompetent or worse a liar and continuing is just bad business sense. Answer the fundamental questions, get the audit.
Seems your the fool. You have yet to prove that block is running a ponzi scheme... Other than the fact he wont tell you what he holds or who has invested.
|
Molic Blackbird
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:24:00 -
[309]
Originally by: RAW23
The same is true of the refusals to answer the second question. The question of who has access to the isk remains unanswered. 'I'm not going to tell you' does not constitute an answer to the question, only a reply.
Is it really that hard to determine who has access to what based on Block's replies? Seems very clear that Block has access to everything as CEO. Poison has access to 80% of the cash reserve and everything in the BSAC capital ship building project. I doubt Poison has access to the mineral reserve as he wouldn't need access. Nor would he have access to anything related to the stock exchange. No one else has access to anything.
|
Caldariftw123
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:25:00 -
[310]
Edited by: Caldariftw123 on 22/01/2011 23:25:25
Originally by: Poison
Originally by: Caldariftw123
Originally by: Block Ukx
Go ahead and continue your agenda of labeling BSAC as a ponzi scheme. Somehow you don't find that misleading.
Originally by: Caldariftw123
Claiming "the full 700billion is what people should use" is blatantly incorrect because you cannot steal your own isk if you run off with it, so your own investments do NOT count.
Statements like that show how ignorant you are.
.. so you are trying to tell us that you can steal your own isk? lol
That's laughable. The PUBLIC exposure does not include your own isk, that is pretty simple to comprehend.
Stop making a fool of yourself Block, anyone reading the thread can see the truth of what has happened here, you look either incompetent or worse a liar and continuing is just bad business sense. Answer the fundamental questions, get the audit.
Seems your the fool. You have yet to prove that block is running a ponzi scheme... Other than the fact he wont tell you what he holds or who has invested.
hahahaha ok sure, that's a valid response, I've not proven it's a ponzi, it's just been shown repeatedly that it is utterly impossible to distinguish this from what is a ponzi scam and therefore deserves to be treated as such until YOU prove otherwise. Prove otherwise with a NAV audit and answering the questions, anything else makes you look like fools .. and these childish responses you and block are now coming up with are just making the case even more solid that you simply don't give a **** about your supposed transparency, good business practices, etc. and it's all a charade .. feel free to PROVE otherwise though.
|
Poison
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:29:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Molic Blackbird
Originally by: RAW23
The same is true of the refusals to answer the second question. The question of who has access to the isk remains unanswered. 'I'm not going to tell you' does not constitute an answer to the question, only a reply.
Is it really that hard to determine who has access to what based on Block's replies? Seems very clear that Block has access to everything as CEO. Poison has access to 80% of the cash reserve and everything in the BSAC capital ship building project. I doubt Poison has access to the mineral reserve as he wouldn't need access. Nor would he have access to anything related to the stock exchange. No one else has access to anything.
You are correct. The mineral reserve is 100% run by block.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:32:00 -
[312]
Edited by: RAW23 on 22/01/2011 23:35:00
Originally by: Molic Blackbird
Originally by: RAW23
The same is true of the refusals to answer the second question. The question of who has access to the isk remains unanswered. 'I'm not going to tell you' does not constitute an answer to the question, only a reply.
Is it really that hard to determine who has access to what based on Block's replies? Seems very clear that Block has access to everything as CEO. Poison has access to 80% of the cash reserve and everything in the BSAC capital ship building project. I doubt Poison has access to the mineral reserve as he wouldn't need access. Nor would he have access to anything related to the stock exchange. No one else has access to anything.
If that's the case why doesn't he just say that? I would have been perfectly satisfied with that as an answer (if it was changed from your assumptions to a firm statement from Block) and would have shut up on this particular point a long time ago if he said this.
Edit - The response he actually gave to the question was
Quote:
Our current security arrangement is not intended to ôlimitö how much access a member of the Board of Directors (BOD) has, but it is based on a ôneed to have accessö. Depending on the level of involvement, some members have great access while others have less access. Some assets are locked down not with the intention of preventing theft by the BOD, but to allow usage by the BOD if the occasion requires it. The assets can be unlocked by me or Poison if needed.
|
Poison
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:36:00 -
[313]
Edited by: Poison on 22/01/2011 23:37:06
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Molic Blackbird
Originally by: RAW23
The same is true of the refusals to answer the second question. The question of who has access to the isk remains unanswered. 'I'm not going to tell you' does not constitute an answer to the question, only a reply.
Is it really that hard to determine who has access to what based on Block's replies? Seems very clear that Block has access to everything as CEO. Poison has access to 80% of the cash reserve and everything in the BSAC capital ship building project. I doubt Poison has access to the mineral reserve as he wouldn't need access. Nor would he have access to anything related to the stock exchange. No one else has access to anything.
If that's the case why doesn't he just say that? I would have been perfectly satisfied with that as an answer (if it was changed from your assumptions to a firm statement from Block) and would have shut up on this particular point a long time ago if he said this.
If you read the Prospectus then you would see that block is in fact the one running things.
I am wondering how Molic Blackbird knew this but you didnt figure it out?
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.22 23:43:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Poison
Edited by: Poison on 22/01/2011 23:37:06
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: Molic Blackbird
Originally by: RAW23
The same is true of the refusals to answer the second question. The question of who has access to the isk remains unanswered. 'I'm not going to tell you' does not constitute an answer to the question, only a reply.
Is it really that hard to determine who has access to what based on Block's replies? Seems very clear that Block has access to everything as CEO. Poison has access to 80% of the cash reserve and everything in the BSAC capital ship building project. I doubt Poison has access to the mineral reserve as he wouldn't need access. Nor would he have access to anything related to the stock exchange. No one else has access to anything.
If that's the case why doesn't he just say that? I would have been perfectly satisfied with that as an answer (if it was changed from your assumptions to a firm statement from Block) and would have shut up on this particular point a long time ago if he said this.
If you read the Prospectus then you would see that block is in fact the one running things.
I am wondering how Molic Blackbird knew this but you didnt figure it out?
I prefer not to make assumptions when I can get greater clarity from a simple answer. If Molic's description is precisely correct (are you confirming this, btw?) then great. I can't for the life of me work out why Block would give the answers he did, though.
So, is it the case that only Block has any access to the mineral reserve and that no one else in BSAC could ever steal the contents? that you have access to 80% of the cash reserve and that none of the other directors have, or will in the future have, access to any BSAC assets at all?
|
Poison
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 00:16:00 -
[315]
Edited by: Poison on 23/01/2011 00:16:27
Block has 100% access to the Mineral reserve.
Block currently has 100% access to the capital ship operation. I will have some access later.
I have 80% of the CR isk. Block holds 20%
BOD does not or will have direct access other then what I listed.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 15:14:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Poison
Edited by: Poison on 23/01/2011 00:16:27
Block has 100% access to the Mineral reserve.
Block currently has 100% access to the capital ship operation. I will have some access later.
I have 80% of the CR isk. Block holds 20%
BOD does not or will have direct access other then what I listed.
Thank you. That's all I wanted to know on that issue.
I suppose it would seem churlish if I tacked on a question about whether there is a hit by a bus contingency plan? |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 15:46:00 -
[317]
ôhit by a bus contingency plan?ö
You mean as if I die?
- In that case Poison will be in charge of liquidating the company.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 15:55:00 -
[318]
Edited by: RAW23 on 23/01/2011 15:55:44
Originally by: Block Ukx
ôhit by a bus contingency plan?ö
You mean as if I die?
- In that case Poison will be in charge of liquidating the company.
Thanks. Would he have some way of accessing the mineral reserve in this event or would that part of the business be a lost cause? This is asked purely out of interest and not because I think it is a critical question from an investor perspective.
Since we seem to be moving forward somewhat let me explain my reasoning about asking about director stakes in terms of two suggestions that can be discussed.
Block has indicated that the total exposure should be counted with his own stake included because he could sell off his stake at any point, thus increasing public exposure to a level equal to 700bil. This is by no means unreasonable. However, there are two points that I believe are worth considering here which, if addressed, could increase the transparency of the operation and add to the confidence of investors and potential investors.
Firstly, there is a problem of perception in the lack of clarity about how much public funds are held at a given point in time. As an investor, one of the things I often use to gauge the risk of a new or expanded investment is a comparison of how much is being added to the amount that could be scammed with the highest amount that the individual/corp has held before. Without this information I lose one of my risk gauges. Now, I realise that the current privacy policy allows, although it does not mandate, that this information not be made public. But by waiving this policy both Poison and Block would be able to increase transparency and, thus, make it easier for investors to make more fully informed decisions. I can't, personally, see the benefit of not waiving the right to privacy in their cases (although I do, of course, see the value of the policy for the other investors) but I am completely open to persuasion as to its utility. So, would you consider, as individuals, waiving this right and, if not, could you explain what is gained by keeping this information secret?
Secondly, in a purely hypothetical situation in which a scam was intended, one assumes that the individuals intending to scam would seek to sell off as much of their own stakes as possible in advance, thus maximising the amounts that they could walk off with. Would BSAC consider introducing some reporting mechanism whereby the BOD would be mandated to make a public announcement in the event of any director with access to large amounts of assets (i.e. Poison and Block) liquidating any percentage of their holdings above a certain thresh-hold? This suggestion could be implemented regardless of the first suggestion and would have the benefit for investors of providing an early warning system if someone was looking to cash out and walk off. Again, I can see a benefit here in increasing the flow of information from the corp to investors and potential investors but I can't see a downside. Of course, not being familiar with the internal workings of BSAC there may indeed be a downside of which I am not aware. If this is the case, please explain what the problems with such an approach would be.
So, two suggestions as to how transparency could be increased as starting points for discussion.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 16:16:00 -
[319]
Edited by: Block Ukx on 23/01/2011 16:23:21
My current stake, in BSAC, as of 1/23/2011 11:00 AM EST is 25,099,649,273.98. That does not includes the 4 B I reserved in the new expansion.
I cannot disclose PoisonÆs stake due to our privacy policy.
Yes, your suggestion of a flagging system is a very good one and IÆm sure our current Exchange auditor will approve of it. IÆll talk to him about implementing this option. But I would like to remind you that IÆm the one doing the withdrawals, so it would be obvious to me if someone is trying to sell off his large stake, unless the character is sold as the account is tied to the characterÆs name. In addition, the BOD has complete access to everyoneÆs stake.
There are many other ways to abuse the system, and I donÆt think it would be a good idea to be advertising them in the forums. However, BSAC holds the right to cease any account if we have probable cause of wrong doing.
EDIT: About Poison the MR, he will be getting the entire MR and MR ISK via an item exchange. |
Marcus Baltar
Savaran Zhayedan Spah
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 17:14:00 -
[320]
Originally by: RAW23
Secondly, in a purely hypothetical situation in which a scam was intended, one assumes that the individuals intending to scam would seek to sell off as much of their own stakes as possible in advance, thus maximising the amounts that they could walk off with. Would BSAC consider introducing some reporting mechanism whereby the BOD would be mandated to make a public announcement in the event of any director with access to large amounts of assets (i.e. Poison and Block) liquidating any percentage of their holdings above a certain thresh-hold? This suggestion could be implemented regardless of the first suggestion and would have the benefit for investors of providing an early warning system if someone was looking to cash out and walk off. Again, I can see a benefit here in increasing the flow of information from the corp to investors and potential investors but I can't see a downside. Of course, not being familiar with the internal workings of BSAC there may indeed be a downside of which I am not aware. If this is the case, please explain what the problems with such an approach would be.
Originally by: Block Ukx
Yes, your suggestion of a flagging system is a very good one and IÆm sure our current Exchange auditor will approve of it. IÆll talk to him about implementing this option. But I would like to remind you that IÆm the one doing the withdrawals, so it would be obvious to me if someone is trying to sell off his large stake, unless the character is sold as the account is tied to the characterÆs name. In addition, the BOD has complete access to everyoneÆs stake.
I am guessing that is for me to respond to but I am in no way speaking officially as at this stage I have not spoken to Block in detail about this, but I will be pushing it as a publicly viewable system.
There are a few other ideas and possible things in discussion as the Exchange is an on-going project, and I think that I am allowed to say that the Short Selling is likely to be delayed until these ideas are developed and a robust and more "transparent" reporting system for Short Selling is implemented.
Currently, I, and any BoD member, has full access to view shareholdings and transactions on the Exchange. I have flagged a number of tranactions on the Exchange to both Block and Poison (ie. internal), and on one occasion the Exchnge was temporarily closed to investigate. On none of these occasions was anything wrong, but internal reports and systems were tweaked to enable clearer identification of any other problems (apologies to those involved, you probably do not know who you are/were, and we tried to keep things as civil and private as possible).
I must say here and now, and I hope that this does not result in a sacking, I would report any dubious transactions by any of the BoD on the Forums too. However, please bear in mind that as Block and/or Poison are the only ones with real access to assets, any such transactions by them would more than liklely be an accidental coincidence as they could take the money and run anytime (again, that sounds bad, but someone has to hold the money and it comes down to trust in EVE).
Hope that helps, and as Block says; "There are many other ways to abuse the system, and I donÆt think it would be a good idea to be advertising them in the forums. However, BSAC holds the right to cease any account if we have probable cause of wrong doing.". I would cetainly attempt to apply that rule to the BoD too, and hope that through constructive conversation and experience the former can be reduced.
(My avatar did not look that dark when I was making it  ) |
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 15:30:00 -
[321]
Block - Thank you for your answers. Between the willingness to get an audit, Poison's confirmation on this page of the director security exposure situation, and your willingness to waive the privacy clause and state your stake in the business, nearly all the major concerns I raised and questions I asked have now been addressed. If Poison is willing to state his stake as well I would say that pretty much all the basic information needed to make informed decisions on investing would now be available. There are a number of other bits of information I would also like to see available but none of these are as important as those that have now been addressed so I'll leave them for another time and stop breathing down your necks on this.
Marcus - Thanks for commenting. It is heartening to hear that you would publicly flag any director transactions that you considered worrying. I must admit, though, that now that Block's own stake is a matter of record this particular issue appears to be much less of a concern than it might otherwise have been (if, for instance, his stake had been in the 100bil plus range).
|
Caldariftw123
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 16:29:00 -
[322]
This is goin places now :D Good to see.
p.s. block the page your sig links to for bsac info, that page still has the exchange link going to your old site.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.28 00:31:00 -
[323]
BSAC Stock Exchange is the only real-time exchange in the Eve universe where trades occur instantly. Best of all, there are no trading fees. Join today!
Important Announcements
1) Automatic Updates: We added a new code to Exchange to do automatic updates using the API journal. At this time, the code will run once a day, but we hope to have it running every three hours after a few days. Please email BSAC MMM if you have any issues regarding missing deposits or withdrawals.
2) New Messaging System: We added a new messaging system to inform the user when a deposit and withdrawal request is processed. The messages will show in your ômy accountö page. We will no longer send emails after processing those requests.
BSAC Stock Exchange - EVE's only real-time stock exchange |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.01.29 01:24:00 -
[324]
Deposits will be checked every six hours.
Login details sent. Please contact me if I did not sent your login details.
BSAC Stock Exchange - EVE's only real-time stock exchange |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 22:07:00 -
[325]
Important
The in-game BSAC shares will no longer issue dividends. You must be return your BSAC shares to recieve your registered shares, or you will miss your dividend.
BSAC Stock Exchange - EVE's only real-time stock exchange |
Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:55:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Important
The in-game BSAC shares will no longer issue dividends. You must be return your BSAC shares to recieve your registered shares, or you will miss your dividend.
Page 11 of this thread is definitely the best way to get in touch with your investors, especially when the penalty for not finding this notice is that you get to keep some of their money.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 04:15:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Block Ukx on 08/02/2011 04:16:54
This notice has been posted in the title of this thread, in the opening post of this thread, in our January Financial Report, In our public website, in the BSACSE, in our in-game channel BSACPUBLIC channel, in the company description, and emailed to shareholders via a corporation vote.
BSAC Stock Exchange - EVE's only real-time stock exchange |
Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 04:46:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Block Ukx
This notice has been posted in the title of this thread, in the opening post of this thread, in our January Financial Report, In our public website, in the BSACSE, in our in-game channel BSACPUBLIC channel, in the company description, and emailed to shareholders via a corporation vote.
I'm assuming most of your shareholders that don't have their shares on your exchange don't follow you too closely. This would, by nature, mean this post, and your website. You can't tell me your in game channel is all that busy. The corporation vote is a decent avenue.
But then again, you're doing something outside of your prospectus that changes the structure of their investment. That tends to not really be a good thing.
Will you be tracking the dividends owed to the people who have yet to virtualize their shares? Or is that simply lost income to them?
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 04:51:00 -
[329]
Dividends will go into a Trust account and paid to shareholders when shares are returned.
BSAC Stock Exchange - EVE's only real-time stock exchange |
khai88
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 05:48:00 -
[330]
Edited by: khai88 on 08/02/2011 05:49:48
any info when is the next BSAC 200000 share on sell??? miss the first IPO which sell out way too fast.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |