Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 12:04:00 -
[121]
Yes there were obvious strings, like dont shoot us, exactly the same strings are also there in your system.
|
Muck Raker
Gallente Gutter Press
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 12:24:00 -
[122]
This development will surely provide a whole lot of exciting news stories!
-10 for firing on Star Fraction is/was one of their procedures How will this handle in nullsec when faced with incidents such as this or this?
Prediction is that diplomats will be busy!
Rumours! Wars! Rumours of wars! Wars of rumours! |
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 13:32:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Muck Raker This development will surely provide a whole lot of exciting news stories!
-10 for firing on Star Fraction is/was one of their procedures How will this handle in nullsec when faced with incidents such as this or this?
Prediction is that diplomats will be busy!
Breaking news in 0.0 ... don't warp to unexplored moons in non-cloaking vessels. I guess we're lucky we don't post losses to factional baseline pirate groups either or this could lead to much scandal on the IGS!
But to answer your question. At this time we don't (and have never yet) considered the generally autonomous defense systems of a corporate-flagged tower to be indicative of formal attack on the Star Fraction leading to setting of negative standings. This is a hazard of life in lowsec and nullsec and when losses such as these happen we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves down and just get on with the business of freespace revolution on the frontier.
True Knowledge |
D melanogaster
Minmatar The Fruit Flys
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 14:02:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Breaking news in 0.0 ... don't warp to unexplored moons in non-cloaking vessels. I guess we're lucky we don't post losses to factional baseline pirate groups either or this could lead to much scandal on the IGS!
But to answer your question. At this time we don't (and have never yet) considered the generally autonomous defense systems of a corporate-flagged tower to be indicative of formal attack on the Star Fraction leading to setting of negative standings. This is a hazard of life in lowsec and nullsec and when losses such as these happen we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves down and just get on with the business of freespace revolution on the frontier. [/quote
Does that mean that when someone sets up towers in your system and configure them to shoot you, you will not be all butthurt? I am sure that the best case for neutral pilots that set up in your system will be a loss to your allies after you tip them off.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 14:24:00 -
[125]
Originally by: D melanogaster [ Does that mean that when someone sets up towers in your system and configure them to shoot you, you will not be all butthurt? I am sure that the best case for neutral pilots that set up in your system will be a loss to your allies after you tip them off.
Don't you have anything better to do? I mean really.
True Knowledge |
Snakester
Caldari IronPig Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 15:21:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Jade Constantine But to answer your question. At this time we don't (and have never yet) considered the generally autonomous defense systems of a corporate-flagged tower to be indicative of formal attack on the Star Fraction leading to setting of negative standings.
I remember 3 years ago SF setup a large warp bubble on the dital gate of kbp, this was before regional gates so this bubble caught everything coming in and out.-7- operatives were watching this activity waiting to see what happend when a nutral landed in it to see if SF shot or not, i have to say SF never fired on the neutrals, the UK with them did tho and as such the SF bubble showed up on the killmail and subsequently onto sf KB. Me being me had nice talks with SF members at the time saying surly the bubble holds SF tag so theyre in effect tackling these neutrals etc etc. Jade told me that the bubble is out of the loop and just because it shows on the KM it doesn't warrent ship replacement to said neut or standings being changed etc etc,even if neuts killed the bubble standings wouldn't be alterd as no pilot had been shot upon, so items anchored in space that even carry SF ticker dont carry kosable offence.
With that being said, if someone, say a neutral alliance dropped SBU's and then attacked your ihub and tcu without actually shooting your ships, theres absolutly nothing SF could do about it, according to there ROE , is this when u will call in your NBSI friends to help you?.
I expect to start seeing "well well , no no this is different situation" etc etc, where its not really is it.
Snake Sig removed, inappropriate link. ~Saint |
D melanogaster
Minmatar The Fruit Flys
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 15:30:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: D melanogaster [ Does that mean that when someone sets up towers in your system and configure them to shoot you, you will not be all butthurt? I am sure that the best case for neutral pilots that set up in your system will be a loss to your allies after you tip them off.
Don't you have anything better to do? I mean really.
You don't answer questions. And post far more often then me.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 15:43:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Snakester With that being said, if someone, say a neutral alliance dropped SBU's and then attacked your ihub and tcu without actually shooting your ships, theres absolutly nothing SF could do about it, according to there ROE , is this when u will call in your NBSI friends to help you?.
There is zero cause for confusion. We consider an attack on our equipment in space (like a tower, or an ihub etc, an attack on SF assets and would set the attacker -10 accordingly).
You should leave aside interpretation of our ROE since you clearly understand precisely nothing of the ideology that underpins it.
True Knowledge |
D melanogaster
Minmatar The Fruit Flys
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 16:02:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You should leave aside interpretation of our ROE since you clearly understand precisely nothing of the ideology that underpins it.
The issue people have is that your ideology is so full of loopholes and open for interpretation that you might as well be NBSI.
|
Snakester
Caldari IronPig Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 16:10:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Snakester With that being said, if someone, say a neutral alliance dropped SBU's and then attacked your ihub and tcu without actually shooting your ships, theres absolutly nothing SF could do about it, according to there ROE , is this when u will call in your NBSI friends to help you?.
There is zero cause for confusion. We consider an attack on our equipment in space (like a tower, or an ihub etc, an attack on SF assets and would set the attacker -10 accordingly).
You should leave aside interpretation of our ROE since you clearly understand precisely nothing of the ideology that underpins it.
Yep as i thought, u change your roe to suit the situation, with that being said ive worked out the best way to defeat SF is not by killing there ships or anything ingame, the best way is to ignore anything written by you or any sf member because your all attention *****s who twist everthing written u don't agree with against the writer.
with that being said i urge all forum readers to not post replys to them, let them bask in there own glory without anyone noticing.
I'll start it by saying here, i wont be replying or quoting to any post/topic by a SF member cos its just not worth it.
One last thing tho Jade, u said -7- was a dieing alliance, might wanna check our kb were having fun with nothing to defend, 1 of our pilots killed in 1 week more than your whole members in your top 10, yep were dead.
Snake Sig removed, inappropriate link. ~Saint |
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 16:11:00 -
[131]
Originally by: D melanogaster
The issue people have is that your ideology is so full of loopholes and open for interpretation that you might as well be NBSI.
I question your use of the word "people" in this instance. Plenty of unattributed posting proxies, bitter former war-enemies and general cva-bloc slavers seem incapable of understanding extremely simple and to the point rules of engagement yes, but "people?" I don't think so. In general "people" understand exactly where the Star Fraction stands and how to interact with our ROE and freespace ideology.
That is why we find it very easy to do diplomacy in space where it matters and you are employing a posting proxy on the IGS to hide your own identity.
All rather straightforward when you view it in that light yes?
True Knowledge |
Tizian Enel
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 16:12:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Tizian Enel on 11/04/2010 16:17:11 Edited by: Tizian Enel on 11/04/2010 16:13:08
Originally by: D melanogaster
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You should leave aside interpretation of our ROE since you clearly understand precisely nothing of the ideology that underpins it.
The issue people have is that your ideology is so full of loopholes and open for interpretation that you might as well be NBSI.
Ideology/roe is full of loopholes because the loopholes aren't expected to come into play in reality. They just get picked apart theoretically by people in opposing groups in order to somehow win when they can't do it in space.
To have a bit of complexity in your rules of engagement will leave it open to such attacks. You could fill in all the loopholes and end up with something nobody understands and have just as much useless "debate" on it as you'd have with the loopholes in place.
Do bring up loopholes that will be (or have already been) relevant in reality though, that aren't covered by some other part of the rules, instead of all the accusations that are irrelevant or misinterpreted.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 16:15:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/04/2010 16:16:01
Originally by: Snakester Yep as i thought, u change your roe to suit the situation, with that being said ive worked out the best way to defeat SF is not by killing there ships or anything ingame, the best way is to ignore anything written by you or any sf member because your all attention *****s who twist everthing written u don't agree with against the writer.
Though you seem to have "worked out" that particular strategy you are not very good at employing it are you? Suffice to say I encourage you to ignore all SF related posts in the future by all means. Its not like you bring very much value to the table of debate anyhow. Please take a ticket and join the list of defeated foes of the Star Fraction and take your turn posting bitterness on our sixth year anniversary thread (probably just after Archbishop posts)
Originally by: Snakester I'll start it by saying here, i wont be replying or quoting to any post/topic by a SF member cos its just not worth it.
Just quoting this for amusement value. Don't let the IGS door hit you on the way out Snakester, you won't be missed.
True Knowledge |
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 16:54:00 -
[134]
I think someone imperfectly remembers a conversation about mobile warp disruptors.
The position on mobile warp disruptor field 'aggression' is with us quite simple: we don't consider ourselves to have been aggressed against if some neutral party's mobile warp disruptor catches us; so in parity we don't consider ourselves to have aggressed anyone if our mobile warp disruptors catch neutrals.
The issue of warp disruption field aggression is different to the issue of a direct attack on infrastructure because the cases are in fact entirely different. People who claim they are the same or that the ground is being shifted when we say not are just being mischievous, having carried out an enormous and blatant act of earth-moving themselves.
What I suspect has confused Snakester (assuming for a nanosecond some honesty on his part) is that we are not so petty to set neutrals -10 for attacks on unattended or abandoned mobile warp disruptors, containers or abandoned shuttles. On the other hand, if we were in the vicinity we'd ask neutrals to stop shooting at our mobile warp disruptor if they were in no danger. The point being, we're understanding of the situation. If some neutral is caught by our mobile warp disruptor and then attacked by some third-party, we're not going to get upset that they chose to attack the mobile warp disruptor in their panic. We can choose not to set someone -10 even when we're technically justified in doing so. Something that happens more than you would think.
For the avoidance of doubt, the anchoring of sovereignty blockade units in any system administered by us will be taken as a declaration of hostility. The anchoring of such structures has only one purpose: to render infrastructure hubs and outposts vulnerable. That is a hostile act.
Conversely, Sovereignty blockade units are a new innovation in strategic warfare that by their very nature have to be defended while in use. It is clear that an attack on an SBU is a direct attack on the entity using it (in a way that an attack on a mobile warp disruptor is not when, for example, it is someone merely trying to free themselves). So, again for the avoidance of doubt, the Star Fraction would consider an attack on an SBU anchored by us to be a hostile act.
People have to remember: our RoE governs the actions that can be taken immediately in space by our pilots. Our standings are a matter of political judgement. Those who imagine they can 'game' our NRDS policy had better think again.
For those who crave simplicity, the summary on the discussed points is:
1) If you are neutral and catch us in your warp disruption fields, we won't take it as hostile action unless you go on to fire at us. 2) Vice versa, we don't consider neutrals caught in our fields to have been aggressed by us. 3) If you attack our fixed infrastructure or SBUs you will be considered hostile. 4) If you attack our mobile warp disruptors while not under fire and don't desist after having been warned, we will take proportionate action to stop you and the matter of standings will be subject to diplomacy.
Ultimately, if you are neutral and don't shoot at our ships or engage in deliberate attacks on our infrastructure, you'll be left well alone by us. In addition, anyone is welcome to enter into diplomacy with us and we won't be waving 'slave contracts' around or treating people as if they are fedos after a 3-week voyage on a garbage scow.
I see little 'complex' or 'loophole' riddled about that.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Icarus3
Gallente DAEDALUS X The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 21:23:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Muck Raker This development will surely provide a whole lot of exciting news stories!
-10 for firing on Star Fraction is/was one of their procedures How will this handle in nullsec when faced with incidents such as this or this?
Prediction is that diplomats will be busy!
The incidents were accidental. No one in 0.0 is encouraged to warp to moons in 0.0. In addition to this I will say that it was due to standings which have now been settled.
Our diplomats have always been busy spreading the good word of our ideology :-P
|
Archbishop
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:16:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Snakester
I remember 3 years ago SF setup a large warp bubble on the dital gate of kbp, this was before regional gates so this bubble caught everything coming in and out.-7- operatives were watching this activity waiting to see what happend when a nutral landed in it to see if SF shot or not, i have to say SF never fired on the neutrals, the UK with them did tho and as such the SF bubble showed up on the killmail and subsequently onto sf KB. Me being me had nice talks with SF members at the time saying surly the bubble holds SF tag so theyre in effect tackling these neutrals etc etc. Jade told me that the bubble is out of the loop and just because it shows on the KM it doesn't warrent ship replacement to said neut or standings being changed etc etc,even if neuts killed the bubble standings wouldn't be alterd as no pilot had been shot upon, so items anchored in space that even carry SF ticker dont carry kosable offence. Snake
So using this line of thinking if someone is running down the street from a crazed psychotic killer (and getting away) and you trip them then jump on them to hold them down you're not at fault when the psychotic killer catches up to them and kills them while in your grip.
Certainly sounds reasonable to the mind of a hypocritical anarchist I'm sure.
Archbishop
PIE WEBSITE ARCHBISHOP PORTAL |
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:34:00 -
[137]
It doesn't sound reasonable at all. Probably because your analogy is not comparable to the situation discussed. It seems rather more like an analogy for using targeted warp disruption against someone: which of course would be direct aggression against a neutral and against our RoE.
Not even a nice try. Rather, a thoroughly and I suspect knowingly dishonest try.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Archbishop
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 23:21:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Archbishop on 13/04/2010 23:22:43
Originally by: The Cosmopolite It doesn't sound reasonable at all. Probably because your analogy is not comparable to the situation discussed. It seems rather more like an analogy for using targeted warp disruption against someone: which of course would be direct aggression against a neutral and against our RoE.
Not even a nice try. Rather, a thoroughly and I suspect knowingly dishonest try.
The Cosmopolite
We can compare the two and you'll see it's a very direct analogy...
A = Star Fraction B = Person on the Street
1A - Person in a ship fleeing a pirate jumps into a system. 1B - Person fleeing the psychotic runs down the street.
2A - Person is trapped by the warp bubble. 2B - Person is trapped by someone.
3A - Person is unable to escape and is killed. 3B - Person is unable to escape and is killed.
4A - Star Fraction claims they're not responsible because they didn't do the actual killing. 4B - Person on the street who held down the victim so he can be killed claims he isn't responsible because he didn't do the actual killing.
What part do you think isn't similar? Looks pretty similar to me.
Archbishop
PIE WEBSITE ARCHBISHOP PORTAL |
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 09:29:00 -
[139]
It would have more in common with the person getting stuck trying to climb over your garden wall. Yes it held them up and meant they got caught, but it was not put there to do such a thing. --------------------------------------------
SF Recruiting |
Halarach
Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 09:44:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger It would have more in common with the person getting stuck trying to climb over your garden wall. Yes it held them up and meant they got caught, but it was not put there to do such a thing.
Building walls around a house is enclosurism and deliberate attempt to restrict use of space (that you consider yours) from other entities, bad example young "free captain".
|
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:11:00 -
[141]
Archbishop, who said anything about putting up mobile warp disrupters with pirates present?
More dishonesty from you. Unless you're claiming that the Ushra'Khan are pirates perhaps? A claim I'd laugh at. I think you should stop telling lies. Don't you know it is a sin?
To return to your analogy, it's still dishonest and not at all similar to the case discussed. To repeat, someone actively 'jumping' on to someone and 'holding them down' is a targeted action. It is therefore far more analogous to the targeted use of a ship-borne warp disruptor than to anything else.
I would certainly regard someone 'jumping on and holding someone down' as directly culpable in their subsequent murder if they did so while a violent attack was underway against the person held. Just I would regard someone using a targeted warp disruptor to pin a ship in space as directly involved in its destruction during an attack by other parties.
Everyone can see that your analogy is not comparing like with like, whereas mine is. I am satisfied that honest people will admit this while malicious humbugs concerned only with smearing us will continue to shout the opposite is so.
As for mobile warp disruptors and fields: their use in military situations in 0.0 is widespread. I have seen neutrals destroyed in CVA and Providence Holder warp disruption fields by third parties. I wouldn't go around claiming that the CVA and their allies are directly responsible for such destructions.
The truth of course is that these 'analogies' so beloved of Archbishop and his ilk are nothing more than an attempt to throw mud. The mobile warp disruptor and similar warp disruption field technologies are tools of warfare in 0.0. Our pledge is that no neutral finding themselves in one of our warp disruption fields will be fired on by us.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Rodj Blake
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:37:00 -
[142]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite Our pledge is that no neutral finding themselves in one of our warp disruption fields will be fired on by us.
That's good to know.
But what happens if someone else (who is neutral to or allied to SF) fires on them while they're in one of your warp disruption fields?
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 12:29:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Halarach
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger It would have more in common with the person getting stuck trying to climb over your garden wall. Yes it held them up and meant they got caught, but it was not put there to do such a thing.
Building walls around a house is enclosurism and deliberate attempt to restrict use of space (that you consider yours) from other entities, bad example young "free captain".
One of us knows what an analogy is. Sadly it appears not to be you. --------------------------------------------
SF Recruiting |
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 12:35:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: The Cosmopolite Our pledge is that no neutral finding themselves in one of our warp disruption fields will be fired on by us.
That's good to know.
But what happens if someone else (who is neutral to or allied to SF) fires on them while they're in one of your warp disruption fields?
You know the answer to that already Rodj.
But since you are getting on a bit and for those new in the area: That would be between the parties involved. We're sure as hell not going to tell people who they can or can not shoot.
Happy? Or shall I call the nurse? --------------------------------------------
SF Recruiting |
Halarach
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:30:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: The Cosmopolite Our pledge is that no neutral finding themselves in one of our warp disruption fields will be fired on by us.
That's good to know.
But what happens if someone else (who is neutral to or allied to SF) fires on them while they're in one of your warp disruption fields?
You know the answer to that already Rodj.
But since you are getting on a bit and for those new in the area: That would be between the parties involved. We're sure as hell not going to tell people who they can or can not shoot.
Happy? Or shall I call the nurse?
You sound bitter Sable, is maybe your dream of "free space" not working exactly as expected with every dog around (including friends of your allies) shooting at each other (including SF) and the diplomatic nightmare that ensues?
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:32:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: The Cosmopolite Our pledge is that no neutral finding themselves in one of our warp disruption fields will be fired on by us.
That's good to know.
But what happens if someone else (who is neutral to or allied to SF) fires on them while they're in one of your warp disruption fields?
You know the answer to that already Rodj.
But since you are getting on a bit and for those new in the area: That would be between the parties involved. We're sure as hell not going to tell people who they can or can not shoot.
Happy? Or shall I call the nurse?
I just felt that any neutrals who might stray into SF territory should be fully aware of the risks before they do so.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:45:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Halarach
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: The Cosmopolite Our pledge is that no neutral finding themselves in one of our warp disruption fields will be fired on by us.
That's good to know.
But what happens if someone else (who is neutral to or allied to SF) fires on them while they're in one of your warp disruption fields?
You know the answer to that already Rodj.
But since you are getting on a bit and for those new in the area: That would be between the parties involved. We're sure as hell not going to tell people who they can or can not shoot.
Happy? Or shall I call the nurse?
You sound bitter Sable, is maybe your dream of "free space" not working exactly as expected with every dog around (including friends of your allies) shooting at each other (including SF) and the diplomatic nightmare that ensues?
Not in the slightest. Some of us walk into things with our eyes wide open. --------------------------------------------
SF Recruiting |
Merdaneth
Amarr Angel Wing.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 15:13:00 -
[148]
Just to reconfirm your policy:
Yesterday I flew into KBP and was attacked by an Ushra Khan member based on their NBSI policy in Providence (and perhaps a slight personal grudge). There were many SF pilots in local. The Ushra Khan pilot communicated to me that he expected SF forces to assist him in case they found me (a neutral)firing on him (a 'blue' ally). I said I was not sure his assumption was correct.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Archbishop
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:08:00 -
[149]
So many contradictions between the claimed objectives of the Star Fraction and the realities of their actions. Shall we call it "hypocrisy" or merely "reality"?
1. Putting up a wall is standings enclosurism. There is no way to paint it as anything else.
2. Deploying a warp bubble is intentionally targeting anyone who lands in it. Since they automatically targeted by the bubble effect when entering it there is no way its "unintentional". The law of common sense says if you do something that has the same result 100 percent of the time its not unintentional when that result happens.
3. Telling people what modules they can deploy in a system is certainly dictating to others your will and expecting them to follow it. Its no different then having a standings list and expecting people to follow it. Its enclosurism.
Conclusion. Well the reality here is the Star Fraction is quickly learning the reality of holding space. Enclosurism is necessary to successfully maintain sovereignty. Now they have become exactly what they claimed to oppose. I'm sure they'll try to spin this another way but the reality is clear they are now doing what they condemned others of doing.
Archbishop
PIE WEBSITE ARCHBISHOP PORTAL |
Jonathan Swift
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:14:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Merdaneth Just to reconfirm your policy:
Yesterday I flew into KBP and was attacked by an Ushra Khan member based on their NBSI policy in Providence (and perhaps a slight personal grudge). There were many SF pilots in local. The Ushra Khan pilot communicated to me that he expected SF forces to assist him in case they found me (a neutral)firing on him (a 'blue' ally). I said I was not sure his assumption was correct.
I'm glad that you relayed that information! It is very relevant and on subject that you have stumbled upon a misinformed UK pilot....
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |