History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedHistoriography

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Historiography
    Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 10:41
Paul,
 
Pretty well spot on. Smile
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 22:33
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
However, getting back on topic, I note that no-one has actually said that they agree with the 'postmodernist' position that there is something new or significant about noticing that people's views are influenced by their metanarratives, the contexts they develop in (in particular in the description and analysis of historical events.
 
The idea postmernism is stating the bloody obvious only using poncy new words to do it so it seems trendy is a view I've long held.
 
However to make this observation, the bloody obvious bit particularly, sort of implies I agree with the analysis.
 
From your statement above do I imply you think the same?
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 22:08


Originally posted by Knights Knights wrote:


Originally posted by egyptian goddess egyptian goddess wrote:

Therefore E.H. Carr is accurate in stating, “The facts speaks only when the historian calls on them. It is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context”.

I'd like to discuss your use of Carr's quote first of all. In his 'What is History', Carr makes an equivalent distinction to the one I made in my first post - that of 'historical facts' and 'history'. He terms these "facts of history" and "facts of the past", respectively. The former, he goes on to explain, are objective for all intents and purposes - my example of 'dates' in history, for instance. The latter however, "the facts of the past", are those which he views as being the primary concern of historians. For the remainder of the book, after setting these out in Chapter One, Carr deals with 'facts of the past', which he goes on to make the 'fish in the ocean' analogy about. Thus, in your quote Carr is referring to these 'facts of the past', which are subjectively interpreted and subsequently represented, by the historian. His quote is not talking about 'historical facts'. In essence, I am saying that what Carr deems 'facts of history', and what I mentioned earlier as 'historical facts' are objective, whilst Carr's 'facts of the past' (my 'history') are open to selective representation by the historian.

Knights, I quoted from the other thread your reply addressed to Egyptian Goddess (I hope my excerpt is fair enough). While I don't agree with her conclusive remark from that post, I also don't think your assessment of Carr's quote is correct, mainly because the aforementioned quote is about "historical facts" which according to Carr are not that objective, Carr's position being anti-empiricist to a degree.

The quote is part of larger paragraph in chapter I which starts with "What is a historical fact?". I'll quote a bit more for a better understanding:

 ... the necessity to establish these basic facts rests not on any quality in the facts themselves, but on an a priori decision of the historian. In spite of C. P. Scott's motto, every journalist knows today that the most effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts. It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them. It is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context. It was, I think, one of Pirandello's characters who said that a fact is like a sack - it won't stand up till you've put something in it.

and a bit further, a more radical stance:
The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate. 

About the "facts of history" and "facts of the past", check the following quote from the same paragraph:


It is the historian who has decided for his own reasons that Caesar's crossing of that petty stream, the Rubicon, is a fact of history, whereas the crossing of the Rubicon by millions of other people before or since interests nobody at all. The fact that you arrived in this building half an hour ago on foot, or on a bicycle, or in a car, is just as much a fact about the past as the fact that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. But it will probably be ignored by historians.
 
However, even more interesting is in my opinion what he adds in the following paragraphs, because it addresses how these facts get into being and what we can actually know from these facts.

I suspect that even today one of the fascinations of ancient and medieval history is that it gives us the illusion of having all the facts at our disposal within a manageable compass: the nagging distinction between the facts of history and other facts about the past vanishes because the few known facts are all facts of history. As Bury, who had worked in both periods, said, "the records of ancient and medieval history are starred with lacunae". History has been called an enormous jig-saw with a lot of missing parts. But the main trouble does not consist of the lacunae. Our picture of Greece in the fifth century B.C. is defective not primarily because so many of the bits have been accidentally lost, but because it is, by and large, the picture formed by a tiny group of people in the city of Athens. We know a lot about what fifth-century Greece looked like to an Athenian citizen; but hardly anything about what it looked like to a Spartan, a Corinthian, or a Theban - not to mention a Persian, or a slave or other non-citizen resident in Athens. Our picture has been preselected and predetermined for us, not so much by accident as by people who were consciously or unconsciously imbued with a particular view and thought the facts which supported that view worth preserving. In the same way, when I read in a modern history of the Middle Ages that the people of the Middle Ages were deeply concerned with religion, I wonder how we know this, and whether it is true. What we know as the facts of medieval history have almost all been selected for us by generations of chroniclers who were professionally occupied in the theory and practice of religion, and who therefore thought it supremely important, and recorded everything relating to it, and not much else. The picture of the Russian peasant as devoutly religious was destroyed by the revolution of 1917. The picture of medieval man as devoutly religious, whether true or not, is indestructible, because nearly all the known facts about him were preselected for us by people who believed it, and wanted others to believe it, and a mass of other facts, in which we might possibly have found evidence to the contrary, has been lost beyond recall. The dead hand of vanished generations of historians, scribes, and chroniclers has determined beyond the possibility of appeal the pattern of the past. "The history we read", writes Professor Barraclough, himself trained as a medievalist, "though based on facts, is, strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgments".

and

The nineteenth-century fetishism of facts was completed and justified by a fetishism of documents. The documents were the Ark of the Covenant in the temple of facts. The reverent historian approached them with bowed head and spoke of them in awed tones. If you find it in the documents, it is so. But what, when we get down to it, do these documents - the decrees, the treaties, the rent-rolls, the blue books, the official correspondence, the private letters and diaries - tell us? No document can tell us more than what the author of the document thought - what he thought had happened, what he thought ought to happen or would happen, or perhaps only what he wanted others to think he thought, or even only what he himself thought he thought. None of this means anything until the historian has got to work on it and deciphered it. The facts, whether found in documents or not, have still to be processed by the historian before he can make any use of them: the use he makes of them is, if I may put it that way, the processing process.

I admit I am selective to prove a point (what a "historical fact" is to Carr) and after reading the entire book, Carr may not seem so relativist as these quotes might suggest.



Edited by Chilbudios - 26-Apr-2009 at 22:13
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 10:35
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
I grant that more microhistory is now written than before, but it's been around a long time. And in any case more history is now being written than ever before, and a whole stack more PhDs are being granted and another whole stack of history departments now exist.
 
 
Maybe it's that in the past macrohistories were the mainstream views and microhistories a minority view and this has now swapped around.
 
 
Yes. I was suggesting a reason for the change - i.e. that it grows easier to find more topics for micro-history than for macro the more historians there are around.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 10:32
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

it would be wise for you to discontinue attacks on individuals based on their age
 
Damn I was just going to call gcle too young and immature. Won't bother now.
 
Feel free to do so, Paul. I can take the truth.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 07:37

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 23:52
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

it would be wise for you to discontinue attacks on individuals based on their age
 
Damn I was just going to call gcle too young and immature. Won't bother now.


Edited by Paul - 24-Apr-2009 at 23:54
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 22:36
Interesting topic so far. I have observed it from afar, but not participated yet.
 
Let us keep up with the guidelines by keeping away from personal attacks. Furthermore, this forum has a few basic guidelines that you choose to abide by once you post and join this community. Please be aware of that, and please read up on those as well.
 
The code of conduct can be found here.

*Changed to a more general tone. 


Edited by es_bih - 26-Apr-2009 at 00:58

Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Webmaster
Webmaster
Avatar
AE Magazine Coordinator

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3294
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 12:59
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

I've posted a longer post on the other thread about history's percieved purpose. Is it just me or is rather confusing having two topics on practically the same thing?


The other thread seems a bit less active, but I will just check with Gcle and BE before I close it. Smile

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 12:41
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
I grant that more microhistory is now written than before, but it's been around a long time. And in any case more history is now being written than ever before, and a whole stack more PhDs are being granted and another whole stack of history departments now exist.
 
 
Maybe it's that in the past macrohistories were the mainstream views and microhistories a minority view and this has now swapped around.
 
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 11:57
I've posted a longer post on the other thread about history's percieved purpose. Is it just me or is rather confusing having two topics on practically the same thing?
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 10:57
My question is still what's supposed to be new about all this, except for the invention of a new vocabulary to talk about it, and one that on the whole doesn't stand up to linguistic analysis (consider 'metanarratives exist')? Many years ago, G.M.Trevelyan wrote of his work on Garibaldi: "Without bias, I should never have written them at all. For I was moved to write them by a poetical sympathy with the passions of the Italian patriots of the period, which I retrospectively shared."[
 
It's not that "metanarratives don't exist" or have only recently been noticed: they have always existed (insofar as that can be said at all), and always been subjectified , and always been noticed. That doesn't mean there should be any less need to search for objectivity, or, fr that matter, to re-weave micro-histories into macro ones.
 
I grant that more microhistory is now written than before, but it's been around a long time. And in any case more history is now being written than ever before, and a whole stack more PhDs are being granted and another whole stack of history departments now exist.
 
Which apart from anything else means a greater drive to find niches for study and publication - not just in the local sense but also in the subject, like the history of salt for instance. However that drive has always existed: my own tutor, Sir John Plumb, started by analysing one single Parliament in the early 18th century. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 22:43
Meta or grand narratives are unsubjectivised narratives. If it's sujectivised it's not a metanarrative by definition.
 
Metanarratives exist, just if they are subjectified buy individuals they are now 'little narratives' and instead of having everyone believing in one metanarrative you have everyone believing in their own little narrative.
 
If everybody subjectivises a metanarrative it nolonger exists and there you have the postmodern age, where the grand narratives are either minority beliefs or being gradually subjectified out of existence.
 
 


Edited by Paul - 23-Apr-2009 at 22:46
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 22:16
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor Byzantine Emperor wrote:

Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

I believe the Postmodern Condition is people no-longer believing in 'metanarratives' but instead inventing their own 'little narratives'. So people stop being catholic (meta or grand narrative) and start a suicide cult, become trekkies or creationists and so on. Or stop watching network TV and start making and responding to vids on YouTube.
 
This is true when applied to culture.  However, within the discipline of history, there could still be a metanarrative within a text.  The point of departure comes when that metanarrative is subjectivized by the reader or person "interacting" or "participating" with the text that it becomes something totally different or internalized relative to the participant.  As part of the discourse it is shaped and changed by the reader(s).
 
How exactly is this different to what I said?
 
Were you meaning to say that metanarratives do not/no longer exist because of postmodernism?  Or by saying that people "no-longer believe" in metanarratives, you mean that people in the postmodernist age place less value on ideas and metanarratives?
 
I was saying that metanarratives do in fact exist and are acknowledged by postmodernist historians.  However, the metanarratives are so subjectivized and relativized in scholarship that they often become something totally different.  In my opinion, this defeats the purpose of defining the thing as something all-pervasive and stable.
 
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 22:07
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor Byzantine Emperor wrote:

Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

I believe the Postmodern Condition is people no-longer believing in 'metanarratives' but instead inventing their own 'little narratives'. So people stop being catholic (meta or grand narrative) and start a suicide cult, become trekkies or creationists and so on. Or stop watching network TV and start making and responding to vids on YouTube.
 
This is true when applied to culture.  However, within the discipline of history, there could still be a metanarrative within a text.  The point of departure comes when that metanarrative is subjectivized by the reader or person "interacting" or "participating" with the text that it becomes something totally different or internalized relative to the participant.  As part of the discourse it is shaped and changed by the reader(s).
 
How exactly is this different to what I said?
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 21:24
I happen to agree with the skepticism against meta-narratives (and with the relevance of this 'postmodernist' stance), especially in disciplines like history (Byzantine Emperor provided a good example with the text being re-shaped by each reading). This is also proven by a good deal of modern scholarship. However, as suggested above, it's a bit more than the issue of meta-narratives, that's a simplification of the entire issue.
 
But as long as there's no serious interest for discussion (the thread opener seemed to have it so but she(?)'s now gone), I cannot do anything but state this opinon. Alternatively I can supply a bibliography, but my bitter experience in this forum is that people care rather to express their opinions instead of reading and learning.
 
I have just remembered that some time ago I linked an essay about postmodernism and post-structuralism in history in some other thread but there were no takers.


Edited by Chilbudios - 23-Apr-2009 at 21:30
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 21:16
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

I believe the Postmodern Condition is people no-longer believing in 'metanarratives' but instead inventing their own 'little narratives'. So people stop being catholic (meta or grand narrative) and start a suicide cult, become trekkies or creationists and so on. Or stop watching network TV and start making and responding to vids on YouTube.
 
This is true when applied to culture.  However, within the discipline of history, there could still be a metanarrative within a text.  The point of departure comes when that metanarrative is subjectivized by the reader or person "interacting" or "participating" with the text that it becomes something totally different or internalized relative to the participant.  As part of the discourse it is shaped and changed by the reader(s).
 
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

I don't see how this is a position though, it is simply supposed to be an impirically observed fact. Whereas in the past there were few products and lots of people used one, now people prefer to choose from a large number of different products and each has few buyers. If you use a Marxist model it is largely irrelevant as religion, shopping habits and TV viewing habits are not considered important, if you use the Postmodern model media, consumerism and alienation are the most things.
 
What you are talking about here is basically Max Weber's stinging critique of Marx's materialist dialectic.  Outward appearences do not necessarily reveal one's relationship to the means of production.  For Weber, social status is created by outward appearance and patterns of consumption.  Thus, social status and consciousness, and the formation of power relationships, can be based on other things besides economic power.  Ideas, including religious convictions, are not relegated to mere superstructure.
 
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 20:52
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
However, getting back on topic, I note that no-one has actually said that they agree with the 'postmodernist' position that there is something new or significant about noticing that people's views are influenced by their metanarratives, the contexts they develop in (in particular in the description and analysis of historical events.
 
I believe the Postmodern Condition is people no-longer believing in 'metanarratives' but instead inventing their own 'little narratives'. So people stop being catholic (meta or grand narrative) and start a suicide cult, become trekkies or creationists and so on. Or stop watching network TV and start making and responding to vids on YouTube. Whereas in the past there were few products and lots of people used one, now people prefer to choose from a large number of different products and each has few buyers.
 
I don't see how this is a position though, it is simply supposed to be an impirically observed fact.  If you use a Marxist model it is largely irrelevant as religion, shopping habits and TV viewing habits are not considered important, if you use the Postmodern model media, consumerism and alienation are some of the most important things.
 
I don't think it's a typical ideological model that people are influenced by their 'little narrative' or 'discourses', they intially choose them from the vast menu of options (ie scientology) then choose to adhere to them and treat their logic as truth. They are then influenced by them but only after they have chosen to be. The postmodern note is unlike previous model this is a voluntary choice of influence, so when people have these views treat it and them as such.


Edited by Paul - 23-Apr-2009 at 20:59
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 20:14
I appreciate everyone's concern.
 
However, getting back on topic, I note that no-one has actually said that they agree with the 'postmodernist' position that there is something new or significant about noticing that people's views are influenced by their metanarratives, the contexts they develop in (in particular in the description and analysis of historical events.
 
Does anyone so agree? Or think I'm asking the wrong question, or using the wrong vocabulary?
 
To clarify: I think people are influenced by their contexts. What I don't accept is that it's worth going on about.
 
PS I share Paul's view about the suitability of the term 'postmodern', but I'm going with the flow here.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2009 at 19:55
I don't disagree with you about the swipe at somebody's age.  However, that swipe was not obscene.  All I'm asking is that you refrain from telling people we don't need them here.  That's not that difficult, you could point out that the comment was unnecessary and leave it at that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.