It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:10 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #61 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:21 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
John, when abstract levels are a logical identity to the lowest level, such abstraction describes the reality correctly. Where there is still not understood information, abstract or fuzzy approaches are both valid.

Maybe you got the impression that my levels of abstraction would go higher than Oriental levels, but I disagree. So far, I have attacked these levels of abstraction:

Level 0: rules
Level 1: connection, life and death..., which can be reduced to Level 0
Level 2: influence, thickness..., which can be reduced to Level 1

Oriental players use also

Level 3: beauty of shape, flow of the game..., which probably can be reduced to Level 2

Since I am still working to define Level 2 and much of it is undefined yet, still I do not dare to define Oriental Level 3 concepts. Level 3 can include the more generally accepted concepts 'playing style' and 'strategic planning'.


This post by RobertJasiek was liked by: Bonobo
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: off topic side remark
Post #62 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:43 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2221
Location: Germany
Liked others: 8262
Was liked: 924
Rank: OGS 9k
OGS: trohde
Universal go server handle: trohde
Just in case somebody <cough> Bantari <cough> wonders why I “like” seemingly contradictory posts: IMVHO they don’t totally contradict each other in every point, in many they rather seem (to my ~13k understanding) complement others’ comments, so as if the authors of these comments actually are co-operating on finding out what is actually fact, by describing their different perspectives and views of the matter, and I especially appreciate the knowledgeability and politeness in this discourse.

Oh, and it “feels” as if I learn something by reading youze. Can’t exactly tell what it is, though. Something “meta” about Go. I think learn about the ways you think about Go, which (again just a “feeling”) seems very valuable to me

Thank you!

Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS? :)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #63 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:32 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 603
Location: Indiana
Liked others: 114
Was liked: 176
John Fairbairn wrote:
One of the foundations of my belief is mathematician Alfred Korzybski's treatment of General Semantics which he called, I think, the Structural Differential. I am a DDK in this area and only know Korzybski's work a little because he is the only westerner I've come across who makes sense of things like Lao Zi's "The Dao that can be spoken is not the true Dao; the name that can be named is not the true name" (and likewise Confucius's Rectification Names and Zen in general).


The Map Is Not The Territory: The Future Is Not The Past
The Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture Series
Robert Anton Wilson, November 7th, 1997

RAW was a very non-traditional thinker, however:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMdmyisIFNo

Edit: You might also read/listen to some of the other annual speakers at The Institute of General Semantics: http://www.generalsemantics.org/our-off ... re-series/

You might find Raymond Smullyan, The Tao is Silent also of interest. Smullyan is a mathematician, logician, philosopher, etc., etc., etc.


This post by Aidoneus was liked by: Bonobo
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #64 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:51 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1639
Location: Ponte Vedra
Liked others: 642
Was liked: 490
Universal go server handle: Bantari
John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
Now, it so happened that this concept he needed a word for might be slightly different that what the japanese pros/literature think of as "aji". And so John, always the conservative in such things, has an issue with that. Probably rightly so.


I don't think that this quite captures the real point at issue, which is not really about aji (and even less about RJ and JF). The deeper point is methodology of teaching, and since a certain controversial method pervades RJ's books, I think that qualifies, pace daal, as a vaguely related random point.

We have had many discussions about the pros and cons of the so-called oriental way of teaching (which RJ rubbishes as mystification but which I respect) and the western way (which RJ espouses, and which I also respect but only with a healthy dose of scepticism).

One of the foundations of my belief is mathematician Alfred Korzybski's treatment of General Semantics which he called, I think, the Structural Differential. I am a DDK in this area and only know Korzybski's work a little because he is the only westerner I've come across who makes sense of things like Lao Zi's "The Dao that can be spoken is not the true Dao; the name that can be named is not the true name" (and likewise Confucius's Rectification Names and Zen in general).

We appear to have a few people currently on this forum who do know about philosophy and related matters, so I may be able to nudge them into putting me straight (in layman's terms, please!), but for me the key point is as follows.

The universe is all-ecompassing reality (and by extension the go board is all-encompassing reality as regards go).

When we experience reality we can only know a tiny fragment of the whole. Well, that's also true, I think, of how most of us feel about a go position.

We are already one remove from reality. But if we then give our experience a label (a name such as 'aji' or a symbol) to help us deal with it, we are moving yet another level from reality.

A major point made by Korbzybski is that if we then make a statement about our label, which is at level L, we are not making it at the same level, but at level L+1. In other words, we are moving further away from reality each time with each level of abstraction. This means that if you use a label (level L), define it (L+1), expand it as a concept (L+2) and then try to do things like create a way of counting it (L+3), you are going a long, long way from a universe of which you had only a sliver of experience to start with. I believe Korzybski called this "insanity" and that he recommended that the ideal situation was when a teacher could point and stay silent (and the pupil understands and also stays silent, of course). Which is essentially the oriental way of teaching go, which may seem mystifying to some, but we know it works.

I believe RJ accepts it works; he just believes his way is faster and more widely applicable, but we await the proof of that. His books are the first step in his proof, I suppose. As I said, I respect that approach, but only with very quizzical eyebrows.

I honestly don't expect to be disabused but one pertinent question that I can't answer is whether it really matters if we move away from Reality with increasing levels of abstraction. Could it even be advantageous? I am a "conservative" in the sense that I am a sceptic. Being a sceptic, I simply believe it is better if the levels of abstraction are reduced. One way of reducing levels of abstraction is to accept fuzzy assessments and fuzzy definitions. Since I believe that humans are actually biologically designed to operate this way, I am a great fan of that approach, though I do also believe that fuzziness should not mean a random mish-mash - there should be a clear focus, or directionality, in the thought and only the edges should be fuzzy. (I believe that is supported by the theory of evolution.)

It is my view that the orientals have already achieved an acceptable level of fuzziness for aji and thickness and several other terms, and that we have to hesitate before we plunge into another level of abstraction.

Computer chess may seem to make the case for refining many abstraction levels down to numbers, but I have bought a lot of chess books recently related to this issue, and I have seen no cases of computer chess theory throwing up anything applicable to an average human's way of playing chess. In fact I'd regard ultra-deep tactics and endgame tables as essentially not applicable even to pro chess players.

So where chess leads, go will follow, with knobs on.

Very interesting, and certainly thought-provoking. I can't really claim to understand all that, except that it seems to me that if we drive the premise to its logical conclusion, then language should not even exist. Or maybe the answer to every question is "everything" (or maybe "32" or whatever the number in Hitchhiker was.) Or at least - definitions are bad, and the more strict they are the badder. If it makes sense.

Personally, I think that universe, Go - pretty much everything non-trivial - can be approached from various angles, each approach allowing the researcher to uncover certain specific, possibly distinct features of the whole. I am also a sceptic, in the sense that I do not believe any particular approach can claim to be generally superior, not unless there is some uncontroversial proof.

Ultimately, concepts which we use to try to understand and describe the universe are by definition more abstract that the universe itself. And, per definition, our brains are designed to deal with and handle such abstraction. I am with you in that I cannot really say if increasing the degree of that abstraction has positive or negative implications. I suspect its like a hammer - a tool, and as long as you use it wisely, larger degree of abstraction can be used to build tremendous things. If used badly, a hammer can lead to disaster.

But back to Go.
We have had people in Asia applying a certain approach to uncovering the secrets of Go for centuries. For that, they had felt it convenient to define certain terms and concepts - not really that much to further the research or knowledge per se, but I think to simply be able to easier communicate those concepts to each other. Many of these concepts are vague - not because they really needed to be vague, but possibly just the opposite - there was no need for them to be precise, vagueness was sufficient for the purpose they were used.

Then, one pretty summer day, along the line of time, one Robert Jasiek was born. Some more years passed, and he got interested in Go. Then even later he felt the need to define some of the terms more precisely, and maybe redefine some, or even come up with new terms. And he does it not just for the sake of conversation over the cup of sake, but to actually allow him to further his research and ideas. It so happens that some of the terms he uses clash slightly with how some of the terms were used historically. This might be unfortunate, or meaningless, I don't know. But in my eyes, those terms have different purpose, so while I am not sure if it is good or bad, I am inclined to let it slide. Again - the sceptic in me says - give him some leeway, and see what happens. He might hang himself. But then - he might come with something new, an angle which shows us features of the universe/Go which we have not seen before. If the price is some terms which were treated pretty vaguely to begin with, I'd say the price was worth it.

Bottom line - its his hammer, lets see if he uses it wisely.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!


This post by Bantari was liked by: cyclops
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #65 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:01 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1639
Location: Ponte Vedra
Liked others: 642
Was liked: 490
Universal go server handle: Bantari
RobertJasiek wrote:
Bantari, even Sensei's is not that far from my usage:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Aji

"[...] aji roughly means possibilities left in a position. [...]

In reality, the usage of aji [...] is much narrower. Typically, a position is said to contain aji only if:

It already contains one or more existing groups; and
At least one of the groups has a weakness or defect that the opponent might exploit later."

To play the devil's advocate here, it might be interesting to think which is a better approach:
- redefine and narrow the word to more closely match the common usage, or
- adjust the common usage to encompass the wider original meaning of the word.

It is my understanding that western audience commonly uses the word slightly "incorrectly" - at least in the sense that the common usage does not really match the intended original meaning. This might or might not be a problem, depending what we do. Talking amongst each other, there might be no problem. Reading a japanese pro's commentary - one has to wonder if we are really getting what is said if we stick to our more narrow usage. In this sense, it is a question of scope.

But maybe its all just a matter of translation. ;)

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: off topic side remark
Post #66 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:06 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1639
Location: Ponte Vedra
Liked others: 642
Was liked: 490
Universal go server handle: Bantari
Bonobo wrote:
Just in case somebody <cough> Bantari <cough> wonders why I “like” seemingly contradictory posts: IMVHO they don’t totally contradict each other in every point, in many they rather seem (to my ~13k understanding) complement others’ comments, so as if the authors of these comments actually are co-operating on finding out what is actually fact, by describing their different perspectives and views of the matter, and I especially appreciate the knowledgeability and politeness in this discourse.

Oh, and it “feels” as if I learn something by reading youze. Can’t exactly tell what it is, though. Something “meta” about Go. I think learn about the ways you think about Go, which (again just a “feeling”) seems very valuable to me

Thank you!

Tom

Heh... I seem to be having a hard time finding a post which you didn't like. So I just assume you like this forum in general, and plaster the "like" badge on everything you read, and so I have stopped thinking about it a while ago. Case closed.

Since this thread is taking a philosophical turn lately - it takes all kinds to make the universe... ;)

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #67 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:20 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 370
Liked others: 91
Was liked: 254
Rank: Weak
John Fairbairn wrote:
I believe Korzybski called this "insanity" and that he recommended that the ideal situation was when a teacher could point and stay silent (and the pupil understands and also stays silent, of course). Which is essentially the oriental way of teaching go, which may seem mystifying to some, but we know it works.
Well, we know it works for young kids. We know it works exceptionally well for young kids from cultures where questioning authority is dangerous. We know it works very well for young kids devoting the bulk of their time to go. Does it work well for adults? For *gasp* German adults? Adults seem to be better at abstract reasoning than kids are. On the other hand, kids seem to be better at learning by doing. Is the existing CJK methodology satisfactory for adult learning as well? I don't know, but I would be interested in finding out. I do believe that there is a dissenting minority of the pros on the right way to teach. There are strong amateurs who beat pros in televised matches with financial stakes who disagree as well and criticize the way in which pros write books. They might not have offered a clear alternative, but the dissent is there.
John Fairbairn wrote:
I believe RJ accepts it works; he just believes his way is faster and more widely applicable, but we await the proof of that. His books are the first step in his proof, I suppose. As I said, I respect that approach, but only with very quizzical eyebrows.
I don't know whether RJ's method works, but he is moving toward an unambiguous language for discussing go. Even if learning RJ method does not lead to an improvement in go skills on par with the traditional methods, I would consider his program a success if it leads to clearer understanding of what happened in a game. That could increase the intellectual pleasure derived from go.
John Fairbairn wrote:
Since I believe that humans are actually biologically designed to operate this way, I am a great fan of that approach, though I do also believe that fuzziness should not mean a random mish-mash - there should be a clear focus, or directionality, in the thought and only the edges should be fuzzy. (I believe that is supported by the theory of evolution.)
"Supports" is perhaps too strong a word, but I agree that fuzziness has helped humanity survive through prehistoric times and help us navigate our daily lives without being overwhelmed. At the same time, the great western achievements in science and mathematics, the same achievements that lay the foundations for our current prosperity, are decidedly less fuzzy in their language. In that sense, I do not think that the evolutionary pressures toward fuzzy thinking are relevant. Humans use tools. It is best to use the right tools for the right task. What kind of task is thinking about go? Has humanity understood go to an extent that it can be confident about the answer?
John Fairbairn wrote:
It is my view that the orientals have already achieved an acceptable level of fuzziness for aji and thickness and several other terms, and that we have to hesitate before we plunge into another level of abstraction.
It is hard to disagree with this, but I believe that it needs to be qualified. The level of fuzziness is acceptable for the way in which the terms are used now. I posit that they are more useful for conversations between people who both understand the concept than they are for teaching. At the level of fuzziness that exists now, aji and thickness mean that there are sequences of moves that can or cannot be played with success. Pros seem to be operating at level where their reading abilities inform aji and thickness rather than the other way around. This is also why I stick to tsumego/tesuji problems rather than strategy books. This is also why pro commentary is most informative when it includes lines of play that demonstrate the aji and thickness of a position rather than simply declaring that the position has aji and thickness... Pros themselves send out a very consistent message: If you want to get strong, then study reading (tsumego and tesuji). They usually don't tell you to understand thickness and aji. If they do, they really mean to tell you to get good enough at reading to read the sequences that make a position thick or have aji---at least that is my interpretation.

Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing because it might promote a certain kind of self-cultivation to learn in this way. Go is fun despite the fuzziness of the terms that are in use. Nevertheless, I do find the search for a shortcut to be a noble goal. I hope RJ succeeds in his quest. I will not complain if he makes go even more fun.

It would be really interesting experiment to have a pro communicate using RJ's terminology and observe the differences. Another interesting question might be whether pros who possess a clearer internal language for organizing go theory might experience a slower decline as they age.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #68 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:31 am 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
lemmata wrote:
If you want to get strong, then study reading


Reading is important but reading alone can never suffice for becoming strong, because the game tree is too complex and read sequences must be related meaningfully to each other. Therefore, also other things are important: evaluation, conceptual theory, strategy. These can be used to enable better reading. In certain cases, theory can replace reading, so that decision-making is accelerated.

EDIT:

Quote:
I hope RJ succeeds in his quest.


Until then, I see how my inventions succeed in improving my understanding of pro games and my own decision-making. E.g., my invention 'value of a fighting region' while writing the book has very greatly improved my understanding of pro games and my own games' strategic planning when several fights on the board need timing decisions about which fight to play in. Suddenly, the timing simply makes sense. Simply speaking (and when other important considerations do not play a role), at each moment, play in the currently most valuable fight. No amount of reading can replace such a great principle.


Last edited by RobertJasiek on Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #69 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:44 am 
Oza

Posts: 3647
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4626
Quote:
Maybe you got the impression that my levels of abstraction would go higher than Oriental levels, but I disagree. So far, I have attacked these levels of abstraction:

Level 0: rules
Level 1: connection, life and death..., which can be reduced to Level 0
Level 2: influence, thickness..., which can be reduced to Level 1


Robert, I think you have completely misunderstood, and in particular missed what abstraction means here. It means more like extraction (as in extracting essence) but really amounts to 'dilution'.

I think the basis of the misunderstanding is that it is not about you as an individual but about pupils in general. We are all pupils. The starting situation is a position in a game of go that we are trying to understand usefully. That is at least one level of abstraction to start with - a dilution of reality. We then 'experience' that position - take a snapshot of it. We know from chess experiments that grandmasters (top pros in go) see that position in a vastly different way from even strong amateurs. Their huge familiarity with the game means they see things in meaty chunks. The rest of us may have the odd chunk of meat thrown in but by and large we make do with gruel. The top pros' chunking is another form of abstraction which is diluting reality. The rest of us are diluting even more.

When we then stick a label from the ordinary language on part of the position so that we can discuss it with other people, e.g. 'thickness', we are further diluting in two ways, deliberately or inadvertently missing both thickness and non-thickness features. People who then share that label are diluting even more, even if they share the same native language, because their understanding of the core term varies according to their previous experience.

If you refine that label by giving it a technical nuance, as in go, you are abstracting/diluting even more.

If you do not share the native language and translate it to your own, e.g. Japanese to English, you have to dilute your understanding yet further, and people who use your translated term risk even more dilution, again because of different previous experiences. Of course if you do not share even the second language at native level, the dilution goes on and on.

That sort of thing applies to all of us. But individual approaches can also affect the degree of dilution. As you known from previous debates I find your particular approach of list-making inimical. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that making lists, despite the illusion it gives of understanding or control, is especially pernicious in diluting reality.

There are times when you wish to obtain the essence of something. In those cases, repeated refining or diluting, by making lists or any other method, will yield results, good or bad, but will not represent reality. If you refine a cow you will end up with an Oxo cube (beef stock) if you are lucky, or essence of cow pat if you got the parameters wrong. But a cowherd who wants to tend his herd and not get trampled to death at calving time isn't interested in Oxos. He just wants to know what a whole cow is and how it behaves, and he picks that up mostly without formal tuition by mixing with them from a young age, aided by a dose of "cow proverbs" from the lore of previous cowherds. In go his cows would be games and his lore would come from teachers. He would largely ignore books.

For a matador recognising a whole animal and how it behaves is even more important and pressing. Yet even if he has the courage, skill and dedication to get into a bullring, his knowledge of bovine reality will always be flawed, and he will at some point in his career be gored, tossed or trampled.

With something like go, where there is a sub-industry of people teaching or writing about the game, there is a special caveat. The ability to make things sound plausible in lessons or on paper can create an illusion of understanding. The truth is that we are more like butchers who can size up a cow and name and list all the parts - sirloin, rump, brisket, tripe - but no matter how much carving skill we have, we are dealing with lumps of dead meat and a pile of offal. A butcher is not a matador, and a butcher can't teach someone how to be a matador. The best he can do is stimulate interest in eating cows.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #70 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:58 am 
Judan

Posts: 6087
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 786
John Fairbairn wrote:
by making lists or any other method
[...] will not represent reality.


Please read my earlier messages again.

Quote:
The ability to make things sound plausible in lessons or on paper can create an illusion of understanding. [...all cows deleted...]


Depending on how good the explanation is, it can be
- an illusion,
- complete or
- something in between.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: off topic side remark
Post #71 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:15 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2221
Location: Germany
Liked others: 8262
Was liked: 924
Rank: OGS 9k
OGS: trohde
Universal go server handle: trohde
Bantari wrote:
Heh... I seem to be having a hard time finding a post which you didn't like. So I just assume you like this forum in general, and plaster the "like" badge on everything you read, and so I have stopped thinking about it a while ago. Case closed.
Game of Go is over when both parties pass, no? ;-)

And you’ve said so before, which is why I addressed you … you don’t seem to read every thread and comment, otherwise you’d see many instances where I didn’t click “like” <shrug>

“Case closed.” … ? Never mind ;-)

Quote:
Since this thread is taking a philosophical turn lately - it takes all kinds to make the universe... ;)
yeah, thankfully, even the naïve people like me :-D

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS? :)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: off topic side remark
Post #72 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:47 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 1639
Location: Ponte Vedra
Liked others: 642
Was liked: 490
Universal go server handle: Bantari
Bonobo wrote:
Bantari wrote:
Heh... I seem to be having a hard time finding a post which you didn't like. So I just assume you like this forum in general, and plaster the "like" badge on everything you read, and so I have stopped thinking about it a while ago. Case closed.
Game of Go is over when both parties pass, no? ;-)

True.
But we are not playing a Game Of Go, we are talking. Or rather, I was wondering about something, namely your "liking" stuff so much.
And a case can be closed when the investigating party is satisfied. I was satisfied with my explanation, so for me its done, closed, finito!

Which does not mean it cannot be reopened if you so desire. Do you?
I can sure continue wondering if you wish... ;)


Bonobo wrote:
And you’ve said so before, which is why I addressed you … you don’t seem to read every thread and comment, otherwise you’d see many instances where I didn’t click “like” <shrug>

True.
I don't read every thread and comment. Do you? Does anybody?
We might have same preferences wrt reading, or maybe I just read a subset of what you do. Is that important? <shrug>


Bonobo wrote:
“Case closed.” … ? Never mind ;-)

Quote:
Since this thread is taking a philosophical turn lately - it takes all kinds to make the universe... ;)
yeah, thankfully, even the naïve people like me :-D

True.
And even the grumpy ones like me. :D

This is fun!
Or is it? :roll:

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #73 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:57 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 801
Location: Amsterdam (NL)
Liked others: 353
Was liked: 107
Rank: KGS 7 kyu forever
GD Posts: 460
grumpy old men and bonobo's shouldn't argue.
Me, I am happy everytime Bonobo likes me.

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.


This post by cyclops was liked by 2 people: Bonobo, SoDesuNe
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Fighting Fundamentals -- Impressions
Post #74 Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 3:00 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 34
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 5
Rank: KGS 5 kyu
GD Posts: 2
KGS: Xylol
How is it going Ed?

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group