India - China History and Relations

[Michael]

Bold part. I'll give you an honest view.
Before Galwan, No.. Most of the people never hated China in India since I born. I don't know about how India viewed China exact after 1962. But since 80's Mostly Indians views china as competitive, not an enemy. But yeah, insecurities were always there in India's govt and people's mind about China. People in India those who having interest in geopolitics always used to think that one day China surely attack India. But never hated. Indians always praise China's progress and the way lifted herself from poverty. Some people even support China directly as we are democracy we let them speak.

But after Galwan, things have changed. Mostly Indians now view China as first enemy. Militarily our all weapons points towards China only after Galwan. China is the first threat to us now. But but.. We still don't hate you. We just want to solve issues between both. And its very much on China as it has bigger land than India.
India and China has just one issue. LAC. If China really want asian century, it need to sacrifice some land to India peacefully. Without solving India and China border issue we can't even imagine an asian century. These two big civilizations should never go for a war. It will bring the western domination to aisa again. They will grip asia again.
So for the better future of asia, India and China must solve the border issue and dominant the world like an ancient time.
This is how India views China.

You are more than welcome to join us. Your sincere statement will help us to further our discussions.

On the border issue:

As we know, the Sino-Indian border issue is a very thorny one. India can prove ownership of these lands on many grounds, and of course, China has many reasons to prove ownership of these lands.

However, you need to understand that this is not a problem that any citizen can solve. Even, I don't think it's something that the public should be concerned about. The discussion of such issues in any country at any time is the hope of the rulers to use the lively discussion of the people to achieve some ends. This is not just China, but all countries!

When the Chinese government hopes to intensify the Sino-Indian conflict, the issue of southern Tibet will become a hot topic for Chinese. When the Chinese government wants to reduce the contradictions between China and India, these issues are difficult to become hot topics for Chinese.

The same. When the India government wants to exacerbate this contradiction, the issue you describe becomes a hot topic in the India media. When the India government wants to reduce this contradiction, these hot spots will cool down or even disappear. For example, Aksai Chin, when it becomes a hot topic in India or disappears completely depends on the India rulers.

Of course, you would say that India is a democracy and China is a dictatorship. This is another controversial topic.

If a ruling group is unable to control the direction of public opinion in the country, the country will be mired in a never-ending internal struggle. No matter what system it is, the country! It will allow for some different opinions, but it must get more people in line with their own direction. Or, they change people's minds through the media; Or, they adjust their direction to align with that of more people. It's a process of integration and interaction. It's just that countries with different systems use different methods. But in the end, the core logic is the same. This is the basic political logic.

===========================================================

非常欢迎您的加入。你的真诚发言将有助于我们进一步深入探讨。

关于边界问题：

我们知道，中印边界问题是一个非常棘手的问题。印度可以用很多理由来证明这些土地的所有权，当然，中国也有很多理由来证明这些土地的所有权。

不过，你需要明白一个道理，这不是任何一个民众能解决的问题。甚至，我不认为这是民众应该关心的问题。任何国家在任何时候对这类问题的讨论，都是执政者希望利用民众的热烈讨论来达到某种目的。这不仅仅是中国，所有国家都是如此！

当中国政府希望激化中印矛盾的时候，藏南问题就会成为中国人的热点话题。当中国政府希望降低中印矛盾的时候，这些问题就很难成为中国人的热点话题。

同样的。当印度政府希望激化这种矛盾时，你描述的问题就会成为印度媒体的热点。当印度政府希望降低这种矛盾时，这些热点就会降温甚至消失。比如阿克塞钦，它什么时候成为印度的热点话题或完全消失的话题，取决于印度执政者。

当然，你会说印度是一个民主国家，中国是独裁国家。这是另一个争议话题。

如果一个执政团体无法掌控这个国家的舆论方向，这个国家就会陷入永无休止的内部斗争。无论它是什么体制的国家！它会容许一些不一样的舆论，但必须让更多的人与自己的方向保持一致。要么，他们通过媒体改变人们的想法；要么，他们调整自己的方向与更多人的方向保持一致。这是一个融合与互动的过程。只是，不同体制的国家，使用不同的方式。但最终的核心逻辑是一样的。这是基本政治逻辑。

 

[Michael]

Regarding the Galwan conflict, I believe that the reports of the India media and the reports of the Chinese media are certainly two opposite directions. There is no point in discussing between us about where this land belongs, or who will act first.
Of course, India wants China to give up some land, or China wants India to give up some land. These things are not up to you or me to decide.

What I can tell you is that since 1949, the Chinese government, in numerous territorial negotiations, has indeed given up a lot of territory and also gained some territory. You can go to Wikipedia to look up the relevant official documents.

In the traditional concept of the Chinese, there is no attachment to territory. The Chinese are realists.

The Chinese government had proposed. China abandoned southern Tibet, India abandoned Aksai Chin, and the two sides ended the conflict with LAC as a national border. However, the India government rejected the offer.


So. The Sino-Indian border issue. If it cannot be resolved through negotiations, it can only be solved by competition of national strength. Of course, neither China nor India wants to settle the matter through war.

Judging by all publicly released information, the incident was a planned and premeditated ambush by the India military. So, who are the troublemakers?

======================================

关于加勒万冲突，我相信印度媒体的报道和中国媒体的报道肯定是两个相反的方向。我们之间讨论这块土地的归属，或者谁先行动，是毫无意义的。
当然，印度希望中国放弃一些土地，或者中国希望印度放弃一些土地。这些事情不是你或者我能决定的。

我能告诉你的是，自1949以来，中国政府在众多领土谈判中，确实放弃了很多领土，也获得了一些领土。你可以去维基百科查询相关的正式文件。

在中国人的传统观念中，对领土并不执着。中国人是现实主义。

中国政府曾经提议。中国放弃藏南，印度放弃阿克赛钦，双方以LAC为国界，结束冲突。但是，印度政府拒绝了这个提议。

那么。中印边界问题。如果无法通过谈判来解决，就只能用国家实力竞争来解决了。当然，中印双方都不想通过战争来解决。

从所有公开发布的信息来看，这次事件是印度军方有计划有预谋的一次伏击行动。所以，谁是麻烦制造者呢？

 

[Krptonite]

Yes, have done some cleaning, will continue to keep an eye.

All religion-oriented posts in particular will be dealt with.

Posters are reminded to keep to the topic and avoid flame baiting

Offenders will find themselves unable to post on thsi specific thread

 

[Joe Shearer]

Posters are reminded to keep to the topic and avoid flame baiting

Offenders will find themselves unable to post on thsi specific thread

Please keep an eye on the thread, champ. It's the beginning of the month, and I have to pay the bills, clean the kitchen, clean the bathroom....

 

[Joe Shearer]

Regarding the Galwan conflict, I believe that the reports of the India media and the reports of the Chinese media are certainly two opposite directions. There is no point in discussing between us about where this land belongs, or who will act first.
Of course, India wants China to give up some land, or China wants India to give up some land. These things are not up to you or me to decide.

What I can tell you is that since 1949, the Chinese government, in numerous territorial negotiations, has indeed given up a lot of territory and also gained some territory. You can go to Wikipedia to look up the relevant official documents.

In the traditional concept of the Chinese, there is no attachment to territory. The Chinese are realists.

The Chinese government had proposed. China abandoned southern Tibet, India abandoned Aksai Chin, and the two sides ended the conflict with LAC as a national border. However, the India government rejected the offer.


So. The Sino-Indian border issue. If it cannot be resolved through negotiations, it can only be solved by competition of national strength. Of course, neither China nor India wants to settle the matter through war.

Judging by all publicly released information, the incident was a planned and premeditated ambush by the India military. So, who are the troublemakers?

======================================

关于加勒万冲突，我相信印度媒体的报道和中国媒体的报道肯定是两个相反的方向。我们之间讨论这块土地的归属，或者谁先行动，是毫无意义的。
当然，印度希望中国放弃一些土地，或者中国希望印度放弃一些土地。这些事情不是你或者我能决定的。

我能告诉你的是，自1949以来，中国政府在众多领土谈判中，确实放弃了很多领土，也获得了一些领土。你可以去维基百科查询相关的正式文件。

在中国人的传统观念中，对领土并不执着。中国人是现实主义。

中国政府曾经提议。中国放弃藏南，印度放弃阿克赛钦，双方以LAC为国界，结束冲突。但是，印度政府拒绝了这个提议。

那么。中印边界问题。如果无法通过谈判来解决，就只能用国家实力竞争来解决了。当然，中印双方都不想通过战争来解决。

从所有公开发布的信息来看，这次事件是印度军方有计划有预谋的一次伏击行动。所以，谁是麻烦制造者呢？

Your posts #36 and #37 are very, very accurate. If this were not about citizen-to-citizen relations, impressions and interactions, there is a great deal on the legality or otherwise that could be said, but, as you correctly put it, that is a matter between the two governments, and needs not affect individual responses.

 

[retaxis]

We are East Asian country culture so we can only compare our measurements whether in sports or academics etc with other east asians. We think about India as much as India thinks about Nigeria

 

[KAAFIR]

Regarding the Galwan conflict, I believe that the reports of the India media and the reports of the Chinese media are certainly two opposite directions. There is no point in discussing between us about where this land belongs, or who will act first.
Of course, India wants China to give up some land, or China wants India to give up some land. These things are not up to you or me to decide.

What I can tell you is that since 1949, the Chinese government, in numerous territorial negotiations, has indeed given up a lot of territory and also gained some territory. You can go to Wikipedia to look up the relevant official documents.

In the traditional concept of the Chinese, there is no attachment to territory. The Chinese are realists.

The Chinese government had proposed. China abandoned southern Tibet, India abandoned Aksai Chin, and the two sides ended the conflict with LAC as a national border. However, the India government rejected the offer.


So. The Sino-Indian border issue. If it cannot be resolved through negotiations, it can only be solved by competition of national strength. Of course, neither China nor India wants to settle the matter through war.

Judging by all publicly released information, the incident was a planned and premeditated ambush by the India military. So, who are the troublemakers?

======================================

关于加勒万冲突，我相信印度媒体的报道和中国媒体的报道肯定是两个相反的方向。我们之间讨论这块土地的归属，或者谁先行动，是毫无意义的。
当然，印度希望中国放弃一些土地，或者中国希望印度放弃一些土地。这些事情不是你或者我能决定的。

我能告诉你的是，自1949以来，中国政府在众多领土谈判中，确实放弃了很多领土，也获得了一些领土。你可以去维基百科查询相关的正式文件。

在中国人的传统观念中，对领土并不执着。中国人是现实主义。

中国政府曾经提议。中国放弃藏南，印度放弃阿克赛钦，双方以LAC为国界，结束冲突。但是，印度政府拒绝了这个提议。

那么。中印边界问题。如果无法通过谈判来解决，就只能用国家实力竞争来解决了。当然，中印双方都不想通过战争来解决。

从所有公开发布的信息来看，这次事件是印度军方有计划有预谋的一次伏击行动。所以，谁是麻烦制造者呢？

Bold part. I have no issue with rest part.
I didn't blame anyone when I talked Galwan in my post. Bcz this thread is not about blaming someone but you want to know only "view".
This have changed post Galwan in India regarding India- China relations. India is now more insecure than before. People views became harsh towards China.
I know you follows your media for piece of information and I follow mine. I'll blame you and you will blame me. But the truth lies in the middle somewhere. And solution too.
I think both countries people were lucky that we didn't went to war in 2020. Both govt have taken some mature steps to take it forward, not by war.

 

[KAAFIR]

We are East Asian country culture so we can only compare our measurements whether in sports or academics etc with other east asians. We think about India as much as India thinks about Nigeria

Then why China's govt controlled media publishing two articles about India every other day??
Indian media is not even mentioning Nigeria once in 6 months.

 

[Michael]

@Joe Shearer @KAAFIR

The Galwan conflict, of course, we can't just look at one-sided reports. For this kind of incident, any unilateral written report can only explain the position of the reporting party, and cannot restore the truth of the incident.

We have not seen the live photos and videos released by India. This kind of border activity, the India military definitely has live photos and videos, but we don't see it. If India friends have these photos and videos, they can be provided.

China released photos and videos of the scene long after the incident. You should be able to find these photos and videos easily.

Wikipedia's account of this incident, the Chinese version and the English version, also differ a lot.

But in this incident, there are some things that everyone agrees on. We can use these consensuses to analyze the situation.

1. The duration of this conflict is relatively long. Judging by the pictures and videos, it lasts from the afternoon until late at night. ---------- this indicates that both sides are calling for reinforcements.
2. Judging from the on-site photos and videos of the Chinese side, at the beginning of the day, there were only about 10~20 Chinese soldiers fighting against more than 100 India soldiers. ----------Who's ambushing whom? It's obvious.
3. In the evening, Chinese reinforcements arrived, and the situation on the scene reversed. The conflict is over! It doesn't matter how ---------- ends. That's not the point of our discussion

I'm not trying to discuss who is right and who is wrong. From the analysis of these situations, this was an ambush operation launched by the India military. But I don't know, is it the decision of the India military or the decision of the Modi government? ---------- if there is a dispute about this point, you can provide photos and videos to discuss it.

In the border areas, both sides must have known the deployment of each other's forces. Knowing that the other side had a large number of troops deployed in the rear, it also launched an undulating attack on the front-line patrol. What is the purpose of their decision? Why did attitudes towards China change dramatically in India after the conflict?

That's what I want to look into

============================================================

加勒万冲突事件，我们当然不能只看单方面的报道。对于这种事件，任何单方面的文字报道只能说明报道方的立场，无法还原事件的真相。

我们没有看到印度公布的现场照片和视频。这种边境活动，印度军方肯定有现场照片和视频，但我们没有看到。如果印度朋友有这些照片和视频，可以提供。

中国在事件发生的很久之后，公布了现场照片和视频。你们应该可以很容易找到这些照片和视频。

维基百科关于这次事件的记载，中文版本和英文版本，也有很多不同。

但这次事件，有一些事情是大家的共识。我们可以用这些共识来分析情况。

1、此次冲突的持续时间比较长。从图片和视频来看，从下午持续到深夜。----------这说明，双方都呼叫增援。
2、从中方的现场照片和视频来看，白天刚开始的时候，大约只有10~20名中国军人在与超过百名印度军人对抗。----------谁在伏击谁？很明显了。
3、晚上，中方增援部队到达，现场局势逆转。冲突结束！----------结局如何，不重要。这不是我们讨论的重点

我并不是想探讨谁对谁错。从这些情况分析，这是印度军方发起的一次伏击行动。但我不清楚，是印度军方的决定还是莫迪政府的决定？----------如果对这个观点有争议，可以提供照片和视频来讨论。

在边境地区，双方肯定是知道对方的兵力部署。在明知对方在后方部署有大量兵力的情况下，还对前线巡逻队发起伏击行动。他们做出这种决定的目的是什么？为什么在冲突之后，印度国内民众对中国的态度就发生巨大变化？

这是我想研究的内容

 

[Michael]

Then why China's govt controlled media publishing two articles about India every other day??
Indian media is not even mentioning Nigeria once in 6 months.

I don't know what media you mean by the Chinese government.

What I know of is that:

1. Chinese state media. Formal coverage of major international and diplomatic events, which will certainly be reported if there is India; If not, it won't be reported. There is no analytical coverage for India alone.

2. Mainstream media. They are not controlled by the Chinese government, but are regulated by the National Press and Publication Administration. Control is not the same thing as regulation. There are reports about India, but not much. Most of the coverage is economic. For example: Chinese investment in India; Investments in India by internationally renowned companies; India the situation of large enterprises in China or other countries.......... Of course, there are also some rules and changes in the economic field of the India government. Major political and military events in India are also reported, but not too much.

3. Self-media. The self-media industry is highly developed in China, and the Chinese government's ability to regulated this area is very limited. Many small things within China will also be infinitely amplified by the media, and a lot of rumors and slanders will happen. The Chinese government will deal with some major hot spots urgently, but it will not interfere in the development of the industry, and the government wants the industry to correct itself rather than through government regulated. The vast majority of self-media have no credibility, and Chinese only see them as jokes and do not pay attention to them.

So, I keep reminding my friends on the PDF to be careful when quoting Chinese media sources. China is now in the era of information explosion, which requires a certain degree of discernment.

============================================================

我不知道你说的中国政府控制的媒体是指哪些媒体。

我知道的情况是：

1、中国官方媒体。正式的国际大事件和外交事件报道，这些事件中如果有印度，就肯定会报道；如果没有，就不会报道。单独针对印度的分析报道是没有的。

2、主流媒体。他们并不受中国政府控制，只是接受国家新闻出版署的监管。控制与监管不是一回事。关于印度的报道确实有，但不多。大部分是经济类的报道。比如：中国企业在印度的投资情况；国际知名企业在印度的投资情况；印度大型企业在中国或其他国家的情况..........当然，也包括印度政府在经济领域的一些规则与变化。印度在政治和军事方面的重大事件也会报道，但不是太多。

3、自媒体。自媒体行业在中国高度发达，中国政府在这个领域的监管能力非常有限。很多中国内部的小事情，也会被自媒体无限放大，很多造谣和污蔑的事情发生。中国政府会对一些重大热点事件进行紧急处理，但不干预这个行业的发展，政府希望这个行业自我矫正，而不是通过政府监管。绝大多数自媒体是没有公信力的，中国人只当作笑话看，不会重视。

所以，我一直提醒PDF上的朋友，在引述中国媒体消息时要注意。中国现在处于信息爆炸时代，需要一定的鉴别能力。

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer @KAAFIR

The Galwan conflict, of course, we can't just look at one-sided reports. For this kind of incident, any unilateral written report can only explain the position of the reporting party, and cannot restore the truth of the incident.

We have not seen the live photos and videos released by India. This kind of border activity, the India military definitely has live photos and videos, but we don't see it. If India friends have these photos and videos, they can be provided.

China released photos and videos of the scene long after the incident. You should be able to find these photos and videos easily.

Wikipedia's account of this incident, the Chinese version and the English version, also differ a lot.

But in this incident, there are some things that everyone agrees on. We can use these consensuses to analyze the situation.

1. The duration of this conflict is relatively long. Judging by the pictures and videos, it lasts from the afternoon until late at night. ---------- this indicates that both sides are calling for reinforcements.
2. Judging from the on-site photos and videos of the Chinese side, at the beginning of the day, there were only about 10~20 Chinese soldiers fighting against more than 100 India soldiers. ----------Who's ambushing whom? It's obvious.
3. In the evening, Chinese reinforcements arrived, and the situation on the scene reversed. The conflict is over! It doesn't matter how ---------- ends. That's not the point of our discussion

I'm not trying to discuss who is right and who is wrong. From the analysis of these situations, this was an ambush operation launched by the India military. But I don't know, is it the decision of the India military or the decision of the Modi government? ---------- if there is a dispute about this point, you can provide photos and videos to discuss it.

In the border areas, both sides must have known the deployment of each other's forces. Knowing that the other side had a large number of troops deployed in the rear, it also launched an undulating attack on the front-line patrol. What is the purpose of their decision? Why did attitudes towards China change dramatically in India after the conflict?

That's what I want to look into

============================================================

加勒万冲突事件，我们当然不能只看单方面的报道。对于这种事件，任何单方面的文字报道只能说明报道方的立场，无法还原事件的真相。

我们没有看到印度公布的现场照片和视频。这种边境活动，印度军方肯定有现场照片和视频，但我们没有看到。如果印度朋友有这些照片和视频，可以提供。

中国在事件发生的很久之后，公布了现场照片和视频。你们应该可以很容易找到这些照片和视频。

维基百科关于这次事件的记载，中文版本和英文版本，也有很多不同。

但这次事件，有一些事情是大家的共识。我们可以用这些共识来分析情况。

1、此次冲突的持续时间比较长。从图片和视频来看，从下午持续到深夜。----------这说明，双方都呼叫增援。
2、从中方的现场照片和视频来看，白天刚开始的时候，大约只有10~20名中国军人在与超过百名印度军人对抗。----------谁在伏击谁？很明显了。
3、晚上，中方增援部队到达，现场局势逆转。冲突结束！----------结局如何，不重要。这不是我们讨论的重点

我并不是想探讨谁对谁错。从这些情况分析，这是印度军方发起的一次伏击行动。但我不清楚，是印度军方的决定还是莫迪政府的决定？----------如果对这个观点有争议，可以提供照片和视频来讨论。

在边境地区，双方肯定是知道对方的兵力部署。在明知对方在后方部署有大量兵力的情况下，还对前线巡逻队发起伏击行动。他们做出这种决定的目的是什么？为什么在冲突之后，印度国内民众对中国的态度就发生巨大变化？

这是我想研究的内容

I suggest we ignore these conflicts, at least in their details, as we will run aground in mutual recriminations.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't know what media you mean by the Chinese government.

What I know of is that:

1. Chinese state media. Formal coverage of major international and diplomatic events, which will certainly be reported if there is India; If not, it won't be reported. There is no analytical coverage for India alone.

2. Mainstream media. They are not controlled by the Chinese government, but are regulated by the National Press and Publication Administration. Control is not the same thing as regulation. There are reports about India, but not much. Most of the coverage is economic. For example: Chinese investment in India; Investments in India by internationally renowned companies; India the situation of large enterprises in China or other countries.......... Of course, there are also some rules and changes in the economic field of the India government. Major political and military events in India are also reported, but not too much.

3. Self-media. The self-media industry is highly developed in China, and the Chinese government's ability to regulated this area is very limited. Many small things within China will also be infinitely amplified by the media, and a lot of rumors and slanders will happen. The Chinese government will deal with some major hot spots urgently, but it will not interfere in the development of the industry, and the government wants the industry to correct itself rather than through government regulated. The vast majority of self-media have no credibility, and Chinese only see them as jokes and do not pay attention to them.

So, I keep reminding my friends on the PDF to be careful when quoting Chinese media sources. China is now in the era of information explosion, which requires a certain degree of discernment.

============================================================

我不知道你说的中国政府控制的媒体是指哪些媒体。

我知道的情况是：

1、中国官方媒体。正式的国际大事件和外交事件报道，这些事件中如果有印度，就肯定会报道；如果没有，就不会报道。单独针对印度的分析报道是没有的。

2、主流媒体。他们并不受中国政府控制，只是接受国家新闻出版署的监管。控制与监管不是一回事。关于印度的报道确实有，但不多。大部分是经济类的报道。比如：中国企业在印度的投资情况；国际知名企业在印度的投资情况；印度大型企业在中国或其他国家的情况..........当然，也包括印度政府在经济领域的一些规则与变化。印度在政治和军事方面的重大事件也会报道，但不是太多。

3、自媒体。自媒体行业在中国高度发达，中国政府在这个领域的监管能力非常有限。很多中国内部的小事情，也会被自媒体无限放大，很多造谣和污蔑的事情发生。中国政府会对一些重大热点事件进行紧急处理，但不干预这个行业的发展，政府希望这个行业自我矫正，而不是通过政府监管。绝大多数自媒体是没有公信力的，中国人只当作笑话看，不会重视。

所以，我一直提醒PDF上的朋友，在引述中国媒体消息时要注意。中国现在处于信息爆炸时代，需要一定的鉴别能力。

Noted.

 

[Michael]

Noted.

In China, only these media can use "the official media" designation.

These media, most of which you probably haven't seen or heard of. The ones you are familiar with or have commonly heard of should be People’s Daily, Xinhua News Agency, CCTV, and China Daily. You might occasionally hear about other media, but they don't capture your attention.

Here are some unofficial Chinese media you might know:
Global Times: It is an independent international media under People’s Daily. Chinese people rarely read its reports.
South China Morning Post: Hong Kong media, which has changed owners many times and was acquired by Alibaba in 2015. It is not read by people in mainland China.
News Websites: Sina, Sohu, Toutiao............... News websites are the focal point of competition in China’s internet industry, with many of these sites and low credibility.
Self-media platforms: Weibo, Douyin, Kuaishou, WeChat Official Accounts........
Official accounts directly controlled by government agencies on social media platforms fully represent the true intentions of these agencies and hold the same status as official spokespeople. This information is regarded as official and formal news.
Outside of China, there are Chinese media funded by some special institutions with specific purposes. Chinese people cannot access these media.
If there are other Chinese media you frequently visit, I can help you identify them.

Channels for news acquisition among Chinese people:
Television: CCTV13, China Central Television News Channel
Newspapers: Civil servants usually read the "official media" newspapers shown in the image above; now ordinary Chinese people do not read newspapers
Internet: Sina, Sohu, Tencent, Weibo
Mobile: Douyin, Kuaishou, Weibo, WeChat Official Accounts
The most used channel is mobile.

There is a saying among Chinese people: If you don't have RMB 1 billion in assets, you can't understand the People's Daily.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The ones you are familiar with or have commonly heard of should be People’s Daily, Xinhua News Agency, CCTV, and China Daily.

Quite right.
A fascinating round-up.

 

[Nilgiri]

Great! Let's go with these two.

Ok editing and cleaning the thread up as required. I will also pin it as this has taken the baton from the older one. I will let older one act as some kind of archive (with its flotsam and jetsam in that earlier forum setting) that folks can peruse to their time and interest.