From owner-china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Wed Sep 14 23:41:56 1994 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 20:27:08 PDT Reply-To: dsheng@leea.cchem.berkeley.edu Sender: China-Net From: dsheng@leea.cchem.berkeley.edu Subject: Chinese Community Forum (#9448) Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu To: Multiple recipients of list CHINA-NT ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Wednesday, September 14, 1994 (Issue No. 9448) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is an e-journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion on the issues related to the Chinese community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= # of Table of Contents Author | Lines ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Fashion....................................................Kan Liao 92 2. What Does CDEF* Mean to Me ...............................Perry Lin 167 3. Life without Kids .......................................Daniel Yau 64 4. Time to Tame the Tiger ...............................Newton X. Liu 99 Letters to editor 5. Comments on Hu Sen's message on August 31st..............Xing Zheng 42 6. Answer to Xing Zheng's Comments..............................Hu Sen 30 -- From The Editor -- Many of us on this mailing list, and many of the Chinese students and scholars, are trained to be scientists and engineers. "Science" and "Technology" are respected words in China. This is of course a sharp contrast to the American pop-culture, where "scientist" is synonymous to weirdest nerd. "Mr. Science" was one of the two magic introduced by the May 4th students to solve all the problems in China. So is science really that powerful? Newton Liu's article, "Time to Tame the Tiger", is a reminder to us that powerful as science and scientific methods are, they do have their limits, and their effects are not alway benign. The world has changed a great deal in the last century, with technological advances fueled by scientific research as the most important driving force for such changes. One result of such advances is the much improved living standard for many in the world, with longer life expectation, better nutrition, and much improved medical service, and unfortunately, a humongous over-population problem, especially in China. Population is a depressing topic among Chinese. But Daniel Yau looks at it from a more light-hearted side and gives us an interesting perspective on life and kids, and maybe in that process has found a better solution to the population problem. The other magic introduced by the May 4th students, to which both Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping belonged, was "Mr. Democracy". Yes, would you believe it, the Chinese have fought for democracy for almost a century by now, and the dictator (Deng Xiaoping) who is sitting on the throne today was (also?) once a hot-blooded student inspired by the dream of democracy? Perry Lin wrote an interesting article, emphasizing the similarity, rather than the difference, between Chinese and Westerners. And such similarities are then used to prove that democracy could be a very valuable import to China, just like Chinese Tai Chi to America. The last article introduced but the first in the package is more light- hearted than all the above. I'll just stop here and let you read it for yourself. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Fashion..................................................Kan Liao 92 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have never fully understand what is fashion. I thought something fashionable is those very popular things everyone has one, such as burp a lot after drinking Coke. Thus, fashion must be something in everyone and everywhere. But, in fact, fashion is everyone looks different. This fact has made my walnut brain tossing and turning for years. I am sure that the god or goddess of fashion is laughing at me in this instant. "Getcha" they seems to be saying. When I was little, we had no fashion. At least that is what I have been told now. Certainly, most of us looked very similar back then. I guess similarity was an in thing. I remember most of my early clothes were blue and clay brown. I liked them a lot, because they seemed to have a very high capacity to absorb dirt. If you put a couple of kilos of dirt on them, the dirt would disappear right away, just like those chameleons in the jungle. Generally, after a while, I myself became a chameleon and disappeared into whatever ground I was playing. I guess my childhood fashion style was invisible. (PLEASE take note that it is different from the emperor's new cloth.) In the middle 80's, just about the time I left, fashion became very fashionable in China. Somehow, fashion reached a status as the index for social and economic development. That was what I read on the newspapers and heard on the radios. (Sorry, I had no TV back then, so, I can not comment on that.) Well, with this in my mind, I came to this country. Since then, I have paid close attention to the social and economic development in this country, and hope to find the index. Fashion was started by snake and apple. If you do not believe, check the Bible, and there it was. (Which Bible?! How many Bibles you have? Certainly, the Bible). Before the snake and apple started the fashion trend, we had fur coat on our body. But the snake and apple insisted that the fur we had violated the animal rights, even through we grew those fur by ourselves. So we had to shed our fur, and became naked. This had two previously unforeseen problems. The No.1: it was too cold. The No.2: we exposed our Kodak films unexpectedly. Thus, we had to use leaves to fend of the cold and wrap our Kodak films. People in Siberia and North Dakota started to use the fur from animals. This started another round of animal rights movement by the people in, for example Nauru. Apparently, several native people died of heat exhaustion after wearing fur coat. Some where around the time which the moon was aligned with Saturn, Paris became the capital of the fashion world. So people there for no apparent reasons built a very tall steel frame and a gigantic gate, which lead to no buildings, to celebrate. (They also built a huge statue, but they could not find a place for it. So they shipped it to New York.) Now, those famous fashion designers, who received their baton from snakes and apples, meet in Paris several times a year to discuss what kind of structure should be built after those steel frame, gate and statue. The fashion world operates quite similar to Wayne's world and parallel to Disney world. The fashion designers are normal people just like you and me. Some of them are overweight, like the lady who always sings last in opera. Some of them are underweight, like someone you see on street and hospitals. Some of them like to speak English with tips of their tongues in between the teeth, like the ones you see a lot in San Francisco. They design all the fashions by those female mannequins. (I did not know previously that mannequins have different sexes.) and the designed fashions are supposed to be worn by people, mostly female people. However, the normal female people have normal shoulders, normal hips and OK I will say it normal chests. Those mannequins, as you can see in those departmental stores which are run by several departments, have a shoulder of a NFL defensive lineman and no hips, and their chests are positioned at the place where in the normal people the collar bones are located. In order to convince normal people that the designed fashions will fit perfectly on them, the fashion designers have employed a lot of those tall and very desirable models, who do not look like any one you know unless you know them. Thus, everybody flocks to buy the fashion and try to look like those great models. Of cause, you will never look like them, at least not before the bunny in that commercial stops. But you keep buying fashion anyway. I can still understand the designer's fashion outfits. At least other people can see that you will likely be a jerk. One thing puzzles me most is the designer's underwear. Apparently, people like to show their underwear as much as say, their kids, as stated in those bumper stickers on those bumpers of the cars in front of you. If you look around, you will constantly hear the following conversation between two normal people: A: You know, I am wearing a designer's underwear today. B: I know. I have noticed that you are wearing it outside your pants. A: Those designer's underwear is pretty tight on the hip. B: Yeah, because you have a normal person's hip. A: It is too tight, and makes me walk funny. I have heard a rumor that this fall designer's condom is getting trendy, the plain latex is out, and the rainbow color is in. Yep, I am fully convinced that the fashion is the leading index of the social development. (LIAOK@FCRFV1.NCIFCRF.GOV) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. What Does CDEF* Mean to Me ................................Perry Lin 167 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I growed up in a small town in New York state, never had met any Chinese until I was 13 years old. I had my first imagination about China when I was six years old. One day, I played digging-a-whole game with my little friend. He said that if we kept digging, through the earth, we would reach China. I felt strange: how could Chinese walk up-side-down on the Earth? Later, I heard that Chinese were doing things in opposite ways, totally different from those of Americans: reading from right to left; writing addresses from the national to the local; and having soup at last when dining. I also discovered that Americans were attracted to these different things from China. In their eyes, China was mysterious, different, and a place to be explored. They even thought that it was possible to find some magic answers from Chinese culture to solve those tough social and cultural problems in the United States. After finishing my college, I lived in Hong Kong for a year. Then, I realized that Chinese, same as the Westerners, also regard China as being opposite of the West. "We Chinese do things like this", "The two cultures are totally different", and so on. However, after thirty some years research on China, it seems to me that the theory of "difference" becomes more and more shallow. The more I understand Chinese, the less important it is to me whether they are Chinese. Now, I have the same feeling when I see a face of a Chinese as when I see a face of an American. Unless you know a person deeply, you do not see too much from a face. What is important to me is whether this person is generous or selfish, moderate or arrogant, honest or sham, clever or foolish, humorous or sanctimonious, and kind or rude. There are all kinds of Chinese, as well as Westerners; in comparison, cultural differences are not that important, though interesting. I think that a social activist from outer space would easily know that human being's daily life was governed by human nature more than by human's cultural differences. But, why do people still stress cultural differences? I think part of the reason is that people are interested in differences more than the boring similarities. When I listen to a colleague, I may agree with him on 95% of his points, but when I ask questions, I'll concentrate on the remaining 5% differences because this is the interesting part. Differences, however minor, not only interest us, but also put labels on us, making us self-proud. If I were from Harvard and you were from Yale, however similar these two universities were, it would be the differences that would create self-pride. Sometimes, we even create differences in order to feel self-proud. There are tens of thousands baseball fans in the LA Bay Area, some are fans of "A", some "Giant", they all feel very proud; but objectively, their activities (going to baseball stadium, waving flags, cheering for their teams) are all the same: their characteristics as fans are far more important than their differences. Sometimes, we human beings need shocking events to remind us that we have so much in common, and the differences are so unimportant. When LA was hit by earthquakes, all of a sudden, people started to help each other. They shared food, water, and blankets, no one asking who was a fan of "Giant" or "A". In the early morning on June 4, 1989, I myself experienced such a shocking event. About 7:00 am, my wife woke me up, "the massacre we were afraid of has occurred". I rode bike to the front gate of the People's University. A large crowd was there, no one knowing what to do. Students came back from different downtown places, talking about what they witnessed one after another: "I saw a tank running over seven or eight people sitting on ChangAn Avenue." "They gunned down many people at MuXiDi, some were kids!" "Around the History Museum, they shot the crowd. We ran away, but some were shot down. A little while later, some went back to see those down, they shot again and more were gunned down." They were shaking as they spoke, some shouting and lost control, some talking with firm and challenging mood. Every story had powerful impact on the crowd. I looked around and saw many many faces of different types, old, young, not all of students or intellectuals -- staff in the store cross the street, truck drivers who parked their trucks on the streets, and peasants on their way to the markets in town. I was not the only foreigner, there were some French, couple of African, students, all standing there with no words. Obviously, they were all shocked and saddened by what they were hearing. Accidently, my eyes met with those of an old peasant. I felt that something was going back and forth between us, although we did not say anything. The same happened between a young student and me. That peasant, that student, and I had different ages, identities, languages, and many other things, but all these differences lost significance at that moment. Experiences like this recall those "boring" things in human life, which are commonly shared by all of us. If someone's finger was stabbed, he would feel pain no matter what language he spoke and what society he came from. If a father was jailed, his family would suffer, no matter in what country it happened. If I saw a starved child in the arms of a mother, I would want to know her feeling, would it be necessary to ask her cultural background? It is well known that politicians and governments always exaggerate differences to sustain their power when their ruling is not successful. This happened both in the East and the West, such as Mao Zedong and Hitler, who were two most obvious ones of many in this century. Recently, Chinese government stressed that Chinese were different from Westerners. They said that Chinese were used to dictatorship, felt comfortable with it, and if the Westerners like democracy, they do what they want, but no one should interfere. It is my belief that all human beings, Chinese or non-Chinese, have not only the rights, but also the obligations, to interfere peacefully with any governments for their persecution of any type at any place to our human fellows. Some say that my belief is "Cultural Imperialism". Nonsense. This kind of criticism can be easily refuted on two points, although one is enough. Firstly, the theory that Chinese culture has been dominated traditionally by force is not factual. In the Mencius (Meng Zi) time, people moved out one after another from the kingdoms governed by tyrants. Mencius regarded this as a natural response from the people, and as an inevitable consequence of tyranny; of course, he did not use the modern term "rights". But, it is a vast distortion to the doctrine of this great Chinese politician and thinker to say that Mencius thought people having no rights to respond to tyranny. China's later history and literature were full of criticism and rebellion towards tyrannical governments. It is still in the need to have a comprehensive description on this aspect of traditional Chinese ideology; therefore, I have not been able to outline the many differences between the thoughts of the Chinese and the Westerners regarding the same issue, but it can certainly be revealed after more deep studies. However, if we use the language of the Chinese government that, not only did Chinese people not have the tradition of anti-tyranny, but also they have been supporting the dictatorship type of rule of the CCP because of their cultural background, it reveals how ignorant they are towards the Chinese history; more precisely, this is simply a lie of politicians. Secondly, the blame on the "Cultural Imperialism" can be easily disproved because it obscured the dividing line between compulsory and voluntary cultural exchanges. More simply, nothing is wrong for human beings to share inventions. Chinese invented Tai Chi. If Chinese wanted to invade California and forced the Californians to practice Tai Chi, it would be a cultural imperialism. But, if the Californians wanted to practice Tai Chi because they liked it, it would only be an import, never an imperialism. Now, let's think about democracy. Many forms of democracy were indeed inventions of the West. Does this mean that, even if Chinese are willing to, they still could not adopt them? If I, as a Westerner, tried to force Chinese to accept democracy, then I would be a cultural imperialist; but if they said that democracy was attractive to them, would it be necessary to discourage them? Would I have to say, "No, no, you don't want democracy or the Western democracy because this is something of the West. We Westerners only should have it. I respect your culture and do not want this kind of things to disturb you." Think about it! If an American asked to learn Tai Chi from a Chinese friend, but this friend said, "I can't teach you Tai Chi because it is for Chinese only. Also, your Washington government said that you would not like Tai Chi because it was a foreign culture. If I teach you Tai Chi, they will say that I am a cultural imperialist who interfere with the others' internal affairs", what would this American feel? The winners of the award for outstanding democracy activists by the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation (CDEF) are friends of mine, as well as fellows of mankind. Each one of them contributed to the whole human society much more than I can do. They want China to change for the better, same as I do; I want America to change for the better, same as they do. They have different citizenship from mine, but this is not important. The important thing is that we share a common human nature, as well as this little planet and regard it as our home. * CDEF: Chinese Democracy Education Foundation Perry Lin: A China scholar at Princeton University (Translated by lai@cebaf.gov. Source: China Spring, No. 131) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Life without Kids ...................................... Daniel Yau 66 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The United Nation Population and Development Conference opened on Sept. 5 in Cairo, Egypt. The interesting headline was the awkward alliance of Holly Pope with the Islamic fundamentalists. The sideline of the news was the newest United Nation's report: contrary to what the public and the "experts" believe, it is not overpopulation causes poverty, rather it is poverty causes over population. A citizen from the most populous country, I got to be concerned with these headlines and sidelines about this conference. Or do I? All of these debate are all beyond me. I am not quite sure how the study of the United Nation was conducted. Neither do I worry about the moral concern of contraception and abortions. I just feel the eagerness to spell out the fun of a DINK family. What, DINK? Yes, Double Income, No Kids. Yes, I know there must be a lot of fun to have kids around. But is there a lot of responsibilities involved, too? Will we be able not only to raise our son or daughter properly, but also educate him or her properly so that he or she will be a CAPITAL man or woman? We have serious doubts since we are not even sure whether we are CAPITAL enough. My wife and I decided not to have kids, not because of our grave concern of the population of the world. Neither we are too poor to raise a kid. We are just too selfish. It is so much fun to be free of the burden, free of the responsibilities. And we never could not figure out how we can have enough money to spend. Having a kid to share? No way! I know we missed a lot of fun. But we are enjoying our life too. I am a fourth year graduate student, yet driving a brand new $20,000 car, even better than what my boss drives. Could not tell you what I feel when some one says to me: nice car! I have a CD collection of more than 400. I just bought a $2,000 Mac. And we cruise to the Big Apple once a while to enjoy Metropolitan Opera House's performances of those great classics. I could not imagine what we would miss if we have a crying baby around and being rejected out the MET since the baby would disturbing the performance. Gee, terrible. I know that you are going to condemn me. Sure, if our parents thought the way we think today, there would be no us, at all, period. But if there were no us in this world, would that be such a bad thing? Or the Mighty Earth would spin more smoothly and evenly? What the hell we have to be here? At least, there would be one less person making these stupid noise on this Community Forum. Had our parents thought the way we think today, the world population today would be several billion minus 6. Had there hundreds of thousands parents thought the way we think today, the world would definitely be better off today than it is. One thing for sure, our parents' lives would be much better off without us. I am puzzled and amused by some of our CSS colleagues in this country. Finally "escaped" from the "one child" iron policy, they are free to have more and more are always better. Better for what? Guess I'd better spend the money on my car than raise a kid and expecting him or her returning the favor some thirty years later. Look at ourselves. When our parents step into their sixties, what are we doing for them? We are thousands miles away on this side of the pacific enjoying our lives. Can we depend upon our children thirty years later? Oh, I have no hope just by looking at myself. Well, I'd better shut up and go home. I know you have the right to enjoy a live with whatever number kids you want, just like I have the right to enjoy my DINK life. But hey, for the sake of the future generation, if we have any, or for the sake of yourself, think it over. [an100288@anon.penet.fi] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Time to Tame the Tiger ...............................Newton X. Liu 99 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Today I cannot deny that in the background of all my thinking there is the image of the 'chain of development'--of gaseous nebulae condensing into liquids and solid bodies, a molecule of life-begetting acid, species, civilizations succeeding each other in turn, segment added to segment, on a scale which reduces me to a particle." (Czeslaw Milosz, Visions from San Francisco Bay. Translated by Richard Lourie. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux. p.32) I am trying very hard not to make this a book report. I am also aware that being nobody also means that I have little power to fight something as powerful as science and technology. But I am a full-blooded airhead, a modern day Don Quixote, so I ain't need any help from a Czeslaw Milosz to stand in the way of a juggernaut. Yeah, I was told that the men who wear wigs in Europe awarded the Czeslaw Milosz guy the Nobel Prize and he taught in an American university where I happened to be a student. Big deal! Hey, his prize is in literature, not in science. I'm not impressed. The point I am trying to make here is small yet can be big. I am strongly against using scientific methods and formulae to make arguments concerning human mind and human behavior. No matter how successful science and technology are in our time, our mind, our ideas, our thoughts, our feelings, emotions, desires, impulses, dreams, fantasies, are not entirely scientific, no matter which way you cut it. It is a crime, really, to reduce human minds into numbers, a series of cute symbols in a complicated equation which only the nerdiest nerds can figure out. Can we say this, or do we still have the right to say, that we are humans, not dots, numbers, symbols or whatever you scientific attitude likes to render us? It has gone far enough, I'm telling you. My friend John is a poet and also a lecturer at the university and occasionally does some literary criticism. One of his articles was published in a journal so he was pretty happy about that; however, his happiness did not last long because one day, he got a phone call from a visiting professor whom John had "attacked" in that article. John was very nervous because he did not know what to expect from this guy who seemed to come out of nowhere. And the meeting went fairly bad because the first words out of that professor's hairy mouth was "John, very nice to meet you. But I must tell you that you have no right to criticize me because I am a scientist and you are not." Hey, John, how could you let him get away with statement as arrogant as that? Well, Newton, given time you will catch up with the bad side of the American academic environment. Science symbolizes power, you see. Even if you are a coward, a nerd, one who does not know a thing about life, as long as you are allied with science and technology, you are guaranteed to be in the winners' circle. But people make fun of nerds, right? Those are wrong kind of nerds. Wait a minute, his guy is a behavioral scientist, isn't he not? There. That's what's so weird about our damn world of too many contradictions. Although each of us behaves in our uttermost human way, there are those who prefer to monitor our random deeds scientifically. They love to simplify things, including the most complex thing in this God-created world: human brain... So poor John went on and on. I know those are harsh words out of a frustrated mind. But isn't there any truth that in our world of power-hungry souls, only those who are weak use science or whatever they can cling to empower themselves? Who can blame them? If science can simplify the complexity, it will definitely help extend the limits of those minds. And there are so many limited minds crowding our living quarters anyway. Those are my thoughts by the way, for John has been responsible too many things I say in the public. I must admit that there are geniuses in sciences who have no tendency to simplify the complexity of our world, of human brain and human capacity. Both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking openly wonder about the amazing fact that human brain has the capacity to know the universe in spite of the fact that human body is made of the same material of which the universe is made. Science is a monster created by our own minds. The monster has wreaked more than its share of destruction to the world while benefiting only the human species. Science and technology are the main reason that Planet Earth is in such shambles. And this state of destruction largely comes from some people's fanatic devotion and blind belief in science and technology. Now we have reached the stage at which our human ego is too over-inflated to be humble in front of mother nature. We've discovered some natural laws but also got too clever with them. We let our creativity get into our way of objectivity and humility. Now we are forced to reconsider our basic survival of human species in a more fragile living environment. The monster must be tamed, and it's a task of no other's but our own. It's time to set the records straight: Science belongs to human, not the other way around. (nxliu@well.sf.ca.us) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Comments on Hu Sen's message on August 31st ............. Xing Zheng 42 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editor: After reading Dr. Hu Sen's comment on criticizing CND's reports about 6th IFCSS congress by Ms. Lu Shuping, I found some descriptions misleading. Don't mention the fundamental biases of those CND's reports, about the characterization of the IFCSS, about the basic standpoint of the campaign of Xing Zheng/Liu Yuhe, about Jeff Lin's report... It's very certain that Ms. Lu Shuping even didn't know the the financial incident as a whole at the moment. It's also suspected whether she had time and interest to read Xing Zheng/Liu Yuhe's platforms carefully during the 6da. I believe the victims of those reports just regarded her as a naive story-writer. Otherwise, if she did those reports on purpose, I am sure someone would have already taken her to court. We know clearly how the IFCSS CBS Incident Committee, led by Mr. Huang Lin (Mi Mi Sr), has done or have been eager to do regarding the biased CBS report in past several month. It's also found that Dr. Hu Sen made a wrong statement about Lu shuping's elected as a councilwoman at East region, although he was a secretary! I happened also to be there at the meeting. She spoke about her experience in serving the CSS community, like working for CND, and was an editor. But she never claimed she was there on behalf of a CND REPORTER for this congress! This should be distinguished from what Dr. Hu Sen asserted that no one minded a CND reporter for this congress to be elected. Let's be backward 100 steps: we even don't have to judge her journalism, her professionalism... it's fine! But could I just address this trivial question: was she really serious then, when she was drafting her famous reports? (zx11@cornell.edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Answer to Xing Zheng's Comments ............................ Hu Shen 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear CCF Editors, After my comments appeared in CCF I got a message from Xing Zheng regarding the comments. I am grateful to him for his reminding and I would like to add the following. The tone in my comments is too absolute which might not be right. I should have noticed that Lu Shuping's report is not perfect. She needs to have some points more elaborated and chose words more carefully. The report about candidate's position, Xing Zheng\Liu Yuhe's political and Luo Ning/Liu Chengyan's non-political stand, is not accurate. Those rare not written explicitly in their platform. It might be fair to say many of their supporters had those position. And it might be better to use words "politicalising" instead of "political". In any case this paragraph could have been better written. For the report itself in overall I still think to reflect the situation very well. Best regards, Hu Shen (shu@math.ias.edu) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Dave Sheng + + Executive Moderator: Huang Tang + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For unsubscription: mail "UNSUB CHINA-NT" to the above e-address + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to: cnd.org[132.249.229.100]: pub/community/CCF + + gopher to cnd.org: 2. English Menu --> 14. Community --> 1. ccf + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++