LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for COMMUNET Archives


COMMUNET Archives

COMMUNET Archives


COMMUNET@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMMUNET Home

COMMUNET Home

COMMUNET  February 2002, Week 1

COMMUNET February 2002, Week 1

Subject:

TV addicts?

From:

"W. Curtiss Priest" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Community and Civic Network discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:03:14 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (415 lines)

CITS MEDIA WATCH
W. Curtiss Priest
February 6, 2002

Don Aucoin, of the Boston Globe, often provides coverage
and depth into media and culture that is not otherwise
available.

Forever interested in the role media plays in the social
fabric, Mr. Aucoin points out, today, an important article
(below) about "television addiction."

"But does all ths add up to addiction?  Kubey and Csikszentmi-
halyi stop barely short of saying so.  However, they seem
to be constrained by scientific exactitude, as their
broader message is that 'TV does seem to meet the criteria
for substance dependence' and that 'millions of people sense
that they cannot readily control the amount of television
they watch.'" (Boston Globe, 2/6/2002, p. F3)

["fair use," "teachable moment," "archival," Section 107(a), 1976
Copyright Act and 1998 Digital Millennium Act]

Scientific American, February, 2002
http://www.scientificamerican.com/2002/0202issue/0202kubey.html

Television Addiction Is No Mere Metaphor

By Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

SIDEBAR
A Body at Rest Tends to Stay at Rest
Grabbing Your Attention
"TV Is Part of Them"
Slave to the Computer Screen
Kicking the Habit
MORE TO EXPLORE

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the struggle for survival
is how easily organisms can be harmed by that which they
desire. The trout is caught by the fisherman's lure, the mouse by
cheese. But at least those creatures have the excuse that bait and
cheese look like sustenance. Humans seldom have that consolation. The
temptations that can disrupt their lives are often pure indulgences.
No one has to drink alcohol, for example. Realizing when a diversion
has gotten out of control is one of the great challenges of life.

Excessive cravings do not necessarily involve physical substances.
Gambling can become compulsive; sex can become obsessive. One
activity, however, stands out for its prominence and ubiquity--the
world's most popular leisure pastime, television. Most people admit to
having a love-hate relationship with it. They complain about the "boob
tube" and "couch potatoes," then they settle into their sofas and grab
the remote control. Parents commonly fret about their children's
viewing (if not their own). Even researchers who study TV for a living
marvel at the medium's hold on them personally. Percy Tannenbaum of
the University of California at Berkeley has written: "Among life's
more embarrassing moments have been countless occasions when I am
engaged in conversation in a room while a TV set is on, and I cannot
for the life of me stop from periodically glancing over to the screen.
This occurs not only during dull conversations but during reasonably
interesting ones just as well."

Scientists have been studying the effects of television for decades,
generally focusing on whether watching violence on TV correlates with
being violent in real life [see "The Effects of Observing Violence,"
by Leonard Berkowitz; Scientific American, February 1964; and
"Communication and Social Environment," by George Gerbner; September
1972]. Less attention has been paid to the basic allure of the small
screen--the medium, as opposed to the message.

The term "TV addiction" is imprecise and laden with value judgments,
but it captures the essence of a very real phenomenon. Psychologists
and psychiatrists formally define substance dependence as a disorder
characterized by criteria that include spending a great deal of time
using the substance; using it more often than one intends; thinking
about reducing use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce
use; giving up important social, family or occupational activities to
use it; and reporting withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it.

All these criteria can apply to people who watch a lot of television.
That does not mean that watching television, per se, is problematic.
Television can teach and amuse; it can reach aesthetic heights; it can
provide much needed distraction and escape. The difficulty arises when
people strongly sense that they ought not to watch as much as they do
and yet find themselves strangely unable to reduce their viewing. Some
knowledge of how the medium exerts its pull may help heavy viewers
gain better control over their lives.

A Body at Rest Tends to Stay at Rest

The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On
average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a
day to the pursuit--fully half of their leisure time, and more than on
any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who
lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some
commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make
a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why
do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In
Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and
seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV.
Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of
adults call themselves TV addicts.

To study people's reactions to TV, researchers have undertaken
laboratory experiments in which they have monitored the brain waves
(using an electroencephalograph, or EEG), skin resistance or heart
rate of people watching television. To track behavior and emotion in
the normal course of life, as opposed to the artificial conditions of
the lab, we have used the Experience Sampling Method (ESM).
Participants carried a beeper, and we signaled them six to eight times
a day, at random, over the period of a week; whenever they heard the
beep, they wrote down what they were doing and how they were feeling
using a standardized scorecard.

As one might expect, people who were watching TV when we beeped them
reported feeling relaxed and passive. The EEG studies similarly show
less mental stimulation, as measured by alpha brain-wave production,
during viewing than during reading.

What is more surprising is that the sense of relaxation ends when the
set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness
continue. Survey participants commonly reflect that television has
somehow absorbed or sucked out their energy, leaving them depleted.
They say they have more difficulty concentrating after viewing than
before. In contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after
reading. After playing sports or engaging in hobbies, people report
improvements in mood. After watching TV, people's moods are about the
same or worse than before.

Within moments of sitting or lying down and pushing the "power"
button, viewers report feeling more relaxed. Because the relaxation
occurs quickly, people are conditioned to associate viewing with rest
and lack of tension. The association is positively reinforced because
viewers remain relaxed throughout viewing, and it is negatively
reinforced via the stress and dysphoric rumination that occurs once
the screen goes blank again.

Habit-forming drugs work in similar ways. A tranquilizer that leaves
the body rapidly is much more likely to cause dependence than one that
leaves the body slowly, precisely because the user is more aware that
the drug's effects are wearing off. Similarly, viewers' vague learned
sense that they will feel less relaxed if they stop viewing may be a
significant factor in not turning the set off. Viewing begets more
viewing.

Thus, the irony of TV: people watch a great deal longer than they plan
to, even though prolonged viewing is less rewarding. In our ESM
studies the longer people sat in front of the set, the less
satisfaction they said they derived from it. When signaled, heavy
viewers (those who consistently watch more than four hours a day)
tended to report on their ESM sheets that they enjoy TV less than
light viewers did (less than two hours a day). For some, a twinge of
unease or guilt that they aren't doing something more productive may
also accompany and depreciate the enjoyment of prolonged viewing.
Researchers in Japan, the U.K. and the U.S. have found that this guilt
occurs much more among middle-class viewers than among less affluent
ones.

Grabbing Your Attention

What is it about TV that has such a hold on us? In part, the
attraction seems to spring from our biological "orienting response."
First described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our
instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel
stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in
sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. Typical
orienting reactions include dilation of the blood vessels to the
brain, slowing of the heart, and constriction of blood vessels to
major muscle groups. Alpha waves are blocked for a few seconds before
returning to their baseline level, which is determined by the general
level of mental arousal. The brain focuses its attention on gathering
more information while the rest of the body quiets.

In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the
University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the
simple formal features of television--cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden
noises--activate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on
the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal
features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can
indeed trigger involuntary responses and "derive their attentional
value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement....
It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique."

The orienting response may partly explain common viewer remarks such
as: "If a television is on, I just can't keep my eyes off it," "I
don't want to watch as much as I do, but I can't help it," and "I feel
hypnotized when I watch television." In the years since Reeves and
Thorson published their pioneering work, researchers have delved
deeper. Annie Lang's research team at Indiana University has shown
that heart rate decreases for four to six seconds after an orienting
stimulus. In ads, action sequences and music videos, formal features
frequently come at a rate of one per second, thus activating the
orienting response continuously.

Lang and her colleagues have also investigated whether formal features
affect people's memory of what they have seen. In one of their
studies, participants watched a program and then filled out a score
sheet. Increasing the frequency of edits--defined here as a change
from one camera angle to another in the same visual scene--improved
memory recognition, presumably because it focused attention on the
screen. Increasing the frequency of cuts--changes to a new visual
scene--had a similar effect but only up to a point. If the number of
cuts exceeded 10 in two minutes, recognition dropped off sharply.

Producers of educational television for children have found that
formal features can help learning. But increasing the rate of cuts and
edits eventually overloads the brain. Music videos and commercials
that use rapid intercutting of unrelated scenes are designed to hold
attention more than they are to convey information. People may
remember the name of the product or band, but the details of the ad
itself float in one ear and out the other. The orienting response is
overworked. Viewers still attend to the screen, but they feel tired
and worn out, with little compensating psychological reward. Our ESM
findings show much the same thing.

Sometimes the memory of the product is very subtle. Many ads today are
deliberately oblique: they have an engaging story line, but it is hard
to tell what they are trying to sell. Afterward you may not remember
the product consciously. Yet advertisers believe that if they have
gotten your attention, when you later go to the store you will feel
better or more comfortable with a given product because you have a
vague recollection of having heard of it.

The natural attraction to television's sound and light starts very
early in life. Dafna Lemish of Tel Aviv University has described
babies at six to eight weeks attending to television. We have observed
slightly older infants who, when lying on their backs on the floor,
crane their necks around 180 degrees to catch what light through
yonder window breaks. This inclination suggests how deeply rooted the
orienting response is.

"TV Is Part of Them"

That said, we need to be careful about overreacting. Little evidence
suggests that adults or children should stop watching TV altogether.
The problems come from heavy or prolonged viewing.

The Experience Sampling Method permitted us to look closely at most
every domain of everyday life: working, eating, reading, talking to
friends, playing a sport, and so on. We wondered whether heavy viewers
might experience life differently than light viewers do. Do they
dislike being with people more? Are they more alienated from work?
What we found nearly leaped off the page at us. Heavy viewers report
feeling significantly more anxious and less happy than light viewers
do in unstructured situations, such as doing nothing, daydreaming or
waiting in line. The difference widens when the viewer is alone.

Subsequently, Robert D. McIlwraith of the University of Manitoba
extensively studied those who called themselves TV addicts on surveys.
On a measure called the Short Imaginal Processes Inventory (SIPI), he
found that the self-described addicts are more easily bored and
distracted and have poorer attentional control than the nonaddicts.
The addicts said they used TV to distract themselves from unpleasant
thoughts and to fill time. Other studies over the years have shown
that heavy viewers are less likely to participate in community
activities and sports and are more likely to be obese than moderate
viewers or nonviewers.

The question that naturally arises is: In which direction does the
correlation go? Do people turn to TV because of boredom and
loneliness, or does TV viewing make people more susceptible to boredom
and loneliness? We and most other researchers argue that the former is
generally the case, but it is not a simple case of either/or. Jerome
L. and Dorothy Singer of Yale University, among others, have suggested
that more viewing may contribute to a shorter attention span,
diminished self-restraint and less patience with the normal delays of
daily life. More than 25 years ago psychologist Tannis M. MacBeth
Williams of the University of British Columbia studied a mountain
community that had no television until cable finally arrived. Over
time, both adults and children in the town became less creative in
problem solving, less able to persevere at tasks, and less tolerant of
unstructured time.

To some researchers, the most convincing parallel between TV and
addictive drugs is that people experience withdrawal symptoms when
they cut back on viewing. Nearly 40 years ago Gary A. Steiner of the
University of Chicago collected fascinating individual accounts of
families whose set had broken--this back in the days when households
generally had only one set: "The family walked around like a chicken
without a head." "It was terrible. We did nothing--my husband and I
talked." "Screamed constantly. Children bothered me, and my nerves
were on edge. Tried to interest them in games, but impossible. TV is
part of them."

In experiments, families have volunteered or been paid to stop
viewing, typically for a week or a month. Many could not complete the
period of abstinence. Some fought, verbally and physically. Anecdotal
reports from some families that have tried the annual "TV turn-off"
week in the U.S. tell a similar story.

If a family has been spending the lion's share of its free time
watching television, reconfiguring itself around a new set of
activities is no easy task. Of course, that does not mean it cannot be
done or that all families implode when deprived of their set. In a
review of these cold-turkey studies, Charles Winick of the City
University of New York concluded: "The first three or four days for
most persons were the worst, even in many homes where viewing was
minimal and where there were other ongoing activities. In over half of
all the households, during these first few days of loss, the regular
routines were disrupted, family members had difficulties in dealing
with the newly available time, anxiety and aggressions were
expressed.... People living alone tended to be bored and irritated....
By the second week, a move toward adaptation to the situation was
common." Unfortunately, researchers have yet to flesh out these
anecdotes; no one has systematically gathered statistics on the
prevalence of these withdrawal symptoms.

Even though TV does seem to meet the criteria for substance
dependence, not all researchers would go so far as to call TV
addictive. McIlwraith said in 1998 that "displacement of other
activities by television may be socially significant but still fall
short of the clinical requirement of significant impairment." He
argued that a new category of "TV addiction" may not be necessary if
heavy viewing stems from conditions such as depression and social
phobia. Nevertheless, whether or not we formally diagnose someone as
TV-dependent, millions of people sense that they cannot readily
control the amount of television they watch.

Slave to the Computer Screen

Although much less research has been done on video games and computer
use, the same principles often apply. The games offer escape and
distraction; players quickly learn that they feel better when playing;
and so a kind of reinforcement loop develops. The obvious difference
from television, however, is the interactivity. Many video and
computer games minutely increase in difficulty along with the
increasing ability of the player. One can search for months to find
another tennis or chess player of comparable ability, but programmed
games can immediately provide a near-perfect match of challenge to
skill. They offer the psychic pleasure--what one of us
(Csikszentmihalyi) has called "flow"--that accompanies increased
mastery of most any human endeavor. On the other hand, prolonged
activation of the orienting response can wear players out. Kids report
feeling tired, dizzy and nauseated after long sessions.

In 1997, in the most extreme medium-effects case on record, 700
Japanese children were rushed to the hospital, many suffering from
"optically stimulated epileptic seizures" caused by viewing bright
flashing lights in a Pokémon video game broadcast on Japanese TV.
Seizures and other untoward effects of video games are significant
enough that software companies and platform manufacturers now
routinely include warnings in their instruction booklets. Parents have
reported to us that rapid movement on the screen has caused motion
sickness in their young children after just 15 minutes of play. Many
youngsters, lacking self-control and experience (and often
supervision), continue to play despite these symptoms.

Lang and Shyam Sundar of Pennsylvania State University have been
studying how people respond to Web sites. Sundar has shown people
multiple versions of the same Web page, identical except for the
number of links. Users reported that more links conferred a greater
sense of control and engagement. At some point, however, the number of
links reached saturation, and adding more of them simply turned people
off. As with video games, the ability of Web sites to hold the user's
attention seems to depend less on formal features than on
interactivity.

For growing numbers of people, the life they lead online may often
seem more important, more immediate and more intense than the life
they lead face-to-face. Maintaining control over one's media habits is
more of a challenge today than it has ever been. TV sets and computers
are everywhere. But the small screen and the Internet need not
interfere with the quality of the rest of one's life. In its easy
provision of relaxation and escape, television can be beneficial in
limited doses. Yet when the habit interferes with the ability to grow,
to learn new things, to lead an active life, then it does constitute a
kind of dependence and should be taken seriously.

Further Information:

Television and the Quality of Life: How Viewing Shapes Everyday
Experience. Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1990.

Television Dependence, Diagnosis, and Prevention. Robert W. Kubey in
Tuning in to Young Viewers: Social Science Perspectives on Television.
Edited by Tannis M. MacBeth. Sage, 1995.

"I'm Addicted to Television": The Personality, Imagination, and TV
Watching Patterns of Self-Identified TV Addicts. Robert D. McIlwraith
in Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 42, No. 3, pages
371--386; Summer 1998.

The Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message Processing. Annie Lang
in Journal of Communication, Vol. 50, No. 1, pages 46--70; March 2000.

Internet Use and Collegiate Academic Performance Decrements: Early
Findings. Robert Kubey, Michael J. Lavin and John R. Barrows in
Journal of Communication, Vol. 51, No. 2, pages 366--382; June 2001.

The Authors

ROBERT KUBEY and MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYI met in the mid-1970s at the
University of Chicago, where Kubey began his doctoral studies and
where Csikszentmihalyi served on the faculty. Kubey is now a professor
at Rutgers University and director of the Center for Media Studies
(www.mediastudies.rutgers.edu). His work focuses on the development of
media education around the world. He has been known to watch
television and even to play video games with his sons, Ben and Daniel.
Csikszentmihalyi is the C. S. and D. J. Davidson Professor of
Psychology at Claremont Graduate University. He is a fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He spends summers writing in
the Bitterroot Mountains of Montana, without newspapers or TV, hiking
with grandchildren and other occasional visitors.

--


           W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
      Center for Information, Technology & Society
         466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA  02176
         Voice: 781-662-4044  [log in to unmask]
      Fax: 781-662-6882 WWW: http://Cybertrails.org

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2017, Week 4
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 2
January 2015, Week 2
June 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 1
October 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 3
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 2
December 2005, Week 5
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 5
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
March 2004, Week 2
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 5
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
April 2003, Week 1
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 5
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 2
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 4
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 5
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3
September 1998, Week 2
September 1998, Week 1
August 1998, Week 5
August 1998, Week 4
August 1998, Week 3
August 1998, Week 2
August 1998, Week 1
July 1998, Week 5
July 1998, Week 4
July 1998, Week 3
July 1998, Week 2
July 1998, Week 1
June 1998, Week 5
June 1998, Week 4
June 1998, Week 3
June 1998, Week 2
June 1998, Week 1
May 1998, Week 5
May 1998, Week 4
May 1998, Week 3
May 1998, Week 2
May 1998, Week 1
April 1998, Week 5
April 1998, Week 4
April 1998, Week 3
April 1998, Week 2
April 1998, Week 1
March 1998, Week 5
March 1998, Week 4
March 1998, Week 3
March 1998, Week 2
March 1998, Week 1
February 1998, Week 4
February 1998, Week 3
February 1998, Week 2
February 1998, Week 1
January 1998, Week 5
January 1998, Week 4
January 1998, Week 3
January 1998, Week 2
January 1998, Week 1
December 1997, Week 5
December 1997, Week 4
December 1997, Week 3
December 1997, Week 2
December 1997, Week 1
November 1997, Week 5
November 1997, Week 4
November 1997, Week 3
November 1997, Week 2
November 1997, Week 1
October 1997, Week 5
October 1997, Week 4
October 1997, Week 3
October 1997, Week 2
October 1997, Week 1
September 1997, Week 5
September 1997, Week 4
September 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 2
September 1997, Week 1
August 1997, Week 5
August 1997, Week 4
August 1997, Week 3
August 1997, Week 2
August 1997, Week 1
July 1997, Week 5
July 1997, Week 4
July 1997, Week 3
July 1997, Week 2
July 1997, Week 1
June 1997, Week 5
June 1997, Week 4
June 1997, Week 3
June 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 1
May 1997, Week 5
May 1997, Week 4
May 1997, Week 3
May 1997, Week 2
May 1997, Week 1
April 1997, Week 5
April 1997, Week 4
April 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 2
April 1997, Week 1
March 1997, Week 6
March 1997, Week 5
March 1997, Week 4
March 1997, Week 3
March 1997, Week 2
March 1997, Week 1
February 1997, Week 5
February 1997, Week 4
February 1997, Week 3
February 1997, Week 2
February 1997, Week 1
January 1997, Week 5
January 1997, Week 4
January 1997, Week 3
January 1997, Week 2
January 1997, Week 1
December 1996, Week 4
December 1996, Week 3
December 1996, Week 2
December 1996, Week 1
November 1996, Week 5
November 1996, Week 4
November 1996, Week 3
November 1996, Week 2
November 1996, Week 1
October 1996, Week 5
October 1996, Week 4
October 1996, Week 3
October 1996, Week 2
October 1996, Week 1
September 1996, Week 5
September 1996, Week 4
September 1996, Week 3
September 1996, Week 2
September 1996, Week 1
August 1996, Week 5
August 1996, Week 4
August 1996, Week 3
August 1996, Week 2
August 1996, Week 1
July 1996, Week 5
July 1996, Week 4
July 1996, Week 3
July 1996, Week 2
July 1996, Week 1
June 1996, Week 5
June 1996, Week 4
June 1996, Week 3
June 1996, Week 2
June 1996, Week 1
May 1996, Week 5
May 1996, Week 4
May 1996, Week 3
May 1996, Week 2
May 1996, Week 1
April 1996, Week 5
April 1996, Week 4
April 1996, Week 3
April 1996, Week 2
April 1996, Week 1
March 1996, Week 6
March 1996, Week 5
March 1996, Week 4
March 1996, Week 3
March 1996, Week 2
March 1996, Week 1
February 1996, Week 5
February 1996, Week 4
February 1996, Week 3
February 1996, Week 2
February 1996, Week 1
January 1996, Week 5
January 1996, Week 4
January 1996, Week 3
January 1996, Week 2
January 1996, Week 1
December 1995, Week 6
December 1995, Week 5
December 1995, Week 4
December 1995, Week 3
December 1995, Week 2
December 1995, Week 1
November 1995, Week 5
November 1995, Week 4
November 1995, Week 3
November 1995, Week 2
November 1995, Week 1
October 1995, Week 5
October 1995, Week 4
October 1995, Week 3
October 1995, Week 2
October 1995, Week 1
October 1995, Week -15
September 1995, Week 5
September 1995, Week 4
September 1995, Week 3
September 1995, Week 2
September 1995, Week 1
August 1995, Week 5
August 1995, Week 4
August 1995, Week 3
August 1995, Week 2
August 1995, Week 1
July 1995, Week 5
July 1995, Week 4
July 1995, Week 3
July 1995, Week 2
July 1995, Week 1
June 1995, Week 5
June 1995, Week 4
June 1995, Week 3
June 1995, Week 2
June 1995, Week 1
May 1995, Week 5
May 1995, Week 4
May 1995, Week 3
May 1995, Week 2
May 1995, Week 1
April 1995, Week 5
April 1995, Week 4
April 1995, Week 3
April 1995, Week 2
April 1995, Week 1
March 1995, Week 5
March 1995, Week 4
March 1995, Week 3
March 1995, Week 2
March 1995, Week 1
February 1995, Week 4
February 1995, Week 3
February 1995, Week 2
February 1995, Week 1
January 1995, Week 5
January 1995, Week 4
January 1995, Week 3
January 1995, Week 2
January 1995, Week 1
December 1994, Week 5
December 1994, Week 4
December 1994, Week 3
December 1994, Week 2
December 1994, Week 1
November 1994, Week 5
November 1994, Week 4
November 1994, Week 3
November 1994, Week 2
November 1994, Week 1
October 1994, Week 5
October 1994, Week 4
October 1994, Week 3
October 1994, Week 2
October 1994, Week 1
September 1994, Week 5
September 1994, Week 4
September 1994, Week 3
September 1994, Week 2
September 1994, Week 1
August 1994, Week 5
August 1994, Week 4
August 1994, Week 3
August 1994, Week 2
August 1994, Week 1
July 1994, Week 5
July 1994, Week 4
July 1994, Week 3
July 1994, Week 2
July 1994, Week 1
June 1994, Week 5
June 1994, Week 4
June 1994, Week 3
June 1994, Week 2
June 1994, Week 1
May 1994, Week 5
May 1994, Week 4
May 1994, Week 3
May 1994, Week 2
May 1994, Week 1
April 1994, Week 5
April 1994, Week 4
April 1994, Week 3
April 1994, Week 2
April 1994, Week 1
March 1994, Week 5
March 1994, Week 4
March 1994, Week 3
March 1994, Week 2
March 1994, Week 1
February 1994, Week 4
February 1994, Week 3
February 1994, Week 2
February 1994, Week 1
January 1994, Week 5
January 1994, Week 4
January 1994, Week 3
January 1994, Week 2
January 1994, Week 1
December 1993, Week 5
December 1993, Week 4
December 1993, Week 3
December 1993, Week 2
December 1993, Week 1
November 1993, Week 5
November 1993, Week 4
November 1993, Week 3
November 1993, Week 2
November 1993, Week 1
October 1993, Week 5
October 1993, Week 4
October 1993, Week 3
October 1993, Week 2
October 1993, Week 1
September 1993, Week 5
September 1993, Week 4
September 1993, Week 3
September 1993, Week 2
September 1993, Week 1
August 1993, Week 5
August 1993, Week 4
August 1993, Week 3
August 1993, Week 2
August 1993, Week 1
July 1993, Week 5
July 1993, Week 4
July 1993, Week 3
July 1993, Week 2
July 1993, Week 1
June 1993, Week 5
June 1993, Week 4
June 1993, Week 3
June 1993, Week 2
June 1993, Week 1
May 1993, Week 5
May 1993, Week 4
May 1993, Week 3
May 1993, Week 2
May 1993, Week 1
April 1993, Week 5
April 1993, Week 4
April 1993, Week 3
April 1993, Week 2
April 1993, Week 1
March 1993, Week 5
March 1993, Week 4
March 1993
February 1993

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager