LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@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

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  December 2008

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE December 2008

Subject:

Re: Another important study

From:

mart <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:54:59 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (625 lines)

a few added points:

wikipedia has some pretty good survey articles on social psychology and related areas (social constructivism, social interactionism (george herbert mead), forms of situationism, marx's alienation theory,  etc.)  as well as the more individualist cognitive approaches (humans as skinner boxes---which is my view: just i/o devices (gigo)). (one question is how much these theories (like neoclassical econ or marxism) actually say more about the people who created than about the 'objective world'.  'don't believe the hype'.  ). (darwin supposedly got darwinism from adam smith, and marx i think tried to get darwin to endorse his stuff, but he just left das capital on the shelf.) 

chomsky is, for language, pretty much a hard core individualist.  he also thinks it is a hardwired module or organ, like the heart.  opposed to his view are the 'connectionists' who hold language is more like 'software' which is programmed into a hardwired 'hardware' (the brain).   the linguists pretty much split into camps years ago, each retreating to their respective college campuses (eg MIT, yale, chicago and Georgetown versus carnegie mellon, UCSD and yale too).     there is often little connection between the camps, or even acknowledgement that they exist apart from the occasional proof that the others are wrong.   its more like religion. (if you read the papers, all you have to do is see what they left out of the references to know the conclusions in the paper. ' reduction ad absurdem'.).

chomsky doesn't think language evolved for communication; his evidence is that most people spend most of the time essentially talking to themselves (if not out loud).  my disproof of him (which he didn't like) is that while this is true, if one really checks it out (using MRI, rather than questionaires which people lie on) most people are actually rehearsing pickup lines.    he is also a platonist, essentially, and thinks that words actually exist 'out there' rather than being constructed.  i think he is totally crazy.  (especially if one notices that all his political work on 'manufacture of consent' goes completely opposite to this theory, and he hasn't noticed the inconsistancy.  plato's problem is hume.  this is like dawkins, who promotes 'selfish genes' and then also talks about memes, without noticing the inconsistancies this brings up in his selfiash gene arguments.  for dawjkins, this is a political move i think, since he's opposed to other kinds
 of theories promoted by his competitors.   even if they are right, you can't acknowledge it.   chomsky is just schizo, being an anarchist who essentially got tenure due to military funding in the 50's/60's.love that state.)

i do think the 'universal grammar' is correct, just not the interpretation.  its software, or logic applied to language.  also others proved in the 60's that this was just another form of the 'turing machine' which is the technical name for software.

i think one good proof that chomsky is right would be to dissect the language organ from the brains of MIT and UCSD linguistics faculty and transplant them, so that chomsky would become a connectionist and the connectionists would become believers in an innate universal grammar contained in a language organ. one would have to open the brain of course to find the organ---its in there somewhere (you just shake it around and it will fall out).  i haven't been able to get this funded.

actuaklly i think simple psychology experiments actually sometimes are quite apt; humans actually often behave fairly simply.  coke is it!!! this is why marketing is often so effective, and why biases operate so effectively to hold together the status quo.  (its also why we have a big psychological establishment, which seems to co-evolve with 'mental illness'----supposedly depression has risen 7-fold over the last 40 years, while the mental healthy industry (with pharma) has also increased.  one needs a whole industry to teach people to just say no.  is it the tortoise and the hare, or has zeno been proven correct?

also, physics may be like psychology.  or, they are both similar.  physics, like psychology works weell for simple, isolatable systems.  the minute you get past that, its like psychology and economics.   but in both cases, once you scale it up you use 'statistical mechanics' or the related area 'fluid dynamics' and you can find the 'wisdom of crowds', 'mob rules', and other patterns.  it would be interesting if one could use psychology to study physics; one big difference is the latter is very formalistic as opposed to intuitive.


--- On Tue, 12/16/08, herb fox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: herb fox <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Another important study
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 10:30 PM
> I am so pleased. This discussion has evolved into a
> refreshing breeze across the list serve--an informative,
> science oriented, generally humble discussion.  Thank you. 
> So different from the ad hominem, intentionally provocative,
> off science posts.  I do not have time right now to
> participate, but i do want to call your attention to two
> relevant punlications.  (1)A book that i am in the middle of
> reading "The Fiction of a Thinkable World" see
> http://monthlyreview.org/tfoatw.htm.
> <http://monthlyreview.org/tfoatw.htm> and (2)
> Levin's and Lewontin's recent book that i am also
> into but not through
> http://monthlyreview.org/biologyinfluence.htm.  One
> relevance of these useful books is the conception that
> context and interconnectedness is fundamental.  The study of
> isolated or small groups of human beings in controlled
> settings at a particular historical moment is intrinsically
> problematic.   Unfortunately Marx in his not-always-critical
> affection for science sometimes said or did foolish things,
> one of which was to draft a questionnaire for the workers
> (at present i cannot find a reference.  It is really naive
> at best.).
> If only this kind of discussion were the norm on this list!
> herb
> 
> Claudia Hemphill Pine wrote:
> > Ah, if only science faculty had more scientists like
> you!  Not to mention social sciences & humanities
> faculty -- those who study what the Europeans, I think more
> aptly, term the "human sciences"; that is,
> systematic research into reproducible understanding of
> systems involving humans, which as you say, are all too
> often altered by the very act of studying them.
> > 
> > I don't know who's worse - physical science
> folks or human science folks - at inappropriately insisting
> that everything be studied like physics, chemistry and
> astronomy.  Reductivism most definitely doesn't work
> with people or the environment (and lo - there's a
> connection there, no?). 
> > I love your point about some novelists capturing
> social insights as well as any psych research!
> > 
> > As to questionnaires -- yeah, don't get me
> started.  I dropped a social scientist from my dissertation
> committee a year ago who insisted that the only way to
> understand what soil means to people (my subject of inquiry)
> is to administer questionnaires!  It's not just that to
> construct the closed decision options of a questionnaire
> requires that you already know what the main possibilities
> are, which requires that sound basic research has been
> completed to identify them, and that you aren't
> interested in the full range of possibilities, only the
> "average." That is, you provide only the optional
> answers that capture, say, 95% of the picture - but what if
> you're interested in the areas beyond the
> "average" mainstream answer?  What if you are
> actually trying to find out things you don't already
> know?  The questionnaire won't discover it; survey
> instruments simply refine the shape and internal pattern of
> what you already know.  And since your audience usually
> knows what topics you're interested in (not simply
> because they can guess from the questions, but because
> you're ethically obligated to flat out tell them), of
> course you're subjected to a huge amount of people
> telling you what they think they ought to believe (or buy,
> or do) or would like to represent themselves as being. 
> > Which is why anthropologists and ethologists, in
> particular, have long advocated "indirect
> observation" -- to discover, for instance, how much
> people actually recycle, as opposed to what they tell you
> they recycle -- as well as (for anthropology at least)
> "participant observation," to understand from
> one's own immersion in the culture what the pressures
> and prompts and conflicting ideas may be that lead people to
> say one thing, while doing another. 
> > (For my dissertation research, I've been using
> "discourse analysis" of texts in various kinds of
> media - from science articles to science textbooks,
> newspaper articles to films, and yes, some novels.  Since
> none of these were written with an eye to pleasing me - or
> lying to me - at least I don't have that questionnaire
> problem, of the "compliant" respondent.  I observe
> the textual "behavior" without influencing it.  Of
> course, it also isn't written specifically in response
> to my questions, so I have to have a fair bit more of it, to
> get at some of my topics through triangulation.)
> > 
> > Anyway, yes, I definitely share your skepticism about
> questionnaire & focus group research - especially when
> it's very small groups.  They can say whatever they
> think you want to hear.  I don't mean to sound cynical
> about the willingness of people to assist in research, but I
> do know of examples of sociological and anthropological
> research in which people actually lied to the researchers,
> for benevolent as well as other reasons!
> > 
> > Claudia
> > P.S. I still need to finish reading your Borgmann book
> review, and to check out your book on technology. Looking
> very much forward to both!
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Michael H Goldhaber
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
> > 
> >     Yes, Claudia, I believe that most good scientific
> experiments are
> >     of basically simple design. They have to be so
> that they can be
> >     reproducible and so that something can be learned
> from them. This
> >     works better with physics, chemistry and astronomy
> than in
> >     psychology ,however, because in the former cases
> there are many
> >     striking yet simple systems to investigate, and
> quite often
> >     specially isolated components can have practical
> use. For example,
> >     electrical experiments in the lab can be
> replicated in household
> >     appliances because it tends to be fairly simple to
> isolate
> >     electrical currents (in insulted wires, etc.)..
> But isolating
> >     psychological effects (for example)  is a
> practical impossibility.
> >     (Of course, ecological effects of many kinds
> >     are equally difficult to isolate, and that is one
> reason that
> >     so little is done about them and so much
> controversy pertains
> >     with respect to them. ) I have studied many
> psychology research
> >     papers and find over and over again that the
> >     requirements of experimental simplicity do not
> lead to
> >     interpretations that seem to capture points I deem
> crucial. That
> >     is one reason I think it often makes more sense to
> see what
> >     sophisticated psychotherapists
> >     or psychoanalysts  have to say. They study
> individuals as a whole,
> >     not in separate little pieces. But they miss
> social aspects, quite
> >     often. A few novelists are about as good as
> anybody
> >     in capturing these. 
> >     The deep problem, as I see it, is that the model
> of the
> >     physical sciences is still taken as the norm of
> what
> >     thoughtful investigation about anything should be,
> and often it is
> >     a bad model. Our culture has not developed
> sufficiently effective
> >     means of studying or discussing
> social-psychological issues, and
> >     we seem to be headed more in the wrong direction
> than the right
> >     one in this regard. 
> >     The study at issue relies on simple
> questionnaires, mostly — so
> >     simple, in fact,  that many people could easily
> see what they are
> >     after and game them accordingly. How do they
> correct for that? It
> >     appears they do so by asking the same questions
> over and over
> >     again with slightly different wording, but this is
> utterly
> >     inadequate in my view. I don't know how they
> could do such a study
> >     much better, but maybe they should be doing
> something
> >     very different instead. 
> > 
> >     Best,
> > 
> >     Michael
> > 
> > 
> >     On Dec 16, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Claudia Hemphill Pine
> wrote:
> > 
> >>     Gee, Michael, are you calling scientific
> experimentation
> >>     simplistic?  :-)
> >> 
> >>     It's true that "media effects"
> -- the technical term for whether,
> >>     and how, media representations of violence,
> love, etc., change or
> >>     strengthen audiences' inclinations -- is a
> complex subject.  That
> >>     complexity, however, does not absolve us from
> efforts to study it
> >>     (especially in a media-saturated world - and
> if none of us think
> >>     posting and discussing articles can change
> people's minds, why
> >>     are we engaging in it?), nor does it justify
> pooh-poohing every
> >>     effort. 
> >>     Just because something is hard to study
> (quarks? neurons?
> >>     evolution?) doesn't mean every tiny step
> toward understanding
> >>     should be dismissed as futile, or mocked as
> not immense enough.     We can't all be Nobel level
> researchers.
> >> 
> >>     I find it more perplexing than amusing -
> though that, also - how
> >>     regularly members of this listserve post
> reports of psychology
> >>     experiments, apparently only to mock them as
> ridiculous, badly
> >>     done, futile, pointless, and stupid.  I must
> have missed the part
> >>     where the list members showed how their own
> science education
> >>     cross-trained them for peer-reviewing all
> branches of psychology.
> >> 
> >>     But I agree, Michael (G) that reporters likely
> tend to
> >>     over-simplify and possibly misrepresent the
> results -- and aims,
> >>     not to mention methods -- of social psychology
> research, for more
> >>     drama -- thus putting their own media effect
> "spin" on a media
> >>     effects study.   This makes it all the more
> likely that those of
> >>     us who are responding solely as non-experts
> will simply snipe at
> >>     the researcher, instead of seeking some
> unbiased understanding of
> >>     the original study, or at least considering
> the bias injected by
> >>     the journalist and our own unreflective
> cultural prejudgments.
> >> 
> >>     Claudia
> >> 
> >>     On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Michael H
> Goldhaber
> >>     <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >> 
> >>         I think Phil has it right. Human
> psychology
> >>         is immensely complex. Scientific
> experiments tend to have a
> >>         simple design. Drawing valid conclusions
> about the
> >>         complexities of psychology from
> experiments of simple design
> >>         is extremely difficult, yet over and over
> again,
> >>         experimenters  claim to be doing just
> this. Then science
> >>         reporters further simplify and exaggerate
> the conclusions to
> >>         make the reports seem interesting. In the
> current case,
> >>         two different claims are made. First,
> students exposed to
> >>         a more romantic film , when questioned
> afterwards,
> >>         are supposedly more inclined to believe in
> fate. We have no
> >>         reason to believe such an effect, if
> actual, lasts long. No
> >>         indication is given of how long it last;
> apparently that was
> >>         not investigated.. In the second case,
> longtime lovers of
> >>         romantic films are assumed to be affected
> by
> >>          them, rather than choosing them because
> they agree with a
> >>         worldview the viewers already had or
> wished to
> >>         nurture. And so on.
> >> 
> >>         Best,
> >>         Michael
> >> 
> >>         On Dec 16, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Michael
> Balter wrote:
> >> 
> >>>         That is a fallacious statement of my
> argument, which is:
> >>> 
> >>>         Topic A is important.
> >>>         Study B provides useful insights into
> Topic A, because it
> >>>         identifies cultural sources of
> illusions about relationships.
> >>>         Therefore, Study B is important or at
> least interesting.
> >>> 
> >>>         MB
> >>> 
> >>>         On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Phil
> Gasper
> >>>         <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>             Actually, I think I will use this
> one in my critical
> >>>             thinking class next semester as an
> exercise for the
> >>>             students to point out its
> weaknesses.
> >>> 
> >>>             The following is a fallacious
> argument:
> >>> 
> >>>             Topic A is important.
> >>>             Study B is about A.
> >>>             Therefore, study B is important.
> >>> 
> >>>             --PG
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>             On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM,
> Michael Balter
> >>>             <[log in to unmask]
> >>>            
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>                 Actually, I think this kind of
> study is important,
> >>>                 and I think if Phil thought
> about it a little bit
> >>>                 more he might agree.
> Unrealistic expectations about
> >>>                 love and marriage are indeed a
> key factor in
> >>>                 relationships breaking up, as
> most people who have
> >>>                 voyaged very far into
> adulthood know anecdotally and
> >>>                 which psychologists, family
> therapists and
> >>>                 professionals know from their
> practices and
> >>>                 research. Since troubled
> relationships are a key
> >>>                 cause of suffering in the
> world, understanding more
> >>>                 about them makes sense to me.
> >>> 
> >>>                 As I have said before,
> let's not be the John McCains
> >>>                 and Sarah Palins of the left
> when it comes to
> >>>                 critiquing science.
> >>> 
> >>>                 MB
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>                 On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:43
> PM, Phil Gasper
> >>>                 <[log in to unmask]
> >>>                
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>                    
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7784366.stm
> >>>                     Published: 2008/12/16
> 10:02:45 GMT
> >>> 
> >>>                     *Rom-coms 'spoil your
> love life'*
> >>> 
> >>>                     Watching romantic comedies
> can spoil your love
> >>>                     life, a study by a
> university in Edinburgh has
> >>>                     claimed.
> >>> 
> >>>                     Rom-coms have been blamed
> by relationship
> >>>                     experts at Heriot Watt
> University for promoting
> >>>                     unrealistic expectations
> when it comes to love.
> >>> 
> >>>                     They found fans of films
> such as Runaway Bride
> >>>                     and Notting Hill often
> fail to communicate with
> >>>                     their partner.
> >>> 
> >>>                     Many held the view if
> someone is meant to be
> >>>                     with you, then they should
> know what you want
> >>>                     without you telling them.
> >>> 
> >>>                     Psychologists at the
> family and personal
> >>>                     relationships laboratory
> at the university
> >>>                     studied 40 top box office
> hits between 1995 and
> >>>                     2005, and identified
> common themes which they
> >>>                     believed were unrealistic.
> >>> 
> >>>                     The movies included
> You've Got Mail, Maid In
> >>>                     Manhattan, The Wedding
> Planner and While You
> >>>                     Were Sleeping.
> >>> 
> >>>                     The university's Dr
> Bjarne Holmes said:
> >>>                     "Marriage counsellors
> often see couples who
> >>>                     believe that sex should
> always be perfect, and
> >>>                     if someone is meant to be
> with you then they
> >>>                     will know what you want
> without you needing to
> >>>                     communicate it.
> >>> 
> >>>                     "We now have some
> emerging evidence that
> >>>                     suggests popular media
> play a role in
> >>>                     perpetuating these ideas
> in people's minds.
> >>> 
> >>>                     "The problem is that
> while most of us know that
> >>>                     the idea of a perfect
> relationship is
> >>>                     unrealistic, some of us
> are still more
> >>>                     influenced by media
> portrayals than we realise."
> >>> 
> >>>                     As part of the project,
> 100 student volunteers
> >>>                     were asked to watch the
> 2001 romantic comedy
> >>>                     Serendipity, while a
> further 100 watched a David
> >>>                     Lynch drama.
> >>> 
> >>>                     Predestined love
> >>> 
> >>>                     Students watching the
> romantic film were later
> >>>                     found to be more likely to
> believe in fate and
> >>>                     destiny. A further study
> found that fans of
> >>>                     romantic comedies had a
> stronger belief in
> >>>                     predestined love.
> >>> 
> >>>                     Kimberly Johnson, who also
> worked on the study,
> >>>                     said: "Films do
> capture the excitement of new
> >>>                     relationships but they
> also wrongly suggest that
> >>>                     trust and committed love
> exist from the moment
> >>>                     people meet, whereas these
> are qualities that
> >>>                     normally take years to
> develop."
> >>> 
> >>>                     The researchers have now
> launched an online
> >>>                     study on media and
> relationships.
> >>>                     They are asking people to
> participate by
> >>>                     answering questions about
> personality,
> >>>                     relationships, and media
> consumption habits by
> >>>                     filling in a questionnaire
> which you can click
> >>>                     on here
> >>>                    
> <http://remark.sls.hw.ac.uk/cgi-bin/rws3.pl?FORM=Media_study>.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>                 --                
> ******************************************
> >>>                 Michael Balter
> >>>                 Contributing Correspondent,
> Science
> >>>                 Adjunct Professor of
> Journalism,
> >>>                 Boston University
> >>> 
> >>>                 Email:          
> [log in to unmask]
> >>>                
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >>> 
> >>>                 Website:      
> michaelbalter.com
> >>>                
> <http://michaelbalter.com>
> >>>                 Balter's Blog:
> michael-balter.blogspot.com
> >>>                
> <http://michael-balter.blogspot.com>
> >>>                
> ******************************************
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>         --        
> ******************************************
> >>>         Michael Balter
> >>>         Contributing Correspondent, Science
> >>>         Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
> >>>         Boston University
> >>> 
> >>>         Email:          
> [log in to unmask]
> >>>        
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >>> 
> >>>         Website:       michaelbalter.com
> <http://michaelbalter.com>
> >>>         Balter's Blog:
> michael-balter.blogspot.com
> >>>        
> <http://michael-balter.blogspot.com>
> >>>        
> ******************************************
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>     --     "EVERY GUN that is made, every
> warship launched, every rocket
> >>     fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft
> from those who
> >>     hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and
> not clothed. This
> >>     world in arms is not spending money alone. It
> is spending the
> >>     sweat of its laborers, the genius of its
> scientists, the hopes of
> >>     its children." --U.S. president Dwight D.
> Eisenhower, 1953.
> >> 
> >>     "War is a way of shattering to pieces, or
> pouring into the
> >>     stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the
> sea, materials
> >>     which might otherwise be used to make the
> masses too comfortable,
> >>     and hence, in the long run, too
> intelligent." --British author
> >>     George Orwell (1903-1950)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- "EVERY GUN that is made, every warship
> launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense,
> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are
> cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending
> money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
> genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
> --U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953.
> > 
> > "War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring
> into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea,
> materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses
> too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too
> intelligent." --British author George Orwell
> (1903-1950)




      

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

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager