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  July 2009

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE July 2009

Subject:

Re: a theological perspective on gene-tampering

From:

mart <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:50:09 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (756 lines)

this is a fairly useless excercize, since its been done countless times, but here goes.   the idea is if there is going to be some 'sftp' then maybe some accepted conventions might be involved (eg a constitution)----either you follow them, or you are gone.

--- 
>     
>         
>          
> 
>   
>        
>  A mischievous assumption has been promoted, more &
> more
> over the past decade or so: that if evolution were shown to
> have
> occurred - i.e  proven to be a fact regardless
> of whether
> its mechanism had been adequately discovered  - that
> fact would
> somehow clash with Christian theology as set forth in the
> creation
> stories (pl.) of Gen. 1-2.  


actually the mainstream aergument is that christian theology, like intelligent design, is so vague and open to conflicting interopretations (eg the pope versus pat robertson), and also so irrelevant to most of what is known today, that it is 'highly improbable'.  (i'm fairly hard core agnostic (which means i agree with atheists 99% in general, except that i think atheists are like those they criticize, basically full of it (especially people like dawkins, harris, shemer, etc.).  

christian theology has as klittle to do with science as aristotle or plato nowadays.   the best attempts are by physicists----tipler shows abortion is unconsitutional using bohmian mechanics and newton-cartan gravity, another guy derives q


 The
> sectarian
> campaigns on this assumption are of two varieties 
> -  both
> holding that all species were created within a short time,
> either
> about 6,000 y ago (Young Earth "Creationism") or
> some
> billions of y ago (Old Earth
> "Creationism").  In both
> versions, extinctions have occurred but no new species have
> emerged;
> evolution is asserted to be a lie.
> 
>         It's an amusing
> irony that a fashionable tendency among militant atheists,
> exemplified
> by the dreaded Dawkins, also holds that evolution, if a
> fact, refutes
> religion.
> 
>    They are both wrong -  and wrong in
> different ways but which I will characterise as, both,
> totalitarian.
> 
>          In order to
> maximise our chances to foresee the future, we had better
> have a good
> grasp of the past. My glimpses today of possible
> de-volution are based
> on a scientific description of evolution.  The
> 'tree of life'
> consists of forking branches, but also of a smaller number
> of snapped
> twigs which have fallen across by transposons of various
> types to
> graft onto distant branches in processes generally termed
> 'horizontal
> gene transfer'.  Transposons have dominated recent
> evolution,
> e.g.  structures such as compound leaf, or the
> leghaemoglobin
> found in nodules of legumes' roots, or the mammalian
> type of eye, have
> not evolved independently in many different phylogenetic
> lines but
> have been passed across the tree by transposons of one sort
> or
> another. 
> 
> 
>     
>  If we change the rates, or even worse the specificities,
> with
> which genes can jump around in infectious manners, we may
> wreak
> biological havoc on a global scale.  Go back to
> Ovid's
> Metamorphoses  to glimpse what might go
> wrong.  The most
> severe threat is novel pathogens, especially viruses; but
> today I'll
> talk mainly about GM-plants which are the most
> widely-deployed GM
> organisms. The
> abbreviations
> are equivalent  -  GE or GM.
> 
> 
> 
>    I hold a traditional view of The Fall (insofar
> as I can understand it).  And I maintain that those
> who ignore
> that doctrine are at risk of repeating in novel ways the
> rebellion
> against God which is the essence of The Fall.  Of
> course, there
> can never be a re-run of The Fall; but humans can be
> tempted to novel
> misbehaviours similar in kind.  I will argue that
> gene-tampering
> should offend well-informed Christians as an interference
> with
> evolution of a kind similar to the Fall of Gen.
> 3  and
> liable to bring about devolution  -  novel mayhem
> in the
> biosphere.
> 
>         A wide range of
> scientists should speak out for much stricter control of
> gene-tampering because it is based on dud science, quite
> aside from
> its highly dubious ethics.
> 
>        
>  Prof Richard Strohman pointed out, in a sporadic small
> series
> of articles in Nature Biotech, many defects in the
> Lego model
> of biology which 'informs' the gene-tampering
> trade.  Dogma long
> refuted is crucial among the axioms of the
> gene-jiggerers,
> e.g
> * "one gene
> one
> protein",
> * "only 4
> letters in
> the DNA code",
> * "randomness
> becomes
> utmost precision as we slam in synthetic nucleic acids by
> weapons-grade biolistics",
> * 
> etc.
> 
>        
>  The main characteristic of this set of slogans is that
> they
> are scientific drivel.  The Schubert Letter (Nat
> Biotech 
> Oct 2002 p. 969) provided a brief outline of reasons why
> GM-food is
> not a safe option.
> 
>        
>  Th methods whereby current GM-plants were created are of
> two
> types.  Mainly for dicotyledons, synthetic DNA
> containing viral
> genes and the desired structural gene is spliced into
> modified copies
> of the T-plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefasciens,
> which in nature
> causes the only known tumour of the plant kingdom.  In
> a novel
> process vaguely reminiscent of viral infection, this
> foreign
> 'cassette' can get incorporated into the DNA of a
> plant cell in
> culture, which can then be grown into a whole plant. 
> The other
> method, more favoured for monocotyledons such as maize, is
> 'biolistics': onto a lawn of cultured plant cells,
> a tiny puff of
> helium blows midget shotgun pellets, much smaller than the
> plant cell,
> coated with the synthetic DNA pellets.
> 
>        
>  The idea that slapping in  -  randomly ! 
> - 
> a few genes by radically unnatural processes will have more
> predictable effects than offering a whole genome of tens or
> hundreds
> of thousands of genes in breeding is wrong for the main
> reason that it
> assumes natural crosses to be random or nearly so.  We
> know,
> admittedly, very little about the natural barriers to error
> in 
> breeding; that does not prove they're unreal or
> random.  A
> top-level affirmation of the false randomness assumption
> was stated by
> main Monsanto-connected gene-jockeys Roger Beachy et bulk
> in their
> (Nat Biotech  Nov 2002) 'enraged'
> response to the Schubert
> Letter:-
> 
>       
>  ' The
> reality is
> that "unintentional consequences" are much more
> likely to
> occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies
> on the
> unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation
> and
> rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results,
> whereas GM
> technology employs precise, specific, and rationally
> designed genetic
> modification toward a specific engineering
> goal. '
>         
>  The immediate response to this furphy is that there's
> almost
> nothing random in nature.   A gene-jockey of
> plants,
> Professor Patrick Brown, has made this and related points
> at
> www.psrast.org.
> 
>    What is so precise, specific, or rational about
> GM as done so far?  The answer is, very little
> indeed.  Its
> outcomes are inherently unpredictable.  The tiny
> minority of
> target cells that both survive and have incorporated
> somewhere in the
> genome the desired gene cassette will, in general, also
> develop other
> unforeseeable properties, e.g deviant metabolism
> generating
> toxins or allergens.
> 
>        
>  I now outline of a clear example of such
> effects.
> 
> 
> 
>     THE THALIDOMIDE OF GENETIC
> 'ENGINEERING'
> 
> 
> 
>    
>          L R
> B Mann, D Straton & W E Crist
> 
> 
> 
>         By the end of the
> 1980s some millions of people, mostly in North America,
> were
> supplementing their diet with L-tryptophan, an essential
> amino-acid
> present in proteins of any normal diet.  Amino-acids
> such as
> tryptophan are routinely produced in micro-breweries using
> suitable
> microbial cultures.  One producer, Showa Denko K.K.,
> artificially
> inserted genes into a bacterial species to increase its
> production of
> tryptophan.
> 
>  Then in late 1989, some 5,000 - 10,000 in North
> America fell ill with a highly unusual illness, EMS
> (eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome), caused by Showa Denko
> tryptophan. 
> Within months, dozens had been killed by EMS and thousands
> maimed. 
> Today thousands continue to suffer permanent nasty effects,
> and a
> trickle of them continue to die early (totalling at least
> 80 by now in
> the USA).  The epidemic ceased when over-the-counter
> tryptophan
> was severely restricted.
> 
>     Two cases were reported in Australia, and
> one in New Zealand.  The tryptophan those patients
> took was not
> traced to manufacturer.
> 
>         The total killed
> is not exactly known but may be in the region of a few
> hundred. 
> Showa Denko has paid around US$2,000,000,000 to avoid
> damages
> trials.
> 
>  We emphasize that if thalidomide had happened to cause
> a type of birth defect that was already common, e.g.
> cleft
> palate or severe mental retardation, we would still not
> know about the
> harm, and pregnant women would have kept on taking it for
> its
> undoubted benefits.  The fractional addition to
> figures that were
> already relatively large would not have been
> statistically
> significant.  But as it turned out, the damage noticed
> was of a
> kind that most doctors never see in a whole career -
> drastic
> malformations of the arms & legs - so although the
> numbers were
> not huge these cases were picked up.
>  
>       
>  Similarly, impurities in Showa Denko's genetically
> 'engineered' (GE) tryptophan happened to cause an
> illness - EMS -
> which was novel.  The surge of numbers therefore stood
> out and
> got noticed.  If SDKK's poison had caused the same
> numbers of a
> common illness instead, say asthma, we would still not know
> about it. 
> Or if it had caused delayed harm, such as cancer 20 - 30
> years later,
> or senile dementia in some whose mothers had taken it early
> in
> pregnancy, there would have been no way to attribute the
> harm to the
> cause.
> 
>       This reminds us of the need
> for extreme caution with GE foods.  They must be
> assumed guilty
> until thorough tests have suggested they are, if not
> innocent, at
> worst guilty of only minor dangers.  Such is nowhere
> near the
> case today as large companies rush to market their GE
> foods.
> 
>        
>  It is very disappointing to find a leading physician
> writing
> on behalf of the RSNZ about this disaster thus: "Rare
> cases of
> EMS were known before the introduction of the genetically
> engineered
> bacterium, which further supports the hypothesis that EMS
> is not due
> to the genetic engineering event."   An
> exact analogue
> of that argument would run: "Rare cases of seal-limb
> were known
> before the introduction of thalidomide, which further
> supports the
> hypothesis that seal-limb is not due to thalidomide."
> 
>     But even more important is the fact that
> the trickle of about 100 early EMS cases, years before the
> epidemic of
> late 1989, were due to (early versions of) Showa Denko GE
> bacterial
> cultures.
> 
>     None of the half-dozen other
> manufacturers' tryptophan caused EMS.  No other
> manufacturer used
> gene-splicing to produce tryptophan. 
> 
>      The contrast is startling with the
> elaborate procedure before registration of a new
> drug.  It has
> taken a decade to get legal approval for supplementing
> humans with (a
> modified version of) the human hormone amylin, for treating
> diabetics.  Yet GE foods are urged for legal
> distribution in
> great haste and with only extremely scanty testing, and the
> main
> discussion so far has been whether they should be
> labelled.
> 
>     Labelling would not in itself be wrong,
> but can of course not substitute for the careful lengthy
> testing that
> would be needed before any GE food should be approved for
> human
> consumption.  Labelling of GE food would imply
> acceptance by
> authorities, as does the ingredient list of any labelled
> food.
> 
>         The Showa Denko
> disaster is crucial to understanding GE food.  If a
> purified
> single chemical  -  the natural amino-acid
> L-tryptophan,
> better than 99% pure and definitely satisfying the
> notorious
> 'substantial equivalence' test  -  can
> turn out when GE'd to
> kill a hundred or so and cripple thousands, what will it
> take to check
> properly a potato expressing a synthetic 'exact'
> copy of a gene for a
> toxin from the African clawed toad?
> 
>          And most
> urgently, the attempt to count purified amino-acids,
> sugars, oils etc.
> as 'substantially equivalent' is shown by the Showa
> Denko disaster to
> be a gamble.  The assumption that soy oil from GE
> soybeans is
> exactly equivalent to ordinary soy oil requires the most
> careful
> scientific measurements to check it.  Merely assuming
> 'substantial equivalence' will not do.
> 
>         Those who search
> the Internet on this topic will soon discover the claim by
> apologists
> for GE that the problem was only decreased purification of
> tryptophan.
> We disagree for several reasons - mainly, the first three
> GE strains
> had been causing EMS (about 100 cases) for years before
> this
> slackening of purification procedure in Jan 1989 when also
> the
> 'superproducer' strain went into production and
> caused the epidemic. 
> But this question cannot be settled with finality unless
> Showa Denko
> releases the GE microbes for detailed examination.
> 
> Whether you believe the impurities were due to incompetent
> purification & monitoring, or to deviant metabolism in
> the
> GE-bugs, or both, you had better believe that the fabled
> 'substantially equivalent' assumption flopped in
> that epidemic of
> crippling and lethal illness.
> 
>        Although GE proponents
> claim that the EMS epidemic was caused solely by faulty
> filtering, it
> is possible to question their seriousness.  None of
> them has
> publicly argued that the Health Food supplement industry
> should be
> subject to legal controls for purity & efficacy
> comparable to
> those applied to the pharmaceutical industry; yet this
> would be
> logical if indeed such a deadly epidemic occurred solely as
> a result
> of inadequate purification in
> manufacturing.
> 
>        
>  Either way, biotechnology  -  which includes GE
> but
> also includes other processes such as purifying the mixture
> "lyprinol" from mussels  -  requires
> much-enhanced
> scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
>  Main sources
> 
> 1.  L-Tryptophan Puzzle Takes New Twist,
> Science 249,
> 988, 31 August 1990
> 
> 2.  Does Medical Mystery Threaten Biotech? Science
> 250,
> 619, 2 November 1990
> 
> 3.  EMS and Tryptophan Production: A Cautionary
> Tale, Trends
> in Biotech 12 : 346-352, Sept 1994
> 
> 4.  Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome. Results of national
> surveillance, J Am Med Assoc 264: 1698-703
> 1990
> 5. 
> Tryptophan produced
> by Showa Denko and epidemic eosinophilia-myalgia
> syndrome. J
> Rheumatol 46 Suppl 1996.  81-91.
> 
> 6.  Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious
> Epidemic.
> by William E. Crist.
> http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Ltryptophan/1Introduction/index.cfm
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Mann <[log in to unmask]>, a biochemist, served for
> its first
> dozen years on the Toxic Substances Board advising
> successive New
> Zealand Ministers of Health on poisons. 
> 
> Dr Straton is a psychiatrist who has taken a special
> interest in
> therapeutic uses of tryptophan. 
> 
> Mr Crist is a publicist who has interviewed researchers,
> victims, and
> lawyers involved with EMS.
> 
>  
> 
> This article is available at
> http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/trypto.html.  It is
> updated
> from Soil & Health  Aug 1999.  I lead
> an
> international team of experts which has compiled a thorough
> review of
> the open literature on this disaster; the obvious journals
> that could
> publish such an account have serially rejected it like a
> mortar bomb
> (no sending to referees).
> 
> 
> 
>        
> Nature is extremely
> orderly.  It is complex, but not like a bowl of
> alphabet soup;
> nature   -  especially life  -  is
> systematic.  This should be agreed by all scientists,
> even
> atheists; of course, theists ascribe the systematic order
> to design,
> but those who resist belief in design will, I hope, agree
> nature to be
> systematically orderly.  That is indeed an assumption
> of all
> science, whether conducted by atheists, theists, deists, or
> agnostics;
> the regularity of scientific laws is a common
> assumption.  If you
> think, like Dawkins, that nature is just the result of the
> outworkings
> of physics & chemistry, then you could fairly easily
> assume that
> even randomly inserting 'cassettes' of genes from
> foreign kingdoms
> would be no more likely than breeding to cause harm. 
> If on the
> other hand you believe (to take a specific case) that an
> apple is not
> just a random collection of biochemicals but a creation of
> a benign
> Creator, and that Grandmother Smith in a Sydney suburb was
> a humble
> agent of that Creator (selecting a new mutant that had
> arrived
> according to His rules), then you will contrast such
> natural processes
> with the overwhelming of natural barriers to slam in viral
> promoters
> joined onto synthetic approximate copies of bacterial genes
> by
> biolistics, or modified T-plasmids - violent processes
> expected to
> disrupt the target genome as it indeed turns out to
> do.  Breeding
> entails natural protections from error which are
> overwhelmed by
> gene-tampering. One tawdry old argument we have heard since
> 1974 and
> can expect to hear again in all its flagrant deceit is the
> claim that
> gene transfers occur naturally so GM is only hastening
> them. 
> This line of talk is a smoke-screen designed to obscure the
> fact that
> GM usually performs artificial transfers which are
> not believed
> to occur in nature.  This fact is denied when possible
> harm is
> suggested, but is acknowledged, indeed emphasised, for
> claims of
> benefit.  This dishonesty exemplifies the dominance in
> utterances
> about GM of the depraved trade of mercenary deceit,
> PR. 
> 
> 
> 
>       I tend to think it is on the
> ethical, and even theological, level that the issue really
> turns. 
> For those who think so, re-reading of Genesis
> 3  may be
> salutory. 
> 
> 
> 
>       In a culture that has largely
> turned away from the religion that gave rise to its legal
> principles,
> the ethics of gene-tampering is in drastic need of
> fundamental
> review.  Gene-jiggering has already sucked in $10^11,
> and still
> only a few corporations have produced anything saleable
> (except those
> selling the enzyme kits etc for the gene-tampering
> expts).  The
> science behind this commercial frenzy is junk; the Lego
> model of
> biology never looked promising and is now known to be
> wrong. 
> Proper biology points to the Schubert Letter, and in
> response a gaggle
> of Monsanto stooges intones 'enragedly' the
> atheistic moronic rubbish
> quoted above.
> 
>        
>  Never in the history of science has a family of
> "technologies" been developed, and deployed on a
> commercial
> scale of $10^11, based on such junk science as stated by
> Beachy et
> al.
> 
>        The most dangerous
> technology of all history blunders on, little understood by
> venture-drongos and by ethicists.  The good scientists
> like Pat
> Brown and David Schubert are crucially valuable.  In
> our country,
> among the visible scientific critics are Profs Jack
> Heinemann
> (Canterbury) and Peter Wills
> (Auckland). 
> 
>        
>  Never since the Nazi attempts to legitimize racism has
> science
> been so rapidly & severely degraded.  Apologists
> for GM
> posing as defenders of true science -  e.g. the
> political
> party ACT  -  are taking up an untenable, indeed
> ludicrous,
> stance.
> 
>      But the ethical appraisal of GM is
> even more backward.  In the late 1970s, soon after GM
> was
> invented, some RC bishops in N. America issued an ethical
> warning;
> what became of that strand of thought?  In our 
> country, an
> Anglican bishop, Richard Randerson, evoked great hopes when
> appointed
> as the ethicist on the Royal Commission on GM, but proved
> embarrassingly useless. 
> 
>      Among the worrying degradations of
> scholarship lately is the huge scale of fragmentation of
> what passes
> for scholarship.  Leaving aside the pathetic attacks
> on logic and
> on morality by postmodernism, even those who acknowledge
> traditional
> reason usually feel no duty to allude to mainstream
> scholarship, and
> can sell bulk books referring only to their own recent
> allies. 
> For instance, the ID theorists fail to refer to William
> Temple, or Sir
> Alister Hardy, or John Morton, or Rupert Sheldrake. 
> 
> 
> 
>  Much more importantly, If the human has no duties to a
> higher power, how can selfishness & greed be
> curbed?  The
> religion that gave rise to the code of ethics claimed to be
> implemented, if imperfectly, in British & USA legal
> systems had
> better get involved in renewal of ethics.  It is a
> major
> embarrassment to Christians that a bishop (of my
> denomination)
> contributed scarcely at all to the Royal Commission on GM,
> flagging
> away opportunities to discuss ethics in public
> hearings.  A minor
> powerHarpie has set up tiny sandpits with pompous titles
> 'Interchurch
> Commission' etc but has produced nothing
> significant.  As an
> Anglican I have said for a decade that the churches are the
> sleepers
> in the movement for control of GM.  I hope & pray
> they will
> take GM much more seriously, and develop theological
> critiques of this
> dangerous gambling which bids fair to cause
> devolution. 
> 
> 
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>  *   *   *   *   *
> 
> 
> 
> The best books are:- 
> 
> Smith, Jeffrey.  Genetic Roulette: the documented
> health risks of
> genetically engineered foods.  Fairfield, Iowa: Yes!
> Books. 
> 320pp. 2007
> 
> Heinemann, Jack. Hope not Hype: the future of agriculture
> guided by
> the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
> Science &
> Technology for Development (IAASTD).  160pp. 
> Penang: Third
> World Network 2009
> 
> 
> 
> The best websites are:-
> 
> http://www.psrast.org
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.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

May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
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