LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for USDEBATE Archives


USDEBATE Archives

USDEBATE Archives


USDEBATE@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

USDEBATE Home

USDEBATE Home

USDEBATE  May 2013

USDEBATE May 2013

Subject:

USAFA tournament

From:

"Iberri-Shea, Gina M Assistant Prof USAF USAFA USAFA/DFENG" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

USA Debating in the WUDC Format <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 3 May 2013 11:41:05 -0600

Content-Type:

multipart/signed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (580 lines) , smime.p7s (580 lines)

Don't miss it!

September 28-29, with a workshop most likely on September 27th.
Invitation will be out shortly.

-----Original Message-----
From: USA Debating in the WUDC Format [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of John Patrick
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Disappointed

I think this is an excellent idea, however I'm not sure the briefing needs
to be more than telling them to rank the teams 1-4 based on who they thought
was the most persuasive whilst keeping an open mind. While I do see the
purpose of rules about knifing in our format, such a standard might not
matter much to the average reasonable person unless they are told
specifically to care. If the goal is to see how well our decisions stack up
to average reasonable people's decisions, informing them about knifing
pollutes their decision. This is of course only applicable if we are trying
to determine how our standards measure against natural standards. If we're
not trying to measure how we stack up against the real world in its purest
sense, then informing them of knives and challenges may be appropriate. I
for one am most interested to see how we measure against the real world in
it's purest form, however that may not be what we all are seeking to
understand at this time. 



Dr. John Patrick, Ed.D. 
Debate Coach & Adjunct Instructor
Department of Speech Communication
University of La Verne
[log in to unmask]
Office: 909.593.3511 Ext. 4451
Mobile: 562.243.4770 

On May 3, 2013, at 10:16 AM, "Barnes, R Eric" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Despite my likely philosophical bias against empirical data, I am inclined
to think that an experiment would help us shed light on the discussion about
the deviation of BP judging panels from what real intelligent people would
think about rounds.  I've talked about this with some people on my team and
we would like to set up an experiment at the Round Robin next year that went
something like this.
> 
> Each room would contain two panels of judges.  One would be the regular
panel or RR judges and the other would be a group of three professors, high
achieving students from HWS, and perhaps well-educated members of the
community.  (Details of this selection process would need to be worked out.)
The panels would adjudicate separately and we could then compare the results
at the end of the tournament.  (We would try to shield the different groups
of panelists from learning each other's decisions.)  This would give us 20
rounds worth of data.  It would include an internationally diverse set of
teams.  These would be skewed toward teams that have been very successful
competitively, so the sample would be biased in that respect, but I'm not
sure that this is a major problem.  It would actually help avoid rounds
where there is so much confusion that it is hard to tell what is being said.
The comparison would be between the decisions rendered by panels composed of
many of the top !
> judges in the world (with somewhat more from North America), versus the
decisions rendered by panels of smart and educated people with no background
in debate (mostly from the US).
> 
> It would be a bit of work to pull this together, partly because I'd almost
certainly need to get IRB approval to do it, so my questions for you are:
> 
> 1) Do people think that it would be a worthwhile experiment?
> 
> 2) Presumably, the "community judges" would need to receive a briefing on
judging, but we would try to make this fairly minimal.  For example, you'd
need to explain that knifing was not allowed, but I don't think you'd want
to say too much about speaker roles.  What should be in the briefing?
> 
> 3) The area around HWS is quite conservative, so including people from the
surrounding area would bring in more conservative ideology to the panels,
but I'm not clear that this is a desirable variable to introduce at this
stage.  So, should we recruit people from outside of the academic community?
> 
> 4) What are other problems or concerns that I haven't mentioned?
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric
> 
> ******************************************
> Eric Barnes
> Hobart and William Smith Colleges
> Philosophy Department
> Public Policy Program
> Debate Coach
> (315) 781-3182
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> On May 3, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Stephen Llano wrote:
> 
> I think Mary is right that professionalized debate is the variable here,
and she might be right that this is the cause of the technocratic shifts in
American and American adopted debating formats. Not sure if the student run
solution would work considering that the move I'm questioning was made by
volunteers organizing the WUDC and the council as well. These volunteers are
not American professionals, at least to my knowledge, so I wonder if
associating the issue as an American one helps figure out how this trend
toward the more technical side of the art happens. I have a quote somewhere
around here from one of the first professional debate coaches to use
techniques such as speaking fast and directly addressing how the notes
should be written ("flowing") after his team won doing these then
controversial moves. He was unapologetic and cited winning debates as the
goal of his efforts.
> 
> Buzz's question might be a good way to start thinking about the historical
forces shaping the discourse of and about debating. In the US, our analogue
for all formats has always been the expert audience - even in the earliest
days of debating the audiences and judges were supposed to be "learned"
folks, often in positions of power in the community, and the analogy of
debate was always an uncritical connection to how argumentation is practiced
in law.  Considering US governments are most always composed of people with
training in legal discourse in the majority, Americans might imagine the
"best" argument to look like this. Compare that to the UK where the analogue
for excellent speaking is Parliament. This is why Gladstone and Churchill
are revered as speakers there, and here we have people like Lincoln, Darrow,
and others who were trained as professional advocates within the discourse
of the law. It could explain how we culturally shape the nature of "good
argumentation" ev!
> en before we begin to think of it as such.
> 
> Also those who are interested in continuing this conversation, should we
move it to the forum? Mary has a good point there too although I think there
are a lot of practicing debate students who lurk on this list I bet.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Mary Nugent
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Re: the uniqueness of this in the US, I think it's largely due to the
professionalisation of the activity (an observation I draw both from my
experience in various debate circuits, and thinking logically about the
variable that is present in so many US BP schools and not anywhere else in
the world). The tendency to speed up or become more technical doesn't occur
to you until you've been in the activity quite a while (indeed, it seems a
strange idea for those starting out). That is not to say I am against the
presence of coaches and a 'professional' world of debate (indeed, some might
argue I have benefitted from such a phenomena in the past!), I think there
are a *lot* of advantages to there being a lot more money in debate in the
USA compared to other countries - it reaches more people, tends to be better
organised, is more aware of the need to make it educational, and there is
less of a problem with substance abuse, amongst other things. But I do think
the presence of peop!
> le in the activity for a long time, and the (at times professional)
incentive they find a competitive advantage contributes to some of these
problems.
> 
> I think the biggest way to help combat this tendency is to encourage as
much student leadership and involvement as far as practically possible. In
particular, I think there should be more current and recent debaters acting
as judges, CA and DCAing tournaments, and taking leading roles in debate
societies and the organisation/running of practices. In general, those who
have been in the activity for less time tend to less likely to over use
jargon and technique, and their judgement is probably closer to the 'average
voter' standard we all seem to want to be meeting. I think it's a shame, for
example, that this discussion is taking place on email list to which few
actual current debaters are subscribed - is it not a little odd that this
activity is being discussed in the absence of those who are currently
participating? Perhaps it should be shifted to the new BP forum, which could
be easily advertised to current students so they can have their say about
what they want the activ!
> ity to look like.
> 
> And finally (in light of my above criticism, I had intended to avoid
weighing in since my opinion should hold little sway..), I do want to chime
in briefly in defence of 'competitiveness'. I really do think, even in its
current somewhat imperfect form, that BP debating is a wonderful activity,
and those that succeed in it are producing excellent products of rhetoric,
if that's the right phrase. When I was teaching an intro speech class, the
debates I used were all WUDC outrounds, and barring a few jargon things that
had to be translated (and they got used to pretty quickly), my students were
consistently impressed and inspired. Further, I know I learnt so much from
really good and experienced debaters when I debated at tournaments, and that
the students I have coached have found the same, and I've seen considerable
growth in debaters from competing in tournaments with teams with a lot of
previous competitive success - in terms of  things such as their intellect,
style, criti!
> cal thinking, strategy in speaking. I guess what I'm saying is that, when
it comes to Worlds reg, I don't think pursuing a goal of competitive success
(as measured by previous success) in registration is contradictory to
pursuing a goals of education and developing and improving the format and
activity - indeed, I think quite the opposite is true, and we all learn and
improve in really positive ways. I also think the variation in geography,
format background, and speaking style of the teams breaking at Worlds the
last few years suggests to me that the goal of 'diversity' is (in part at
least) also being met by the, I think extremely sensible, WUDC reg reforms.
> 
> Best,
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 May 2013 20:58, Buzz Klinger
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> One thing that crossed my mind as I read Colin's email was the apparent
uniqueness of this problem to American circuits.
> 
> I'm no where near versed enough in the  history of debate circuits in the
US to know all the details, but it does seem (a many others have noted) that
formats invented or adopted by Americans tend to slide towards more
"policy-esque" habits over time. But it also seems to be a problem that
uniquely afflicts us. Looking around the world, it doesn't appear to be the
case that other circuits struggle with this rush towards towards less
acceptable practices.
> 
> It might be worthwhile to think about/inquire a to how other debate
cultures manage this feat.
> 
> 
> On May 2, 2013, at 20:26, Colin Murphy
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think this discussion really comes down to one question: What kind of
debate experience are we looking for? Do we want to emphasize the
competition, the education or the discourse (or something else)? I
understand that there are multiple goals of debate, but at some point you
must either say "our priority is X...." or you end up in an impossible
balancing act.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll throw my opinion out there first. Of those three poles, competition,
education and discourse, with the understanding that this is a competitive
event, I think we should probably reject changes to the event that advance
competitive goals at the expense of discourse and education. This is a
difficult thing to say because I found deep satisfaction with the
competition as both a debater and coach, but I think that there are
fundamental flaws that come with an emphasis on competition that make it
difficult to reconcile with the kind of debate we'd all be happy with. I was
part of NPDA when it began its slide into policy-based insanity. The main
problem is that competitive concerns came to dominate everything else. From
a competitive standpoint, saying more words generally provides an advantage,
so speed became the norm. Having very specific rules about what is and isn't
considered "good" debate generally helps achieve competitive goals by
increasing the consistency with whic!
> h "good" teams tend to win rounds, but it leads to a narrow range of
acceptable styles. An emphasis on structure and tabula rasa judging means
that rounds are often decided on more "objective" criteria, but the quality
of debate, as it applies to the real world goes down because judges cannot
reject ridiculous arguments on the grounds that they're ridiculous. An
emphasis on competition seems to be empirically incompatible with
maintaining an approachable, broadly relevant style of debate (granted my
empirics have a sample size of about siz circuits, two of them turned into
policy). CEDA and NPDA, as they matured, tended to emphasize the competitive
aspects of debate. Their slide towards speed, technique and theory seems a
fairly natural result of an emphasis on competitive "quality". The people
who started NPDA and CEDA were smart, thoughtful people with a strong grasp
of communication, but despite their best efforts their debate style became
in many ways, the antithesis of!
> their original intent.
> 
> 
> 
> This leads me to conclude that if there is a way to have a style of debate
which maximizes its pursuit of competitive goals without eventually
sacrificing education and/or discourse, we haven't figured out what it looks
like yet. In the meantime, many of the things we do to improve competitive
quality in the short term are likely to have troubling long-term impacts, or
at least they did when they were introduced into CEDA/NPDA.
> 
> As a result, I think we should be very critical of changes to our style
that are done in the name of improving competition. Critical does not mean
rejecting them out of hand, but it does mean subjecting them to a more
intense scrutiny than those that have other goals. Worlds/BP differs from
the American styles by making some structural decisions that emphasize
education and discourse over competition, namely the emphasis on manner
(which can't really be objectively defined), accepting the position bias
introduced by four teams and requiring judges to make subjective evaluations
of an argument's quality. I would argue that each of these features serves a
useful purpose. Worlds/BP is imperfect, but it tends to protect the
qualities most of us want from a debate event, while still allowing a
competitive experience, imperfect as that may be.
> 
> 
> 
> I raise the point for two reasons. First, I think that Chennai's use of
competitive history as a method of assigning slots is troubling, though I
confess, all the alternatives I can think of are arbitrary in some other
way, so I'm not going to plant a flag on either side of that argument (we
can't afford to go anyway). More importantly, I have also seen some changes
in Worlds/BP debate in the U.S. over the last few years. I don't think
they're all bad, but I do think that we, a group of people who love and care
for the event, should probably have a better idea what we want this style of
debate to be, are as a prelude to the discussion of whether recent changes
are, in fact, problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: USA Debating in the WUDC Format 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf 
> Of Jaime Wright
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 6:22 AM
> 
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> Subject: Re: Disapointed
> 
> 
> 
> I said this to Steve yesterday (not for the first time, actually), and
I'll say it to yall today. An easy and ethical solution to all of these
issues lives in the form and presentation of the "Adjudication Briefing."
All we need to do is stop saying that a "good" debate should be
watchable/judgable by a "reasonable, fairly well-informed
voter/person/citizen." Instead, when we do these briefings, we should be
clear with each other and with our debaters that winning debaters must know
how to persuade other winning debaters--people who have some sort of
expertise in the language and format of debate. This is what I tell my
students. An excellent example of this happened during the sixth round at
USU (wonderful tournament, btw) this year. The president of the university
sat in on the judging panel for one of the "top" rounds, and her decisions
were different from the decisions of most of the rest of the panel, as were
her reasons for those decisions. In the language of the adjud!
> 
> ication discussion, the debate experts informed her that the winning team
should adhere to certain rules of the game and that the manner/style of the
teams didn't matter so much as their dedication to the specific world
created by that particular round. These winning debaters know that they
should be persuading the other debaters--not the presidents of universities
(unless, of course, they are also former debaters).
> 
> 
> 
> And it's fine to be good at talking to a small group of people who share
your background, experiences, language, and interests. We should just be
very clear--with ourselves and with our students--that BP debate, like most
other forms of debate, is a rhetoric of enclaves and experts. This is not a
layperson format anymore, if it ever really was.
> 
> 
> 
> -Jaime
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> From: USA Debating in the WUDC Format 
> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of 
> Stephen Llano [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:48 PM
> 
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> Subject: Disapointed
> 
> 
> 
> Colleagues and Friends,
> 
> 
> 
> I have been sitting on writing this for a long time, but today my feeling
of disappointment has driven me to ask a few questions to those of you on
this list.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the posting about the changes to WUDC registration were shared here,
there have only been two responses, and neither of them more than just
technical questions about the nature of the registration system changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the critical discussion about what these changes mean for our
students?
> 
> 
> 
> From my vantage point, as someone who has gone from thrilled with WUDC to
someone who no longer wants to be a participant in it, these changes make me
want to be an active opponent to WUDC.
> 
> 
> 
> When I first became involved in WUDC in 2007 I thought its greatest
strength was in the diversity of views as to what a good argument could be.
I thought it to be an amazing experience for my students and myself to
encounter such a variety of different styles and approaches to rhetoric,
argumentation, and persuasion. My recent reticence in future participation
was not because of quality, but more because of safety and financial
concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> Now it appears that WUDC wants to throw away quality in favor of a
faux-quality: A positive feedback loop of people who speak the "right way"
perpetuating a very particular kind of speech being rewarded with more
participants who also speak in that "right way."
> 
> 
> 
> This feedback loop will be accentuated by the fact that judges will also
be increased from those institutions that demonstrate they can speak in the
appropriate code to reach elimination rounds. WUDC council has made it very
clear that they are not interested in a broad range of ways of speaking and
arguing, but a very narrow band view of this. Their annual tournament will
serve as the gatekeeper for who gets to participate in this competition.
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me that on an email list that includes those who saw the decline
of NDT and NPDA from broad based organizations to those that try to
eliminate diversity of discourse in the same way, people have remained
silent.  Not even one word of critical questioning or examination has been
posted about these changes.  Questions need to be discussed, such as: What
is the difference between this change and mutually preferred judging in
NDT/CEDA? Why should WUDC have a system of participation that reminds us
more of the NPTE than our own USU nationals?
> 
> 
> 
> But the American debate educators have remained silent.  The wisdom of so
many years of participation in different formats and the eventual abandoning
of those formats in favor of BP and WUDC have not inspired any of you to
write one single line of questioning in response to Michael's emails. This
is the root of my disappointment.
> 
> 
> 
> Years ago, I asked the question to many British debaters: What is the
value of having a professional coach or debate director? What is the value
added of such a figure? Most debaters in the world don't have one, and they
do quite well competitively. Most did not have a response, and weren't sure.
I thought it was a very pressing question. The only response I could think
of that made any sense was the injection of the pedagogical dimension to
debating. If there is something Americans can bring to the party, it would
be that key element - to help people recognize that every move they make in
the debate universe is a pedagogical one. There are serious implications to
every adjudication and every comment that is ignored or rewarded in every
debate. We are constantly teaching, and reinforcing, lessons provided by and
through language. This hopefully has some spillover effect into their daily
lives when they encounter other people. The result would (hopefully) be
kindness, patien!
> 
> ce, understanding - all concepts brought about by a healthy sense of
uncertainty of the self. Debate provides this uncertainty all too often,
which is the source of it's value for Universities.
> 
> 
> 
> The narrow band reward-those-who-are-rewarded-already registration system
is pedagogically bankrupt if we are really still interested in this whole
"reasonable person" judging philosophy, which I already question as a
principle for a lot of reasons based on a lot of my own judging experiences.
WUDC seems to now feel very comfortable totally abandoning this principle in
favor of one where those who have proved expertise in persuading the
imaginary reasonable person now get more opportunities to do the same, in
front of those who also believe they know what the imaginary reasonable
person wants. We are talking to one another imagining that we are appealing
and representing a broader based intellectual community.
> 
> 
> 
> We are teaching ourselves and one another how to appeal in a vanguard
discourse to those who love this vanguard discourse, not "reasonable
people." It seems a shame that I have to struggle to find a WUDC video on
the internet that I can show to public speaking students or beginning debate
students that they can even begin to understand. Our speeches are becoming
appeals to a particular elite, and this decision from WUDC further refines
who can be in that elite. As discourse training for and by elites, we are
far away from encouraging an attitude among participants that would be much
other than cynical disgust for the rhetorical and argumentative strategies
of those outside the elite; a worldview that encourages seeing the discourse
of the non-elite as automatically flawed, bad, and not worthy of engagement.
Debate teaches us to be good arguers - the best, right?  Actually, debate
like this just teaches us to be good debaters, full stop.
> 
> 
> 
> It really depends on how you say it: Instead of WORLD Universities
Debating Championship, the emphasis now seems to be on World Universities
Debating CHAMPIONSHIP. Another question arises: How can someone be world
champion in debating for reasonable people when the participants are hand
selected based on their institution's success at previous competitions?
Where is the door for those who are new, who are reasonable, and want to
argue and judge?
> 
> 
> 
> When I first started participating in the WUDC universe, I was assured
this style of debating would not fall into the pits of the previous US
formats. I was assured by many of you reading this that "the world will
check" the US inclination to become highly technical, highly cloistered, and
highly specific in style. Nobody who has said that to me has responded with
any critical questions to this decision.  This would amaze me if it weren't
so disappointing.  Who is going to check the world when they make decisions
like this one?  Here we go again. This is the first step into creating
another inaccessible and limited debating format.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the debate educators now? Or have you given up the project of
showing students how hard it is to reach the mind of another in favor of
earning more trophies and accolades? Perhaps you feel like the decision is
fine because your teams will not be impacted by the registration procedure.
The temptation is pretty strong to say, "We can win under this rubric." But
nobody has asked the question, "Who loses?"
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't effect me, as I said before. I'm out of the WUDC game, but
not out of BP and debate and the wonderful powers they provide in teaching
people amazing things. WUDC wants to limit themselves to an elite.  We here
in the US have seen what this does to debate participation. But not to
worry.  Just because there is a yacht club it doesn't mean that boating is
going away.  WUDC doesn't realize that competitors to their monopoly will
quickly arise with the rise of Chinese debating and North American debating
as more American schools join the BP ranks.  Alternatives to WUDC will
arise, including what I'm doing - taking my students to other tournaments.
> 
> 
> 
> Who should a world champion appeal to? Others in the elite club? Society
in general? University communities? Reasonable people? their peers and
colleagues? Scholars of argumentation?
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps the idea of world champion is best left as a ruse to get people
talking to one another and thinking about how difficult that talking - and
understanding that talking - is for human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> Your friend and colleague,
> 
> Steve
> 
> --
> 
> _____
> 
> Stephen Llano, Ph.D.
> 
> Director of Debate and Assistant Professor, Department of Rhetoric, 
> Communication & Theater St. John's University Queens, NY
> 
> 718-990-5606<tel:718-990-5606>(voice) 718-990-2435<tel:718-990-2435> 
> (fax)
> 
> callto://stevellano -- Skype Me!
> 
> 
> 
> "Knit the brows, and a strategem comes to mind." - Lo Kuan-chung, Romance
of the Three Kingdoms.
> 
> 
> 
> "Poetry is a rival government always in opposition to its cruder 
> replicas." - William Carlos Williams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> _____
> Stephen Llano, Ph.D.
> Director of Debate and Assistant Professor, Department of Rhetoric, 
> Communication & Theater St. John's University Queens, NY
> 718-990-5606(voice) 718-990-2435 (fax) callto://stevellano -- Skype 
> Me!
> 
> "Knit the brows, and a strategem comes to mind." - Lo Kuan-chung, Romance
of the Three Kingdoms.
> 
> "Poetry is a rival government always in opposition to its cruder 
> replicas." - William Carlos Williams

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager