RE: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to SCHAT - Whiggism?

From: Andy Blunden (
Date: Sat Mar 31 2007 - 17:23:53 PST

I agree with everything you say here and actually found it an enjoyable
read, Jay.
Don't you think it interesting that neo-conservatives promote absolute
loyalty to big, abstract symbols like God, Family and Country, but
meanwhile (1) I don't think the neo-cons themselves believe in these
entities, (2) there is no longer a homogeneous closed way of life behind
these symbols? These Symbols are used in an instrumental way to prevent
that "dangerous" discussion you refer to.
At 05:46 PM 31/03/2007 -0400, you wrote:

>After a long absence, a short reply.
>One issue is whether Christianity, some people's ideas about family, and
>some ideals of democracy are actually worth defending. Frankly, I don't
>think that any of the ones you listed are worth defending or are even very
>thoughtfully 'moral'. When I say this, or attack them (rarely in public),
>I mean the institutionalized ideologies they are cover terms for. I think
>that love within a family, or the principle of the Golden Rule, or Jesus'
>stance on the accumulation of wealth, or the notion that rulers should be
>accountable to the ruled are all great ideas and worth promoting and even
>defending. The problem is that what social conservatives support are the
>bigger ideologies, and those are riddled with horrors. What bothers me is
>that people don't THINK about moral values. Just a little critical thought
>and you have to rip the big pictures apart and salvage what's worth
>defending, but too many people are afraid that if you rip apart the
>package, the universe fails.
>So all critical thinking about what is really moral is labeled moral
>relativism, or egoism. The notion that people can think intelligently and
>make decisions about what is and is not moral is seen as dangerous. And it
>is dangerous. But it's a risk I think needs to be taken in the name of a
>higher standard of justice and morality than the one we currently have. It
>is also a risk that is at the foundation of Christian theology (moral free
>will), but which somehow gets short-circuited.
>There is no such thing as moral relativism, nor any thoughtful person who
>has ever espoused it. Not if it means what those who hate it or fear it
>mean by it. No one believes that all possible views of what is moral and
>what is not are equally valid. That's crazy. One can reasonably believe
>that you should not dismiss a different view out of hand, especially if it
>has had a long history in a different cultural community. But on the
>evidence of our own community, not all that we believe to be moral really
>is moral, and so not all that other cultures believe to be moral will be,
>either. It is also reasonable to believe that there are no universal moral
>principles, like Euclidean axioms, from which correct choices can be
>derived in all times and places across the universe and aeons. I don't
>believe there are any such principles for physics, or for mathematics for
>that matter. Why would I believe in them for morality? They are a
>misleading temptation of our wish-fulfillment fantasies. Life would seem
>to be so much simpler if we had them. Why? because then we would be
>absolved of the awful responsibility of ultimate moral judgments. We could
>just pass the buck to God. And go quietly to hell.
>At 04:04 AM 1/29/2007, you wrote:
>>But Jay, the kind of rant against historical ladders which I think you
>>are fond of, signal to me and to social conservatives, a kind of moral
>>relativism which is a real life-on-earth-threatening problem at the
>>moment, a view which sustains a kind of egotism which is eroding the very
>>foundations of social life. Is modernism of the Fordist variety the main
>>enemy today? Jay, I am sure that you are not such an egotist (you
>>wouldn't be on xmca if you were), but that is exactly how this rant
>>against democracy and progress sounds to those think that Christianity,
>>family and democracy are things worth defending, or those that think that
>>unionism, social solidarity, education, universal rights and public
>>utilities are worth defending.
>>At 10:17 PM 28/01/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I think you've read me a little too literally. I hardly think that US
>>>conservatives are either homogeneous on these matters or that they take
>>>a genuinely historical view of things. I wish they did! I was using the
>>>notion of Whiggish history to exemplify a tendency to naturalize those
>>>aspects of how things are that are also in our own, or our class interest.
>>>There are a lot of things that US conservatives think are quite natural
>>>and necessary and part of God's natural order, to which civilization has
>>>risen through long experience -- like abominating sex of any kind they
>>>don't like, or insisting that marriage can only be between a man and a
>>>woman. It's the "basics" about which they are Whiggish. Or consider
>>>their absolute certainty that the USA is the natural leader of the free
>>>world, the freeest and most liberal country, and has the best system of
>>>government evolved by history. Or indeed that democracy is the last and
>>>highest step on the ladder of political thought and that in all the
>>>millennia that humans may have left, nothing better will ever come
>>>along. Etc. And that goes double for born-again christianity.
>>>Of course they are also out to advance their interests beyond the
>>>present state of things, which in many respects is not ideal for them.
>>>And that is where the political magic of coalition building comes in.
>>>The Bushes, and a lot of other western political leaders, are heavily
>>>"invested" in Saudi oil, and a little gay-bashing was a small price to
>>>pay for the votes to enable them to defend their interests against
>>>Saddam's perceived threat. On the other side, quasi-christian
>>>fundamentalists recruit more good ol' boys by being gung-ho adventurist
>>>'patriots' (i.e. nuke the muslims) than by paying any attention to
>>>Jesus' views on such matters. Of course, there has always been a
>>>minority ahistorical strain in christianity ... it spawns wacko cults by
>>>the dozen every century and always has.
>>>The problem with trying to understand how other people think politically
>>>is that it is often a total mashup of reasonable principles, disguised
>>>self-interest, and totally schizoid blindness to blazing contradiction.
>>>By contrast, a Whig is an ideal type rarely met with, as you note.
>>>Our major problem in the US is that we have, except here and there
>>>online, no public forums where alternative views are really discussed in
>>>ways that might bring out some of these problems. When I watch the BBC,
>>>centrist as it seems to me, I weep because at least they always present
>>>two points of view on every political issue that actually sound like
>>>they're different. Every night. In the US, when that happens, it means
>>>we are in a dangerous political crisis.
>>>At 02:35 AM 1/24/2007, you wrote:
>>>>Jay, I certainly take seriously your injunction for us to try harder to
>>>>understand how other people think politically, but I am not sure that I
>>>>agree with your observations.
>>>>Firstly, you refer to a "Whiggish" view of history as being dominant.
>>>>But I just don't see it (in far away Melbourne). The view of history
>>>>that I see in people who claim the mantle of conservatism who are
>>>>calling the political tune at the moment, is a very belittling and
>>>>dismissive one. These people seem willing to invent new Churches from
>>>>scratch with no regard whatsoever for the experience of millennia of
>>>>Christianity, invent new labour laws from the top of their head,
>>>>without regard for how the current systems are the way they are, set
>>>>off on new Crusades without ever having experienced war or thought
>>>>about the lessons of past wars, abolish age-old institutions willy
>>>>nilly, and so on. It is more likely progressives like most of us on
>>>>xmca who argue that institutions are like they are for very good
>>>>reasons. Honest conservatives, Whigs if you like, are scarce as hen's
>>>>teeth these days.
>>>>Secondly, who thinks we are in the best of all possible worlds, "the
>>>>crown of creation" because that's the way it *has* to be? I think
>>>>people (especially maybe young people) who have actually never ever
>>>>thought about the way things are at all, never reflected on history at
>>>>all, could be imputed with this kind of view, if you believe in
>>>>imputing views based on things other than holding them. Of those who
>>>>have a view about history and the way things are, almost everyone seems
>>>>to think things are in a bad way and getting worse. In fact the very
>>>>impossibility of even imagining that things could ever improve and the
>>>>ease of imagining a global disaster is one of the biggest problems we
>>>>have. It is, I think, people who claim that "all the grand narratives
>>>>have ended" and "people no longer believe in progress" etc who are the
>>>>most likely to believe that we now live in the only grown-up stage of history.
>>>>Thirdly, how adequate is the dichotomy between "political radicals and
>>>>political conservatives"? There is little "conservative" about people
>>>>like George Bush and Tony Blair. The people who advise them? Come on!
>>>>These are the people who make up history as they go along. The
>>>>religious right? I don't think so, these people are prepared to bring
>>>>on a holocaust in the hope that they will be saved.
>>>>I accept that things are very different in different countries, and
>>>>it's hard to get an overview. What do you think?
>>>>At 07:47 PM 23/01/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>Just to note that Peirce said a LOT about semiosis, using his many
>>>>>variations of the word (he liked Greek spelling), and it did make a
>>>>>big change, but a long time after he passed on.
>>>>>As to history, I've always started with the idea that if we know how
>>>>>we got where we are, we'd be rather likely to disagree with the
>>>>>choices (or necessities, or ideologies) of the past that got us here
>>>>>(since they don't tend to stay constant all that long), and so we'd
>>>>>both want to change things and realize that there's no good reason
>>>>>(from our point of view today), why they had to turn out the way they now are.
>>>>>This historical subversiveness contrasts with a more dominant, often
>>>>>called "Whiggish", view of history, which tends, like old-fashioned
>>>>>apologist social functionalism, to claim that the way things are is
>>>>>the way they have to be, and that history teaches us the lessons we
>>>>>learned about why this is so. This is a variant of progressionist
>>>>>evolutionary theory, and the 19th century view, still quite alive if
>>>>>not among many evolutionary biologists, that all of evolution and all
>>>>>of history is one grand upward march to ... ME! Here we sit, at the
>>>>>crown of creation, in, if not the best of all possible worlds, at
>>>>>least a world that is as it is because by and large that's how it has
>>>>>to be. To which I say, most heartily ... bullshit!
>>>>>More kindly, these different perspectives on history (and their is a
>>>>>LITTLE truth in Whiggism ... a very little) are central to the divide
>>>>>between political radicals and political conservatives, left and
>>>>>right, which may change its colors and fashions, and programs, but has
>>>>>remained remarkably constant for an awfully long time. And it behooves
>>>>>us on the one side, I think, to have some understanding and
>>>>>appreciation for WHY some people are on the other side.
>>>>>We tend most often to say that they just follow their interests, even
>>>>>unconsciously, and no doubt in the large and the long term that's true
>>>>>enough (e.g. statistically, or ala Bourdieu's neo-Durkheimian survey
>>>>>research). But it's a mistake I think, and far too dangerously easy,
>>>>>to leave it at that. We need much deeper and better accounts of why
>>>>>conservatives believe the crazy things they do! because to them they
>>>>>are not crazy, but follow from a long tradition of well-developed
>>>>>arguments and what appears to them to be mountains of evidence.
>>>>>Conservatives attract many voters with their arguments, including many
>>>>>whose objective interests should not dispose them that way.
>>>>>A key reason why CHAT needs to re-invigorate its emphasis on the
>>>>>historical is just because we are contending against another view of
>>>>>history, one that is dangerous to everything we are working for, and
>>>>>which needs to be faced with a vigorous and well-developed alternative
>>>>>view ... hopefully one that can prove its worth with contributions to
>>>>>practical problem solving and making the world others would just
>>>>>accept, different and better for more of us.
>>>>>At 08:51 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
>>>>>>This is one of the issues I find really interesting in action
>>>>>>research - how do you understand this redefintion. You change the
>>>>>>understanding of the relationship between espoused theory and theory
>>>>>>in use (I'm using Argyris' terminology here) through discussion and
>>>>>>change in the way individuals talk about their projects (is it an
>>>>>>attempt to come to a better match between theory in use and the way
>>>>>>we talk about what we do) - and I guess in the best of all possible
>>>>>>worlds this will loop back and change the way we talk about activity
>>>>>>- so espoused theory becomes closer to theory in use. But when this
>>>>>>change occurs, is it a move from objectification and basis in history
>>>>>>(and how the organization was developed through history) to a more
>>>>>>process oriented overall understanding of activity. For those who
>>>>>>believe the Peirce made a qualitative change when he introduced the
>>>>>>concept of semiosis (and let's face it, it wasn't the most
>>>>>>overwhelming introduction, maybe he only used the word a few times) -
>>>>>>is it a movement towards a more Pragmaticist based semiosis?
>>>>>>Do we need to recognize history in an attempt to understand the
>>>>>>problem better. Jay makes a great point, why do we have forty minute
>>>>>>periods, why do we have nine month school schedules? It is because
>>>>>>of history, and we sort of know that history, or interpretations of
>>>>>>that history - but then how does it help us get closer to solving our
>>>>>>problem. And if we give primacy to history, doesn't this open the
>>>>>>door to the argument that the reason we do it this way is because of
>>>>>>our history, and our history got us here, so our history should play
>>>>>>an important part in our problem solving?
>>>>>>Just some questions on a snowy Monday morning.
>>>>>>From: on behalf of Jay Lemke
>>>>>>Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 2:40 PM
>>>>>>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>Subject: RE: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to SCHAT
>>>>>>Action Research is about solving immediate problems, but one of its
>>>>>>strategies is to get people talking about what those problems really
>>>>>>are. In the course of which they often re-define the key problems as
>>>>>>being larger than their immediate symptoms. When you then start to
>>>>>>collaboratively investigate these bigger issues, you almost always
>>>>>>find that history has played a role in getting us into the mess we're
>>>>>>in. And that understanding how to get out of it often depends on
>>>>>>figuring out a way around the path that historically got us where we are.
>>>>>>Why are school classes only 40 minutes long? why are students
>>>>>>segregated by age in schools? why don't teacher-student relationships
>>>>>>in schools last more than a few months to less than one year? why are
>>>>>>curriculum subjects separated? why is curriculum content dictated to
>>>>>>be uniform? why do we use pencil-and-paper testing? why don't
>>>>>>students get to learn from non-teacher mentors? why can't I take my
>>>>>>students on a field trip outside the school? why can't they learn by
>>>>>>participating/observing in other institutions?
>>>>>>Why can't we talk about the topics we're really interested in? why
>>>>>>can't we spend more than 2 weeks on this? why can't I learn basic
>>>>>>biology over 2 years instead of one? why can't we talk about human
>>>>>>sexuality? or famous gay figures in history? why can't we learn about
>>>>>>law, religion, economics, politics? why can't we discuss the causes
>>>>>>of violence in my neighborhood? Why don't I get paid for all the work
>>>>>>the school requires me to do?
>>>>>>The causes of most social headaches are institutional and structural,
>>>>>>and the timescales across which we need to look to understand how
>>>>>>they came to cause our headaches expand in historical time as we
>>>>>>probe these networks of causes.
>>>>>>Remember: give a man a fish, he eats today; teach him to fish, he
>>>>>>eats tomorrow too? Action research, and the CHAT perspective, is
>>>>>>about learning new ways to eat, about looking across longer relevant
>>>>>>timescales for alternatives and solutions, not about eating the first
>>>>>>fish to come our way (though if you're really hungry, why not?).
>>>>>>PS. Short-term solutions can give us the breathing space to seek
>>>>>>longer-term ones. But they can also exacerbate longer-term problems,
>>>>>>or disguise them until they get even worse.
>>>>>>At 01:30 PM 1/21/2007, you wrote:
>>>>>> >Hello Michael,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >It seems to me the example you give about a headache has more to do
>>>>>> >with a definition of the problem than it does to do with the role of
>>>>>> >history. Do I define the problem as a need to remove the pain right
>>>>>> >now, or do I define the problem as the need to make sure I don't get
>>>>>> >headaches again. If I define the problem as the former then I take
>>>>>> >an aspirin, and because the consequences of the action are that I no
>>>>>> >longer have a headache, I am able to assert that the aspirin helped
>>>>>> >in getting rid of the headache, and I have a relatively high level
>>>>>> >of warranted assertability, and the aspirin becomes the first
>>>>>> >instrument I reach for when wanting to solve a similar problem. If
>>>>>> >I want to get rid of my headaches completely, I don't determine the
>>>>>> >cause beforehand, because that is going to guide my problem solving
>>>>>> >activity, but not necessarily in the right direction (let's say I
>>>>>> >think that my dog's barking is causing my headaches - I get rid of
>>>>>> >my dog, and that is my solution. But my headaches continue, and now
>>>>>> >I am without a dog). Instead I approach the problem as an
>>>>>> >experiment, setting up careful activities with measurable
>>>>>> >consequences. This is not to say that ideas that have gone before
>>>>>> >are not important, but only as part of an array of instruments I can
>>>>>> >use in my experiment.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >But history often times plays a more important, defining role, that
>>>>>> >has implications for our problem solving. History takes a dominant
>>>>>> >position in our thinking and then we focus on maintenance of history
>>>>>> >rather than the solving of the problem. This, it seems to me, is at
>>>>>> >least part of the problem that action research is attempting to deal
>>>>>> >with, at least in some of its incarnations. It is interesting
>>>>>> >because Santayana makes the point very early that Americans have two
>>>>>> >ways of dealing with issues - the way they say they are going to
>>>>>> >deal with issues and the way that they actually do deal with
>>>>>> >issues. Even back in in early part of the nineteenth century
>>>>>> >American's were saying that they deal with issues through
>>>>>> >religion/ideology such as being Catholics, or Protestants, or
>>>>>> >Conservatives or such. But in actual problem solving Americans are
>>>>>> >almost always Naturalists, dealing with problems as they occur
>>>>>> >within the confines of nature. The difficulty is sometimes that
>>>>>> >ideology overwhelms Naturalism, and it does so through history -
>>>>>> >meaning it causes people to confuse who they say they are with what
>>>>>> >they do. Here in the United States we are going through an
>>>>>> >interesting political period in which individuals actually act
>>>>>> >(vote) against their own best interests. The question is why. Is
>>>>>> >it the manipulation of activity through the implications of
>>>>>> >history? Again, it seems to me that this was one of the issues
>>>>>> >Action Research is meant to solve (I have some ideas of why it might
>>>>>> >not be that successful related to the dynamic nature of
>>>>>> >information). This is why I wonder if the introduction of history
>>>>>> >from the CHAT perspective is necessarily a positive for Action
>>>>>> >Research. I don't have any answer for this, and I'm not drawing any
>>>>>> >conclusions. Just something this discussion on Action Research has
>>>>>> >spurred in my thinking.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Michael
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >________________________________
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >From: on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
>>>>>> >Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 12:52 PM
>>>>>> >To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> >Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to
>>>>>> >XMCAtheoreticaland methodological interests
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Hi Michael,
>>>>>> >the problem with "immediate problems" is that these are concrete
>>>>>> >expressions of issues at a very different level. Addressing the
>>>>>> >immediate problem is like taking aspirin when you hurt somewhere.
>>>>>> >What this solution to your immediate problem does not provide you
>>>>>> >with is an understanding of the causes of headache, so that taking
>>>>>> >aspirin is only patching some deeper problem---the causes, which are
>>>>>> >of a very different nature, could be psychological, psychosomatic,
>>>>>> >physiological, etc.
>>>>>> >Historical analysis of the system as a whole is one way of getting at
>>>>>> >the determinants---causes---of the immediate problems and how these
>>>>>> >are mediated by the system as a whole. There are neat analyses by
>>>>>> >Klaus Holzkamp or Ole Dreier that show why in counseling, for
>>>>>> >example, you need to do more than treat immediate causes.
>>>>>> >Cheers,
>>>>>> >Michael
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >On 21-Jan-07, at 9:15 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Had a chance to take a look at both Cathrene's chapters and the paper
>>>>>> >by Anne Edwards. It is really interesting, good work. I am left
>>>>>> >with an initial question. In both cases (and I might be wrong here),
>>>>>> >what the authors were saying that CHAT (or SCRAT) have to offer
>>>>>> >action research is a historical perspective, which, from what I am
>>>>>> >reading, is not really part of Action research. The question this
>>>>>> >brings to mind is, "Is this a good thing?" Do we naturally take
>>>>>> >historical analysis as a good when we are attempting to deal with
>>>>>> >immediate problems, and to sort of break the yoke the the larger
>>>>>> >cultural foregrounding when attempting to deal with immediate
>>>>>> >problems, or does it in some way "stack the deck" and force a more
>>>>>> >culturally historical acceptable solution to the problem. It's a
>>>>>> >problem I really struggle with. One thing that Cathrene's chapters
>>>>>> >really did for me is make me recognize the relationship between micro-
>>>>>> >genetic research and action research - because I suppose in the best
>>>>>> >of all possible worlds micro-genetic research is action research (or
>>>>>> >is it the other way around?)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Michael
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >________________________________
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >From: on behalf of Wolff-Michael Roth
>>>>>> >Sent: Sun 1/21/2007 11:32 AM
>>>>>> >To:; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> >Subject: Re: [xmca] Action Research and its relationship to XMCA
>>>>>> >theoreticaland methodological interests
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Hi all, regarding the question of action research in schools and
>>>>>> >CHAT---i.e., the points Anne Edwards article is about---we also had
>>>>>> >written many years ago a conceptualization of this form of research
>>>>>> >and some variants in an online article that some might find
>>>>>> >interesting in this context:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Roth, Wolff-Michael, Lawless, Daniel V. & Tobin, Kenneth (2000,
>>>>>> >December). {Coteaching | Cogenerative Dialoguing} as Praxis of
>>>>>> >Dialectic Method [47 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
>>>>>> >Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(3). Available
>>>>>> >at:
>>>>>> >e.htm [Date of Access: Month Day, Year]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Cheers, Michael
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >On 19-Jan-07, at 5:37 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Two papers have been posted and can now be found at the xmca website:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Catherene's chapters and the article by Anne Edwards.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >We will be posting an article from the most recent, exciting, issue
>>>>>> >of MCA
>>>>>> >shortly. More about
>>>>>> >that later since there is slippage in the process.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >But the papers for discussion are there. Perhaps
>>>>>> >Time for doing some research by taking action and finding them so you
>>>>>> >can
>>>>>> >comment, ask questions,
>>>>>> >or provide an excuse not to do the dishes!!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Have a nice weekend all.
>>>>>> >mike
>>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >xmca mailing list
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >xmca mailing list
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> ><winmail.dat>
>>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >xmca mailing list
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >xmca mailing list
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >xmca mailing list
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>Jay Lemke
>>>>>>University of Michigan
>>>>>>School of Education
>>>>>>610 East University
>>>>>>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>>>>Tel. 734-763-9276
>>>>>>Website. <>
>>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>Jay Lemke
>>>>>University of Michigan
>>>>>School of Education
>>>>>610 East University
>>>>>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>>>Tel. 734-763-9276
>>>>>Website. <>
>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory
>>>>- Resisting Neoconservatism Today
>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>Jay Lemke
>>>University of Michigan
>>>School of Education
>>>610 East University
>>>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>Tel. 734-763-9276
>>>Website. <>
>>>xmca mailing list
>>Hegel Summer School 16/17th February 2007. The Roots of Critical Theory -
>>Resisting Neoconservatism Today
>>xmca mailing list
>Jay Lemke
>University of Michigan
>School of Education
>610 East University
>Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>Tel. 734-763-9276
>Website. <>
>xmca mailing list

Andy Blunden. The Subject -

xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 01:00:11 PST