[Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance [Language as a form]

[David Kellogg]

The charity lady's daughter is Caddy Jellyby (later Princess
Turveydrop). Esther Summerson is neither bearable nor a female
character: she's a paragon of hypocritical Victorian "modestly" and
sounds suspiciously like Dickens in drag. We are told that Little
Dorrit was twenty, but almost everybody thought she was only
eleven--yet she marries a man well into her forties. That's what I
call blokeyness (as opposed to blokishness, which is an
over-competitive, possessive attitude towards word meanings).

De gustibus non est disputandum (but do we ever do anything else?).

David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies


On 28 November 2014 at 18:26, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dickens female characters:
>
> "Esther summerson! More than likeable! And ada Clare is ok. And the charity
> lady's daughter whose name escapes me. Bleak house is where its at for
> women."
>
> And Little Dorrit too.
>
> Huw
>
> On 27 November 2014 at 22:17, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> David, Dave?
>>
>> Dickens is my wife's favourite.  I like discussing the things I value in
>> my readings etc with her and it was her opinion that Dickens wasn't wimping
>> out on the grit that I thought Marx brought out in this history lesson.
>>
>> I know there's another Dickens fan on this list, so I'll defer a defence
>> that under sell him.
>>
>> The technical (conceptual) thing is simply something to think about, there
>> is a part of me that remains in disbelief regarding Dewey's maxim on the
>> communication of ideas, but I've yet to disprove it to myself...
>>  challenging that maxim is also a great way to avoid hoarding great ideas
>> or 'trade secrets' etc.
>>
>> I'll keep you posted on her favourite female Dickens characters the next
>> time she gets 10 minutes spare... might be a while!
>>
>> Best,
>> Huw
>>
>> On 27 November 2014 at 22:00, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I too liked Huw's comments, but for rather different reasons than his
>>> compelling defense of what Basil Bernstein calls "strongly framed,
>>> strongly classified" categories of knowledge. What I liked is the way
>>> that he brought in Dickens, simultaneously enriching and undermining
>>> his argument.
>>>
>>> On the one hand, Dickens is the ultimate in blokish writers (I can't
>>> think of a single likeable or even bearable female character in the
>>> whole of his oeuvre). On the other, Dickens will begin a book (e.g.
>>> "Hard Times") with a clear list of characters he intends to slate
>>> (utilitarians and political economists) and then he'll attribute views
>>> to them that are really quite the opposite of what they hold (real
>>> utilitarians and political economists actually agreed with Mr. Sleary
>>> that work is a curse and that "The people mutht be amuthed"). So in
>>> addition to being a blokish writer, Dickens is a bit of an
>>> intellectual slob (as opposed to a snob): a masher-together-er, to put
>>> it more charitably.
>>>
>>> But by bringing in Dickens I think Huw also brings in the
>>> aesthetic--and even the ethical. And here what Huw says about strongly
>>> framed and strongly classified (or "technical") categories of
>>> knowledge is much less compelling. I have been arguing for a
>>> perspective that is "trans-disciplinary" rather than
>>> "inter-disciplinary", where inquiries into art and into science alike
>>> can be based on themes like quantity, history and structure rather
>>> than narrowly defined according to objects of study such as matter,
>>> living things, society and consciousness; it seems to me that if
>>> strongly framed and strongly classified categories of knowledge must
>>> predominate in scientific categories (else it is hard to see how the
>>> hiearchical structures Vygotsky sees as essential to science concepts
>>> can emerge) then weakly framed and weakly classified categories of
>>> knowlede necessarily predominate in aesthetic ones, and even in
>>> ethical ones (which I believe are closely related).
>>>
>>> We are reaching the end of the semester in my class on immersion
>>> education, in which I adopted a syllabus idea I stole from Carol
>>> Macdonald, to wit, that immersion classes might begin with classes
>>> like Physical Education, Music and Mathematics (where word meaning is
>>> not a central concern) and only end with classes like (Natural)
>>> Science, Social Science and Ethics. That means that this week my
>>> students are preparing immersion classes in ethics. One of my students
>>> contested the idea that ethical education was for higher grades only,
>>> so I asked her when she thought ethics education should begin.
>>>
>>> She said that ethics education really begins with a mother holding a
>>> newborn infant. On my way home from class, I thought of Martin's work
>>> on the prisoner's dilemma, and how it fit, quite despite itself, into
>>> a whole tradition of neo-Kohlbergian ethics education. And I was
>>> reminded of Carol Gilligan's and Nel Noddings' critique of
>>> Kohlberg--the critique that by emphasizing the autonomous individual
>>> above the relational one, and "justice" above "caring", Kohlberg had
>>> constructed a blokish ethics, for gentlemen only. It is also an ethics
>>> for small businessmen rather than young mothers and teachers: Mr.
>>> Sleary and his creator would have been amuthed.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>
>>> On 27 November 2014 at 20:46, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I have been reading McLellan's "new abridgement" of Capital recently.
>>> > Probably my most powerful impression is the prevalence of the conditions
>>> > Marx documents.  Unlike writers of fiction today, it is quite clear to
>>> me
>>> > that his contemporary, Dickens, was barely required to lift a few
>>> stones to
>>> > find the extremes of luck, fate and chance that he also portrays.  A
>>> > second, more palliative, impression is the documentation of the source
>>> of
>>> > so many of the problems arising in working conditions that remain with
>>> us
>>> > today, albeit in more 'civilised' form.
>>> >
>>> > Regarding 'muscularity', I find it interesting to consider how technical
>>> > utterances and work-a-day competences do tend to carry a certain kind of
>>> > muscularity in a literal sense of holding steady.  To be technical is
>>> to be
>>> > precise under varying conditions in which one holds those conditions
>>> steady
>>> > and it is normal to hear technical discourse with some degree of
>>> > articulatory stress and moderate facial tension etc.  Under such
>>> > circumstances, one doesn't merely pile up the words in additive form
>>> but is
>>> > concerned with their configuration and placement.
>>> >
>>> > On the business of the objectivity of consciousness and focal
>>> distinction
>>> > between the experience of consciousness and that which yields it, I
>>> think
>>> > we can make the same statement about any scientifically studied
>>> phenomena.
>>> > We are not aware of the internally manifest form of any kind of internal
>>> > calculus undertaken by a studied system, yet we may study it from
>>> without
>>> > (with meter readings etc) and perform equivalent calculations and follow
>>> > the transformations taking place.  Alternatively, we can study that
>>> > calculus as a system itself, which will have, again, its own internal
>>> > manifestation.  That's how we come to improve our approximations...
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Huw
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 27 November 2014 at 07:07, Patrick Jaki <patrick.jaki@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Am sad about the uncalled for attention. We can still debate robustly
>>> and
>>> >> at the same time remain civil.
>>> >>
>>> >> Patrick.
>>> >>
>>> >> On 27 November 2014 at 08:48, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Carol Et al
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It is a short holiday week in the US and I am on the road visiting
>>> family
>>> >> > and friends. I have only limited access and am trying to think about
>>> what
>>> >> > it means to have participants with such varied histories with the
>>> >> discourse
>>> >> > community and its topic and such varied backgrounds. Uncharted
>>> territory.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > For those who care to see XMCA continue, I suggest that you read and
>>> >> > reflect on the 30+ history of this discourse community. The summaries
>>> >> that
>>> >> > I know of can be found at
>>> >> > LCHC.ucsd.edu under history archives. There are two summaries there
>>> that
>>> >> > go
>>> >> > back to roughly 1983.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Further comment without people stopping to familiarize themselves
>>> with
>>> >> > prior history and without having participants ceasing to seek
>>> solutions
>>> >> to
>>> >> > the current confusions in the iniatives taken by others rather than
>>> in
>>> >> > collective action in which they share responsibility seems unlikely
>>> to
>>> >> bear
>>> >> > fruit that can nourish a productive future.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > All sorts of alternatives are possible.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > One alternative is not possible, and that is to eschew personal
>>> >> > responsibility and lay it on the shoulders of a 76 year old "retired
>>> >> > professor" whose inadequate understanding of the core issues of the
>>> role
>>> >> of
>>> >> > culture in the development have been thoroughly documented by
>>> numerous
>>> >> real
>>> >> > experts over decades.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The record is there, open to all.
>>> >> > Check it out. Then we can assess the future.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Good luck to us all
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Mike
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Carol Macdonald <
>>> carolmacdon@gmail.com
>>> >> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carolmacdon@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Hi
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > There have been some off list postings about this phenomenon. None
>>> of
>>> >> it
>>> >> > > complimentary.  This cannot be sorted out in one move.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I propose that we move onto a different thread -  topic.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Mike, would you like to start us off on something new?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Carol
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On 27 November 2014 at 02:49, Martin John Packer <
>>> >> > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > Andy, if you're going to retire, then retire. But don't aim one
>>> or
>>> >> two
>>> >> > > > more underhand blows behind the feint of retiring.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Martin
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > > Well this bloke will retire again at this point. I thought for
>>> a
>>> >> > brief
>>> >> > > > moment there, I thought we had a breakthrough. Certainly, Huw's
>>> "real
>>> >> > > > illusion" is perfectly apt to my mind (it's an expression Marx
>>> uses),
>>> >> > or
>>> >> > > > in  Eric Fromm's words, an illusion with "survival value." Martin
>>> >> says
>>> >> > > > "Consciousness is an objective process that *sometimes* can *give
>>> >> rise
>>> >> > > to*
>>> >> > > > illusions." As Vygotsky says "For him psychology is partly
>>> >> > > phenomenology."
>>> >> > > > > Andy
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> > > > > *Andy Blunden*
>>> >> > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > > > Bruce Robinson wrote:
>>> >> > > > >> Henry,
>>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >> Your wife's question leads to another: who speaks for the
>>> silent
>>> >> > > > majority, many of whom, like me, must be getting fed up with what
>>> >> > David K
>>> >> > > > calls a "rather blokish struggle for power over particular
>>> words'?
>>> >> [Not
>>> >> > > > Richard Nixon :)]
>>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >> Bruce R
>>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >> PS: You may also note that I have not changed the subject
>>> heading
>>> >> of
>>> >> > > > this message so that it bears no relation to the content.
>>> Something
>>> >> > else
>>> >> > > I
>>> >> > > > find irritating...
>>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >> On 26/11/2014 17:16, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>>> >> > > > >>> Sister Analisa,
>>> >> > > > >>> Thank you for responding! I was just talking to my wife
>>> (getting
>>> >> > > > personal!) about the chat. She asked me, "How does anyone get to
>>> >> > > > participate in the (XMCA) chat if only a few people take part?" I
>>> >> > > wondered
>>> >> > > > in my email below if too much was expected of written
>>> communication
>>> >> in
>>> >> > > the
>>> >> > > > XMCA chat. With 800 people potentially taking turns, well...what
>>> is
>>> >> > even
>>> >> > > > possible logistically? Mike Cole has talked about this, and, I
>>> think,
>>> >> > has
>>> >> > > > some suggestions on how to deal with the bottlenecking. But even
>>> >> small
>>> >> > > > scale communication can be daunting. I watched, with my wife, a
>>> >> Richard
>>> >> > > > Linklater movie last night, "Before Midnight". Two people, face
>>> to
>>> >> > face,
>>> >> > > in
>>> >> > > > a totally committed relationship, smart people, good people,
>>> trying
>>> >> so
>>> >> > > hard
>>> >> > > > to get it right. Always a work in progress. But it's worth it.
>>> The
>>> >> > > > alternative is despair. I am sure of this: This chat, which
>>> seems to
>>> >> > get
>>> >> > > > bogged down in abstractions, pure thinking in the mud, is really
>>> >> > > > consequential beyond the sensitivities of academics. I said we
>>> >> > > > >> va
>>> >> > > > >>>  lue Vygotsky's "heroism", but that's too macho. I should
>>> have
>>> >> said
>>> >> > > > courage.
>>> >> > > > >>>
>>> >> > > > >>> The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis is a powerful idea,
>>> often
>>> >> > called
>>> >> > > > the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis. Google it. Really. See what you
>>> think.
>>> >> One
>>> >> > > > gauge of the power of an idea is if it has found its way into
>>> popular
>>> >> > > > discourse. I just this morning heard an NPR radio program (thanks
>>> >> again
>>> >> > > to
>>> >> > > > my wife, who was listening when she heard something she thought I
>>> >> would
>>> >> > > be
>>> >> > > > interested in) that dealt with the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis in its
>>> >> strong
>>> >> > > and
>>> >> > > > weak form.
>>> >> > > > >>>
>>> >> > > > >>> Henry
>>> >> > > > >>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <
>>> >> annalisa@unm.edu>
>>> >> > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Dear Henry,
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> I don't think being personal (or even personable) requires
>>> being
>>> >> > > > heated. Does this have to do with my comment of warmth as a sign
>>> of
>>> >> > > welcome?
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> To speak about culture non-personally is not something I am
>>> >> adept
>>> >> > at
>>> >> > > > doing. We are always speaking from where we stand, the culture
>>> that
>>> >> we
>>> >> > > are
>>> >> > > > in or from, what-have-you.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Respectfully, I do not know what "linguistic relativity
>>> >> > hypothesis"
>>> >> > > > is. So please be patient with me while I connect this academic
>>> idea
>>> >> you
>>> >> > > > have offered to this conversation so that I can relate that to my
>>> >> > > personal
>>> >> > > > experience speaking on this thread, though clearly I'm not
>>> speaking
>>> >> > > > literally right now, but it is speech from me, not a sock puppet
>>> with
>>> >> > my
>>> >> > > > voice thrown from the position of objective reality.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> You are talking about speaking two languages. But it seems
>>> we
>>> >> are
>>> >> > > all
>>> >> > > > speaking English on this list. So I'm a bit lost right there
>>> what you
>>> >> > are
>>> >> > > > trying to say to me.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Then, you speak of metalinguistics and how it represents
>>> >> different
>>> >> > > > worldviews, if you don't mind me swapping your use of
>>> "perspective"
>>> >> for
>>> >> > > > worldview. There is a lot of time clearing muckups to get it
>>> right.
>>> >> I'm
>>> >> > > not
>>> >> > > > sure that it ever gets right though, which troubles me. I have
>>> found
>>> >> > that
>>> >> > > > many people who have different worldviews communicate by "talking
>>> >> to,"
>>> >> > > > rather than "talking at." I feel, for example, you and I are
>>> talking
>>> >> to
>>> >> > > one
>>> >> > > > another, despite our likely different POVs.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> I don't know what the "perish and dapple of Andy" means
>>> when you
>>> >> > say
>>> >> > > > that. From what I can tell he's trying to define something for
>>> >> himself
>>> >> > > > asking for the help of others. That's fine and I'm learning that
>>> >> > > > definitions are very bas-relief for him. I think my interests
>>> are a
>>> >> > > little
>>> >> > > > different. So I'd prefer to orient to my interests, if that is
>>> OK.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Speaking of metalinguistics, rather than debate over
>>> >> definitions,
>>> >> > > I'm
>>> >> > > > more interested in speaking to the very different people who are
>>> on
>>> >> > this
>>> >> > > > list. The rumor is there are 800 folks out there. Where are you?
>>> :)
>>> >> To
>>> >> > > > reference a highly academic quote from the Wizard of Oz:
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> "Come out, come out wherever you are, and meet the young
>>> lady
>>> >> who
>>> >> > > > fell from the star!"
>>> >> > > > >>>> --Glinda, the Good Witch from the North (waves magic wand)
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> I'm curious how others have been inspired by Vygotsky and
>>> >> > > > sociocultural theory, and even other manifestations of his ideas,
>>> >> such
>>> >> > as
>>> >> > > > CHAT, etc and how people are using these approaches in their
>>> work.
>>> >> What
>>> >> > > is
>>> >> > > > that like for you? And to be more specific, what is that like for
>>> >> women
>>> >> > > and
>>> >> > > > people of color? I'm also interested in thinking-out-loud with
>>> others
>>> >> > > about
>>> >> > > > Vygotskian concepts that are not easy to understand; to employ in
>>> >> real
>>> >> > > time
>>> >> > > > dialogue and social interaction to leap over zopeds together.
>>> Isn't
>>> >> > that
>>> >> > > > what a listserv is for? Or am I being too idealistic?
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> I have tried to speak in an open, easy, and immediate
>>> manner, to
>>> >> > > > allow others to engage. But I fear that engagement is never
>>> going to
>>> >> > > happen
>>> >> > > > because all that persists are conversations about definitions, or
>>> >> > whether
>>> >> > > > nothing can come from nothing, and voila! subsequent debates
>>> ensue.
>>> >> Or
>>> >> > > > someone will say, "We already discussed this 20 years ago!" Which
>>> >> > means I
>>> >> > > > missed the party, I suppose. Unfortunately, if I disagree with a
>>> >> > position
>>> >> > > > because I interpret differently, then I'm told to go read
>>> something
>>> >> > > without
>>> >> > > > really a clear explanation why I'm supposed to go read something.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> I don't really agree with the approach of "read this," as an
>>> >> > > academic
>>> >> > > > argument. Anyone is free to use it, and I have myself, but
>>> because I
>>> >> > know
>>> >> > > > how obtuse that can be, I couch it with my reasons why I think it
>>> >> would
>>> >> > > be
>>> >> > > > a good read for that person, and what I think there is learn from
>>> >> > > reading.
>>> >> > > > I think the "read this" approach, when it is offered with the
>>> tone of
>>> >> > > "now
>>> >> > > > go eat your vegetables!" fails in the making of speech between
>>> >> people.
>>> >> > > All
>>> >> > > > it does is shut things down.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> If the reading truly is relevant, it seems far more
>>> productive
>>> >> in
>>> >> > > the
>>> >> > > > moment of speech to cue a person what to look for, to supply a
>>> >> context,
>>> >> > > > especially when referencing an entire book, for example, or the
>>> link
>>> >> to
>>> >> > > an
>>> >> > > > entire website full of texts.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Your assessment in the physicality of language is something
>>> with
>>> >> > > > which I am completely in agreement. Especially since we all seem
>>> to
>>> >> > agree
>>> >> > > > with the material aspects of language. So the question at hand
>>> is a
>>> >> > > matter
>>> >> > > > of form. Form has an aesthetic but also has a purpose. Are we
>>> >> throwing
>>> >> > > > ropes or throwing boulders? If throwing boulders, where does that
>>> >> need
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > > > throw boulders come from? If throwing ropes, then at least
>>> >> connections
>>> >> > > are
>>> >> > > > being made for those who might not be very clear about ideas and
>>> who
>>> >> > may
>>> >> > > > require a helping hand.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Then there's the old, but handy, elliptical comment,
>>> something
>>> >> > like
>>> >> > > a
>>> >> > > > boomerang... meant to be subtle or ironic at the expense of
>>> someone
>>> >> who
>>> >> > > may
>>> >> > > > not understand.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> At this point, I'd to emphasize that being ignorant is not
>>> being
>>> >> > > > stupid, but it seems someone who is ignorant is frequently
>>> treated as
>>> >> > > > stupid (um, on this list). This "phenomenon" has made me reflect
>>> upon
>>> >> > how
>>> >> > > > little time is spent upon the nature of ignorance in education
>>> and
>>> >> the
>>> >> > > > dynamics of ignorance in speaking. Every one of us is ignorant
>>> about
>>> >> > most
>>> >> > > > things in the world. And yet being ignorant is seen as an
>>> >> > embarrassment,
>>> >> > > a
>>> >> > > > deficiency, a lapse in character. I vehemently disagree with this
>>> >> > > reception
>>> >> > > > to ignorance. Even Einstein said something like, "The more I
>>> know,
>>> >> the
>>> >> > > more
>>> >> > > > I see how much I don't know." Such an aggressive position toward
>>> >> > > ignorance
>>> >> > > > is nothing but hurtful, even arrogant. Arrogance is a blister, a
>>> >> > defense
>>> >> > > > mechanism from previous hurt. A person who is honest about one's
>>> own
>>> >> > > > ignorance is a very strong person and is showing a willingness to
>>> >> learn
>>> >> > > > something. I think all teachers will agree that a person who
>>> knows
>>> >> one
>>> >> > > > doesn't know is an easier student to teach tha
>>> >> > > > >> n
>>> >> > > > >>>   one who doesn't know one doesn't know.
>>> >> > > > >>>> Iconicity is something I can hang my hat on. I see it is
>>> related
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > > > pointing. What I like about pointing is that it is a gesture,
>>> which
>>> >> > > implies
>>> >> > > > movement, in the way the word is also movement. I hope I have
>>> made
>>> >> > > > sufficient personal connections to your concepts without the
>>> heat.
>>> >> > Thank
>>> >> > > > you for offering them to me.
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Kind regards,
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>> Annalisa
>>> >> > > > >>>>
>>> >> > > > >>>
>>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >>
>>> >> > > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > --
>>> >> > > Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
>>> >> > > Developmental psycholinguist
>>> >> > > Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
>>> >> > > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with
>>> an
>>> >> > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> *Patrick Jaki*
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> *P. O Box 505 WitsJohannesburg2050South Africa*
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>