[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)

Hi Mike,
you are taking this too serious, and my remark was tongue in cheek. Perhaps I should have added something to mark the tongue in cheek. Such for E-relations and conversations. Just came back from a presentation where every scholar made the same point. 
So there is nothing you have to apologize for, and I should have perhaps added the kinds of things that language just can't do. This is what we embodiment people are saying all of the time.
Between Mrs. Turner and the kid, we cannot have words that are not shared, and sharing inherently means symmetry, the word belongs to both. 
In any event, we need to overcome the individualistic, subjective approach to cognition, and seeing zpd more symmetrically seams to me more consistent with the concept of obuchenie than having the teacher funnel her knowledge between the two so that the individual kid can construct it on his own. I find such discourse horrific, and this is what the editorial is about.

PS: I am not angered at all. The conversations here tend to be amusing, sometimes because writers go through many bending processes, which, like snakes, capture their own tail. :-) (I am smiling, not being angry. Back into the garden.) 

On 2010-04-18, at 1:30 PM, mike cole wrote:

Sorry to be such a bother, Michael. I believe you misunderstood (probably i badly expressed) the topic of my comment in response to Larry. I had not proceeded to the issue of emergence of designed structure as a contingent product of interactions where so far as i can tell we agree (and yes, I am guilty of being a co-author of The Construction Zone!). I was way back on the materials flowing from the intro to the article about symmetry and assymetry which I took to be a major theme in Larry's note.
I understood that there was a conversation between the professor and Mrs. Turner (although I didn't know you were the professor!), and that there was a conversation between Mrs. Turner and each child. What i did not/do not understand is/are the senses in which the verbal exchange between you and the teacher and then the teacher and each child were equivalently conversations as you so interestingly define conversation at the bottom of p.2. 

I fear from the tone of your note that I have offended you somehow. If so, I sincerely apologize.

I assure you I would never dare compete with you in gardening, reading or writing. My garden is small and amateur, my reading restricted to about 1.5 languages, my writing only what it is. I take XMCA to be a place where the rigors of peer review are relaxed so that people can exchange half baked ideas in the hopes that they will get cooked up into something useful by someone. And where people whose articles have passed the rigors of peer review can be discussed so that authors do not have to wait four years for a next turn in the conversation. Which reminds me, time to check the polls to see whose work we discuss next.



On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
she has told me, not the kid. . .  you should know better whether the designed structure actually emerges . . . which is a contingent product of interactions. The interactions are symmetric, the exchanges, which are produced for the purpose of the other to whom the language returns. I say you should know better because it is from YOU that I learned such discourse, in a book called "Construction Zone," a chapter on children doing classification or something. It is too long ago that I read the book, but I am sure you made a claim, perhaps in a chapter 4 or so, about the complete grid that underlies some finding from their activity did emerge. (Perhaps you didn't write the book? Or perhaps it was another Michael who wrote it.)
       And yes, I am terribly busy, working as many hours as you do, or more, at my desk, and as many hours in house and garden, producing the food I eat because I put my foot where my mouth is or the other way around. :-)
Off to do more planting and cleaning up.
PS: Some people talk, other people write and submit to peer review. The former is easy, the latter much less

On 2010-04-18, at 10:58 AM, mike cole wrote:

I see more posts below, Larry, but will respond in sequence.

I did not spend 30 years creating and struggling to grow a Dept of
Communication by accident, it was for a lot of the reasons that you argue
for in your note, so you get plenty of sympathy from mere there. I simply
get confused a good deal of the time and spend time trying to clarify, which
can be a bore. And always trying to do too much. Apparently a personality
defect i will not shed in this lifetime. Apologies for those
occasions when it gums up the work.

Re symmetry/assymetry. I have been hoping Michael would provide us with a
couple of clear examples of what he is arguing against, but he too is
awfully busy and that may not come. I feel some trepidation continuing
the discussion of the editorial piece as a result.

Here is an example issue that i hope to understand better. Where is the
symmetry and where is the assymetry when Mrs. Turner and the college
professor set up the task with the kids "having stated previously their
intent to allow the children.......  and then Mrs. Turner "interacts with
the each child so that at the end of the turn, the object has found its
place according to what we recognize in the practice of Euclidian
Tridimensional Geometry....."  Seems like there might be just a tad bit of
assymetry at work in these interactions. What is the reality of the words in
the conversation "only when the word is a reality for two"? Which two? Mrs
Turner and the Professor? Mrs Turner and the kid?

Much more of course, of great interest, follows. But I remain somewhat
confused as I stumble along.

Off to pay do the work i should have been doing all morning. !

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Mike, yes I am using ontology to  ""recover" the idea of consciousness as
> something that emerges between people and my reading of Michael and Luis
> article and Martin's posting also point to a similar theme. I think Martin
> is redirecting our gaze or returning us historically to the existential
> themes being  debated within continental philosophy.  Also
> Merleau-Ponty's voice about the centrality of the body [as Rod
> Parker-Rees wrote about in "bringing children to body] is part of this
> historical conversation within continental philosophy.  Martin's intimate
> knowledge of this historical tradition seems to be re-engaging this
> tradition in informing sociocultural and cultural historical perspectives.
> My using the term "ontology" as that which is foundational or ground is an
> attempt to support the project of an engagement with the themes of
> continental philosophy.  Why is this important for me personally.  I
> guess as a person immersed in the common sense taken-for-granted  historical
> social surround of "modernity", I'm searching for  a new moral compass that
> transcends neoliberal notions of how we OUGHT to proceed and searching for a
> way to form a "new commons" with shared notions of "the good" or how we
> ought to proceed"
> Now the postmodernist preoccupation with deconstructing all notions of a
> shared moral compass seems to continue the fragmentation and atomization of
> hyper individualism as it tries to critique modernity.
> Continental philosophy as it explores themes of consciousness as what
> happens BETWEEN [or in the spaces] is a theory of communication with a
> different ontological ground.
> I also see this theme being explored in Dot's article emphasing that
> communication and generality are two sides of the same coin and represent
> the SAME REALITY. Gennadi states "at first glance, this does not make any
> sense.  Communication deals with the realization of social relationships,
> and generalization represents an intellectual, mental act of one particular
> individual"
> Mike,  I interpret that what Martin and Michael and Luis are pointing to is
> that our theories are struggling to find ways to NOT use metaphors such as
> "bridging"  to explain dualistic interactions and trying to find
> metaphors such as "two sides of the same coin" or "yin/yang" or
> "figure/ground" to capture a single process which we differentiate or split
> into dialectical tensions through our historical patterns of communication.
> Communication seems central to this process but how we imagine the
> processes of communication and what is CONSTITUTED within communication is
> contested ground.
> My interpretation of Michael and Luis article is their attempt to
> explore communication as CO-constituted.  They state "...when we take the
> conversation as the unit, in which EACH word has TWO SIDES, any ASYMMETRY
> within the unit, that is, between moments of the unit, has to be thought of
> differently."  This way of viewing the ZPD challenges the notion of
> teaching/learning as an ASYMMETRICAL relationship of one person being the
> teacher and the other person in the position of learner. For Michael and
> Luis in the ZPD BOTH teacher and learner are occupying  the teaching and the
> learning positions in recursive looping. The student occupies BOTH the
> teaching and learning position and the teacher occupies both the learner and
> teaching position.
> Mike, this notion of communication as radically implicating  the other in
> our ideas and thoughts can be expressed as an alternative ontology.  I would
> suggest that this notion of our thoughts and ideas as radically implicated
> in others ideas and thoughts as communicated BETWEEN self and other can be
> extended to our identities or subjectivities as being radically
> implicated  in processes of recognition and RESPONSE.
> What is foundational can be understood ontologically as a 1st person
> introspective subjectivity, a 3rd person sociocultural ground or a 2nd
> person relational ego-alter dialectic that is the foundation of subjectivity
> and cultural frames.
> I have to clarify that my background in individualistic psychological
> perspectives leaves me inadequately prepared to articulate a clear and
> logically coherent position on these topics but from a 2nd person ontology
> my searching for historically informed linkages between sociocultural  and
> continental philosophy discourses is an example of a ZPD that develops a
> shared expanding horizon of understanding.  Each time I RESPOND and my ideas
> are RECOGNIZED and RESPONDED to I am taking both positions of teaching and
> learning and it is this fundamental communicational engagement which IS
> subjectivity.  Now how we communicate in 2010 creates or constitutes a
> different subjectivity [and moral engagement] than would be constituted in
> previous historical periods.  This is how I interpret Martin's question of
> what "kinds of persons" are we constituting.
> Larry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:44 pm
> Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Cc: Jenna McWilliams <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>
>> I have downloaded the documents you posted, Dot.
>> if i ever understand the term, ontology (or have the illusion I
>> do!), Larry,
>> I might be better able to respond to your note. I think, but am
>> uncertain,that you are pointing to at least part of what Michael-
>> Luis were emphasizing
>> in their editorial comment on re-conceptualizing (or re-
>> covering the idea of consciousness as always/only possible only
>> for two (I
>> would probably want to add at least three (!) people.
>> mike
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Dot Robbins
>> <drobbins72000@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>> Dear Jenna and All,
>>> Realizing that this discussion is no longer going on, I just
>> wanted to
>>> thank you, Jenna, for your
>> comments...Constructivism/Constructionism is a
>>> very important discussion internationally, for many reasons,
>> especially in
>>> the West. The good news for many of you is that you can delete
>> this message
>>> now, if not interested. I have attached my thoughts on this
>> topic, but they
>>> were written many years ago....Perhaps the notes are not
>> totally correct, or
>>> valid today...it was long ago....what is very important is the
>> situation> some face about *rigour*......We need to be clear
>> about comparing apples and
>>> oranges.....Mike's note was very important for me, listed
>> below..... The
>>> aspects of cultural mediation are so important, and also the
>> aspect of the
>>> process of development. We need a historical clarification of
>> the times of
>>> Vygotsky-Luria-Leontiev regarding their use/or none-use of
>> research data in
>>> their writings (what was the actual political situation of using
>>> statistical data in those days? I have read about this
>> problem, but cannot
>>> comment on it now)....
>>> Debates about *rigour* need to be placed in context, as we do
>> not compare
>>> apples with oranges…I am also attaching our introduction to
>> the Davydov book
>>> about the understanding of “non-classical” psychology….it
>> leads to the
>>> understanding of “metacognition,” which is a key component in
>> dialogues with
>>> many, including those in “traditional” cognitivist fields….I
>> will restrain
>>> my thoughts to Chomsky here….we need to have a grounded
>> understanding of
>>> Spinoza, inter alia, to understand cultural-historical theory,
>> and we also
>>> need to know the deep theories/and times of Descartes….So, I
>> will stop
>>> here….Hopefully, others will help us, especially our
>> colleagues in
>>> Brazil.....
>>> With very good wishes of Spring to all,
>>> Dot
>>> --- On Fri, 4/9/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
>>> To: "Jenna McWilliams" <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu>
>>> Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 12:52 PM
>>> Debating *rigour  *with respect to such a question*?
>>> *My advice is to take a good novel to read when caught in such
>>> circumstances. Rigourous with respect to what?
>>> Is a psychological experiment  about number calculation
>> procesess more
>>> rigorous than an ethnogrpahic account
>>> of "the same" topic (I almost slipped and wrote phenomenon!).
>>> My guess vis a  vis my own question? Piagetian social
>> constructivism saw
>>> culture as ailement for the mind that varied along a scale
>> from less to
>>> more
>>> (never considered obesity, i guess). Vygotskian cultural-historical
>>> psycholoy places cultural mediation in the center of the
>> process, making
>>> all
>>> Piageian binaries into fuzzy trinaries for which it is always
>>> necessary to rise to the concrete. Of course one person's
>> concrete is
>>> another's  "whaaat" but at least they are
>>> trying to understand each other within a more or less mutually
>> recognizable> point of view.  Constructionism includes
>> cultural practices, making things.
>>> But it does not theorize them in chat terms.
>>> mike
>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Jenna McWilliams
>> <jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu> >wrote:
>>>> I don't know! That's why I've pitched this issue to you guys.
>>>> I recently sat on the sidelines watching a pair of academics
>> argue over
>>>> whether cultural-historical learning theories are as theoretically
>>> rigorous
>>>> as cognitivist theories. As you might imagine, the
>> cognitivist argued
>>> they
>>>> aren't as rigorous, while the situative theorist argued they
>> were. I
>>> wonder
>>>> if you xmca-ers have thoughts on this.
>>>> ~~
>>>> Jenna McWilliams
>>>> Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
>>>> ~
>>>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
>>>> http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
>>>> ~
>>>> jenmcwil@indiana.edu
>>>> jennamcjenna@gmail.com
>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:50 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>>> Jenna-- No wonder you are so quiet on XMCA-- you are
>> busy in another
>>>>> interesting discussion, differently mediated!
>>>>> So, vis a vis the local conversation, how do constructivism or
>>>>> constructionism
>>>>> relate to cultural-historical theories?
>>>>> mike
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jenna McWilliams <
>>> jenmcwil@umail.iu.edu
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>> I'm really enjoying this conversation, as it aligns really
>> nicely with
>>>>>> issues I'm grappling with both in my graduate work and in
>> my research
>>>>>> projects and groups.
>>>>>> Though I'm a shameless self-promoter, I normally wouldn't
>> plug my blog
>>> in
>>>>>> such an esteemed listserv--except that I recently
>> published a post
>>> about
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> (ir)reconcilability of sociocultural and cognitivist
>> learning theories
>>>>>> (at
>>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-i-am-not-
>> constructionist.html> >>> ,
>>>>>> if you want to see). It's the conversation below the post that
>>> interests
>>>>>> me
>>>>>> now--a fun debate has started about whether pulling from
>> sociocultural> >>> and
>>>>>> cognitivist theories can be called "synthesis" or
>> "cherrypicking." I
>>> fall
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the "cherrypicking" side of things, though I can
>> acknowledge how
>>>>>> rhetorically poor that term is.
>>>>>> I was going to post some of this thread in the comments
>> section before
>>> I
>>>>>> started worrying about the appropriateness of doing that,
>> so instead
>>> I'll
>>>>>> just set forth a plea to anyone who's interested to join
>> in on the
>>>>>> conversation. My readers and I would be most grateful for
>> any thoughts
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are willing to offer.
>>>>>> Thanks for this listserv, which is supporting my knowledge
>> acquisition> >>> and
>>>>>> enabling me to participate in knowledge production.
>>>>>> jenna
>>>>>> ~~
>>>>>> Jenna McWilliams
>>>>>> Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
>>>>>> ~
>>>>>> http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com
>>>>>> http://remediatingassessment.blogspot.com
>>>>>> ~
>>>>>> jenmcwil@indiana.edu
>>>>>> jennamcjenna@gmail.com
>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Michael Glassman wrote:
>>>>>> Helen,
>>>>>>> Just to put in my two cents.  Constructivism itself
>> is an
>>>>>>> epistemological
>>>>>>> stance.  I had always thought the term was coined by
>> Kohlberg, but
>>>>>>> googling
>>>>>>> around it seems to come from Piaget in 1967 (so it is doubtful
>>> Vygtosky
>>>>>>> would have thought of himself at least as a
>> constructivist).  It
>>>>>>> suggests
>>>>>>> that the way in which knowledge comes into existence is
>> through an
>>>>>>> individual's construction based on experience in the
>> world around
>>> them,
>>>>>>> rather than being given (some interpretations of
>> behaviorism) or
>>>>>>> realized
>>>>>>> based on experience unlocking some warehouse of the mind
>> (Chomsky).> The
>>>>>>> learning paradox which was recently mentioned actually
>> came out of a
>>>>>>> debate
>>>>>>> between Piaget and Vygotsky (although the actual terms
>> emerged out of
>>> a
>>>>>>> later discussion of the debate) - with the Chomskyites
>> arguing about
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>> you can know if something should be recognized as
>> something that
>>> should
>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>> into the construction of knowledge if you do not already
>> have some
>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>> that it is important.
>>>>>>> Social constructivism is not quite as well developed, but
>> it suggests
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same constructivist epistemological stance, but instead
>> of focusing on
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> the individual constructs knowledge out of their
>> experience in the
>>> world
>>>>>>> they construct their knowledge of the world through their
>> experience> in
>>>>>>> social relationships.  The social relationships tend
>> to take some type
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> precedence so that the construction of knowledge is not
>> universal but
>>>>>>> delineated and defined by social experience.  I
>> myself tend to take
>>> this
>>>>>>> view of Vygotsky but not everybody does (and it is also a
>> little hard
>>> to
>>>>>>> square with scientific concepts which have been discussed
>> recently).> >>>>
>>>>>>> Constructionism in my experience has been more reserved
>> for more
>>>>>>> immediate, process oriented knowledge building or the
>> process of
>>>>>>> knowing,
>>>>>>> many times variations of off shoots from Dewey's Instrumental
>>> Pragmatism
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> people such as Gergen, Harre and Rorty.  But other
>> people use
>>>>>>> constructivism
>>>>>>> and constructionism interchangably.  Again, from my
>> perspective there
>>> is
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> difference in an epistemological stance of constructivism and
>>>>>>> constructionism.  Possibly the dividing factor is
>> the constructivism
>>>>>>> assume
>>>>>>> a metaphysics while constructionsim seems to more often
>> argue against
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>> CHAT - cultural historical activity theory - well that's
>> a lot.  My
>>> own
>>>>>>> view is that within this sort of umbrella of ideas there
>> is no single
>>>>>>> epistemological stance or a definite view of a
>> metaphysic.  Meaning I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> you can find social constructivists, constructionists,
>> and perhaps
>>> even
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> odd constructivist hiding in a corner somehwere.
>>>>>>> Anyway, I hope that is some help.
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of
>> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> >>>> Sent: Wed 4/7/2010 8:57 AM
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Cc: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind,
>> Culture,Activity> >>>> Subject: [xmca] (ism) v (ist)
>>>>>>> In the xmca archive there is much discussion about the
>> differences> >>>> between
>>>>>>> just these two modifiers.  Never settled, perhaps
>> never will.  From a
>>>>>>> linguist standpoint one is active and one is passive.
>>>>>>> Helen; from my own experience when I wrote my master's
>> thesis ( A
>>>>>>> Vygotskian perspective on Special Education Transition
>> Services) my
>>>>>>> supervisor kept asking if I wouldn't be better off making
>> the argument
>>>>>>> from an Ericson point of view so I believe mainstream
>> acadamia is
>>> still
>>>>>>> confused about what cultural-historical theory is;
>> however, I believe
>>> I
>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>> safe in saying it is not social constructivism.  Has
>> your supervisor
>>>>>>> specifically stated where they are finding the
>> descrepancies in your
>>>>>>> argument?  In my thesis I wanted to use more
>> Valsiner and Van der Veer
>>>>>>> references but found they did not coexist very well with
>> the Vygotsky,
>>>>>>> Luria, Scribner, and Cole cross cultural studies I was
>> referencing.> >>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe this helps, maybe this muddies the water?
>>>>>>> eric
>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett <helen.grimmett@education.monash.edu.au>
>>>>>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> 04/06/2010 09:38 PM
>>>>>>> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>>>>>>    To:
>> lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity"> >>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>    cc:
>> Subject:        Re: [xmca]
>> Book review ol talk and texts
>>>>>>> Can I please ask a (probably extremely naive) question?
>> What are the
>>>>>>> differences between social constructivism (as referred to
>> in this book
>>>>>>> review) and cultural-historical theory? My supervisor
>> keeps telling me
>>> I
>>>>>>> am confusing my arguments by using references from both
>> paradigms, but
>>> I
>>>>>>> still haven't managed to grasp what the difference is.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Helen
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 11:59 am
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Book review ol talk and texts
>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>> Cc: Roy Pea <roypea@stanford.edu>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the review, Larry.
>>>>>>>> So many important issue intersect there.
>>>>>>>> Gotta find out what Joe Polman and Roy Pea have to offer
>> on the
>>>>>>>> learningparadox. Thought Newman et al. set that one to
>> rest back in
>>>>>>>> the last
>>>>>>>> millennium!! And to think that it involves a revival of
>> the idea of
>>>>>>>> a zoped
>>>>>>>> in transformative communication! Super.
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>> Roy-- Can you send us the text? Really sounds interesting.
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Larry Purss
>> <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I just read this review of a new book that I thought may be
>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>> some of the CHAT community so I''ve attached the
>> review.  David
>>>>>>>>> Olson wrote
>>>>>>>> one of the chapters.
>>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list