The Disability-Research Discussion List

Managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds

Help for DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Archives


DISABILITY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


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

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH Home

DISABILITY-RESEARCH  January 2003

DISABILITY-RESEARCH January 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Continuation of religion/disability discussion

From:

David Quarter <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:17:16 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (658 lines)

  Continuing on...


Subject:                RE: Continuation of religion/disability
discussion
Date sent:              Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:08:21 -0500
From:                   "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
To:                     <[log in to unmask]>
Copies to:              <DISABILITY-
[log in to unmask]>

> David:
>
> I appreciate your answer.  Email is, by nature, normally a cold
medium (to use the old McLuhanesque term, if anyone remembers
him) and also often seen as a casual one.  One does not go to the
trouble in email that one goes to in more formal writings.  We tend
to rely on code words and phrases or other terms that we believe
are generally known to all.
>
> However, that this is so does not make it right.  I have
interspersed some comments, below, meant to point out where
there might be some areas of your argument supported more by
faith and dogma than by evidence.

 If you going to resort to the use of words such "faith and dogma"
as a comparison (that is, as opposites) to the word "evidence",
you're merely further complicating what is already a complex issue.
I mean, what evidence isn;'t based on dogma and fairth?


 If I am correct in that assumption, then I again pose my earlier
question (in a slightly different form), which you did not answer:
"How is your argument and form of assertion of 'truth' any different
from that of the 'hypocrisy' you tax Bush with?

  I can't even recall how we got to this point. Neverthless, Let me
try to answer this question:

Obviously, there is no absolute "truths" in the world and therefore
the use of a word such as "hypocrisy" to describe another person's
position is meant more to discredit it than  to imply that your own
argument is infallible. For example, I might say that the U.S. and
the UN  are most responsible for inflicting harship on the Iraqi
people. And the Bush apologist, David Frum, might say that
Saddam Hussien is most responsible. I might then proceed to
provide statistical evidence linking the growth of diseases and
poverty in the Iraqi population with the onset of the sanctions
regime and the (almost) daily bombardment of Iraqi targets in the
South and North  by U.S. and British war planes. Frum might
respond by providing evidence suggesting that Hussein's "gassing"
of the populaiton and hoarding of resources is the proximate cause
behind  the dire predicament of  most of the Iraqi population.
Who's the right party here? Who are we to believe? And if the
answer is no one, does this then mean that we should no longer
point fingers to the apparent culpability of particular leader of
certain crimes since it may be impossible to "prove" their
wrongdoing?



 That is, if your arguments are based on the 'sacred' writings of the
Internet, how is your position any different from that of religious
people?  If it is similar, then what right do you have to bash
Christians, or religious people in general?"

    Again, I can't remember how we got to this point. Hopefully, my
answer above addresses this question.

Anyhow, i want to watch Seinfeld.

The rest of my answer is interspersed below:


>
> Timothy Lillie, PhD
> Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> The University of Akron
> Akron OH 44325-4205
> 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> 330-972-5209 (Fax)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 3:48 PM
> > To: Lillie,Timothy H
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: RE: Continuation of religion/disability discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >   Tim,
> >
> >
> >
> >    Yes -- I don't always go to all the energy to back up my
> > statements with evidence. I usuallly don't have the time.
>
> <<<<I wonder about this statement.  Wasn't this generally
George Bush's attitude before he was pressured into gathering
evidence against Iraq?It is interesting that you share the same
attitude toward evidence, yet have such divergent views.>>>


Perhaps, an example is in order:

 If I was to state to a western audience that the American elite are
mass murderers. And to substantiate this statement I point to the
fact the U.S. of A has probably attacked (that is, bombed or
invaded) more countries than all of the countries of the world
combined, someone would likely take me to task to provide
"evidence". If I wrote, on other other hand, that the North Korean
"dictator" is the biggest menace to the world and that North Korea
's nuclear capabilities pose a huge threat to the world safety, most
(average) North Americans would probably not flinch an eye. In
both cases I'm not backing up my statements with sources. Yet, in
the first example,I would be expected, especially if I wanted to
publish an article about this issue in any mainstream publication
(mag., newspaper, or non-academic journal) to provide hard
evidence; in the second example, no such requirement would be
necessary. This  despite the fact that any serious political observer
would likely view the first statement as relatively accurate -- aside
from the spin that might be put on it -- and the second statement
as propaganda (at least, in private).

Most of the articles printed in publications that reach a wide
audience, I would argue, for example, the Times, the Post, the
Globe, etc, is filled with conjecture and spin. As publications they
are the equivalent of what is often (and ironically) referred to in the
mass media as the "official" positions of the (so-called) Communist
regimes expressed in their state -run newspapers. The mass
audience publications are organs to mold mass opinion in favour of
the U.S.policy.  Publications that aim at a more select audience --
e.g., the economist -- generally provide a more "balanced" (that is,
revealing) descriptions of U.S. foreign policy, and are not as heavily
filled with the patriotic slogans and rhethoric.

Yet, there are publicaitons that provide first hand evidence of U.S.
government crimes (that is, right from the cow's mouth, or however
the saying goes), most notably the national security archive (?). It
publishes documentation, written by U.S. officicials on U.S
operations at home and abroad, formerly registered as "top secret",
yet which by law must be made available to the public under (what
I believe is called) the U.S. Disclosure Act. The exceptioin is when
the info. would "pose a threat" to the interests of the U.S. state
(that is, the elites).

 I also think the two situations -- that is, mine and Bush's -- are
entirely different: Bush is pushing for an invasion against an
economically crippled, third world nation, which has in its
posession very little by way of millitary capabilities to defend itself.
This coward is backing up this threat with the most powerful army
and nuclear capabilities in the world, not to mention, the support of
relatively powerful U.S. allies. The repecussions of any invasion --
aside from the issue of  "legality" -- is that hundreds of thousands,
and perhaps millions, of Iraqi civilians will be put in harms way.

I, on the other hand, am having a casual political debate on the net.

>
>
>  And I'm
> > not sure that it will necesarily have any bearing on the beliefs
of
> > those of us who prefer to live in Cloud Nine over the
> > politices of the
> > U.S. elite.
>
>       Dear me:  who are these terribly naive people who OBVIOUSLY
don't have the learning and sophistication you have????


 I don't think I'm alone in believing that Americans are amongst the
most apolitical and politicallly indifferent group of people on the
face of the planet.  I think voter tournout in American elections kind
of speaks to this point.


>  Neither, unforutunately, do the mass murderers in
> > Washington
>
>       When Clinton refused to respond to the genocide in Rwanda,
did you also characterize him as a "mass murderer?" When he
bombed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan to try to shake off
press coverage of his sexual predation of an intern in the White
House, did you call that "mass murder?"

 First of all, I consider Clinton as much of a criminal (if not more of
one) than Bush. I state this hesitantly b/c Bush has not had as
much time in office to unleash his henchmen on the world's
oppressed. I'm sure in due time, Bush will have equalled or
surpassed his predecessor in terms of his "crimes against
humanity". At any rate, I don't see any qualitative difference
between Clinton's policies abroad while in office and the policies of
Bush now, or, for that matter, from any U.S. president throughout
history.

Secondly, evidence has long pointed to  the U.S. and French role
in the whole Rwandan affair. It was the U.S. government that was
funding the military of the side which was the supposedly the main
victim of the genocide (I always get the names mixed up). The
incident that sparked the bloodshed, that is, the missile used to
down the plane carrying the other sides diplomat, was U.S made. I
also remember reading that this act was coordinated by the CIA. I
believe the point about U.S. involvement was disclosed in the U.N.
conducted "investigation" on the genocide lead by former Canadian
Amb. to the UN, Stephen Lewis. Yet the fallacy of the "Clnton
didn't do enough in Rwanda " argument has been exposed in
countless leftist publications and magazines, through the use of
offcial U.S. and western sources.

This whole "reluctant" actor argument is rubbish and has been
used on countless occasions (and continues to be used) by the
U.S. government to justify its imperialism abroad.



>
> provide any real, convincing evidence when they
> > spread their gospel about supposedly wanting to "rid the world
of
> > terrorism", or that Saddam is suddenly a threat to the world.
They
> > just rely on playing off the emotions of the population through
their
> > mouthpieces in the media.
>
<<<Now this I tend to agree with; the only part we might differ on is
that I think this is used by so-called "progressives" when it suits
them as well as so-called "conservatives."  >>>

  No real disagreement there.


>
> >
> >  (1) I don't think the first point is of real importance
> > since we seem
> > to  agree that the American elite's resurgent interest with
> > Iraq is of
> > a cynical nature.
>
>       Likely so; if you define "elite" as being class-based, rather than
politics-based.

  I consider both.

<<<After all, Bill Clinton came into office in 1992 concerned about
education and promptly sent his daughter to a private school,
because the DC schools were apparently not good enough for her.
And I voted for him. >>>


  Politicians say what the publics wants to them say. It is almost
to be expected that Clinton, as Democratic president, will parade
as a "liberal" in public, and behave just as bourgeois as the richest
of the rich in private. The so-called social democrat Blair behaves
similarly.




Twice.
>
> >
> >  (2)  There is much evidence floating around the net which
> > suggests that this whole  "we didn't know they were coming"
and
> > "we weren't prepared" arguments as per the airplanes crashing
in
> > the twin towers and subsequently the Pentagon building is
bogus
> > (And they are not flimsy consipiracy theories!). There is a
airforce
> > base -- the name escapes me -- that is on 24 hour alert for
these
> > types of things. For some reason, it took a snooze on the day
of
> > Sept. 11. The white house and the Pentagon, with the help of
the
> > media, have provided conflicting and contradicatory statements
> > about the issue that simply don't add up.  I will provide you
> > with the
> > link to information about the issue when I find the time.
>
>       Thanks.  I suppose I could find links that would provide you with
"information" about how the Holocaust did not happen,but I am
afraid that Internet sites are not normally evidence, in my book.


  I look at the argument not the publication. If the argument is
compelling, and well documented, it shouldn't matter who the
author is or the publication it originates from. Wouldn't you agree?


> > Bush and company (e.g., Cheney) have had business dealings
with
> > the Bin Laden family up until the Sept. 11 (as far as I know it's
> > continued).
>
>       The first part of this statement may be true; I don't know.  The
parenthetical addition is simply a snide assertion.>>>


 I said "as far as I know" b/c I couldn't remember whether the
source, which I pulled this info. from,  had made this point. I will
provides the links in my next message to you. I'm too lazy at
moment.



>
>  One has to wonder why the President of the U.S. and
> > his close associates would have business  ties with the family
of
> > one of the most wanted men in the world (i.e., he was up on
the list
> >  even before the attacks) especially if they were supposedly
trying
> > to hunt him down?  ALso, it was reported in the Washington
Post (I
> > believe it picked it up the story from a news wire service),
> > or one of
> > the mainstream publications, that a CIA agent(s) met with Bin
> > Laden just prior to the september 11 attacks in the UAE,
where he
> > was said to receiving medical treatment. I don't know how
much
> > truth there is to the story, yet one have to become a tad
suspicious
> > when it receives such scant attention in the media, especially
> > since it's generally the case that the most pertinent information
> > (namely, that which could really embarass, not to mention,
> > discredit the U.S. government and the entire ruling class)  is
that
> > which is not discussed in the open.
>
>       Again:  Evidence, please.

 See previous poiint.



The Washington Post is not known for its courageous unbiased
coverage any more than, say, "National Review" in the US. I have
heard (correct me if I am wrong) that "The Spectator" in the UK is
the "conservative" magazine which is also not unbiased.


 I wouldn't know since I'm not British.

>
> >
> > There has been people who have attempted to piece together
the
> > puzzle surrouding this issue. When I have the time, I will
provide
> > you with the links.
> >
> > (3) I think the third point speaks for itself. The U.S. elite
> > has always
> > advanced a plausible excuse to justify their aggressive foreign
> > policy (see: Latin America, Indo China, etc).
>
>       See dictators, fundamentalists, and others all over the world.


  All I would say in response to this statement is:  nothing  -- not
one war, not one coup d'etat, not one civil war, not the restructuring
of one economy, not the expulsion, oppression, or genocide of a
one population -- has taken place within the world since the era of
colonialism, since the cold world, and now in the (essentially)
unipolar world we live in to-day without the "help" (or direct
participation) of the dominant states. During colonialism it was  the
western European countries, during the cold war it was the U.S.
and U.S.S.R, and at present it is the U,S. of A.

 I would not so much dispute your point about the "dictators", or
"fundamentalists" of the world (many of whom are U.S. and
western backed) manipulating their populaitons in a similar (and
perhaps, more fundamentally, a more blatant manner) than ,
say,the western media (and in particular, the NA one). But, I would
say that the crimes of the Husseins of the world pale in
comparison to those of the of U.S. elite (and the western
Europeans). I don't think this last point is debatable.


David



>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject:            RE: Continuation of religion/disability
> > discussion
> > Date sent:          Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:10:00 -0500
> > From:               "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To:                 <[log in to unmask]>,
> >     <DISABILITY-
> > [log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > David:
> > >
> > > I appreciate your passion about this topic and I am aware
that
> > there are many who share it.  However, you have simply
asserted
> > these beliefs as if they are somehow "real".  You ask us, in
fact, to
> > take your point of view on faith, since you provide no evidence
for
> > your comments (especially the one that asserts that the 9/11
event
> > was behind the twin towers terrorist attacks or knew about
them
> > and chose to do nothing, which is a very serious charge).
> > >
> > > How does your thinking, below, differ in any essential way
from
> > that of religions and religious thinkers who assert various
points of
> > view as ordained by God and incumbent upon followers to
believe?
> > >
> > > TL
> > >
> > > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > > The University of Akron
> > > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: David Quarter
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:51 PM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: Continuation of religion/disability discussion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    A fews comments:
> > > >
> > > >   (1) BUsh's "concern with Saddam" (read: Iraq) has little if
> > > > anything to do with ensuring future electoral success
(although
> > I'm
> > > > sure this is obviously a concern of his) and almost entirely
to do
> > > > with gaining control of oil fields, installing american
> > > > "friendly" Iraqi
> > > > vassals, installing the upteemth U.S. base in the world,
> > geopolitics,
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (2) This problem is/was American created. The whole twin-
> > towers
> > > > affair was just a convenient (albeit every plausible) excuse
for
> > Bush
> > > > and his "allies" to continue their war drive against thier foes
> > (read:
> > > > their wanting to rid the world of any opposition to American-
> > style
> > > > capitalism and western occupation, western hegemony,
> > > > authoritarian rule, un-democratic tendencies, etc).
Moroever,
> > there
> > > > is considerable evidence to suggest that the American
> > government
> > > > WAS behind this entire event; and if not behind it, knew
about
> > it,
> > > > and did nothing to prevent it.
> > > >
> > > > (3) It's questionable whether this Bin Laden character is
even
> > alive.
> > > > I have to wonder, for example, how the supposedly most
> > wanted
> > > > man in the world (read: of the U.S. elite) is able to
repeatedly
> > evade
> > > > capture from the police men of the world (i.e., U.S.-led
western
> > > > "peacekeepers"[sic!!]), and even with a substantial bounty
on
> > his
> > > > head?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (4) Bush and Blair call themselves "Christians" for one or
> > perhaps
> > > > all of the following reasons together: so as to cater to their
> > > > constituents; to present themselves as moral individuals as
> > > > opposed to ravaging, genocidal maniacs; to trick people
into
> > > > beleiving that their policies are actually driven by moralistic
> > > > concerns as opposed material concern, self-interest, geo-
> > politics,
> > > > etc; cause they know that most westerners are gullible,
are
> > sheep
> > > > who believe 80 to 90 percent of what they hear spoken of
by
> > > > government, and other insitutions of social control, etc;
> > because
> > > > government always says the opposite of what it believes,
and
> > > > always does the opposite of what it says. Take your pick.
> > > >
> > > > (5) I don't think criticizing Bush and Blair's supposed
> > > > dedicatioin (?)
> > > > to "their" faith stems out of any deep concern with
Christianity,
> > as
> > > > opposed the hypocrisy of two men portraying themselves
as
> > moral
> > > > human beings, yet simultaneously being responsible for
> > inflicting
> > > > so much hardship, suffering (not least, bloodshed) on the
rest of
> > > > the world.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > Date sent:              Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:48:42 -0000
> > > > Send reply to:          Larry Arnold <larry@LARRY-
> > > > ARNOLD.COM>
> > > > From:                   Larry Arnold <larry@LARRY-
> > > > ARNOLD.COM>
> > > > Subject:                Re: Continuation of religion/disability
> > > > discussion
> > > > To:                     DISABILITY-
[log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > > > I cannot help thinking that Bush with his Winston
Churchill
> > > > fixation is
> > > > > intent upon doing a Maggie Thatcher to ensure his
electoral
> > > > success by going
> > > > > down as the guy who finally did for Saddam, as Maggie
did to
> > > > Galtieri but
> > > > > solving nothing in the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was some guys masquerading as airline pilots, intent
upon
> > a
> > > > Jihad that
> > > > > started this current round of renewed hostilities. You can
all
> > > > sleep safe in
> > > > > your beds though that my eyesight is such that I am
never
> > likely
> > > > to get a
> > > > > pilots licence as I am not even allowed to drive a bus.
> > > > >
> > > > > To return to the point, Bush and Blair may call
themselves
> > > > Christians as
> > > > > much as Osama bin Laden may call himself a Muslim.
You
> > > > cannot define either
> > > > > faith merely by what some of its adherents do in it's
name.
> > > > >
> > > > > The attack upon Bush and Blair can be seen as has been
> > > > pointed out, not so
> > > > > much as an attack on there supposed hypocrisy but an
> > attack
> > > > upon the
> > > > > religion (and by implication faith in general) which they
> > > > ostennsibly
> > > > > espouse and a general excuse for an outbreak of faith
> > bashing
> > > > form those
> > > > > whose atheist and humanistic perspective is no less a
> > profession
> > > > of "faith"
> > > > > than any other and equally unprovable as an eternal
verity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Larry
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> > > > > > [mailto:DISABILITY-
[log in to unmask]]On
> > Behalf
> > > > Of Lillie,Timothy H
> > > > > > Sent: 17 December 2002 14:10
> > > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Continuation of religion/disability
discussion
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure what this means.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > > > > > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > > > > > The University of Akron
> > > > > > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > > > > > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > > > > > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________End of
> > message______________________
> > > > >
> > > > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research
Discussion List
> > > > > are now located at:
> > > > >
> > > > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > > > >
> > > > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > > >
> > > > ________________End of
message______________________
> > > >
> > > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion
List
> > > > are now located at:
> > > >
> > > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > > >
> > > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

________________End of message______________________

Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:

www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager