- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

CMC in social work
by Mestdagh Chris 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Hello, I am preparing a Phd on the use of CMC (mainly e-mail and online chat) in social work practices. Does anyone have any references on this matter? Many thanks, Chris Mestdagh University of Ghent

2 1

Re: [Air-l] vampirefreaks et al
by Jonathan Sterne 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

Hi All, I've been on the phone with reporters on and off today and am struggling a bit with the whole event. Mostly, the questions are about the "impacts" of various technologies, to which I respond that the technology with the most impact yesterday was a gun. But I just had a long back and forth with a reporter from the National Post who was saying "the guy had this website, why didn't anybody do anything?" I tried to explain the subtleties of goth subculture, darkness and all that to no avail. The old "most of the people on this website never do anything" argument wasn't washing either. My line was that the responsible people for doing something were the people close to the shooter, whether they be online or offline friends. The reporter then turned it back on me and asked whether that wasn't simply dismissing online communication as a serious context. Sooooo, I'm turning the question around to you: at what point do people have a responsibility to "intervene" in something they see online and if that point comes, what form should their reaction take? I write this noting that there was just a big report (I think I saw this in the paper a day or two ago) by the Canadian anti-defamation league about the proliferation of hate websites and governments being unable to regulate them. Best, --J -- Jonathan Sterne Department of Art History and Communication Studies McGill University http://sterneworks.org

6 5

Aftermath of flame war
by Stephanie Jo Kent 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

I agree, Ingbert, this is an amazingly rich resource for study. fyi, I did make an attempt to study a segment of discourse that occurred on this list last year after the bombings in London. I contacted each of the participants for permission (informed consent). Half responded, half did not. Of those who did, I received permission only from a couple. The others wanted to attach conditions. I was discouraged. :-( I would hesitate to state so unequivocally the labels you used to acts of discourse without a collective analysis, but the problem is that no one wants to be 'singled out' (as it were) as enacting an instantiation of most things, let alone most of the behaviors on your list. Even to offer a specific example (which you did not) would potentially target someone and lead to who knows what unintended consequences. Kevin proposed an alternative: > I am not interested in (publicly) discussing this listserv and its > recent and ongoing events. What I am interesting in is expanding my > own knowledge of relevant research which may inform the discussion and > aid me in placing this into context. I appreciate this impulse. It may be an example of the kind of orientation that leads to the academic life: the consideration of theory and its application in other people's lives - in other words, in contexts other than our own. :-/ BUT, here we are, "in" this context. For myself, I want to work in both environments. I want to use the skills of real-life intervention in academia, and bring the insights of academic theory and constructions of knowledge to everyday life. Perhaps there is a way to tack between the two proposals (yours and Kevin's) in a way that produces a framework for self-study that enough AoIR's would accept? steph http://www.reflexivity.us On Sep 14, 2006, at 2:03 PM, air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org wrote: > Message: 11 > Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:39:12 -0500 > From: "Ingbert Floyd" <ifloyd2(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [Air-l] Aftermath of flame war > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Message-ID: > <58b9f8580609140939p56f69a64p1c483e9ef2493ead(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Disclaimer: This email is *not* a criticism of the list, or of > individuals on the list, please don't take it as such. > > I gotta say, I was very surprised by the length and intensity of the > flame war on a list devoted to people who study such things. > (Frankly, I ignored most of it, so I'm not in a position to take > sides.) But I'm quite fascinated by the aftermath. I mean, I've seen > messages of all different types, and some really interesting patterns > are emerging: > > * paranoia - people (on both sides) seeing attacks where there weren't > any (as far as I could tell); > * reactive behavior - classification of human beings into clear > categories (e.g., troll, academic, etc.), usually negative, and the > consequential seeming inability to interpret text composed by the > categorized person as being anything besides the stereotyped behavior > of the category; > * gang mentality vs. it's-me-against-the-world mentality, and how they > seem to feed and nourish themselves on the other; > * concilliatory behavior by people who want to see the dispute end > ** and the outright rejection of the concilliatory behavior; > * expressions of disgust and threats to leave as a different strategy > for trying to end the disputes. > ** and the disregard for (ignoring of) the negative attempts at trying > to end the dispute; > * and all kinds of attention-getting behavior in order to keep > promoting the person's particular side of the argument--an inability > to let go. > > More importantly, I see this as a wonderful opportunity. We have a > list full of people who study this kind of online behavior, and we > have both observers/outsiders who had no part in the flame war, and we > had participants from both sides, who can provide their insider > perspective, and all of it will be informed by academic (in the > non-pejorative sense) knowledge. How much better of a research > opportunity is this? And we have the venue for collaboration already > here: the AoIR list itself. We don't seem to have lost any of the > main participants (I could be wrong here), and we could go off-list to > contact those people who did leave (we have their email addresses in > the archives, no?). I mean, we talk about collaboration a lot, well, > here's a chance to explore a new type of academic publishing model > (hey, at least anybody with tenure can afford to try it out), loosely > based on the wikipedia model of massive participation and many eyes to > capture all perspectives, except all the participants are academics. > What do you think? People always criticize academics for being behind > the trends, struggling to catch up. By developing a truly > community-wide/community-inclusive research methodology we'd be ahead > of the trend. > > And, who knows, the community-wide participation in such a positively > oriented/constructive activity might just be the type of behavior we > need to start the healing process ;) > > Ingbert > > Ingbert Floyd > PhD Student > Graduate School of Library and Information Science > University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign > > -- > > ========================================== > Check out the unofficial GSLIS Wiki: > > http://www.gslis.org/ > > Tell me what you think, if you find it useful, or if you have any > ideas for how to organize it better. And if you feel comfortable > doing so, I heartily encourage you to contribute content! > > This GSLIS is the Graduate School of Library and Information Science > at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:42:48 -0500 > From: "Kevin Guidry" <krguidry(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [Air-l] Listserv Research > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Message-ID: > <3d273fe80609140942ta95fbffw22a36a1ad6692d5e(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I'm fairly new to the list and I'm trying to place the recent > metadiscussion about the listserv itself and participation in context > with what I know about typical and historical behavior on and > characteristics of listservs and listserv participants. > I am not interested in (publicly) discussing this listserv and its > recent and ongoing events. What I am interesting in is expanding my > own knowledge of relevant research which may inform the discussion and > aid me in placing this into context. I am aware of some resources > specifically related to this topic, particularly Brian Butler's 1999 > dissertation "The Dynamics of Cyberspace: Examining and Modelling > Online Social Structure" and the works referenced therein. However, I > am having some difficulty locating additional and more recent relevant > research as much of what I am finding is research performed *using* > listservs but not *about* listservs. I suspect that I may not be > using the correct terminology or jargon to perform a sufficiently > narrow search. I also suspect that my topic may simply be too broad > or undefined. Can some kind soul please point me in the right > direction or towards specific resources that may be useful? > I also have to wonder if my difficulty in finding more recent > resources may be attributed to a dying off of listservs as they are > replaced by wikis, blogs, bulletin boards, and other resources. But > that does not match my experience at all. It may indeed happen over > time but it seems that although younger persons are often dismissive > of e-mail it many older persons, particularly in the professional > worlds in which I have worked, still hold onto e-mail and thus > perpetuate listservs as a viable, useful medium. > > > Kevin Guidry > Information Technology Fellow > Sewanee: The University of the South > > > ------------------------------

1 0

Is there a stranglehold?
by Dr. Steve Eskow 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

(I have eliminated messages from this post, since the original post was too long. SE) -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Steve Eskow [mailto:drseskow@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:31 AM To: 'wrc(a)tcfir.org'; 'air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org' Subject: RE: [Air-l] Air-list Reid Cornwell's argument continues to be factually false. The scientists Gibbons speaks of that have controlled the flow of information to the public have been in corporate and industrial and government and military research centers as well as in the university. Indeed, much crucial research on matters (for example) pertaining to health has been conducted by giant private pharmaceutical companies who have not made this information widely available but have held it in what might be considered a "stranglehold" while poor people around the world perished from lack of the drugs which research made possible. The issue of the control of information versus its free flow is too vital to society--and to the future of the Internet--to be conducted in the inflammatory language of "stranglehold" and the like. This matter of course takes us into complex issues of patents, copywright, and the like. That the university has no stranglehold, de facto or otherwise,is refuted by the research and development that led to the Internet and the World Wide Web, and the disputes centering around control of anti-malaria drugs and antiretrovirals needed by the poor afflicted with HIV/AIDS. The notion that the private sector is the hero and the solution to the world's research needs is refuted by the private sector's behaviors in such matters as Vioxx and the other cox-2 inhibitors, and its unwillingness to share its research findings for the benefit of those needing it--except for a prohibitive price. Perhaps what is needed is an anti-inflammatory to cool down the use of such language as 'stranglehold" in an important discussion. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: Dr. W. Reid Cornwell [mailto:wrc@tcfir.org] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:54 AM To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org; drseskow(a)cox.net Subject: RE: [Air-l] Air-list I would have preferred to have this off-list but I have been accused here of factual falsity and am compelled to respond. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:16 AM To: wrc(a)tcfir.org; air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Air-list Reid, and all, The matter of the relations between universities and the larger society seems critical to the future of the Internet. So: Reid describes Michael Gibbons' Mode 1 and Mode 2 this way: <<In mode 1 the Universities and their social structures and customs (praxis)have a stranglehold on the creation and dissemination of knowledge. In mode 2 applications become a major driving force. In this scenario practitioners in search of solutions to real world problems take on a more important role.These practitioners are not likely to be Ph.D.s. Gibbons does not directly say this but it is inherent in the mode 2 schema.>> The statements in this paragraph are factually false, and distort Gibbons' message. [ Reid Cornwell Wrote] I think not. Gibbons writes, "Traditionally, communications between science and society was essentially one way: scientists were the holders of privileged expert knowledge, while the lay public was to be enlightened and educated." He continues, "The previous one-way communication process from scientific from scientific experts to the lay public perceived to be scientific illiterate and in need of education and in need of education by experts has been supplanted by politically backed demands for accountability of science and technology and new public discussions in which experts have to communicate in a more 'vernacular' science than ever before." On Mode 2 research Gibbons writes, "its theoretical and methodological core is in response to problem-formulation that occur in highly specific and local contexts of application." I said my views were parallel not the same. My argument is that "science equals the academy." Traditionally, the academy has, at the least, had a de facto stranglehold. First, and most important: the universities have never had, or claimed, or wanted "a stranglehold on the creation and dissemination of knowledge." Had they wanted such a "stranglehold" they have never had the power to prevent the government, the military, the industrial research laboratory, or the solitary explorer in his basement from researching. Indeed, a major criticism of university research is that it has often been compromised by its dependence on funds from these non-university sources, and that its research agenda has often been shaped by donor interests rather than society's needs and thus there has developed the drift to applied rather than basic research. [ Reid Cornwell Wrote] The accountability that Gibbons refers to is a reaction to the pretensions of the Academy and its arrogance of customs. Gibbons' Mode 2 is largely in effect now: "partnerships" and close collaboration between the university research lab and the research activities of the business, industry, the military, and government. The trend is in this direction, and it is unlikely that it will stop. In one view we now need another independent research effort to determine whether the long term interests of the nation and the world are being neglected in the pursuit of research devoted to products and processes with an immediate profit potential. [ Reid Cornwell Wrote] This partnership you speak of is an unwilling, if not unholy alliance at its best. Accountability (intellectual and financial) means control in these partnerships. You are correct in your assessment of the trend, but it is a self inflicted wound. This trend and current needs for researchers seem to offer no clear signal for our need for researchers at the Ph.D. level. Part of that answer seems related to the question of how research attention is divided between basic and applied research. [ Reid Cornwell Wrote] The Internet has exposed the dense communication of the academy and asked, "is this what we are paying for?" Keep in mind that this thread was in the context of "Are We Producing too many Ph.D.s?", which asserts that Mentors influence their students by counseling them that research outside the academy is a failure in their careers. This may not be a stranglehold in brute force terms but is certainly a stranglehold of intellectual manipulation, speaking metaphorically. Steve Eskow

3 2

Re: [Air-l] psychological impact of telework
by Caroline Haythornthwaite 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Janet Salaff has a great paper on how teleworkers manage the home/work boundary at home. She also has other papers on teleworkers. Salaff, Janet (2002). Where Home is the Office: The New Form of Flexible Work. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet In Everyday Life (pp. 464-495). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ** earlier version available in American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3) For a similar paper on how people manage online education with home, see my own paper with Michelle Kazmer Haythornthwaite, C. & Kazmer, M. M. (2002). Bringing the Internet home: Adult distance learners and their Internet, Home and Work worlds. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 431-463). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. ** also an earlier version in American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3) /Caroline ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:04:38 -0500 >From: mark andrejevic <mark-andrejevic(a)uiowa.edu> >Subject: [Air-l] psychological impact of telework >To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > >Hi folks, >I'm working with some students who are interested in recent research >on the impact of teleworking conditions (monitoring, piecework or >rate pay, isolation -- in some cases, de-differentiation of home and >work -- in some cases), have on workers. I'd be much obliged for some >suggestions of places to look. >thanks, >Mark >_______________________________________________ >The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org >Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/ listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >Join the Association of Internet Researchers: >http://www.aoir.org/ ---------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Associate Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820

2 1

Re: [Air-l] vampirefreaks et al
by Sabryna Cornish 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Hi Jonathan-- I don't know the answer to your question, but I did find your story fascinating in a different respect. I think perhaps the scariest part of your conversation with the reporter for me is the fact that he seemed to already have made up his mind that it was the web site that had a large part in the resulting action. I am currently looking at how mass media portrayed the internet when it first came out and then plan on expanding to see if certain reporters who covered technology/the Internet at the time were biased in their coverage. Your comments here indicate that perhaps I might be on to something:-)... Sabryna ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:00:55 -0400 >From: Jonathan Sterne <jonathan.sterne(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: [Air-l] vampirefreaks et al >To: <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> > >Hi All, > >I've been on the phone with reporters on and off today and am struggling a >bit with the whole event. Mostly, the questions are about the "impacts" of >various technologies, to which I respond that the technology with the most >impact yesterday was a gun. > >But I just had a long back and forth with a reporter from the National Post >who was saying "the guy had this website, why didn't anybody do anything?" >I tried to explain the subtleties of goth subculture, darkness and all that >to no avail. The old "most of the people on this website never do anything" >argument wasn't washing either. My line was that the responsible people for >doing something were the people close to the shooter, whether they be online >or offline friends. The reporter then turned it back on me and asked >whether that wasn't simply dismissing online communication as a serious >context. > >Sooooo, I'm turning the question around to you: at what point do people have >a responsibility to "intervene" in something they see online and if that >point comes, what form should their reaction take? > >I write this noting that there was just a big report (I think I saw this in >the paper a day or two ago) by the Canadian anti-defamation league about the >proliferation of hate websites and governments being unable to regulate >them. > >Best, >--J > >-- >Jonathan Sterne >Department of Art History and Communication Studies >McGill University >http://sterneworks.org > >_______________________________________________ >The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org >Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > >Join the Association of Internet Researchers: >http://www.aoir.org/ Sabryna Cornish Ph.D. candidate, ABD Institute of Communications Research Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary. –Robert Louis Stevenson

2 1

Re: [Air-l] vampirefreaks and yesterday's massacre
by Sara M. Grimes 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Thank you to those who have suggested I look in Google cache and similar web archives. Just to clarify on my last post and question, however, I'm trying to find information about how and why and by whom the journal was deleted. It seems that this is standard practice in these cases, but who makes the actual decision to remove it - is it the sites themselves, or is it a standard part of the police investigation (or is there even some law within the patriot act that dictates that they have to)? On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:42:33 -0400 gelmer(a)ryerson.ca wrote: > Is it not cached by Google? > > /Greg > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sara M. Grimes" <smgrimes(a)sfu.ca> > Date: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:22 pm > Subject: [Air-l] vampirefreaks and yesterday's massacre > > > Hi All - > > The shootings at Dawson's College in Montreal, QC, Canada yesterday > > remainbig and deeply disturbing news in Canada, as the Quebec and > > Montreal police > > begin to piece together a profile of the killer. Today's CBC online > > newssite mentions a goth/vampire themed web community that the > > killer belonged > > to (vampirefreaks.com) where he apparently kept an online diary > > and gave > > hints about what he was planning > > (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/14/gunman- > > shooting.html).In trying to access his blog today, I discovered > > that it has unsurprisingly > > been removed. I'm assuming that police officials are responsible > > for this, > > to allow the investigation to proceed without interference, but > > could also > > see the site operators taking it down for other reasons. I was > > wondering if > > anyone has heard anything to confirm when/why/by whom the diary was > > removed?Is it standard practice during this type of investigation? > > I seem to > > remember hearing about similar blog deletions after past shootings > > of this > > kind, but I can't find anything written on this. > > > > Sara M. Grimes > > PhD Candidate/School of Communication > > Research Assistant/Applied Communication + Technology (ACT) Lab > > Simon Fraser University > > _______________________________________________ > > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > > http://www.aoir.org/ > > > Sara M. Grimes PhD Candidate/School of Communication Research Assistant/Applied Communication + Technology (ACT) Lab Simon Fraser University

7 6

Industry, Academy
by Dr. Steve Eskow 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

I have clearly walked into a long-standing argument whose dimensions I don't understand. Nevertheless. . . Reid Cornwell says: <<I have interviewed and evaluated industrial scientists for decades. Moderate deep learning, creativity and a real world vision is the sought after commodity. This is directly opposite of the institutional hiring and research policies of the Universities.>> The research universities of the U.S. hire scientists whose learning and skill and vision is sought after by industry. Indeed, one of the problems student report is that such faculty spend so much time consulting with business andindustry that there time with students is limited. I am close to the College of Engineering at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and aware of the work its faculties of science are doing. I haven't counted the Nobel Laureates on campus, or the days of consulting they provide for industry. Shuji Nakamurea, the Director of UCSB's Center for Solid State Lighting, has just returned from Finland where he received an award for his work in that field--and a $1.3 million dollar prize. <snip> <<Also in industry the sharing of knowledge is the rule, in academia the ownership of knowledge prevails. I know this is counter-intuitive considering that Universities are centers of learning.>> More counter-factual than counter-intuitive. University scientis share freely, in articles and scholarly journals. The scientists employed in corporate research centers--say, in drug research centers--do not share what they learn: patents and other forms of protection seem to be the rule. Sharing seems to be done only when such sharing is clearly in the best interest of the company. <<One only has to look at disciplinarity in Universities and the difficulty of establishing true cross-disciplinarity. You see the same thing happening in this listserv conflict. Ie. "We own the knowledge" about the internet." You're not an academic so you don't know anything.>> Is it perhaps also "You're not iin industry so you don't know anything of the real world"? <<My views are particularly problematic because I'm a heretic in the "Temple of Phud" and alien with my real world orientation.>> I have yet to see or hear of a university rejecting an overture from a corporation or an agency to co-sponsor research and development, and I would appreciate evidence of such behavior. "Interdisciplearity" has become something of a buzz word among those who are not engaged in university work. What many universities have done is to create "centers" and "institutes," e.g., "The Center for Solid State Lighting and Display" at UCSB, which are truly interdiscipleary, while retaining loose and permeable boundaries between the disciplines for teaching and learning and the preparation of practitioners. Steve Eskow

1 0

Oliver and Keegan
by Andrew Herman 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Hey Greg- Oliver is town this weekend. Are you guys? Andrew Andrew Herman, Ph. D. Associate Professor Department of Communication Studies Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5 CANADA 519 884-1970 x3693 >>> gelmer(a)ryerson.ca 14/09/2006 1:42:33 pm >>> Is it not cached by Google? /Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sara M. Grimes" <smgrimes(a)sfu.ca> Date: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:22 pm Subject: [Air-l] vampirefreaks and yesterday's massacre > Hi All - > The shootings at Dawson's College in Montreal, QC, Canada yesterday > remainbig and deeply disturbing news in Canada, as the Quebec and > Montreal police > begin to piece together a profile of the killer. Today's CBC online > newssite mentions a goth/vampire themed web community that the > killer belonged > to (vampirefreaks.com) where he apparently kept an online diary > and gave > hints about what he was planning > (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/14/gunman- > shooting.html).In trying to access his blog today, I discovered > that it has unsurprisingly > been removed. I'm assuming that police officials are responsible > for this, > to allow the investigation to proceed without interference, but > could also > see the site operators taking it down for other reasons. I was > wondering if > anyone has heard anything to confirm when/why/by whom the diary was > removed?Is it standard practice during this type of investigation? > I seem to > remember hearing about similar blog deletions after past shootings > of this > kind, but I can't find anything written on this. > > Sara M. Grimes > PhD Candidate/School of Communication > Research Assistant/Applied Communication + Technology (ACT) Lab > Simon Fraser University > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ > _______________________________________________ The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

1 0

recent discussion on relevance
by bakera＠ohiou.edu 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Carol, I so agree! If people could cut most of the previous dialogue, it would be easier to skip through what is not list-relevant. At 11:03 AM -0700 9/14/06, air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org wrote: >I would appreciate it very much, myself, if people did not feel the >need to include the entire previous message when responding. I can >track back if I want to, and sometimes do (in my digested list). cheers, andrea

1 0