Herb,
Grammar is not a science because smart people do not agree, and there is no real answer that we some day might understand. Your theories and models within the same discipline clash; smart people disagree. That is not science. That doesn't mean it is anti-intellectual. It's just not science. Not sure why some of you seem to be offended by this. I thought this was common knowledge.
> _pace_ Rumsfeld, actually increases.
?
"Philosophers of science"? Are you kidding? What credibility do philosophers have in the area of science? I am talking science.
But if you think scientists would not agree with me, do name one and explain why what he or she has said that would refute my characterization of grammatical definitions.
Susan
On Nov 14, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
> Susan,
>
> Science, including grammar, comes down to model building. We construct models of what we know of reality and then test those models. We can do that in grammar as well as in biology or physics. The one thing that we can say with certainty of any scientific theory, including theories of grammar, is that if they are worthy of the name "theory" they can be falsified--and will be. Our theories, our models, whatever our discipline, asymptotically approach reality, but every new theory raises new questions so that what we know that we do not know, _pace_ Rumsfeld, actually increases. Few scientists or philosophers of science would accept your characterization.
>
> Herb
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 8:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: grammar term definitions
>
> Gee, you can study religion, but that doesn't make God a fact. Study of something doesn't make it true.
>
> If a scientist gives a name to something that is not a fact, then the fact that it is not a fact is in the definition (e.g. the definition of theory).
>
> Why does knowing something is a fact "reduce it down"? By "reduce" do you mean it makes it unimportant? If you don't mean that, then why use that word? In what way does understanding something "reduce" it? If you understand a complex idea, is it no longer complex? is it now reduced? Why?
>
> Language does seem to be larger than linguists can define, but humans made it up; its human quirks are what makes it difficult to define. The natural world (gravity, atoms, lightning, black holes, string theory) are not human constructs. They exist outside human nature and can and might be understood.
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>> Swsan,
>> I'm still a little confused. I can certainly agree that the use of
>> language can be an art, but I'm not sure how the study of it would
>> take that form.
>> Scientists certainly give names to things that are not just facts.
>> We can make observations about language in use that deepen our
>> understanding of what we are looking at. I don't think any of the
>> sciences think of themselves as definitive or final.
>> We certainly shouldn't have definitions about language that reduce
>> it down. Perhaps some people are afraid of complexity? In that sense,
>> I would agree. Language is larger than our explanation of it, but that
>> would be true of the biological and physical world as well.
>>
>> Craig>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "sentences that cannot be solved (i.e.
>>>> agreed upon)". Typically, these can be handled within the approach
>>>> of a particular grammar. There can be competing terminolgy, but I'm
>>>> not sure that means a sentence can't be "solved." If we find a new
>>>> species, we observe it and give it a name. But perhaps I
>>>> misunderstand.
>>>
>>> That is why grammar is an art. In biology a new species evolves from
>>> another. There is a right answer (as soon as sexual reproduction
>>> cannot occur, that species is new). There are no competing
>>> terminologies that couldn't eventually be resolved (biologist may
>>> find out they were wrong, but there always was a right answer). Your
>>> borrowing a term from science
>>> ("species") helps perpetuate the very problem. Grammarians are
>>> putting names on things that are not facts. That's what I meant by
>>> "cannot be solved." There will always be disagreement. And that's
>>> okay, but we have to be clear with students instead of pretending
>>> there is a right answer that they just didn't get.
>>>
>>>> I think grammar can be definitive in the same way biology can--or
>>>> perhaps the social sciences. We don't need to feel that a
>>>> description has to be perfect for it to be valuable.
>>>
>>> Grammar is not definitive in the way that the sciences are. But I
>>> agree with you about the social sciences. I just had an interesting
>>> discussion with a friend on the placebo effect. Why does it work for
>>> some? When it does work, why doesn't it keep working? What are all
>>> the variables? Kind of like pinning down grammatical terms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It would be nice to have definitions that are easy to understand,
>>>>>> but if there are too many exceptions (if they are too simplified)
>>>>>> they will cause harm in a different way. That's a tough territory
>>>>>> to negotiate.
>>>>> It is indeed tough territory to negotiate, which is why Scott asked
>>>>> for help. I am 50 years old and can remember doing only a little
>>>>> sentence diagraming in public school. At the time, I was pretty
>>>>> sure there were sentences that were not presented in the grammar
>>>>> books that could not be solved (i.e. agreed upon). I only wished
>>>>> my teachers had admitted as much. Grammar was presented as
>>>>> definitive as mathematics. Even though I felt betrayed and
>>>>> frustrated by my teachers, my love for language was not destroyed.
>>>>> However, I was no doubt an exception as I suspect many of my peers
>>>>> went on to help the NCTE remove grammar from the English
>>>>> curriculum.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Given and new is a very easy concept to teach at my level. I
>>>>>> have never had a student fail to pick it up quickly, probably
>>>>>> because it is very basic to the way we use language in our everyday lives.
>>>>>
>>>>> This comment is interesting because the average high school student
>>>>> does not distinguish between concepts that work in every day speech
>>>>> and conventions required in academic language. It can be
>>>>> frustrating to see the bad habits that student writers carry over
>>>>> from everyday language (fragments, "well," indefinite "you," and
>>>>> other colloquialisms) and what they refuse to carry over (known-new
>>>>> concepts and transition phrases).
>>>>> What is picked up quickly and intuitively by the college-bound is
>>>>> the very thing that thwarts and confuses the average writer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Low-level students who aren't exposed to academic speech and
>>>>> writing don't know there are important overlaps that are basic
>>>>> skills to human communication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:44 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan,
>>>>>> I think you and I are in pretty much agreement. It would be
>>>>>> nice to have definitions that are easy to understand, but if there
>>>>>> are too many exceptions (if they are too simplified) they will
>>>>>> cause harm in a different way. That's a tough territory to
>>>>>> negotiate.
>>>>>> I suggested Martha's book because I know it has been used with
>>>>>> some success at the high school level. It may surprise you to
>>>>>> know that back in the earlier days when I went to public school,
>>>>>> we diagrammed sentences in seventh and eighth grade. I can
>>>>>> remember dealing with the complements Martha presents in her book
>>>>>> for the basic sentence patterns, and I can remember dealing with
>>>>>> infinitives and participles. It was, I think, an attempt to give
>>>>>> us a comprehensive overview, and it gave me a foundation that has
>>>>>> been amended quite a bit, but nevertheless sustained me well into
>>>>>> adulthood. I may have been rare in liking that, but I think there
>>>>>> was a sense back in those days that we were ready for it, and in
>>>>>> my case at least, that was true. It wasn't watered down.
>>>>>> Given and new is a very easy concept to teach at my level. I
>>>>>> have never had a student fail to pick it up quickly, probably
>>>>>> because it is very basic to the way we use language in our everyday lives.
>>>>>> Grammar study fails to carry over to real world reading and
>>>>>> writing in part because grammar has been narrowed down to what
>>>>>> happens internally within isolated sentences. But sentences don't
>>>>>> happen in isolation when we read and write. Grammar is discourse
>>>>>> neutral only if you decide to remove discourse from the
>>>>>> discussion. It is an artificial decision and a harmful one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/11/2010 10:03 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM,
>>>>>> Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it doesn't make sense to criticize [k-12 teachers'] lack
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it doesn't make sense because we are all at a lack of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> knowledge--college instructors as well as K-12. We k-12
>>>>>> teachers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> need definitions to give to young learners. It would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> anti-intellectual to condemn Scott's group as merely
>>>>>> "reaching back"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to what worked for them when they learned grammar instruction
>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only thing you can replace it with is definitions that are
>>>>>> beyond the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> comprehension of k-12 learners. I was one of those k-12
>>>>>> learners in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the 70s. I liked the definitions I got because I could
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> them. But I didn't like them because there were exceptions
>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thought of that drove me crazy and made me think there was
>>>>>> something
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was missing. The answer I think is for grammar definitions
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> simple but to indicate to students that there are exceptions.
>>>>>> Martha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kolln is all very well for an adult to read, but she is not
>>>>>> helping
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> us explain things to k-12 students (an exception would be AP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> classes--I used to use her stuff when I taught AP Lang).
>>>>>> Given-New is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> higher level understanding, a concept more sophisticated than
>>>>>> you may
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> realize for some students to understand on a paragraph
>>>>>> level--let
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> alone from one sentence to another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I appreciate all the responses that this thread has recently
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> generated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> . There may, in fact, be plenty of room for blame in our
>>>>>> current
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> situation. We can look back to the fifties and early
>>>>>> sixties as a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> time in which the definitions of traditional grammar were
>>>>>> revised
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and reformed by the structuralists. Unfortunately, these
>>>>>> did not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> take lasting hold for a few reasons. One is that
>>>>>> structural
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> linguistics was supplanted by generative grammar as the
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> focus of linguists. Another is that the efficacy of
>>>>>> formal grammar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> was called into question by research studies that seemed
>>>>>> to show
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there was little carryover into improved writing.The
>>>>>> generativists
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> also emphasized that grammar was hardwired into the
>>>>>> brain, which
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reinforced the notion that native speakers would pick up
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> grammar of their language naturally, without direct
>>>>>> instruction,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if grammar was understood as the rule based formal system
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> underlies the language. Opposition to the teaching of
>>>>>> grammar took
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the form that Geoff was expressing: we shouldn't impose
>>>>>> definitions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that don't define and we shouldn't give workbook
>>>>>> exercises in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> correctness (mindless drills). Students will acquire
>>>>>> language when
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> allowed to use language meaningfully in reading and
>>>>>> writing that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seems to matter to them. This brought about some much
>>>>>> needed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> improvements in the curriculum, but pretty much relegated
>>>>>> language
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to a minimalist place--for example, mini-lessons to deal
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> errors when the "need" arises. To protect this minimalist
>>>>>> approach,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NCTE has been very reluctant to embrace any kind of
>>>>>> "scope and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sequence" approach, for example any attempt to hold
>>>>>> students
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> accountable for KNOWING about language, which would bring
>>>>>> back a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> more systematic curriculum. In the meantime, functional
>>>>>> approaches
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to language (approaches that connect grammar to discourse
>>>>>> and to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> semantics/cognition) have been developed, but have
>>>>>> not--at least in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the states--been given pedagogical applications. The big
>>>>>> exception
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is systemic functional linguistics, which has had a huge
>>>>>> influence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on teaching outside the states, most notably in
>>>>>> Australia. There, a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> focus on genre is a way to connect language study
>>>>>> directly to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> discourse concerns. In the meantime, it sure as heck
>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> surprise us that a group at Scott's school hoping to
>>>>>> develop a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thoughtful curriculum for grades five through eight
>>>>>> should reach
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> back to the grammar they remember from the last time it
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seriously taught, a pre-reform grammar, with problematic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> definitions. A nice compromise for this might be to look
>>>>>> back at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the structural grammars of the fifties. It comes across
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reformed traditional grammar. Martha Kolln's
>>>>>> /Understanding English
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Grammar/ draws on those grammars very heavily. It doesn't
>>>>>> seem such
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a drastic change from what people are used to. She makes
>>>>>> some very
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thoughtful choices about what concepts are most
>>>>>> important. I would
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> recommend mixing in something of a discourse
>>>>>> focus--concepts like
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "given" and "new," for example, which help direct
>>>>>> attention to the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ways in which meaning gets built over extended text.
>>>>>> Structural
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> grammar has a tendency to treat sentences as isolated
>>>>>> units. I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> would also recommend the corpus grammars, including the
>>>>>> Longman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Grammar (Biber et. al.), which looks at patterns of
>>>>>> grammar in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> different discourse contexts. If students pay attention
>>>>>> to how a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> story works, for example, carrying that attention down to
>>>>>> the level
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of the sentence, then grammar is not disconnected from
>>>>>> reading and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> writing. I have recently been sent a prepublication draft
>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> article describing a very successful program in England
>>>>>> focusing on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> genre. You can't expect grammar to have an influence on
>>>>>> reading and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> writing unless you make explicit connections. To me, that
>>>>>> means
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> making the construction of meaning the central focus. I
>>>>>> like the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> idea that linguistics is "art" as well as "science," but
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> extent that it is a science, it needs to bow down to what
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> studies. The language is under no obligation to match our
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> understanding of it. I like "patterns" instead of
>>>>>> "rules." a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> definition for "noun" should not supplant an opportunity
>>>>>> to explore
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the nature and behavior of real nouns in the wild.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2010 6:40 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brett,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Students immediately understand the "you" understood
>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> definitions need to be simple. Exceptions can be
>>>>>> handled with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> asterisk. In fact, Scott's header should have an
>>>>>> asterisk,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> telling
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> students that grammar is an art and not a science, so
>>>>>> these
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> definitions may have some exceptions to the basic
>>>>>> rule. I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what we need with younger students is a foundation.
>>>>>> But we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> share with them up front that these definitions have
>>>>>> a few
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was complimenting you for actually taking the
>>>>>> question
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> seriously
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and providing good responses. You did respond as
>>>>>> though it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> beneath you to have to tediously proofread his list.
>>>>>> And it's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't have to do the entire list, but the few
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> examples you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> gave were great. So why not end by saying that you
>>>>>> don't have
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to do more. You personally don't have to feel on the
>>>>>> spot to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> give a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> complete response (or any response at all). This is a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> listserv.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Others could add on to your efforts. Instead, your
>>>>>> last
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> may have stopped others from carrying on in the
>>>>>> spirit you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> began (my
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> paraphrase of your last sentence: stop bothering us
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> petty
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> concerns and get yourself a good glossary).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I love to hear people debate an idea with logic, but
>>>>>> it was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> irritating to read straw man responses assuming the
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> purpose of a list must be to force students to
>>>>>> memorize
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't imagine for a moment that was Scott's
>>>>>> intention. I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reading this thread with great interest and hoping
>>>>>> for good
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> suggestions BECAUSE I do not have any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't contribute often, but I stay subscribed and
>>>>>> read most
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> threads because you all are so smart. Unfortunately,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sometimes some
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of you are thin-skinned and ridiculously protective
>>>>>> of your
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> turf. But
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you are smart, so I forgive you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PS, I'm afraid I must have missed Susan's own
>>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> how to improve the definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>> list's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>> web
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org
>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>> interface
>>>>> at:
>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>> interface at:
>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface
>>> at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
