aut-op-sy
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: AUT: Academia....
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C27500.EDA5C8B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Doh, that's what I get for writing when I am still asleep. Caffentzis =
is talking about Rifkin, but Maudemarie Clark is definitely talking =
about Rorty. My bad.
Chris
----- Original Message -----=20
From: cwright=20
To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: Academia....
There are two good pieces I know of which deal with Rorty. The first =
is George Caffentzis' article on The End of Work or the Renaissance of =
Slavery, but it is not profoundly concerned with his philosophical =
aspects. Nietsche on Truth and Philosophy by Maudemarie Clark deals =
with Rorty's philosophy extensively on truth, in relation to Nietzsche =
and while quite turgid, it is very thoughtful. See especially the first =
two chapters.
That said, Rorty's writing on high-tech is considered quite radical in =
a lot of the IT world and he has been featured, unusual for philosophers =
or sociologists, in some of the tech journals where otherwise nothing =
philosophical or sociological ever creeps in except through the back =
door of someone's unstated assumptions.
Cliff, on autonomous Marxism, check out the aut-op-sy main page. I =
will also send you something that might prove helpful in finding =
sources, although the best place for articles would be the For Communism =
- John Gray website and Class against Class. I also have a CD with a =
huge number of articles by author.
Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Cliff Staples=20
To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: Academia....
Nate:
The more theoretically inclined sociologists, or at least some of =
them, will have read Rorty. The rest are too busy fussing with their =
latest statistical techniques or graphics programs.
Rorty is widely read beyond academic philosophy, so of course most =
academic philosophers hate him. He's also been trying to put them out =
of business, which might also have something to do with it. All that =
aside, some surely have serious and considered differences with the =
Pragmatist tradition Rorty represents. I only had a minor in =
Philosophy, and that was 20 years ago, so my knowledge of contemporary =
academic philosophy is narrow and shallow, but I can tell you that =
Rorty's work is in step with much of contemporary social theory. Maybe =
I'm just a rube, but can't imagine why anyone wouldn't find him =
insightful and fun to read. =20
I don't think anyone within what has come to be called "The Amherst =
School of Postmodern Marxism" has written anything extensive on Rorty, =
but I could be wrong. What is clear is that at least some of these =
folks have read Rorty and find him useful. If one loses interest in a =
social science that attempts to represent a free-standing "social," =
(i.e. modernist social science) then you need some other way of making =
your work meaningful. This is where Rorty (and others) seems to come =
in. First you see "social theory" not as a mirror of the social, but as =
constituitive of it-- as having consequences in the world-- and your =
truth is not how closely your model fits social reality, but whether or =
not people find your interpretations helpful. This idea isn't =
particularly new, of course, you can find it in Marx, and the critical =
social science tradition more generally (I'm thinking here of Friere, =
and work he inspired, such as Ira Shor's Critical Teaching and Everyday =
Life. My favorite philosophical explication of the tradition is Brian =
Fay's Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits) . I see all =
these folks (Marx excepted, at least chronologically) as =
post-Wittgensteinians.
I probably shouldn't say, but I have no idea what "autonomist =
Marxism" is, though from reading the list I gather it has something to =
do with the work of Negri, which I have not (yet) read. On the other =
hand, if it means you don't take orders from anyone, I'm all for it.
Later,
Cliff
p.s. I'll look up that Wheeler book, thanks. It might be =
instructive and fun to watch him do a translation, though I'm not sure I =
need one.=20
At 03:29 PM 10/15/02 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Cliff-
First off, let me just say "sociology, bah humbug!" so you don't =
think the list is a complete love-fest. ;)
Second, you mentioned Rorty - one of my favorite philosophers =
though politically rather a fuckhead.
Is Rorty read much among sociology professors? A lot of my =
philosophy friends go into fits at the mere mention of his name, let =
alone the suggestion that he may be worth taking seriously. I'm curious =
if you or anyone else you know of has done work on Rorty and the =
postmodern/althusserian marxism you're interested in.
I ask because I don't really know how to reconcile my interest in =
(and the stuff I've learned from) Rorty with autonomist marxism and =
other radical stuff that I'm into (other than that Rorty has helped me =
to stop being hung up on problems that now seem a little silly).
There's a really good book by Simon Wheeler called _Deconstruction =
as Analytic Philosophy_ that's worth reading if you haven't already, =
translates postmodernish or derridean stuff into an analytic vernacular =
that is much clearer, at least to me. (though 'translates' is a rather =
suspect term ...) It also points up a number of interesting parallels =
between figures on both sides of the atlantic.
best wishes,
Nate
From: Cliff Staples <Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AUT: Academia....
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:43:48 -0500
Okay, I can't resist jumping in here. I have undergraduate =
degrees in Sociology and Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Sociology (Washington =
State University, 1985). I have been on the faculty here at the =
University of North Dakota for 15 years.
Back in the Dark Ages there once was something called "Political =
Economy" which, either in its Marxist or non-Marxist variation, made =
some sense. =20
Now (at least in U.S. universities) "political economy" is long =
gone (certainly at the undergraduate level), and we now have "Political =
Science" on the one hand, and "Economics" on the other. The former act =
like they can talk about power without talking about money while the =
latter want to talk about money without talking about power. They're =
both nearly useless (a few radical freaks aside) for any critical =
understanding of society.
That task has largely been left to sociologists and =
philosophers, though even some literary types have gotten into the act. =
But, as was mentioned, sociology has plenty of mainstream, bourgeois =
practioners. The American Sociological Association is mostly liberal =
number-crunchers (almost all wonderfully nice people, careerism aside), =
and if amongst these there are those who have serious doubts about =
capitalism they tend to keep it to themselves. There ARE plenty of =
radicals, however, and you can find a few hundred of them in the Marxist =
Section, and elsewhere.
The extent to which a discipline is bourgeois seems to reflect-- =
as does much else-- its usefulness to capital, no? Hence Economics is =
right up there, as are the political science policy wonks. In this =
regard sociologists are not to be trusted-- at least since the rollback =
of the welfare state in the early 1970s.
One more thing. Most of the time I'll take the postmodernists =
and post-structuralists over the liberal number crunchers. The former =
come bearing radical epistemology, if not always radical left politics, =
and the empirical work that at least some of them do can be useful to =
disrupting convention. Indeed, I consider myself a "postmodern Marxist" =
after the fashion of the neo-Althusserians associated with the journal =
Rethinking Marxism. Michael might be interested to have a look at =
Resnick and Wolff's Knowledge and Class (Chicago, 1987) as well as their =
Economics: Marxian Versus Neoclassical (Johns Hopkins, 1987). I happen =
to think that "deconstruction," is a useful way to approach ideology =
critique (see Brian Fay's Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its =
Limits), and that we can get along just fine without essentialism (a la =
Rorty).
It occurs to me that maybe my primary motivation for responding =
to this was that it was so nice to hear my discipline mentioned, for a =
change, in a relatively positive light!
best,
Cliff
At 07:25 AM 10/13/02 -0700, you wrote:
I would certainly think that the social viewpoint has
something to do with the relative lefty-ness of
sociologists. However, we shouldn't overestimate the
effectiveness of their resistance, as I have known
many sociologists, particularly of the postmodern
mold, who fall into a sort of ivory tower mentality
that seems to declaw any left-wing tendencies that
they might have.
geo
--- Michael Handelman <mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This may be overly idealist of me, but do you think
> one of the reason for sociology seems to be to the
> left of Poli Sci and Economics, has something to do
> with the fact that because sociology deals with the
> study of groups and society, it tends to be
> *somewhat*
> innoculated to Bourgeois ideology regarding the
> individual (Thatcher's "There is no such thing as
> society" seems to be about as pure Bourgeois
> ideology
> as one can get, and this ideology seems extremely
> antithetical to sociology).
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Look for me in the whirlwind - dare to struggle, dare to win"
=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
George J. Ciccariello Maher IV
St. John's College
Cambridge
CB2 1TP
United Kingdom
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
--- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: =
http://messenger.msn.com
--- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C27500.EDA5C8B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Doh, that's what I get for writing when =
I am still=20
asleep. Caffentzis is talking about Rifkin, but Maudemarie Clark =
is=20
definitely talking about Rorty. My bad.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chris</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dcwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
href=3D"mailto:cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>cwright</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Daut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxx=
age.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 16, =
2002 10:16=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: AUT: =
Academia....</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There are two good pieces I know of =
which deal=20
with Rorty. The first is George Caffentzis' article on The End =
of Work=20
or the Renaissance of Slavery, but it is not profoundly concerned with =
his=20
philosophical aspects. Nietsche on Truth and Philosophy by =
Maudemarie=20
Clark deals with Rorty's philosophy extensively on truth, in relation =
to=20
Nietzsche and while quite turgid, it is very thoughtful. See =
especially=20
the first two chapters.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That said, Rorty's writing on =
high-tech is=20
considered quite radical in a lot of the IT world and he has been =
featured,=20
unusual for philosophers or sociologists, in some of the tech journals =
where=20
otherwise nothing philosophical or sociological ever creeps in except =
through=20
the back door of someone's unstated assumptions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Cliff, on autonomous Marxism, check =
out the=20
aut-op-sy main page. I will also send you something that might =
prove=20
helpful in finding sources, although the best place for articles would =
be the=20
For Communism - John Gray website and Class against Class. I =
also have a=20
CD with a huge number of articles by author.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chris</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DClifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
href=3D"mailto:Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>Cliff Staples</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Daut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxx=
age.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 16, =
2002 9:24=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: AUT: =
Academia....</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=3D3>Nate:<BR><BR>The more theoretically =
inclined=20
sociologists, or at least some of them, will have read Rorty. =
The rest=20
are too busy fussing with their latest statistical techniques or =
graphics=20
programs.<BR><BR>Rorty is widely read beyond academic philosophy, so =
of=20
course most academic philosophers hate him. He's also been =
trying to=20
put them out of business, which might also have something to do with =
it. All that aside, some surely have serious and considered=20
differences with the Pragmatist tradition Rorty=20
represents. I only had a minor =
in=20
Philosophy, and that was 20 years ago, so my knowledge of =
contemporary=20
academic philosophy is narrow and shallow, but I can tell you that =
Rorty's=20
work is in step with much of contemporary social theory. Maybe =
I'm=20
just a rube, but can't imagine why anyone wouldn't find him =
insightful and=20
fun to read. <BR><BR>I don't think anyone within what has come =
to be=20
called "The Amherst School of Postmodern Marxism" has written =
anything=20
extensive on Rorty, but I could be wrong. What is clear is =
that at=20
least some of these folks have read Rorty and find him useful. =
If one=20
loses interest in a social science that attempts to represent a=20
free-standing "social," (i.e. modernist social science) then you =
need some=20
other way of making your work meaningful. This is where Rorty =
(and=20
others) seems to come in. First you see "social theory" not as =
a=20
mirror of the social, but as constituitive of it-- as having =
consequences in=20
the world-- and your truth is not how closely your model fits =
social=20
reality, but whether or not people find your interpretations=20
helpful. This idea isn't particularly new, of course, you can =
find it=20
in Marx, and the critical social science tradition more generally =
(I'm=20
thinking here of Friere, and work he inspired, such as Ira Shor's=20
<I>Critical Teaching and Everyday Life. </I>My favorite =
philosophical=20
explication of the tradition is Brian Fay's <I>Critical Social =
Science:=20
Liberation and Its Limits</I>) . I see all these folks =
(Marx=20
excepted, at least chronologically) as =
post-Wittgensteinians.<BR><BR>I=20
probably shouldn't say, but I have no idea what "autonomist Marxism" =
is,=20
though from reading the list I gather it has something to do with =
the work=20
of Negri, which I have not (yet) read. On the other hand, if =
it means=20
you don't take orders from anyone, I'm all for=20
it.<BR><BR>Later,<BR><BR>Cliff<BR><BR>p.s. I'll look up that Wheeler =
book,=20
thanks. It might be instructive and fun to watch him do a =
translation,=20
though I'm not sure I need one. <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>At 03:29 PM =
10/15/02=20
-0400, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">Hi Cliff-<BR>First =
off, let me=20
just say "sociology, bah humbug!" so you don't think the list is a =
complete love-fest. ;)<BR><BR>Second, you mentioned Rorty - one of =
my=20
favorite philosophers though politically rather a fuckhead.<BR>Is =
Rorty=20
read much among sociology professors? A lot of my philosophy =
friends go=20
into fits at the mere mention of his name, let alone the =
suggestion that=20
he may be worth taking seriously. I'm curious if you or anyone =
else you=20
know of has done work on Rorty and the postmodern/althusserian =
marxism=20
you're interested in.<BR><BR>I ask because I don't really know how =
to=20
reconcile my interest in (and the stuff I've learned from) Rorty =
with=20
autonomist marxism and other radical stuff that I'm into (other =
than that=20
Rorty has helped me to stop being hung up on problems that now =
seem a=20
little silly).<BR>There's a really good book by Simon Wheeler =
called=20
_Deconstruction as Analytic Philosophy_ that's worth reading if =
you=20
haven't already, translates postmodernish or derridean stuff into =
an=20
analytic vernacular that is much clearer, at least to me. (though=20
'translates' is a rather suspect term ...) It also points up a =
number of=20
interesting parallels between figures on both sides of the=20
atlantic.<BR><BR>best wishes,<BR>Nate<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">From: Cliff =
Staples=20
<Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Reply-To:=20
aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>To:=20
aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: Re: AUT:=20
Academia....<BR>Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:43:48 =
-0500<BR><BR>Okay, I=20
can't resist jumping in here. I have undergraduate degrees =
in=20
Sociology and Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Sociology (Washington =
State=20
University, 1985). I have been on the faculty here at the=20
University of North Dakota for 15 years.<BR><BR>Back in the Dark =
Ages=20
there once was something called "Political Economy" which, =
either in its=20
Marxist or non-Marxist variation, made some sense. <BR>Now =
(at=20
least in U.S. universities) "political economy" is long gone =
(certainly=20
at the undergraduate level), and we now have "Political Science" =
on the=20
one hand, and "Economics" on the other. The former act =
like they=20
can talk about power without talking about money while the =
latter want=20
to talk about money without talking about power. They're =
both=20
nearly useless (a few radical freaks aside) for any critical=20
understanding of society.<BR><BR>That task has largely been left =
to=20
sociologists and philosophers, though even some literary types =
have=20
gotten into the act. But, as was mentioned, sociology has =
plenty=20
of mainstream, bourgeois practioners. The American=20
Sociological Association is mostly liberal number-crunchers =
(almost all=20
wonderfully nice people, careerism aside), and if amongst these =
there=20
are those who have serious doubts about capitalism they tend to =
keep it=20
to themselves. There ARE plenty of radicals, however, and =
you can=20
find a few hundred of them in the Marxist Section, and=20
elsewhere.<BR><BR>The extent to which a discipline is bourgeois =
seems to=20
reflect-- as does much else-- its usefulness to capital,=20
no? Hence Economics is right up there, as are the =
political=20
science policy wonks. In this regard sociologists are not =
to be=20
trusted-- at least since the rollback of the welfare state in =
the early=20
1970s.<BR><BR>One more thing. Most of the time I'll take =
the=20
postmodernists and post-structuralists over the liberal number=20
crunchers. The former come bearing radical epistemology, =
if not=20
always radical left politics, and the empirical work that at =
least some=20
of them do can be useful to disrupting convention. Indeed, =
I=20
consider myself a "postmodern Marxist" after the fashion of the=20
neo-Althusserians associated with the journal Rethinking =
Marxism. =20
Michael might be interested to have a look at Resnick and =
Wolff's=20
Knowledge and Class (Chicago, 1987) as well as their Economics: =
Marxian=20
Versus Neoclassical (Johns Hopkins, 1987). I happen to =
think that=20
"deconstruction," is a useful way to approach ideology critique =
(see=20
Brian Fay's Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits), =
and=20
that we can get along just fine without essentialism (a la=20
Rorty).<BR><BR>It occurs to me that maybe my primary motivation =
for=20
responding to this was that it was so nice to hear my discipline =
mentioned, for a change, in a relatively positive=20
=
light!<BR><BR>best,<BR><BR>Cliff<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>At 07:25 =
AM 10/13/02 -0700, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">I would =
certainly think=20
that the social viewpoint has<BR>something to do with the =
relative=20
lefty-ness of<BR>sociologists. However, we shouldn't =
overestimate=20
the<BR>effectiveness of their resistance, as I have =
known<BR>many=20
sociologists, particularly of the postmodern<BR>mold, who fall =
into a=20
sort of ivory tower mentality<BR>that seems to declaw any =
left-wing=20
tendencies that<BR>they might have.<BR><BR>geo<BR><BR>--- =
Michael=20
Handelman <mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:<BR>> This =
may be=20
overly idealist of me, but do you think<BR>> one of the =
reason for=20
sociology seems to be to the<BR>> left of Poli Sci and =
Economics,=20
has something to do<BR>> with the fact that because =
sociology deals=20
with the<BR>> study of groups and society, it tends to =
be<BR>>=20
*somewhat*<BR>> innoculated to Bourgeois ideology regarding =
the<BR>> individual (Thatcher's "There is no such thing =
as<BR>>=20
society" seems to be about as pure Bourgeois<BR>> =
ideology<BR>>=20
as one can get, and this ideology seems extremely<BR>> =
antithetical=20
to sociology).<BR>><BR><BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR>"Look for me =
in the whirlwind -=20
dare to struggle, dare to =
win"<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D<BR>George=20
J. Ciccariello Maher IV<BR>St. John's =
College<BR>Cambridge<BR>CB2=20
1TP<BR>United=20
=
Kingdom<BR><BR>__________________________________________________<BR>Do=20
you Yahoo!?<BR>Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos =
&=20
More<BR><A href=3D"http://faith.yahoo.com/"=20
=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://faith.yahoo.com</A><BR><BR><BR> &nbs=
p; =20
--- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
---</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________=
_____________________________________<BR>Chat=20
with friends online, try MSN Messenger: <A=20
href=3D"http://messenger.msn.com/"=20
=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://messenger.msn.com</A><BR><BR><BR><BR> &nbs=
p; =20
--- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
---<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C27500.EDA5C8B0--
--- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
- Thread context:
- Re: AUT: Academia...., (continued)
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Nate Holdren Tue 15 Oct 2002, 19:29 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
John Norem Tue 15 Oct 2002, 20:05 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Cliff Staples Wed 16 Oct 2002, 14:24 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
cwright Wed 16 Oct 2002, 15:16 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
cwright Wed 16 Oct 2002, 15:43 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Tahir Wood Thu 17 Oct 2002, 09:24 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Cliff Staples Thu 17 Oct 2002, 15:05 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Michael_E_Jackson Thu 17 Oct 2002, 15:48 GMT
- Re: AUT: Academia....,
Cliff Staples Thu 17 Oct 2002, 18:45 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]