[Winona Online Democracy] Jerome--I agree. I picture WOD as give-and-take in the student lounge rather than as a graduate seminar on "disagreeing nicely".
Richard Cocker "Jerome Christenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[Winona Online Democracy] > >Good Lord, do the nannies never sleep? >These are big boys. Let them have it out and we can all take bets on the >winner. >Continual censorship will turn this into Winona Online Dreck ... even >more so than it already is. >Our thoughts have no need of policing. > >Jerome Christenson > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Kathy Seifert >Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 10:10 AM >To: Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy; Steve Kranz >Cc: >Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR > >[Winona Online Democracy] > >I see that this is becoming exactly the kind of interchange that we have >agreed is not constructive to WOD. I imagine that we won't agree on >that >point either, so I will say that as moderators, Sharon and I agree that >this >needs to be the end of this thread and let interpretations of what was >written be up to the individual writers and readers to decide for >themselves. > >Kathy Seifert > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Steve Kranz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:57 PM >Subject: cc: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR > > >[Winona Online Democracy] > >Before I begin a point-by-point response, Mr, Kranz, let me ask a >question. >You accuse me of doing nothing but wanting to rehash the past while you, >of >course, want to move forward; if you truly want to move forward, then >why >didn't you answer a key question in my posting, which is this: > >Why did you only ask WOD subscribers, and not readers of the Daily News >or >Post, for their thoughts on school governance by site-based teams and >televising school board study sessions? Why don't you respond to my >point >that by only seeking suggestions from WOD subscribers you're ignoring >groups >of citizens (readers of those two newspapers) 48 to 100 times larger? >Why >don't you respond to my point that by failing to seek opinions from >those >significantly larger groups you increase the chance that a group as >small >as WOD will have an influence even disproprortionately larger than it is >now? Why don't you acknowledge that I never called for WOD to shut down, >but >that all I did was point out that WOD is indeed a tiny tent? If you're >concerned about moving forward, then why won't you respond to all parts >of >an exchange rather than only those that make WOd look good? > >Your response to my post,, I must say, is very tidy; you merely say that >things didn't happen, and poof!, it's as if they didn't! I urge anybody >who's still listening to this tiresome thread--that began because I >made an >accurate but unflattering remark about WOD--to consult the archives and >determine for themselves what was said and what wasn't said. You said I >may >regard your remarks as hairsplitting--on that much we can agree. > >Do you mean to say that you wouldn't mind having the standard you just >set >used against you? For example, if someone called you a skunk (but only >metaphorically, of course), would you feel put upon, or would you think >it >met WOD's standards for constructive dialogue? > >I get a kick out of the variety of hairsplitting techniques you employ. >First there's the merely metaphorical skunk. Then you take a different >tack >when it comes to the "crucify" reference. Rather than say that that >wasn't >written (since it clearly was), you conclude, apparently, that the >reference >was okay because it was what you consider balanced. I'll keep that in >mind >if I ever want to throw stones at somebody on WOD. I'll call them a >rotten >name or somehow else speak poorly of them, and then I'll follow it with >some >"positive" comment and be confident that you'll think my conduct is okay >because it's "balanced." Come on; Mr. Schenkat's reference to someone >crucifying WOD was clearly aimed at me. How constructive is that? How >can >you balance an accusation like that? > >Finally, the ethics quote. Once again, you don't seem to mind that my >ethics >were called into question--since, after all, that posting was, in your >opinion, sufficiently balanced. Just as the reference to "crucifying" >WOD >was clearly directed at me, the reference to an ethical lapse was >clearly >directed at me. Again I ask, how balanced can a remark be if it contains >a >slam like that? Of course, it's pretty easy for you to conclude that the >remarks were balanced--they weren't directed at you. > >Again, I urge WOD subscribers who are still interested (and I'd be >surprised >to believe there are many) to consult the archives and read the >exchanges in >their entirety, and then to ask themselves if the kind of remarks >directed >at me are what they have in mind when they're told about the standard of >discourse (not intended to "win," but to discuss; not focusing on >personalities, but on issues) that ostensibly prevails on WOD. > >Steve Schild >On Sunday, November 09, 2003 7:54 PM, Steve Kranz wrote: >> >>Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 19:54:55 -0600 >>From: Steve Kranz >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >> >>[Winona Online Democracy] >> >>Mr. Schild, >> >>I was trying to move beyond a back and forth rehash of the past and >move >>more toward a constructive dialogue about how to improve WOD, but since >you >>inquired . . . here is my "refutation" of your statements regarding the >>"name-calling" you accuse list members of engaging in: >> >>1. Nobody on the list called you a "skunk". You'll have to take a >closer >>look at the metaphor the writer was using. The writer was saying that >he >>had a problem with the "soft conclusions" of your study. In his >analogy, >>the "soft conclusions" are the skunk, not you. You may think this is >>splitting hairs, but it is the difference between use of a colorful >metaphor >>and name-calling. He was saying that the "soft conclusions" (the >skunk) >>skew the overall perception of the data (the flowers) contained in the >study >>(the wagon). Here's the exact quote: >> >>"I have no problem with his numbers or his methodology. It seems like >>he spent a lot of time on this. What I have a problem with are his >>admittedly "soft" conclusions. No matter how beautiful a wagon full of >>flowers is, if you have a team of skunks pulling the wagon, the skunks >will >>"color" or skew your overall perception of the wagon." >> >>2. As far as being accused of trying to "crucify" WOD. This needs to >be >put >>in context. In the same paragraph in which the writer used the word >>"crucified", he also acknowledged two aspects of your research that he >feels >>could be beneficial to WOD and public dialogue in the community. It >seems >>like a very balanced and somewhat heartfelt paragraph to me. Here's >the >>portion of the post I am referring to: >> >>"I guess I'd prefer to think in the sense of civic journalism, how this >>novel, embryonic forum could be nurtured to enhance civic participation >and >>be not crucified. Schild made some comments about some next steps being >>looking at why people lurk and don't participate. That could be >helpful >>research; we'd be much further ahead today if he'd chosen to study >that. >>Also, I think the question from his dissertation around how much >attitude >is >>changed by letters to editor is important in online democracy too. What >>creates openness to new and different ideas in the community is a very >key >>question for our future." >> >>3. The portion of the dialogue in which a writer "accused" you of being >>unethical, had to do with whether list members should have been >notified >>that their messages were being studied for a research project. In >fact, >>while this accusation was made; the overall portion of this discussion >was >>fairly balanced with other WOD members arguing that your actions were >>appropriate and ethical. Again, a little heated but not unusual for the >>list. >> >>So my conclusions are: >>- the "skunk name-calling didn't happen >>- the "crucify" name-calling was part of a fairly civil and balanced >>paragraph that also acknowledged value in your research. >>- the "unethical" name calling was balanced by other list members who >rose >>to your defense. >> >>I'll stand by my previous statements . . . the dialogue was a bit >heated, >>but fairly balanced and not that different from of a lot of public >dialogue >>that occurs in a number of different formats. >> >>Now, having responded to your question. . . how about if we move on to >a >>dialogue about how we can help WOD accomplish its mission? >> >>-Steve Kranz >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "Steve Kranz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Cc: "Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:57 PM >>Subject: cc: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >> >> >>> [Winona Online Democracy] >>> >>> Mr. Kranz, >>> >>> Since you're not trying to put words in my mouth, you should be very >>careful not to lead anyone to believe that I stated or implied that WOD >>should shut down, because I never did. To repeat: I never said or wrote >>anything remotely resembling that WOD should shut down. >>> >>> There's an ocean of difference between my concluding, on the basis of >>research I've done, that WOD falls far short of perfect and that it >should >>shut down. All I've said is that until WOD reaches and successfully >solicits >>participation from a broader group than it currently does, it will be >very >>hard to convincingly argue that WOD has met its goal of creating a >>community-wide discussion. And I've had a devil of a time getting WOD >>leadership to acknowledge that very reasonable point. >>> >>> Along those lines, by the way, I can't help but notice two things >absent >>from your message. First, you make no reference at all to my refutation >of >>your point that only one writer dealt with me uncivilly in May. Second, >you >>say nothing to acknowledge that my research has merit, or that its >>conclusions are similar to those cited by Larry Jacobs, the U of M >political >>scientists whose remarks prompted me to begin this thread. By making it >>sound as if I'm suggesting that WOD should shut down, your message >might >>divert attention away from the perfectly reasonable--and >verifiable--points >>I'm raising. >>> >>> You mention the upcoming Wal-Mart forum; I'll leave it to individual >>citizens to decide how worthwhile they find it. Based on what I've >read, it >>will be significantly different from WOD's discussion because it will >have >>three Wal-Mart supporters and three Wal-Mart opponents. In short, it >will >be >>balanced. Though I haven't done a count yet, I'm confident that the >majority >>of WOD writers and messages on that subject have been anti-Wal-Mart. >>> >>> Two other recent cases in point have great relevance to this >discussion. >>Recently, Mr. Kranz, you asked WOD's 225 to 250 members for their >opinions >>on televising school-board study sessions (large portions of which, by >the >>way, remain inaudible to the TV audience) and on school governance by >>site-based teams. I didn't see you put the same invitation in the Daily >News >>or the Post, which have respective circulations of approximately 12,000 >and >>23,000. If you had done that, you would have increased by 48 to 100 >times >>the number of people you might have reached. By soliciting opinions >from >>WOD but not from the readership of the two newspapers, you effectively >gave >>WOD's small membership an influence even disproportionately larger than >it >>already has. You've often said that WOD is one source of information >among >>many; then why don't you, as school-board chair, seek information about >>those same topics from sources other than WOD? >>> >>> In conclusion, I never stated or implied that WOD should shut down. >I've >>merely tried to get WOD leadership to acknowledge that it reaches only >a >>tiny segment of the community, and that that undeniable fact has or >should >>have great significance for the way WOD is regarded by its members and >the >>community at large, and for the way it is regarded as a possible remedy >to >>some of the woes facing the democratic process today. >>> >>> steve schild >>> >>> On Sunday, November 09, 2003 10:35 AM, Steve Kranz wrote: >>> > >>> >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:35:59 -0600 >>> >From: Steve Kranz >>> >To: "Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >Subject: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >>> > >>> >[Winona Online Democracy] >>> > >>> >Disclaimer: >>> >Since nonverbal communication (the tone of my voice, my body >language, >>etc.) >>> >is not possible online, I'd just like to state up front that my >comments >>> >below are not meant to be accusatory or critical. I am earnestly >trying >>to >>> >introduce some concepts for discussion in response to Steve Schild's >>> >finding. Please read the tone of my voice as being earnest and in >the >>> >spirit of inquiry . >>> >----------------------------- >>> > >>> >I would hope that your findings could help improve Winona Online >>Democracy. >>> >I was under the impression that was why you wanted WOD to >acknowledge >and >>> >discuss them in the first place. I don't mean to put words in you >mouth >>(so >>> >please correct me if I'm off-base), but is it that you feel since, >>according >>> >to your findings, WOD is not fully achieving its mission, it should >close >>> >its doors and not operate anymore? (Personally (and I mean no >offense by >>> >this) I would find that notion a bit akin to asking Habitat for >Humanity >>to >>> >stop operating because they have not fully achieved their mission of >>> >"eliminating poverty housing in the world" and admonishing them for >>trying >>> >to accomplish such a lofty goal in the first place) . >>> > >>> >Aside from that, though, I think it might help to turn the finding >into >a >>> >question, such as "what does WOD need to do in order to engender >>> >conversations that include diverse viewpoints and a broadly >inclusive >>> >discussion." That might be a good question for a bit of >brainstorming >by >>> >the list. >>> > >>> >Another aspect of this occurred to me, as well. Since we started >WOD, I >>> >find myself constantly on the look out for analogies that are >similar to >>> >WOD, but take place in the "real world". I think looking for these >"more >>> >familiar" discussion formats, often helps shed some light on issues >>related >>> >to online dialogue. One that has recently come up is the >"educational >>> >forum" on Wal-Mart that is being sponsored by the League of Women >Voters >>& >>> >Winona Online Democracy. Here's how the analogy works for me: >>> > >>> >1. The purpose of the forum is to engender a community dialogue and >>increase >>> >understanding of an issue that impacts the quality of life in our >>> >community. >>> > >>> >2. The discussion is available to the whole community, but only a >very >>very >>> >small percentage of the population will view or participate. >>> > >>> >3. The discussion will be dominated by very few people (six >panelists, I >>> >believe) who represented very limited ideological viewpoints (two >>opposing >>> >viewpoints, I believe). >>> > >>> >4. The broad portion of public participation will be in the form of >>> >"lurkers" . . . people who view the discussion but do not actively >>> >participate in any way. >>> > >>> >5. Simple (at home) access to the discussion requires a $15/month >>> >technological service (in this case, it requires access to at least >basic >>> >cable television). >>> > >>> >6. There will be a small number of people who participate in a very >small >>> >way in the discussion (by asking questions). >>> > >>> >7. Some aspects of the discussion will likely be picked up by the >media >>and >>> >reported. >>> > >>> >8. Elected officials and other community leaders may or may not be >paying >>> >attention to the discussion and the public will probably never know >>whether >>> >or not the discussion influenced policy-making. >>> > >>> >I think all these are items that also apply to WOD and a number of >them >>are >>> >items that, when applied to WOD, cause it to be criticized by some >>people. >>> > >>> >So the question I would ask is "what is it about the forum that >makes it >>> >different than WOD". If there is no fundamental difference between >the >>> >forum and WOD, then is the forum of little value to the community or >is >>it >>> >even possible that the forum may cause more harm than good? If >there >are >>> >differences that make the forum of more value than WOD, what are >they >and >>> >what can we learn from these differences that would help us improve >WOD? >>> > >>> >To flip it around, as well . . . If the analogy is a valid one, then >what >>> >value do both the forum and WOD provide to the community and does >that >>value >>> >outweigh the shortcomings of the formats? >>> > >>> >-Steve Kranz >>> > >>> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- >>> >From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >To: "Kathy Seifert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >Cc: "Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 10:48 PM >>> >Subject: cc: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >>> > >>> > >>> >> [Winona Online Democracy] >>> >> >>> >> Kathy Seifert has asked me to "refresh us as to some of the >findings >>that >>> >will help us to improve WOD." Though I don't know that my findings >will >>> >help improve WOD, I consider the most important one to be this: >>> >> >>> >> During the periods I've studied, WOD has been dominated by a small >>group >>> >of ideologically like-minded people who write a disproportionately >large >>> >percentage of the total volume of traffic. >>> >> >>> >> steve schild >>> >> >>> >> On Saturday, November 08, 2003 5:03 PM, Kathy Seifert wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:03:31 -0600 >>> >> >From: Kathy Seifert >>> >> >To: "Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> >Subject: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >>> >> > >>> >> >[Winona Online Democracy] >>> >> > >>> >> >Steve: >>> >> > >>> >> >Can you refresh us as to the findings that will help us to >improve >>WOD? >>> >I >>> >> >think that there were some valid points that got lost in the >strong >>> >feelings >>> >> >associated with some inflammatory language being thrown back and >forth >>at >>> >> >that time. I am particularly interested in any recommendations >that >>came >>> >> >out of your research that would lead us to better fulfill our >mission. >>> >> > >>> >> >What do others want to know? >>> >> > >>> >> >Kathy Seifert >>> >> >----- Original Message ----- >>> >> >From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> >To: "Steve Kranz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> >Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 12:52 PM >>> >> >Subject: cc: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >[Winona Online Democracy] >>> >> > >>> >> >Two points of clarification about what you call my "generalizing >about >>> >how >>> >> >WOD reponded to my article:" >>> >> > >>> >> >1. You wrote that the "angry" comments were made "primarily" by >one >>> >person. >>> >> >I re-read the posts, too, and was reminded that >>> >> > >>> >> >-- I was accused of being deceitful and unethical. >>> >> >-- I was accused of trying to crucify WOD. >>> >> >-- And (my personal favorite) I was called a skunk, albeit a >skunk >>> >pulling a >>> >> >pretty wagon of flowers. >>> >> > >>> >> >Those three comments came from three separate postings from three >>> >separate >>> >> >people. Whether they're "angry" comments or not is matter of >>> >interpretation >>> >> >for individual readers; it's clear, though, that none of the >three is >>> >> >pleasant, and that the unpleasant comments were not confined to >one >>> >person >>> >> >or one posting. >>> >> > >>> >> >The first statement, about alleged deceit and ethical lapses in >my >>> >methods, >>> >> >was taken to task by two Ph.D.s with extensive experience as >>researchers. >>> >> >They concluded that my study was well-constructed, ethical and >>valuable. >>> >The >>> >> >second and third statements have nothing to do with the substance >of >>my >>> >> >research; as such they constitute ad hominem attacks. >>> >> > >>> >> >2. I didn't state or imply that Jacobs had done any analysis of >WOD. >>> >> >Instead, I pointed out that my research about WOD bears out many >of >>the >>> >> >attributes and shortcomings that other researchers have found >when >>> >studying >>> >> >online discussion groups. In short, I just wanted to remind WOD >>readers >>> >that >>> >> >my research might have some merit regardless of what some WOD >members >>> >wrote >>> >> >about it. >>> >> > >>> >> >steve schild >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >On Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:58 AM, Steve Kranz wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >>Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:58:59 -0600 >>> >> >>From: Steve Kranz >>> >> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> >>Subject: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR >>> >> >> >>> >> >>[Winona Online Democracy] >>> >> >> >>> >> >>Steve S., >>> >> >> >>> >> >>I think you are doing a bit of generalizing of how WOD responded >to >>your >>> >> >>article. I just finished going through and reading all the >posts >>> >related >>> >> >to >>> >> >>it. My sense is that the "angry" comments were made primarily >by >one >>> >> >person >>> >> >>(that included the "get a life" comment) and later on in the >>discussion >>> >he >>> >> >>apologized to you for it. The rest of the dialogue, I thought, >was >>> >fairly >>> >> >>thoughtful -- perhaps a bit heated at times, but I don't think >that >>is >>> >> >very >>> >> >>unusual for the list -- and the discussion included people >>advocating >>> >on >>> >> >>both sides of many of the issues presented. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>I don't think there was ever any attempt by W.O.D. to deny that >it >>could >>> >be >>> >> >>improved by more diverse participation. There were a few people >that >>> >> >>acknowledged this in their posts and I even posted a message >>detailing >>> >how >>> >> >>we had previously recognized the value of making Winona Online >>Democracy >>> >> >>more representative of the community and had tried >(unsuccessfully) >>to >>> >> >>secure funding to accomplish that. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>The discussion ended with a request by a list member that you >provide >>a >>> >> >copy >>> >> >>of your study in order that people could get the whole picture, >>rather >>> >than >>> >> >>just the snapshot provided in the newspaper. You indicated >>> >> >>that you were unable to provide it due to a possible publishing >>> >conflict. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>My reading of Jacobs' comments in the MPR story is that he was >making >>> >> >>general statements about online civic discussion groups. That >is >not >>to >>> >> >say >>> >> >>that these comments may not apply to WOD, but I do not believe >that >>Dr. >>> >> >>Jacobs has done any analysis of WOD in order to draw hard >conclusions >>or >>> >> >>criticisms that apply directly to the list (nor do I think he >was >>> >trying >>> >> >to >>> >> >>imply that in his statements). >>> >> >> >>> >> >>-Steve Kranz >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>> >> >>From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >> >>Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:08 PM >>> >> >>Subject: [Winona] WOD on MPR >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> [Winona Online Democracy] >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I wonder if Winona Online Democracy (WOD) members will be as >angry >>at >>> >> >>Larry Jacobs as they were at me a few months back. I wonder if >>they'll >>> >> >write >>> >> >>the same kind of things about him as they wrote about me. I >wonder >if >>> >> >>they'll urge him to "get a life." >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Jacobs is the University of Minnesota political scientist >quoted >in >>> >MPR's >>> >> >>recent story about WOD. Here are some excerpts from statements >>Jacobs >>> >> >made >>> >> >>in that story: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> --Jacobs says there was hope the Internet could help people >>reengage >>> >in >>> >> >>the political process. But he says so far that hasn't happened. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> --"So what it looks like is the Internet is becoming another >>mechanism >>> >> >>where we amplify the voice of one part of the electorate at the >>expense >>> >of >>> >> >>another," says Jacobs. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> --Jacobs says research shows a correlation between education >and >>> >Internet >>> >> >>use. Just as education seems to increase a person's Internet >use, it >>> >also >>> >> >>increases the likelihood of a higher salary, an inclination to >vote, >>and >>> >to >>> >> >>contact elected officials. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> --Jacobs says instead of evening things out, the Internet has >given >>a >>> >> >>powerful segment of society one more tool for communication. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> --"The Internet has not proven itself to be this new populist >>vehicle >>> >for >>> >> >>bringing in truckloads of alienated, disadvantaged, disenchanted >>voters >>> >who >>> >> >>are outside the universe of our politics," he explains. "So >these >new >>> >forms >>> >> >>of the Internet are great and they are bringing people out, but >I'm >>> >afraid >>> >> >>for the most part it appears to be the same crowd." >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> All of those remarks sound familiar to me. Why? Because I said >and >>> >wrote >>> >> >>very similar things based on my analysis of the membership and >>content >>> >of >>> >> >>WOD. In other words, the findings from my studies of WOD reflect >what >>at >>> >> >>least some other researchers have found. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Is it a good thing that WOD has been featured in such a >prominent >>news >>> >> >>outlet? It's good for WOD, sure. But it would be a better thing >if >>WOD >>> >> >would >>> >> >>overcome its acknowledged failure to attract participation from >a >>> >bigger, >>> >> >>more diverse group, such as the "alienated, disadvantaged, >>disenchanted >>> >> >>voters." And it would have been better communication if the WOD >>notice >>> >> >>touting the MPR story had told readers that the story discusses >>WOD's >>> >> >>shortcomings as well as its successes. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >>> >> >>> All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >>> >> >>> No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >>> >> >>> To manage your subscription or view the message archives, >please >>visit >>> >> >>> http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >>> >> >>> Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >>> >> >>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >>> If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to >the >>> >Contact >>> >> >>page at >>> >> >>> http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >> >>This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >>> >> >>All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >>> >> >>No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >>> >> >>To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please >>visit >>> >> >>http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >>> >> >>Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >>> >> >>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >>If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the >>Contact >>> >> >page at >>> >> >> http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >_______________________________________________ >>> >> >This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >>> >> >All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >>> >> >No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >>> >> >To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please >visit >>> >> >http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >>> >> >Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >>> >> >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the >>Contact >>> >page >>> >> >at >>> >> > http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >>> >> >_______________________________________________ >>> >> >This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >>> >> >All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >>> >> >No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >>> >> >To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please >visit >>> >> >http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >>> >> >Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >>> >> >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the >>Contact >>> >page at >>> >> > http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >>> >> All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >>> >> No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >>> >> To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please >visit >>> >> http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >>> >> Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >>> >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the >Contact >>> >page at >>> >> http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> >This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >>> >All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >>> >No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >>> >To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please >visit >>> >http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >>> >Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >>> >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the >Contact >>page at >>> > http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >>> All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >>> No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >>> To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please >visit >>> http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >>> Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the >Contact >>page at >>> http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >>All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >>No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >>To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit >>http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >>Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact >page at >> http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org > > > >_______________________________________________ >This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit >http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact >page >at > http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >_______________________________________________ >This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit >http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact >page at > http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org >_______________________________________________ >This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy >All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. >No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. >To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit >http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona >Any problems or suggestions can be directed to >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at > http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org > __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
