LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives


NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives

NCDD-DISCUSSION Archives


NCDD-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NCDD.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NCDD-DISCUSSION Home

NCDD-DISCUSSION Home

NCDD-DISCUSSION  November 2010, Week 4

NCDD-DISCUSSION November 2010, Week 4

Subject:

Re: ACE: Participants as activists for a culture of dialogue?

From:

Howard Ward <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Howard Ward <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:25:58 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (172 lines)

Hello Tom - Well, your reasoning is perfectly clear. I guess I'd say that if anything close to one tenth got this, it would have a huge ripple effect on the society. I'm still with you, but I would naturally suspect that staying on the 'surface level' will essentially be another case of 'moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic'. But anything that 'buys a little time' to work on changing consciousness would be better than nothing...it seems to me.

But again, I get your point. I'm not suggesting that all approaches must include Bohmian Dialogue and getting below the surface. I'm only suggesting that without a significant effort to do such an examination that not much will change. And like you suggest, this is also a case of 'the sooner, the better'.

I'm also not suggesting that every dialogue has to be an intense Bohmian Dialogue. I'm suggesting to 'make it available', or to include a few 'deeper questions', perhaps when a facilitator suggests that it's an option that's available. It doesn't have to be something people must agree to in order to participate, which as you rightly suggest, might be 'unsettling' to many people. I guess my suggestion to have a greater emphasis on dialogue was a bit ambiguous and not clearly defined.

I'm not suggesting Bohmian Dialogue has to be 'central' to ACE. I'm suggesting that ACE would be more likely to have some degree of success if it also included, and occasionally encouraged, 'going deeper'...where there appears to be an opening for it. Excluding that possibility, I suggest, will limit the potential of ACE.

But that's just a suggestion. I sincerely don't believe that every project someone suggests must include Bohmian Dialogue. But at this point my observation is that most approaches don't. So I'm hoping that at some point a few more people will begin to see that 'staying on the surface' isn't producing the outcome we desire, because we haven't yet 'changed the consciousness' that is creating the mess. So each new approach, no matter how wonderful it may be, will face the same consciousness that currently is polarized and highly resistant to change. 

I guess I would like to ask you, what do you see as 'the problem' we are facing? If it's 'lack of action', I'd ask: What's at the root of that? And do we really want action that comes from the same consciousness that is creating the mess? I'd say that the Tea Party, while coming from some legitimate concerns, is an example of action coming from the same consciousness that is creating the mess.

If you suggest that the problem is not having a good plan, I'd suggest that many people, like David Korten, have offered some great plans. But when this plan is put before the 'current state of consciousness', it falls flat. Because basically everyone is convinced that "their belief is the truth." And if there's any sort of variation between the suggested approach and a persons beliefs, many will dismiss the approach immediately. Without getting people to 'loosen up' on their beliefs and opinions, I suggest that even the best of plans will fail to gain wide support.

What I see when I look at all the caring work that people seem to be involved in is 'a reflection' deficit'. A large void of serious 'stepping-back' and really observing what's going on. Doing this doesn't have to be called Bohmian dialogue. I also understand why lots of people are tired of 'talking' and what to 'do something'. But more talking isn't what I'm suggesting. The talking in Bohmian Dialogue is just a means to convey what we each see as we explore together. I will concede that many people do seem to think that the talking that occurs is about 'getting something', or getting some 'knowledge'. But the core of Bohmian Dialogue is really about 'getting beneath the surface', not coming to some conclusion in abstract thought. It's about stepping off of the hamster-wheel for an hour or two and taking a direct, fresh, open look at what's really going on. It's really more about 'insight' and letting go of incoherence we've gotten from our cultural conditioning. So as long as this 'reflection deficit' continues to be the apparent actuality, I suspect that I will continue to point out the apparent need for us to step back and reflect on what is actually occurring, before we crash & burn.

But again, this is all just a suggestion. A suggestion that there's an urgency to reflect and inquire together.

The approaches of World Cafe, Conversation Cafe, and Study Circles are wonderful processes. But if the conversation doesn't get beyond: "Everyone has a right to their own opinion," and if we don't clearly see how these opinions that we cling to are fragmenting and dividing us, and that these opinions are just 'abstract limited thought', then nothing fundamental in the way of change will occur. We'll just keep making minor adjustments as the ship goes down in flames. A high quality of public judgment, is still within the same consciousness that is creating the mess, if we still haven't gotten at the underlying incoherence. Yes, it may improve a few situations and buy some time before we go over the cliff. But buying time is a waste of time if we continue to avoid doing the serious reflecting and examination.

I agree with you that online dialogue has great potential. I'm not saying that there is no one listening or exploring together. What I'm saying is that the current level seems clearly inadequate to the task we face. 

I do actually agree with most all of your suggestions, I'm just saying that if we are going to ever see more people doing what you suggest here: "IF we can set aside our egos, fixed ideas, and professional turf sensibilities long enough to notice what their diverse gifts and limitations are," it will require more people understanding why this is essential to our success.

That's how it seems to me, for whatever that's worth.

Regards - Howard



On Nov 27, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Tom Atlee wrote:

> Hello Howard!
> 
> Having participated in a weekly Bohm Dialogue group for 2.5 years in the early 90's, I am aware of that approach, and feature it on co-intelligence.org webpage on dialogue (http://co-intelligence.org/P-dialogue.html).  I enthusiastically support any efforts to spread and practice Bohm Dialogue.
> 
> My concern with making it central to something like ACE is the unsettling reality that so few people seem interested in it -- even among dialogue professionals -- and that it takes considerable commitment to achieve the kind of consciousness-insight you refer to.  With 237,000,000 adults and 73,000,000 children in the U.S. -- most of whom could care less about this sort of personal development -- I have difficulty imagining how we could raise the consciousness of even a tenth of them using Bohm dialogue.
> 
> So I try to think of D&D practices that have a higher leverage -- things that might create a profound impact on the level of collective intelligence and wisdom of the whole society with minimal investment of resources.  One approach to this is to use high quality citizen deliberation on public issues, such as we find in Citizens Juries, Consensus Conferences, and Citizens Assemblies, where a relatively small group -- a randomly selected cross-section of the population -- are given informational and facilitation support for a near-ideal exercise in deliberative citizenship for several days to a week or more.  They collect and evaluate full-spectrum information on a public issue and on options for its resolution and then produce findings and recommendations for use by the broader public, media, and official decision-makers.  
> 
> Information and statements from such citizen deliberative councils can then be included in more broadly participatory but less intense and thorough citizen deliberative efforts such as National Issues Forums, Study Circles, Deliberative Polls, 21st Century Town Meetings, etc., as well as for exploration through mass-participation dialogue approaches like World Cafe and Conversation Cafe.  
> 
> This approach can generate a high quality of "public judgment" through a few expensive but very intense and deep deliberations.  Then that concentrated public wisdom can be digested, disseminated and assimilated through less expensive forms of citizen deliberation and public dialogue that can reach millions of people. 
> 
> I also would love to see stakeholder dialogues and creative, transformative approaches like Wisdom Councils get used to generate alternative perspectives and options that can then be subject to the thorough reflection we find in citizen deliberative councils.  And, of course, action on any particular issue can be promoted through methods like Open Space and Study Circles programs.
> 
> Online dialogues and deliberations add whole new realms of this dynamic to explore and develop.  We are just beginning to understand the synergies possible between online, face-to-face, and enhanced conference call conversations (like Maestro Conferencing).
> 
> I've noticed that diverse people -- and diversity is very important in this -- coming together in well-facilitated D&D (or choice creating exercises like Wisdom Councils and Creative Insight Councils) -- especially when they are tasked with coming up with something useful for the larger community -- tend to move beyond whatever polarized boxes they may be used to so that they start really (as you so aptly put it) "listening to one another and exploring together."  
> 
> A few years back I wrote an article for Integral Review's special edition on politics (the pdf "Integral Politics as Process" on p. 274 of http://www.integral-review.org/current_issue/politics-issue_index.asp) where I noted that people in such groups tend to manifest together a higher level of awareness than they do individually in their everyday lives, simply by being facilitated in a way that enables them to hear and stretch into the different perspectives of their fellow participants.  They soon come to see a bigger picture, deepen their sensibilities, and then choose wiser options.  It matters little if they drift back into their former awareness level after they leave the conversation IF -- and this is a critical IF -- what they discovered when they were in their higher state of awareness is given power to impact policy and/or to enlighten their fellow citizens.  Through well-designed dialogue, deliberation, and choice-creating, ordinary people can become wisdom teachers for the whole society.
> 
> Luckily, we can actually design social and political institutions that make that possible, even normal and expected.  The fact that the participants in such forums experience a "citizenship high" when they participate can provide a strong motivation for them to help put those social and political institutions in place, and to defend them and monitor them to maintain their quality and power.
> 
> In the meantime, any efforts to raise the ongoing awareness of as many citizens as possible -- from Bohm Dialogue to meditation to systems thinking to shamanic practice and deep ecology -- will produce people who, when they enter into any of these forums, will raise the level of awareness even further.  (Note that an enlightened person in an unfacilitated polarized battle zone may be totally ignored, whereas when they are present in a forum where people are being helped to hear each other, what they say has a much better chance of being heard and taken to heart.)
> 
> I view all approaches and theories of conversational power as part of the "culture of dialogue" picture we need to paint.  Their/Our diversity is a potential resource IF we can set aside our egos, fixed ideas, and professional turf sensibilities long enough to notice what their diverse gifts and limitations are and where they fit in the larger pattern of participatory collective wisdom and evolutionary capacity.  If we become sophisticated about the different uses of different processes, and of their underlying dynamics (as in the "pattern language on group process" that Tree Bressen and others are developing http://grouppatternlanguage.org/wagn/Home) then we can build a whole ecosystem of conversational activities that have far more power than any of our processes can generate alone.
> 
> Which takes us into the field of multi-process conversational design (http://co-intelligence.org/DD-MultiProcessPgms.html) and the institutionalization of powerful designs in every corner and at ever level of our society.  At the point where conversational infrastructure is as ubiquitous and sophisticated as telecommunications infrastructure, we will have made it as a society! :)
> 
> coheartedly,
> 
> Tom
> 
> http://co-intelligence.org
> 
> 
> On Nov 27, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Howard Ward wrote:
> 
>> Hello Tom & all - I also agree, "the sooner, the better..." I also think the responses to your proposal made some great points. I liked both of the videos shared so far. The No Label video seems to reflect a widely shared sentiment that polarization isn't a healthy response to the many challenges we face. But I'd like to suggest that this polarization is really just a reflection of the current state of human consciousness. My only problem with the No Label video is one statement made in the video. That statement was: "We Understand The Problem." If we don't understand the nature of the polarization, then I suggest we don't actually understand the problem. Understanding the fact that people disagree or have different opinions is not the same thing as understanding polarization. 
>> 
>> This brings me to my suggestion, or addition, to your proposal. As always I suggest that what we need mostly is 'a change in understanding', which was pointed out by Einstein when he suggested that: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
>> 
>> The point is that despite all the good ideas you have put forward, the great points others have added, and the promotion of 'common sense solutions' in the No Label Video, the actuality is that people, in general, are fragmented and divided over their 'thoughts', their beliefs and opinions.
>> 
>> So, I share your interest in 'creating of dialogue and deliberation'. But I'd like to suggest a greater emphasis on dialogue. An exploratory dialogue which goes deeper than most dialogues tend to do.
>> 
>> My concern is that all the attempts to motivate and organize the society in a particular direction, without getting at the root incoherence in thought, will fail to produce the desired goal.
>> 
>> This is why I feel compelled from time to time to raise the Bohmian Dialogue issue in this group. But let me be more specific today. If the 'dialogue culture' you/we create, doesn't 'get beneath the surface' of just 'sharing beliefs and opinions', then not much will change. People may alter their beliefs a bit, but that shouldn't be confused for: "We Understand The Problem."
>> 
>> As I've suggested before, what we often call 'the problem', is really just a 'symptom' of the problem. "Polarization' is a 'symptom'. The 'lack of well-being' is a 'symptom' of our problem. The 'problem' is incoherence in thought, and our failure to be aware of 'what thought is doing'.
>> 
>> The mess we humans are creating simply reflects our current state of understanding, or current state of human consciousness. Fortunately, we humans have the capacity for insight, and a capacity to observe what works and what doesn't. Generally speaking, humans tend to think the solution to our problems is to "think" about them. But as David Bohm attempted to point out, "thought" is not the proper tool for this. Thought is limited and based on past knowledge. Thought does have a role to play, but it doesn't contain new understanding. Learning to respond in a new way requires awareness, observation, and our innate intelligence that is available when we open up to it.  But instead of 'openly exploring and examining', we tend to cling to abstract beliefs and opinions because, generally speaking, we confuse these 'abstract thoughts' for "the actual truth." It's this 'incoherence in thought' that needs to be directly observed and clearly understood.
>> 
>> If we keep confusing 'beliefs and opinions' for 'the actual', then we will continue to fragment and divide ourselves, and every good suggestion (like yours and others made here) will die a quick death, as people dismiss it's merits based on contrary abstract beliefs.
>> 
>> My suggestion is that the 'dialogue culture' we need to create is one that 'goes deeper' than just 'sharing ideas, beliefs, and opinions'. It also needs to be an 'experiential dialogue' where we begin to 'know ourselves' intimately. Where we 'get intimate' with the actual nature of 'belief'. And where we discover why David Bohm suggested that we humans need a 'Proprioception of Thought'. An awareness of what 'thought' is doing in human relationship.
>> 
>> If we don't understand ourselves and what 'thought is doing', then I suggest "We Don't Understand The Problem."
>> 
>> But when we are aware of what thought is doing, then we are aware of some of the concerns people have raised here, like when manipulation is occurring, or when polarization is occurring, etc., etc.
>> 
>> So that's my long-winded way of saying that "I'm with you." I just think that in order to be successful in this venture it will require 'getting beneath the surface' in the dialogue segment of the venture, or, the current 'fragmented state' will 'prevail'.
>> 
>> We need to 'remove the blocks' to an openness to listening to one another and exploring together. And that's what a 'deeper exploratory dialogue' can shed some light on...it seems to me.
>> 
>> Regards - Howard
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tom Atlee <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Nov 26, 2010 7:21 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [NCDD-DISCUSSION] ACE: Participants as activists for a culture of dialogue?
>>> 
>>> Dear NCDD and IAP2 friends,
>>> 
>>> I want us to expand our efforts to create a culture of dialogue and deliberation.  I believe this is particularly urgent in the US, because US public policy has a disproportional impact on the wellbeing of everyone on Earth and on the future of the planet.  So the sooner, the better...
>>> 
>>> I don't think our professional networks (like NCDD and IAP2) are sufficient to birth that conversation-based political culture.  We need help.  Lots of it.  I believe it is time to engage current and former participants in public dialogue and deliberation as active agents of change in this direction.
>>> 
>>> From all the evidence I see, the vast majority of people who participate in organized conversations on public affairs are profoundly affected by the experience.  Most of them discover a richer form of citizenship than they have ever known before and are quite excited about that.  They feel listened to and empowered.
>>> 
>>> That excitement and empowerment constitute an as-yet-untapped resources for birthing a culture of high quality, high impact dialogue and deliberation.  These citizens have sensed a form of citizenship they would love to see practiced more broadly and taken seriously in official decision-making.  They sense it could really help their communities and their country.
>>> 
>>> Their primary concern is that officials or the public will ignore the results of their good work -- and this is often the case.  Some also have concerns about the quality of the process they have just been through.  These concerns are assets:  BECAUSE they are diverse and concerned but quite ordinary citizens, they are both well motivated and well positioned to promote the use, quality and influence of organized public conversation.  (Who better to impartially monitor the quality of process and facilitation in official participatory democracy initiatives and institutions than a network of process-aware ordinary citizens?)
>>> 
>>> To have an impact, these folks just need to get organized.  That's where we come in.
>>> 
>>> I suggest that this source of transformational power could be brought into being relatively quickly by us -- members of NCDD and IAP2.  We convene and facilitate SO many public conversations in the U.S.  We have direct access to the participants in those conversations.  We could talk with some of our most enthusiastic recent citizen participants about forming an organization -- or perhaps both a non-profit and a lobbying organization -- of, by, and for those participants who want to catalyze a culture of strong citizen engagement in public affairs.
>>> 
>>> Below is one possible vision for such an organization.
>>> 
>>> Please share your thoughts, critiques, creative ideas, and desires to participate in realizing such a vision.  I think it could make all the difference in the world.
>>> 
>>> Coheartedly,
>>> Tom Atlee
>>> Co-Intelligence.org
>>> 
>>> ==============
>>> 
>>> AMERICAN CITIZENS ENGAGED (ACE)
>>> 
>>> An interest group / network of current and former participants in organized public conversation and deliberation on public issues.
>>> 
>>> PURPOSE
>>> 
>>> To promote the growth of a dynamic culture of quality public dialogue and deliberation in the U.S.A. - as part of a broader engagement of citizens actively co-creating the long-term wellbeing of their communities, country and world.
>>> 
>>> FUNCTIONS
>>> 
>>> *  Social networking - promotes social activity, friendship and conversation among diverse public engagement participants
>>> *  Advocacy - strategizes, educates, organizes and lobbies for broader use of citizen engagement that is effective, judicious, and empowered
>>> *  Quality Assurance - reviews major citizen engagement initiatives and monitors citizen engagement institutions, publicizing its critical and appreciative findings
>>> *  Fundraising - promotes to the philanthropic community the value of funding high quality citizen engagement and public participation
>>> *  Research - promotes studies into factors that influence the use, quality, impact and appreciation of citizen engagement practices and institutions
>>> *  Training - trains members in dialogic political theory, facilitation, PR and advocacy work, coalition-building and other skills to support the network's purpose
>>> *  Projects - organizes and catalyzes efforts that further the network's purpose, usually in collaboration with other organizations and networks
>>> 
>>> ALLIES
>>> 
>>> *  ACE would liaise closely with NCDD, IAP2, League of Women Voters and other networks of public engagement professionals -- especially to recruit new ACE members, but also to evaluate public engagement proposals, processes, initiatives and institutions.
>>> *  ACE would work with participation-oriented politicians, public officials, and media to promote understanding of and demand for citizen engagement in governance.
>>> *  ACE would collaborate with academics and philanthropists to pursue projects of mutual interest.
>>> *  ACE would work with groups promoting volunteerism, activism, stakeholder conversations, community renewal and resilience, and other public betterment organizations to promote broader, more effective and integrated citizen engagement in public affairs.
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously provided by L-Soft ( www.lsoft.com ) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software ( www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html ).  Learn more about NCDD's email lists in the community section of the NCDD website ( www.thataway.org/community/lists/ ).  Please read this mailing list's rules ( www.thataway.org/community/listrules ) before you post.
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously provided by L-Soft ( www.lsoft.com ) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software ( www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html ).  Learn more about NCDD's email lists in the community section of the NCDD website ( www.thataway.org/community/lists/ ).  Please read this mailing list's rules ( www.thataway.org/community/listrules ) before you post.
> 
> ---
> 
> NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously provided by L-Soft ( www.lsoft.com ) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software ( www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html ).  Learn more about NCDD's email lists in the community section of the NCDD website ( www.thataway.org/community/lists/ ).  Please read this mailing list's rules ( www.thataway.org/community/listrules ) before you post.

---

NCDD's discussion and announcement lists are generously provided by L-Soft ( www.lsoft.com ) and are powered by L-Soft's LISTSERV mailing list management software ( www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html ).  Learn more about NCDD's email lists in the community section of the NCDD website ( www.thataway.org/community/lists/ ).  Please read this mailing list's rules ( www.thataway.org/community/listrules ) before you post.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 5
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 4
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 2
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 3
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 5
August 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 5
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
May 2007, Week 2
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 5
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 4
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 2
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.NCDD.ORG

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