<div>Hi Richard,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your response. I think it is important for the Centre to have a strong basis in its local community, and therefore if I were to be involved I would prefer to be living in the area. Due to other commitments, academics are likely to be scattered all over the country (if not world) and so I think the more members that can remain in the area on a more permanent basis the better. Something I was always uncomfortable about with HE was its separation from the community in which it is based - I know Mike and Joss have both spoken about a strong relationship between the SSC and the local community being important and I completely agree. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I understand that we are not aiming to mirror typical academic sessions, but I worry that if a strong alternative option is not definite by the time the 2011/12 academic session starts, students (especially undergraduates) may decide to take a less risky option and follow the usual academic route. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree that sub-committees may be a strong option, as long as there is consistent communication on any proposed action or decision else we risk losing the consensual element that is so important. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rosie</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:23 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Send SSC mailing list submissions to<br> <a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>
<br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a href="mailto:ssc-owner@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-owner@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>
<br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of SSC digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13 (Richard Hall)<br><br><br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:15:26 -0000<br>From: "Richard Hall" <<a href="mailto:RHall1@dmu.ac.uk">RHall1@dmu.ac.uk</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13<br>Message-ID:<br> <<a href="mailto:290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C03C9A404@artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk">290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C03C9A404@artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br>Hi Rosie,<br><br><br><br>Two interesting points.<br><br><br><br>1. Location - this has been written as a Lincoln model that other<br>areas/subjects might utilise, mimic, re-use, re-purpose. Relocation<br>
might be a possibility, but this mirrors the usual HE model - depends on<br>how the curriculum/learning is constructed/delivered. The<br>politics/methods of the SSC are negotiable aren't they? So might<br>Leeds-based study be possible? Needs some thought.<br>
<br>2. Timing - my take was that negotiation is key here too. We are<br>not looking to mirror usual academic sessions are we? So if we were an<br>unincorporated cooperative by the summer, one might be able to negotiate<br>
a project/programme/MA-equivalent thereafter. Last week, we discussed<br>with Charles a plan for contacting "staff", sorting governance, set-up,<br>membership, attracting "students". We need to sort this so that we can<br>
let prospective interested parties know.<br><br><br><br>As these issues need more thought, I wonder if we need more than the<br>monthly meetings proposed at the last meeting? I wonder if we need to<br>create a issue log, and then aggregate these [e.g. maybe around<br>
organisation/governance, membership issues, curriculum] so that<br>interested sub-groups can work on them and report back - like the<br>sub-committee model in the constitution.<br><br><br><br>Or I might be talking drivel. Happens.<br>
<br><br><br>I agree that it has the possibility to be very exciting!!<br><br><br><br>In solidarity.<br><br><br><br>R.<br><br><br><br>From: <a href="mailto:ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org</a>] On Behalf Of Rosie Sherwood<br>Sent: 28 February 2011 10:32<br>To: <a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13<br><br><br><br>Hello everyone,<br><br><br><br>I also send my apologies for not making the meeting, currently working<br>
insane hours and based in Leeds.<br><br><br><br>I know at a discussion on the SSC at the Reimagine the University event<br>in Leeds a few months ago, the issue of locality was brought up,<br>including that of potential students. I know that it has been emphasised<br>
that the SSC needs to be tied to a location and a physical space rather<br>than being another online resource, and I agree completely, but I was<br>wondering whether there are intentions to keep the SSC as a resource for<br>
the existing Lincoln community or whether members (especially students)<br>will be encouraged to relocate to be part of it? There were mixed<br>opinions at the Leeds discussion, but perhaps this has not been<br>considered an issue so far. I am very keen to be involved in the SSC as<br>
a postgraduate student and I would be more than happy to relocate for<br>this opportunity, but thought this issue best be discussed first.<br><br><br><br>Also, do we have any sort of deadline for everything to be sorted by? I<br>
am just thinking about the logistics - people ideally need adequate<br>advance warning to know whether they can commit to the project and if<br>plans remain relatively vague until last minute, we may lose potential<br>members, especially active ones. As someone who moved to Leeds for a<br>
MRes course which never materialised, I'm understandably wary on this<br>point!<br><br><br><br>Has a list been drawn up of academics we wish to approach or is this<br>still being compiled?<br><br><br><br>This is all looking very exciting.<br>
<br><br><br>Best wishes,<br><br><br><br>Rosie<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:57 PM, <<a href="mailto:ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>Send SSC mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> <a href="mailto:ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-request@lists.aktivix.org</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a href="mailto:ssc-owner@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-owner@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>
<br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of SSC digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Membership types and contributions (Joss Winn)<br> 2. Re: SSC constitution (Richard Hall)<br>
3. Re: Membership types and contributions (Richard Hall)<br> 4. Re: Membership types and contributions (Terry Wassall)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:19:32 +0000<br>From: Joss Winn <<a href="mailto:joss@josswinn.org">joss@josswinn.org</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4D6A4154.2050309@josswinn.org">4D6A4154.2050309@josswinn.org</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br><br>One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the<br>
meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there<br>will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.<br><br>Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I<br>
think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money<br>for?<br><br>As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general<br>supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.<br>
<br>As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it<br>reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or<br>roughly ?30+ /month.<br><br>I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting<br>
when some people were no longer present) was that people should<br>self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income<br>category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers<br>(and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would<br>
pay nothing.<br><br>So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this<br>thread so we can come to a decision on this.<br><br>Thanks very much<br>Joss<br><br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br>
<br>Message: 2<br>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:09 -0000<br>From: "Richard Hall" <<a href="mailto:RHall1@dmu.ac.uk">RHall1@dmu.ac.uk</a>><br>To: "ssc" <<a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:CCooke@lincolnshirecda.coop">CCooke@lincolnshirecda.coop</a><br>Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC constitution<br>Message-ID:<br><br><<a href="mailto:290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF5@artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk">290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF5@artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>George raises a good point for it drives much of our *politics* and<br>agenda, and whom we might approach/include. It might also connect into<br>how we partner with other organisations.<br>
<br>We focused upon the connections between the productive/consumptive<br>nature of the Centre, the political basis rooted in consensus, and the<br>emergent nature of our work. That stuff/projects/ideas/objects would<br>happen/develop over time was, I think, central.<br>
<br>Within our extant economic reality we noted that subs would enable us to<br>develop our alternative[s], but that we would generally not take monies<br>out - we might discuss expenses for travel, or employing an<br>administrator. But perhaps we could swap subs-paid-as-cash for<br>
subs-paid-as-skilss [e.g. auditing accounts, managing membership<br>database etc.] The main focus of our alternative thinking was, I think,<br>on higher learning [HE equivalent but not HE in structure, accreditation<br>etc.], negotiated co-production, and engaging with political<br>
differences. Nigel began this latter discussion when he asked about our<br>subject scope. I then asked whether our political base/values/objects -<br>as a scope for our work - might enable, for instance, neoliberals to<br>
join.<br><br>R.<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org</a> on behalf of Joss Winn<br>Sent: Sun 27/02/2011 10:50<br>To: ssc<br>Cc: <a href="mailto:CCooke@lincolnshirecda.coop">CCooke@lincolnshirecda.coop</a><br>
Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC constitution<br><br>On Sun, February 27, 2011 9:30 am, George Roberts wrote:<br>> Hi all<br>><br>> Thank you for circulating the draft constitution of the SSC<br>><br>> Drifting off the topic of formal organisation, I have a general<br>
question<br>> about workers v. consumers co-operatives.<br>><br>> I think workers co-ops have the aim of providing a living (or at least<br>a<br>> wage) for their members through the provision of goods and services to<br>
> others (e.g. Infinity Foods of Brighton), while consumer co-ops, which<br>may<br>> enable or even require members to work, have the aim of providing<br>members<br>> with benefits: goods and/or services on a preferential basis (e.g.<br>
Weavers<br>> Way of Mt Airey, PA). There are of course many examples of both kinds,<br>and<br>> not all to do with food. And, I suppose there is a continuum between<br>the<br>> two.<br>><br>> Education (higher or other) is an interesting and challenging<br>
good/service<br>> to be provided on co-operative lines. If the co-op is to provide a<br>living<br>> (wage) for members, this presumes some exchange of value between<br>members<br>> and<br>> others. If "others" are learners, and "members" are teachers, the<br>
> traditional institutional power divide appears to be replicated. If<br>all<br>> participants in the co-op are deemed<br>> learners/teachers/researchers/scholars,<br>> then there are no "others" with whom to exchange value. The co-op then<br>
> might<br>> become dependent on third-parties (the state, charities or other<br>> donor/patrons), or possibly the members themselves, i.e. members are<br>> required to work for a living (wage) elsewhere. This latter model<br>
either<br>> replicates the old state-funded "free" education model - students get<br>> grants, teachers/researchers get wages, or is more like a consumer<br>> co-operative, where members work for the benefit of the co-op, but do<br>
not<br>> derive a living (wage) from it.<br>><br>> George<br><br>Hi George,<br><br>To some extent, this issue was raised at our meeting last Thursday. In<br>our<br>case, we're proposing that all members, teachers, students and other<br>
supporting members, assume an equal membership in the governance of the<br>co-op and that decisions are made by full consensus. This should mean<br>that<br>no one person or type of member (academic, student, etc - we've still to<br>
decide what the membership types might be) has any greater power than<br>anyone else.<br><br>The constitution being proposed assumes that no-one will make a wage<br>from<br>the SSC. We did discuss the possibility that some roles might receive<br>
payment, although this wasn't discussed in detail and I'm not sure of<br>the<br>implications of this. It was suggested that where possible, specific<br>roles<br>such as secretary, treasurer, etc. would be rotated, so that no person<br>
remained in the role permanently.<br><br>My recollection is that Charles said that if we really wanted to make<br>the<br>distinction between what kind of co-op we were, it was closer to a<br>consumer than worker co-op, but he felt that in the case of the SSC, the<br>
distinction was pretty meaningless. The SSC, at least initially, is a<br>co-op where members provide services to themselves and what we are<br>proposing is that members directly fund the co-op from external sources<br>(i.e. wages brought in from elsewhere). This isn't fixed in stone of<br>
course, and it will be up to the members over time to decide on the<br>funding model. The advice we received was to initially assume as little<br>organisational complexity as possible, which is why we're also proposing<br>
that we are not incorporated until we find it necessary.<br><br>Someone else at the meeting might recall what else we discussed on this<br>issue, but it was put to us as a pretty obvious way to proceed<br>initially.<br>Your thoughts on this would be greatly valued.<br>
<br>I've copied in Charles (who's not subscribed to the list) in case he<br>wants<br>to expand on answering your question.<br><br>Best,<br>Joss<br>--<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>
SSC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:SSC@lists.aktivix.org">SSC@lists.aktivix.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc</a><br><br><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL:<br><<a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/8f1d216e/attachment-0001.htm" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/8f1d216e/a<br>
ttachment-0001.htm</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:34 -0000<br>From: "Richard Hall" <<a href="mailto:RHall1@dmu.ac.uk">RHall1@dmu.ac.uk</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [SSC] Membership types and contributions<br>Message-ID:<br><br><<a href="mailto:290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF6@artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk">290C0FAF9352E54EB483CBA4ED12133C026B1CF6@artemis.LEC-ADMIN.dmu.ac.uk</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>1. How much do we need to run the Centre for 20 students per annum?<br>Costs of renting, expenses, journal subscriptions, library memberships,<br>stationery, online provision etc..<br>
<br>2. Do we wish to maintain a cash surplus? Why is cash more important<br>than, say, time in organising, developing curricula, auditing accounts<br>etc.? Are we in danger of stratifying what does not need to be<br>stratified?<br>
<br>R.<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org</a> on behalf of Joss Winn<br>Sent: Sun 27/02/2011 12:19<br>To: <a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>
Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions<br><br>One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the<br>meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there<br>will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.<br>
<br>Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I<br>think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money<br>for?<br><br>As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general<br>
supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.<br><br>As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it<br>reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or<br>roughly ?30+ /month.<br>
<br>I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting<br>when some people were no longer present) was that people should<br>self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income<br>category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers<br>
(and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would<br>pay nothing.<br><br>So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this<br>thread so we can come to a decision on this.<br><br>
Thanks very much<br>Joss<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>SSC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:SSC@lists.aktivix.org">SSC@lists.aktivix.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc</a><br>
<br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL:<br><<a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/17a73b78/attachment-0001.htm" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/17a73b78/a<br>
ttachment-0001.htm</a>><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 4<br>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:57:27 +0000<br>From: Terry Wassall <<a href="mailto:T.Wassall@leeds.ac.uk">T.Wassall@leeds.ac.uk</a>><br>
To: Joss Winn <<a href="mailto:joss@josswinn.org">joss@josswinn.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a>"<br> <<a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [SSC] Membership types and contributions<br>Message-ID:<br><br><<a href="mailto:D327F9D8FBEF8449A9768C933870D93D019978F3D828@HERMES8.ds.leeds.ac.uk">D327F9D8FBEF8449A9768C933870D93D019978F3D828@HERMES8.ds.leeds.ac.uk</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>Dear All<br><br>Thanks Joss for sending round the notes etc. so quickly. As I said<br>before, I am very sorry I was not able to come to the meeting. Sounds<br>
like you had a really interesting discussion. I have just got back from<br>a weekend in an internet free part of Scotland, practically mobile phone<br>network free as well. I will try to respond to the emails in reverse<br>
order over the next day or so startng with the first about membershipd<br>fees/contributions.<br><br>There is quite a broad band of professorial salaries, starting not much<br>above the senior lecture salary. Some profs. also have additional<br>
incomes related to their professorial work. If the prof rate is used as<br>a benchmark then presumably lecturers A, B, Senior etc. will be<br>proportionate, say ?80, ?160, ?240 and ?300+. Some more junior academic<br>staff may be on part-time of fixed term contracts, and so the a varity<br>
of circumstances will need to be considerd and allowed for. Then at any<br>one time there will be different numbers of students with varying<br>numbers of them able to pay anything. A general quesion is whether the<br>'fee's model is likely to be adeqate and equitable.<br>
<br>Many academics might be willing to contribute, their subject expertises,<br>their materials, their experience of being learners and researchers,<br>their ability to be facilitators of discussion etc., maybe even their<br>
travel expenses to attend face-to-face sessions. They may not be willing<br>to pay a fee to do so. One answer to this would be, of course, if they<br>are not commited enough to the idea and the ethos, then the Centre<br>doesn't want them. There could be differeing views on this.<br>
<br>I agree with Richard's comments about the need to have some sort of<br>costing and projections. I guess you could call this, between gritted<br>teeth, a business plan. This would need some sort of consideration about<br>
sustainability, in terms of finances and objectives, and any obvious<br>risk factors (for instance, under recruitment of paying students). Have<br>a realistic idea of what the costs would actually be is another way of<br>
estimating contributions as these could be divided, suitably weighted by<br>income, across the membership.<br><br>As far as 'profit' or a surplus is concerned, I think there may be 2<br>main reasons for needing this - the financial sustainability of the<br>
Centre for at least 3 to 5 years (to do right by the students who enrol<br>and to give the project the time to develop and solve the problems and<br>issues that will arise) and to fund the further development of the<br>Centre. This may not only be in terms of social science activity. I<br>
understand there has been some discussion of embarking upon other sorts<br>of activities and services in the Centre that may raise money.<br><br>Best wishes<br><br>Terry<br><br><br>Dr. Terry Wassall<br>Principal Teaching Fellow<br>
School of Sociology and Social Policy<br>University of Leeds<br>________________________________________<br>From: <a href="mailto:ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org</a> [<a href="mailto:ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org">ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org</a>] On<br>
Behalf Of Joss Winn [<a href="mailto:joss@josswinn.org">joss@josswinn.org</a>]<br>Sent: 27 February 2011 12:19<br>To: <a href="mailto:ssc@lists.aktivix.org">ssc@lists.aktivix.org</a><br>Subject: [SSC] Membership types and contributions<br>
<br>One of the things we discussed for some time in the pub after the<br>meeting on Thursday is the need to decide what types of membership there<br>will be at the SSC and how much we hope/expect people to contribute.<br>
<br>Let's use this discussion thread to work that out. One question that I<br>think Mike raised was that we might first ask what do we need the money<br>for?<br><br>As for membership types, these might be academic, student, general<br>
supporter, etc. or we might not distinguish between these at all.<br><br>As for the amount of contribution, Mike (a Professor), thought it<br>reasonable to ask that other Profs. contribute between ?300-?500/year or<br>roughly ?30+ /month.<br>
<br>I think the general agreement at the pub (outside of the formal meeting<br>when some people were no longer present) was that people should<br>self-assess their income and pay a fee that was matched to an income<br>category roughly in line with what Profs. Snr. Lecturers and Lecturers<br>
(and possibly one more level) are earning. Low wage and unemployed would<br>pay nothing.<br><br>So, what do you think about all of this? Please send your ideas to this<br>thread so we can come to a decision on this.<br><br>
Thanks very much<br>Joss<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>SSC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:SSC@lists.aktivix.org">SSC@lists.aktivix.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc</a><br>
<br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>SSC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:SSC@lists.aktivix.org">SSC@lists.aktivix.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc</a><br>
<br><br>End of SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 13<br>**********************************<br><br><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <<a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110228/bcce1a9e/attachment.htm" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110228/bcce1a9e/attachment.htm</a>><br>
<br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>SSC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:SSC@lists.aktivix.org">SSC@lists.aktivix.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc" target="_blank">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc</a><br>
<br><br>End of SSC Digest, Vol 2, Issue 15<br>**********************************<br></blockquote></div><br>