LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for RECMGMT-L Archives


RECMGMT-L Archives

RECMGMT-L Archives


RECMGMT-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


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

RECMGMT-L Home

RECMGMT-L Home

RECMGMT-L  February 2001

RECMGMT-L February 2001

Subject:

Re: Bill 602P urban legand

From:

Ricardo Enriquez <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:58:37 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (388 lines)

Before you send another E-mail like this, maybe you should check out the
Urban Lengends Website.


Ricardo Enriquez
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone:  (310) 785-5341
Fax:  (310) 712-3341
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Internet Web Site:  http://www.jmbm.com

This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be
attorney-client privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP immediately by telephone at
(310) 785-5341 or by e-mail to [log in to unmask] and destroy all copies of this
message and any attachments.


http://www.snopes2.com/

Post No Bills
Claim:   The government is going to impose a 5 surcharge on every Internet
e-mail message sent.
Status:   False.

Example:   [Collected on the Internet, 1999]

Sample of bougus e-mail
Dear Internet Subscriber:
Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and
continue using email: The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in
the Government of the United States attempting to quietly push through
legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed
legislation the U.S. Postal Service will be attempting to bilk email users
out of "alternate postage fees".

Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every
email delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The
consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Washington D.C. lawyer
Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this legislation from
becoming law.

The U.S. Postal Service is claiming that lost revenue due to the
proliferation of email is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year.
You may have noticed their recent ad campaign "There is nothing like a
letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email per day
in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents
per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their regular
Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to the U.S.
Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of
the Internet is democracy and non-interference. If the federal government is
permitted to tamper with our liberties by adding a surcharge to email, who
knows where it will end. You are already paying an exorbitant price for
snail mail because of bureacratic efficiency. It currently takes up to 6
days for a letter to be delivered from New York to Buffalo. If the U.S.
Postal Service is allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of the
"free" Internet in the United States. One congressman, Tony Schnell (r) has
even suggested a "twenty to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet
service" above and beyond the government's proposed email charges. Note that
most of the major newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception
being the Washingtonian which called the idea of email surcharge "a useful
concept who's time has come" (March 6th 1999 Editorial) Don't sit by and
watch your freedoms erode away!

Send this email to all Americans on your list and tell your friends and
relatives to write to their congressman and say "No!" to Bill 602P.

Kate Turner
Assistant to Richard Stepp
Berger, Stepp and Gorman
Attorneys at Law
216 Concorde Street,
Vienna, Va.



Origins:   We must begin by pointing out that three similar but distinctly
different warnings are making the rounds:


Congress is going to impose a 5 surcharge on every piece of e-mail sent.

The Federal Communications Commission is going to impose a per-minute access
fee on Internet connections (or allow phone companies to do so).

Congress is going to allow state sales taxes to be levied on goods purchased
via the Internet.
This page addresses only the first of the items listed above, which is
nothing more than a hoax. (Congress has never considered any such scheme.)
The other two items have at least been considered, but no legislation has
yet been proposed to implement either one of them. (We have a separate page
to cover the rumor that ISP customers will be charged per-minute long
distance fees for Internet access.)

The "5 e-mail surcharge" hoax presents us with a new economic villain in
place of the FCC and phone companies: the United States Postal Service.
Beset by falling revenues now that people are sending more and more e-mail
(and consequently less and less real mail), the USPS is supposedly going to
impose a 5 surcharge on every e-mail message to recoup the lost postage
fees.

The Postal Service is one of those essential government services that's so
easy to bash and ridicule. We pay little or no attention to them when they
do their jobs; the only time we notice them is when they do something wrong,
and then we grumble and gripe about how bumbling and inefficient they are.
"They can't manage the simple task of delivering mail reliably and on time,
and now they want to raise the postage fees again?" is the standard cry. So,
it doesn't require much stretching of public opinion to portray the USPS as
yet another self-serving government agency more concerned with preserving
its existence than with serving its constituency. If the Postal Service
can't get more money out of people for using its services, it's going to
start charging people for not using its services. Everybody's gonna pay the
USPS 5 per e-mail message for a service the USPS isn't providing.

The whole thing is bunk. There is no Congressman named Tony Schnell; no Bill
602P (Congressional bill designations begin with either H.R. or S.,
depending upon whether they're House or Senate bills); no law firm of
Berger, Stepp and Gorman; no such address as 216 Concorde Street in Vienna,
Virginia; and no editorial in The Washingtonian. This hoax actually began
with a Canadian version that was later Americanized:


Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and
continue using email:
The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of
Canada attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your
use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation Canada Post will be
attempting to bilk email users out of "alternate postage fees".

Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every
email delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The
consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Toronto lawyer Richard
Stepp QC is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming
law.

The Canada Post Corporation is claiming that lost revenue due to the
proliferation of email is costing nearly $23,000,000 in revenue per year.
You may have noticed Canada Post's recent ad campaign "There is nothing like
a letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email per
day in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional 50
cents per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their regular
Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to Canada Post
for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is
democracy and non-interference. If the Canadian Government is permitted to
tamper with our liberties by adding a surcharge to email, who knows where it
will end. You are already paying an exhorbitant price for snail mail because
of beaurocratic inefficiency. It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter
to be delivered from Mississauga to Scarborough. If Canada Post Corporation
is allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet
in Canada. One back-bencher, Liberal Tony Schnell (NB) has even suggested a
"twenty to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet service" above
and beyond the government's proposed email charges. Note that most of the
major newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception being the
Toronto Star that called the idea of email surcharge "a useful concept who's
time has come" (March 6th 1999 Editorial) Don't sit by and watch your
freedoms erode away! Send this email to all Canadians on your list and tell
your friends and relatives to write to their MP and say "No!" to Bill 602P.

Kate Turner
Assistant to Richard Stepp QC
Berger, Stepp and Gorman
Barristers at Law
216 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
MlL 3C6



The same flaws appear in this version: There is no Canadian MP by the name
of Tony Schnell; no Bill 602P currently before the Canadian parliament
(parliamentary bills begin with either C. or S., depending upon whether they
originated in the House of Commons or the Senate); no Richard Stepp QC; no
law firm by the name of Berger, Stepp and Gorman; no such address as 216 Bay
Street in Toronto; and no editorial in the Toronto Star.

This hoax continues to gain legitimacy because the media keep confusing it
with the distinctly different issues listed at the top of this page. In May
2000, The Washington Post reported that bill H.R. 1291, introduced in the
House by Rep. Fred Upton, would "block the idea" of Congress' imposing a
surcharge on e-mail. The bill would (if passed) do no such thing -- it would
merely prevent the FCC from imposing per-minute access fees on Internet
connections "for the support of universal service":


H.R. 1291
Internet Access Charge Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Communications
Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from imposing
on any interactive computer service or other information service provider
any access charge for the support of universal service that is based on a
measure of the time that telecommunications services are used in the
provision of such interactive computer or information service.



There's nothing to this one at all, no matter how the newspapers may
misreport it. The 1999 Human Development Report issued by the United
Nations' Development Programme did suggest that a "bit tax" of one U.S. cent
on every 100 e-mail messages sent worldwide could raise over $70 billion a
year to fund the development of computer technology infrastructures in
developing countries, but this was merely a pie-in-the-sky suggestion, not a
concrete plan for member nations to adopt and implement.

Belief in the legitimacy of the "Bill 602P" hoax is so pervasive that a
question about it was posed by WCBS newsperson Marcia Kramer during a 8
October 2000 debate between two candidates for a U.S. Senate seat from New
York, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Congressman Rick Lazio. Apparently none of
the three realized that this bill is fictitious:


KRAMER: I'd like to ask you how you stand on Federal Bill 602P. I'm going to
actually tell you what it is.
CLINTON: I have no idea.   [Laughter]

KRAMER: I'm going to tell you what it is. Under the bill that's now before
Congress, the U.S. Postal Service would be able to bill e-mail users five
cents for each e-mail they send even though the post office provides no
service. They want this to help recoup losses of about $230 million a year
because of the proliferation of e-mails. But if you'll just send 10 e-mails
a day, that would cost consumers an extra $180 a year. So I'm wondering if
you would vote for this bill. And do you see the Internet as a source of
revenue for the government in the years to come?

CLINTON: Well, based on your description, Marcia, I wouldn't vote for that
bill. It sounds burdensome and not justifiable to me. I have been a
supporter of the moratorium on taxation on the Internet. I think that we do
have to let loose this extraordinary communication device and see how far it
can go in connecting people up. And I'd like to monitor this closely and
take a look at it in the time when the moratorium expires.

But is important that we do everything we can do build the infrastructure of
New York to take advantage of the Internet. I have been all over this state
to all 62 counties and I've been in countless schools, and some of them are
the best in the world and the most highly wired and others are not. If we're
going to take advantage of the new information economy, we have to be sure
that all of our citizens and particularly our children are well prepared.
That's why I have proposed high-tech infrastructure bonds as part of my
economic plans that would enable us to provide low-cost Internet access and
broadband access around the state. It's why I hope that we'll do a better
job in providing the computers and Internet access to all of our children
and all of our schools so that no child gets left behind. And it's why we
need to close the digital divide throughout the state.

New York should be as Silicon Alley is: a beacon magnet throughout the state
for the new economy. And I want to be partner with local officials,
business, labor and others to make sure that happens. So I don't want
anything to interfere with that kind of opportunity.

KRAMER: Mr. Lazio, your rebuttal.

LAZIO: I am absolutely opposed to this. This is an example of the
government's greedy hand in trying to take money from taxpayers that,
frankly, it has not right to. We need to keep the government's hands off the
Internet. It has a capacity for creating more jobs, more high-paying jobs
for New Yorkers than any other potential sector in the future. That's why I
have voted for a moratorium on taxes on the Internet. That's why I have a
hundred percent record on high-tech issues because I know that's important
to New York.

I've been building partnerships with local businesses to create jobs for our
young people. And I'll tell you, it's very, very important for us to keep
our taxes low. And I distance myself, frankly, from Mrs. Clinton's 15
different support--15 different tax increases...



Additional information:

     E-mail Rumor Completely Untrue
(U.S. Postal Service)
     Canada Post Sets the Record Straight
(Canada Post)
     E-mail Hoax
(The Washingtonian)
     Audio clip from 8 October 2000
New York Senate debate
     E-mail Hoax an Issue in N.Y. Senate Debate
(Washingtonpost.com)
     Clinton, Lazio End Up Wrestling Urban Myth
(MSNBC.com)


Last updated:   8 October 2000




The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/email.htm
Please use this URL in all links or references to this page
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend
Urban Legends Reference Pages  1995-2000 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
   Sources:

    Goodman, Peter S.   "Congress to Block Imaginary Internet Tax Bill."
    The Washington Post.   10 May 2000   (p. E1).

    Stencel, Mark.   "E-mail Hoax an Issue in N.Y. Senate Debate."
    Washingtonpost.com.   8 October 2000.

    Wilson, Peter.   "How to Hex a Hoax."
    The Vancouver Sun.   29 April 1999   (p. D17).

    Computing Canada.   "Remember Bill 602P When You Vote."
    30 April 1999   (p. 33).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
   Pending Legislation
 Inboxer Rebellion
    Search  Send comments
-----Original Message-----
From: "Robert Mullholand" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Bill 602P


Subject: Bill 602 P

VOTE NO ON Bill 602P!!!!

I guess the warnings were true. Federal Bill 602P 5-cents per E-mail Sent.
It figures! No more free E-mail! We knew this was coming!! Bill 602P will
permit the Federal Government to charge a 5-cent charge on every delivered
E-mail.

Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online, and
continue using E-mail.

The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of the
United States attempting to quietly push through legislation that will
affect our use of the Internet.  Under proposed legislation, the US Postal
Service will be attempting to bill E-mail users out of "alternative postage
fees." Bill 602P will permit the Federal Government to charge a 5-cent
surcharge on every E-mail delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers
at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP.

Washington DC lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this
legislation from becoming law. The US Postal Service is claiming lost
revenue, due to the proliferation of E-mail, is costing nearly $230,000,000
in revenue per year. You may have noticed their recent ad campaign: "There
is nothing like a letter."

Since the average person received about 10 pieces of E-mail per day in 1998,
the cost of the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents a day --
or over $180 per year -- above and beyond their regular Internet costs. Note
that this would be money paid directly to the US Postal Service for a
service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is
democracy and noninterference. You are already paying an exorbitant price
for snail mail because of bureaucratic efficiency.

It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from coast to
coast. If the US Postal Service is allowed to tinker with E-mail, it will
mark the end of the "free" Internet in the United States. Our congressional
representative, Tony Schnell (R) has even suggested a "$20- $40 per month
surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the governments proposed
E-mail charges Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the
story -- the only exception being the Washingtonian - which called the idea
of E-mail surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" (March 6th, 1999
Editorial).

Do not sit by and watch your freedom erode away! Send this to E-mail to
EVERYONE on your list, and tell your friends and relatives write their
congressional representative and say "NO" to Bill 602P.

It will only take a few moments of your time and could very well be
instrumental in killing a bill we do not want.

Thanx,

Bob

Document Management Team
Information Quality Management Team
763-543-1917; v535-1917
1-800-pagemci; 1263856

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

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

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 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
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
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
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
October 2017, Week 1
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 5
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 5
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
July 2015, Week 1
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 5
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 5
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 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
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 5
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 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
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 5
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 5
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 4
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 5
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
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
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 5
December 2007, Week 4
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
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 5
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
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 5
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 5
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 5
March 2007, Week 4
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 2
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 5
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
December 2006, Week 1
November 2006, Week 5
November 2006, Week 4
November 2006, Week 3
November 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 5
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
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 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 5
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 5
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 5
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager