On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:45:56 -0400, Scott Lilienfeld wrote: > Hi Mike - >Ekman has long been at UC San Francisco (Department >of Psychiatry), and I believe is Professor Emeritus there. >Cheers....Scott Thanks for pointing this out. Ekman's affiliation turns out to be a curious false memory for me. A colleague did her Ph.D. in developmental at UC-Berkeley and had worked with Ekman and continues to do so (she even mentioned a get together for the "Ekman gang" a while back in San Francisco) which was the basis for my thinking that Ekman was at Berkeley. I double checked a short bio for her and while she did get her Ph.D. at Berkeley, she did a post-doc with Ekman at UCSF. The odd thing about this is that I read Ekman's "Telling Lies" about a decade or so and had to have known at that time that he was at UCSF but subsequently I have spent more time with my colleague and UCSF changed to UC-Berkeley over time in my head though I don't think she ever mentioned working with Ekman at Berkely (unless it was in one of things he's be doing recently at Berkely; quoting from the Wikipedia entry on Ekman:
|He is currently on the Editorial Board of Greater Good magazine, |published by the Greater Good Science Center of the |University of California, Berkeley. I guess I should check my assumptions more often. :-) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:07 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Cc: Mike Palij > Subject: RE: [tips] Beyond analysis > > On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:14:02 -0700, Scott O Lilienfeld wrote: >>Hi All - It's an intriguing collection indeed, but the description at the >>outset of the article isn't quite accurate. Psychologists were asked to say >>what they didn't understand about themselves, not what they view as the great >>answered questions in psychology as a whole. Still, quite entertaining >>nonetheless. ...Scott > > A point that may not be relevant but which I wonder about is the > following. Presumably "famous" psychologists were selected either > because (a) they somehow have a deeper insight into the problems > that concern them (by the way, I wish Marty Seligman luck in walking > and losing that weight) or (b) there is a gossipy interest in what > famous psychologists are concerned about and whether such concern > are profound or mundane (e.g., how to keep one's weight down). > But if someone surveyed a representative sample of psychologists, > would one find similar or different concerns? And which would be > of greater interest: the concerns of the famous psychologists or the > concerns of "common" psychologists? Anyone find it interesting that > none of their concerns involved teaching? > > Or am I making too much of a little article in the "Health & Families" > section of a newspaper? > > By the way, when I tried to access the blog listed at the end of the > story I got a "You are not authorized to view page"; see: > Researchdigest.org.uk/blog > > Did it sense my less than appreciative attitude towards the piece? > > Also, wasn't Paul Ekman at UC-Berkeley? Has he gone into business > for himself now? Incidentally, I agree with his positions and not the > Dalai Lama's. And I never knew that Mike Posner was so mechanically > challenged. I hope that light bulb changing behavior gets better. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > m...@nyu.edu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Allen Esterson [mailto:allenester...@compuserve.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 4:03 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: [tips] Beyond analysis > > Beyond analysis: Inside the minds of the world's top psychologists > > From belief in God to the irresistible urge to flirt with the opposite > sex, there are some human impulses that even the biggest brains in > psychology are unable to explain. Here are their greatest unanswered > questions > > http://tinyurl.com/ydcxrrx > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this message in error, please contact > the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the > original message (including attachments). > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: To curve or not to curve > From: Don Allen <dal...@langara.bc.ca> > Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:27:31 +0000 (GMT) > X-Message-Number: 22 > > Hi Jim- > > Thanks for the link to the SFU data. In trying to figure out why there would > be such a discrepancy between grades at Langara and SFU I came up with two > possibilities. One is retention level. It is not uncommon to see a 25-30% > shrinkage in an Intro class at Langara. If percentage of "A"s is calculated > using the number of students who enrolled as the base then you will get a > markedly different percentage than if you do the calculation based on those > who remained. The second factor is how the schools define A, B, C, etc. SFU > uses the following criteria: > Letter gradeDefinitionNumerical equivalent > A+ > A > A-excellent performance4.33 > 4.00 > 3.67 > B+ > B > B-good performance3.33 > 3.00 > 2.67 > C+ > Csatisfactory performance2.33 > 2.00 > C- > Dmarginal performance1.67 > 1.00 > Ffail (unsatisfactory performance) 0.00 > > > Langara's definition is quite different: > > Letter GradeGrade Point EquivalencyInterpretation Approx % Range > A+ 4.3 Distinguished Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated excellence > in all aspects of the course) 96-100 > A 4.0 85-95 > A- 3.7 80-84 > B+ 3.3 Above Average Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated above average proficiency > in all aspects of the course) 77-79 > B 3.0 73-76 > B- 2.7 68-72 > C+2.3 Satisfactory Achievement > (for competent achievement in the course) 63-67 > C 2.0 58-62 > C-1.7 53-57 > D 1.0 Marginal Performance > (credit granted but insufficient mastery > to proceed to the next level) > > Letter GradeGrade Point EquivalencyInterpretation Approx % Range > A+ 4.3 Distinguished Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated excellence > in all aspects of the course) 96-100 > A 4.0 85-95 > A- 3.7 80-84 > B+ 3.3 Above Average Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated above average proficiency > in all aspects of the course) 77-79 > B 3.0 73-76 > B- 2.7 68-72 > C+2.3 Satisfactory Achievement > (for competent achievement in the course) 63-67 > C 2.0 58-62 > C-1.7 53-57 > D 1.0 Marginal Performance > (credit granted but insufficient mastery > to proceed to the next level) > > Letter GradeGrade Point EquivalencyInterpretation Approx % Range > A+ 4.3 Distinguished Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated excellence > in all aspects of the course) 96-100 > A 4.0 85-95 > A- 3.7 80-84 > B+ 3.3 Above Average Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated above average proficiency > in all aspects of the course) 77-79 > B 3.0 73-76 > B- 2.7 68-72 > C+2.3 Satisfactory Achievement > (for competent achievement in the course) 63-67 > C 2.0 58-62 > C-1.7 53-57 > D 1.0 Marginal Performance > (credit granted but insufficient mastery > to proceed to the next level) 48-52 > > Letter GradeGrade Point EquivalencyInterpretation Approx % Range > A+ 4.3 Distinguished Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated excellence > in all aspects of the course) 96-100 > A 4.0 85-95 > A- 3.7 80-84 > B+ 3.3 Above Average Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated above average proficiency > in all aspects of the course) 77-79 > B 3.0 73-76 > B- 2.7 68-72 > C+2.3 Satisfactory Achievement > (for competent achievement in the course) 63-67 > C 2.0 58-62 > C-1.7 53-57 > D 1.0 Marginal Performance > (credit granted but insufficient mastery > to proceed to the next level) 48-52 > > > Especially note the differences in the "B" range. To get into this range at > Langara you have to be "above average" while at SFU you only need to be > "good". Looks like the Lake Woebegon effect to me. > > -Don. > > > Letter GradeGrade Point EquivalencyInterpretation Approx % Range > A+ 4.3 Distinguished Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated excellence > in all aspects of the course) 96-100 > A 4.0 85-95 > A- 3.7 80-84 > B+ 3.3 Above Average Achievement > (for consistently demonstrated above average proficiency > in all aspects of the course) 77-79 > B 3.0 73-76 > B- 2.7 68-72 > C+2.3 Satisfactory Achievement > (for competent achievement in the course) 63-67 > C 2.0 58-62 > C-1.7 53-57 > D 1.0 Marginal Performance > (credit granted but insufficient mastery > to proceed to the next level) 48-52 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Clark > Date: Thursday, October 8, 2009 11:31 am > Subject: Re: [tips] To curve or not to curve > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > >> Hi >> >> As I noted, I am not sure where I got those figures, but if you >> look at following report (e.g., page 6), you will see that %As >> is quite high at Simon Fraser University, especially in >> Education. So figures reported are not out of line with some >> universities. >> http://www.sfu.ca/irp/Students/grades_report/documents/grades.report.pdf >> >> Take care >> Jim >> >> James M. Clark >> Professor of Psychology >> 204-786-9757 >> 204-774-4134 Fax >> j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >> >> >>> Don Allen 08-Oct-09 11:20:07 AM >>> >> Hi Jim- >> >> I find that these percentages are remakably high. I just went >> over my grade distributions for the last several years and >> calculated the percentage of "A" grades (Including A-, A and A+) >> to be about 6-7% for both my Intro and Research Methods classes. >> I used a fixed grading system with 85% as the cut off point for >> the "A" range. Few, if any, of my students considered me to be a >> "hard marker". I'm sure that if I had handed in a grade >> distribution with even 25% "A"s I would have had a conversation >> with the department chair. Are you sure that those numbers are >> correct? >> -Don. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Jim Clark >> Date: Thursday, October 8, 2009 8:49 am >> Subject: Re: [tips] To curve or not to curve >> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" >> >> > Hi >> > >> > James M. Clark >> > Professor of Psychology >> > 204-786-9757 >> > 204-774-4134 Fax >> > j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca >> > >> > >>> "michael sylvester" 08-Oct-09 >> > 9:03:09 AM >>> >> > Is there evidence that adjuncts give more of the A grade than >> > regular faculty? >> > >> > I forget now where I got it from but here are data from a talk >> a >> > did here a few years ago. >> > >> > %As by Course Level >> > For course levels 1, 2, and 3 >> > - Full 26% 31% 35% >> > - Assistant 30% 45% 42% >> > - Adjunct 38% 50% 42% >> > >> > As to why more As for adjuncts, that is another question. >> > >> > Take care >> > Jim >> > >> > >> > --- >> > To make changes to your subscription contact: >> > >> > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) >> > >> >> Don Allen >> Dept. of Psychology >> Langara College >> 100 W. 49th Ave. >> Vancouver, B.C. >> Canada V5Y 2Z6 >> Phone: 604-323-5871 >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) >> > > Don Allen > Dept. of Psychology > Langara College > 100 W. 49th Ave. > Vancouver, B.C. > Canada V5Y 2Z6 > Phone: 604-323-5871 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Concept Map on Sexual Orientation > From: "Britt, Michael" <michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com> > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:10:41 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 23 > > Thanks Beth. I tried to be thorough. When it came to a point where > the next article or chapter started repeating what the previous > article/chapter said, then I knew it was time to stop and get > feedback. Quite a fascinating topic. > > Michael > > Michael Britt > mich...@thepsychfiles.com > www.thepsychfiles.com > > > > On Oct 8, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Beth Benoit wrote: > >> >> >> Michael, >> That's beautiful. Very thorough! >> >> Beth Benoit >> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Britt, Michael >> <michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com >> > wrote: >> I'm putting together my notes for an upcoming episode on the origins >> of sexual orientation. The topic, of course, is huge, but I'm going >> to try to provide a general overview of the various explanations - >> nature/nurture and in between - for sexual orientation. I've got my >> notes in a concept map which is starting to get out of hand. Any >> thoughts/input/feedback appreciated (especially if anything really >> important is missing). Here's the link to the map: >> >> http://bit.ly/sexualorientation >> >> Michael >> >> Michael Britt >> mich...@thepsychfiles.com >> www.thepsychfiles.com >> >> >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Concept Map on Sexual Orientation > From: "Britt, Michael" <michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com> > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:20:06 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 24 > > I didn't see that in my reading, but I'll check out the reference you > have below. I think the whole idea of measuring body differences > until you come up with something significant seems like a questionable > research strategy. > > I also found one study that concluded that homosexual men have larger > penises than heteros: > > The relation between sexual orientation and penile size, Anthony F > Bogaert; Scott Hershlberger, Archives of Sexual Behavior; Jun 1999; 28. > > I'm not sure whether to mention this finding. It was only one study > and the topic of sexual orientation is controversial enough. I don't > know....thoughts? > > Michael > > > Michael Britt > mich...@thepsychfiles.com > www.thepsychfiles.com > > > > On Oct 8, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Mark A. Casteel wrote: > >> >> >> >> Hi Michel. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under >> the impression that the index finger/ring finger ratio idea only >> seems to hold for white homosexuals (interesting). >> >> Source: Dennis McFadden, Ph.D.,1 , 6 John C. Loehlin, Ph.D.,1 S. >> Marc Breedlove, Ph.D.,2 >> Richard A. Lippa, Ph.D.,3 John T. Manning, Ph.D.,4 and Qazi Rahman, >> Ph.D. (2005) Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 341-356. >> >> At 12:38 PM 10/8/2009, you wrote: >>> I'm putting together my notes for an upcoming episode on the origins >>> of sexual orientation. The topic, of course, is huge, but I'm going >>> to try to provide a general overview of the various explanations - >>> nature/nurture and in between - for sexual orientation. I've got my >>> notes in a concept map which is starting to get out of hand. Any >>> thoughts/input/feedback appreciated (especially if anything really >>> important is missing). Here's the link to the map: >>> >>> http://bit.ly/sexualorientation >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> Michael Britt >>> mich...@thepsychfiles.com >>> www.thepsychfiles.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To make changes to your subscription contact: >>> >>> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) >> >> ********************************* >> Mark A. Casteel, Ph.D. >> Associate Professor of Psychology >> Penn State York >> 1031 Edgecomb Ave. >> York, PA 17403 >> (717) 771-4028 >> ********************************* >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: RE: Concept Map on Sexual Orientation > From: "Rickabaugh, Cheryl" <cheryl_rickaba...@redlands.edu> > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:38:25 -0700 > X-Message-Number: 25 > > Hi, Michael. > > I'm impressed w/your concept map. At least at this writing (who knows > w/reviews), I simply cover the numerous physiological correlates of sexual > orientation w/a brief listing of findings, emphasizing that they are simply > correlates and that the pattern does not seem to be consistent in terms of > gender (lesbians versus gay men) and ethnicity. My favorite reference is: > > Carroll, M. P. (1998). But fingerprints don't lie, eh? Prevailing gender > ideologies and scientific knowledge. *Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22*, > 739-749. > > Cheryl R. > --- > Cheryl A. Rickabaugh, Ph.D. > Professor and Department Chair > Department of Psychology > University of Redlands > Redlands, CA 92373-0999 > Voice: 909.748.8671 > Fax: 909.335.5305 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Britt, Michael [mailto:michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com] > Sent: Thu 10/8/2009 5:20 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] Concept Map on Sexual Orientation > > I didn't see that in my reading, but I'll check out the reference you > have below. I think the whole idea of measuring body differences > until you come up with something significant seems like a questionable > research strategy. > > I also found one study that concluded that homosexual men have larger > penises than heteros: > > The relation between sexual orientation and penile size, Anthony F > Bogaert; Scott Hershlberger, Archives of Sexual Behavior; Jun 1999; 28. > > I'm not sure whether to mention this finding. It was only one study > and the topic of sexual orientation is controversial enough. I don't > know....thoughts? > > Michael > > > Michael Britt > mich...@thepsychfiles.com > www.thepsychfiles.com > > > > On Oct 8, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Mark A. Casteel wrote: > >> >> >> >> Hi Michel. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under >> the impression that the index finger/ring finger ratio idea only >> seems to hold for white homosexuals (interesting). >> >> Source: Dennis McFadden, Ph.D.,1 , 6 John C. Loehlin, Ph.D.,1 S. >> Marc Breedlove, Ph.D.,2 >> Richard A. Lippa, Ph.D.,3 John T. Manning, Ph.D.,4 and Qazi Rahman, >> Ph.D. (2005) Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 341-356. >> >> At 12:38 PM 10/8/2009, you wrote: >>> I'm putting together my notes for an upcoming episode on the origins >>> of sexual orientation. The topic, of course, is huge, but I'm going >>> to try to provide a general overview of the various explanations - >>> nature/nurture and in between - for sexual orientation. I've got my >>> notes in a concept map which is starting to get out of hand. Any >>> thoughts/input/feedback appreciated (especially if anything really >>> important is missing). Here's the link to the map: >>> >>> http://bit.ly/sexualorientation >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> Michael Britt >>> mich...@thepsychfiles.com >>> www.thepsychfiles.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To make changes to your subscription contact: >>> >>> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) >> >> ********************************* >> Mark A. Casteel, Ph.D. >> Associate Professor of Psychology >> Penn State York >> 1031 Edgecomb Ave. >> York, PA 17403 >> (717) 771-4028 >> ********************************* >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Beyond analysis > From: Gerald Peterson <peter...@vmail.svsu.edu> > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 21:09:22 -0400 (EDT) > X-Message-Number: 26 > > > I am not sure if some of these are real, actual empirical problems unsolved > or merely the wistful meanderings of famous psych folks as they reflect on > favorite topics. I am not sure science can resolve these issues or offer the > comfort they may crave. Gary > > > > > Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. > Professor, Department of Psychology > Saginaw Valley State University > University Center, MI 48710 > 989-964-4491 > peter...@svsu.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Allen Esterson" <allenester...@compuserve.com> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> > Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2009 4:02:32 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [tips] Beyond analysis > > Beyond analysis: Inside the minds of the world's top psychologists > > From belief in God to the irresistible urge to flirt with the opposite > sex, there are some human impulses that even the biggest brains in > psychology are unable to explain. Here are their greatest unanswered > questions > > http://tinyurl.com/ydcxrrx > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > http://www.esterson.org > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Concept Map on Sexual Orientation > From: Beth Benoit <beth.ben...@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:09:16 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 27 > > One thought...how about including Dennis McFadden's (University of Texas, > Austin) findings that men and lesbian women have less sensitive cochlea > amplifiers? That might fit into the map along with the finger-length > discrepancy. Beth Benoit > Granite State College > Plymouth State University > New Hampshire > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Britt, Michael < > michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com> wrote: > >> I'm putting together my notes for an upcoming episode on the origins of >> sexual orientation. The topic, of course, is huge, but I'm going to try to >> provide a general overview of the various explanations - nature/nurture and >> in between - for sexual orientation. I've got my notes in a concept map >> which is starting to get out of hand. Any thoughts/input/feedback >> appreciated (especially if anything really important is missing). Here's >> the link to the map: >> >> http://bit.ly/sexualorientation >> >> Michael >> >> Michael Britt >> mich...@thepsychfiles.com >> www.thepsychfiles.com >> >> >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Concept Map on Sexual Orientation > From: "Jim Clark" <j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca> > Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:29:13 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 28 > > Hi > > 1. I would be reluctant to rest the continuum idea on Kinsey's work alone. > He deliberately selected quite non-representative samples and sought out > unusual sexual experiences and practices. Are there sounder data for this > claim? > > 2. I'm not sure why demographics fits in with nature? How about a > descriptive node including methods of measurement, notion of continuum, and > demographics? > > 3. Nature question, especially genes, is a tricky one. Monozygotic twins > tend to have more similar intrauterine environments (shared placenta, shared > chorion) than dizygotic twins, who would be more similar than non-twin > siblings. Complicates attributing twin differences to genes, especially > given other findings of intrauterine hormonal effects. > > 4. Depending on audience might expand material on politics of sexual > orientation research. I've always found it interesting that gays find idea > of genetic cause attractive (not personal choice), whereas genetic > explanations for other differences (race, gender) tend to be resisted. > > 5. Number of spelling errors / typos (homsexuality, temperment, ...) that > need correcting and I believe that Bem Sex Role Inventory was constructed by > Sandra Bem, not Daryl. Might want to check that out. > > 6. Concept map shows nice potential, although I could not determine whether > it is possible to re-expand nodes after left ones were shrunk to show nodes > expanded on right without lower level nodes of some major nodes also opening. > That is, can one re-expand and just get the main headings. > > Take care > Jim > > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca > >>>> "Britt, Michael" <michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com> 08-Oct-09 11:38:30 AM >>>> >>> > I'm putting together my notes for an upcoming episode on the origins > of sexual orientation. The topic, of course, is huge, but I'm going > to try to provide a general overview of the various explanations - > nature/nurture and in between - for sexual orientation. I've got my > notes in a concept map which is starting to get out of hand. Any > thoughts/input/feedback appreciated (especially if anything really > important is missing). Here's the link to the map: > > http://bit.ly/sexualorientation > > Michael > > Michael Britt > mich...@thepsychfiles.com > www.thepsychfiles.com > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > > > > > --- > > END OF DIGEST > > --- > To make changes to your subscription go to: > http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
