<div dir="ltr">After all this I can barely comprehend why anybody would volunteer their time for a program on KZYX. I've known a few, back in the day, and they played music they loved, and discussed topics of concern and often produced shows for many years. They were enrolled, I was enrolled, the station was not a stick in the mud. I get more from the kzyxtalk list than the station! Sorry state of affairs.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr">Kristina Almquist<br></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kzyxtalk-request@lists.mcn.org" target="_blank">kzyxtalk-request@lists.mcn.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Send Kzyxtalk mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:kzyxtalk-request@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk-request@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:kzyxtalk-owner@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk-owner@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Kzyxtalk digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22, 2014<br>
(ann brown)<br>
2. Re: from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22, 2014 (David)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:06:14 -0700<br>
From: ann brown <<a href="mailto:divinesight@icloud.com">divinesight@icloud.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May<br>
22, 2014<br>
To: <a href="mailto:kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:E946AC94-8E9D-4184-9623-AFFA42BE83FE@icloud.com">E946AC94-8E9D-4184-9623-AFFA42BE83FE@icloud.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<br>
<br>
This is the very definition of taking a molehill and turning it into a mountain full of blind moles.<br>
<br>
Just saying,<br>
<br>
Merriam Webster<br>
<br>
<br>
On May 22, 2014, at 11:58 AM, <a href="mailto:sako4@comcast.net">sako4@comcast.net</a> wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> It would seem obvious KZYX is now trying to develop a policy designed to kick dissidents off the air...a list of forbidden off-air conduct or behaviours that would result in the cancellation of shows and the revocation of broadcasting privileges for the "guilty" broadcaster.<br>
><br>
> What conduct, I wonder?<br>
><br>
> Conviction of a felony crime? Imprisonment? I can completely understand being kicked off the air for serious criminal behavior. But KZYX isn't talking about that.<br>
><br>
> So, what other conduct gets a broadcaster in trouble, I wonder?<br>
><br>
> Criticism of station management? Is that enough to get a broadcaster kicked off the air?<br>
><br>
> How about other criticism? Criticism of the Board? Criticism of station policy? Criticism of another broadcaster?<br>
><br>
> Hmm.<br>
><br>
> What other conduct? Where does the slippery slope end?<br>
><br>
> How about getting kicked off the air for holding controversial opinions? Holding certain political beliefs? Belonging to certain religions? Belonging to certain organizations deemed subversive by KZYX station management? Perhaps even making certain lifestyle choices unacceptable to station management?<br>
><br>
> Sounds like McCarthyism all over again.<br>
><br>
> Any policy in this area would almost almost certainly be actionable in court. A policy mandating or regulating off-air conduct would immediately have KZYX defending itself against claims of reprisals, double standards, and discrimination.<br>
><br>
> If anyone thinks KZYX's legal bills for the renewal of the FCC licenses are too high now, I shudder to think what defending against such claims in court would cost in the future. Station management would bankrupt the station by trying to mandate or regulate off-air behavior. Almost certainly, none of the above claims would be dismissed by a judge. The opportunity for making case law in a constitutional challenge at publicly funded radio station, like KZYX, would far too compelling. A judge's career is determined by published case law.<br>
><br>
> Also, if anyone thinks the objections to the renewal of KZYX's two FCC licenses drew a spark of national attention, then creating a policy for required off-air conduct would almost certainly create a firestorm of controversy. I don't think many other public media stations would support an attempt by KZYX to mandate or regulate off-air behavior.<br>
><br>
> Talk about unpopular!<br>
><br>
> Does KZYX really seek further negative publicity?<br>
><br>
> I can also see Congress getting involved, too. In the1990s, Congress got involved at the NEA over what constituted freedom of speech issues. Congress then went way beyond getting involved. In 1995-1997, Congress almost killed the NEA, along with the NEH and the CPB.<br>
><br>
> Incidentally, there is some relevant case law from that time. The case filed by the "NEA Four" in 1993, with lead plaintiff Karen Finley, centered on subsection (d)(1) of 20 U.S.C. ? 954 which provides that the NEA Chairperson shall ensure that only excellence and merit are the criteria by which applications are judged. The court ruled in 524 U.S. 569 (1998), that Section 954(d)(1) is facially valid, as it neither inherently interferes with First Amendment rights nor violates constitutional vagueness principles.<br>
><br>
> In other words, it can be inferred that only criteria by which publicly-funded broadcasters would be judged would be the same criteria that publicly-funded artists are judged...excellence and merit.<br>
><br>
> That me state that again. If public dollars are involved, then only excellence and merit matter.<br>
><br>
> Again, the courts have already decided this issue in the area of publicly funded art. No doubt the courts would jump at the chance for a test case in the area of publicly funded media.<br>
><br>
> The NEA, NEH, and CPB all have interests that are aligned. For the same reason the NEA pushed back in the 1990s, I also don't think the CPB would sit still for a code of required off-air conduct. I don't think they would sit still for one minute..<br>
><br>
> Then, there are the conservative groups who would be ready to pounce on us: Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for a New American Century, and others. They're always ready to pounce on public television and public radio at almost any opportunity. A code for required off-air conduct would be like waving a red flag at a bull. They couldn't resist it.<br>
><br>
> But there's more. Even liberal groups would be concerned about the free speech issues implied in a code for required off-air conduct at a public radio station like KZYX.<br>
><br>
> I was once married to a national reporter who was also a Carter Center Fellow. Yesterday, after following this thread about off-air conduct on <a href="mailto:kzyxprogrammers@lists.mcn.org">kzyxprogrammers@lists.mcn.org</a>, I spoke with someone affiliated with the Carter Center. Together, we made a list of all the groups who would be aghast at a code of required off-air conduct. They include not just many liberal groups, but also libertarian groups, like the Annenberg Public Policy Center. I then asked another person who has been a guest on my show, and who is a prominent and highly-respected media person, to put a call into Annenberg to get a read on this dubious business of a code for required off-air conduct. I'll ask that person to poll a few other places, too.<br>
><br>
> KZYX may be small, but our issues are big.<br>
><br>
> From: "Tim Bray" <<a href="mailto:tbray@wildblue.net">tbray@wildblue.net</a>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:04:59 AM<br>
> Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22, 2014<br>
><br>
> The KZYX programmer's listserve is buzzing, and it started off with a question about whether or not off-air actions should be considered when evaluating a programmer. Some thoughtful commentary about the programmer's position ensued.<br>
><br>
> But the real buzz is the pushback from programmers who are sick of Sacowicz and his bullshit. He is getting roundly castigated by several programmers, and some others are expressing genuine concern for his mental state.<br>
><br>
> Sacowicz is, as usual, responding with threats of legal action and heaps of self-aggrandizing rhetoric.<br>
><br>
> The "criticizing station management" mantra is BS and a red herring. Programmers question and criticize station management all the time, with no repercussions. I can think of many who do it regularly and are treated with respect; I have done it myself on several occasions, and undoubtedly will again.<br>
><br>
> What Sacowicz is doing is beyond criticism. Protesting the relicensing has demonstrably harmed the station and continues to do so. It seems a clear violation of his duty as a Board member and he should be recalled - but that would require wasting even more time and money.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 5/22/2014 1:04 AM, <a href="mailto:sako4@comcast.net">sako4@comcast.net</a> wrote:<br>
> =============================<br>
><br>
> THE KZYX LISTSERVE is buzzing with a discussion about tightening up the station?s Programmer Handbook as to how a programmer might lose his air time to include how he might lose it off-air. Off-air? Off-air. Which seems to mean criticizing station management in forums other than ?Free Speech Radio, Mendocino County? itself where, of course, discussion of the station is not allowed on-air. But off-air? That might be a little much even for Philo?s intrepid ?speakers of truth to power.?<br>
><br>
> =============================<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Kzyxtalk mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Kzyxtalk mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140522/5d42bfc4/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140522/5d42bfc4/attachment-0001.html</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:29:07 -0700<br>
From: "David" <<a href="mailto:uw@kzyx.org">uw@kzyx.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May<br>
22, 2014<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a>><br>
Message-ID: <78C4A85F3D5D4592A80E23E092202534@Underwriting><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
Hi John S.<br>
<br>
You've written a number of missives in the last 24 hours, but I have yet to<br>
receive a response to my email (yesterday's email, reprinted below)<br>
requesting that you schedule your "grievance" meeting. It would seem that<br>
once you move forward on presenting your case some of your complaints might<br>
disappear. . . .<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
David Steffen<br>
KZYX Business Development<br>
<a href="tel:%28707%29%20895-2324" value="+17078952324">(707) 895-2324</a> office<br>
<a href="tel:%28707%29%20322-9895" value="+17073229895">(707) 322-9895</a> cell<br>
<a href="tel:%28707%29%20895-2451" value="+17078952451">(707) 895-2451</a> fax<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Good afternoon John.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I read with some interest your latest letter to a local newspaper. In recent<br>
weeks I've resisted any public debate with you over the letter you received<br>
from me more than two weeks ago. It is my opinion that these matters are<br>
between a volunteer programmer and, in this case, the Business Development<br>
person . . . me. Since you first raised the possibility of filing a<br>
grievance, I've been encouraging you to do just that: file a grievance. I've<br>
also been upfront about the rationale for my May 5, 2014 notice to you, a<br>
rationale found within the Volunteer Handbook.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Your justification for not reading the underwriting suggests that the timing<br>
of reading underwriting is at the programmer's discretion. In fact it is<br>
not. The handbook and other materials and presentations I've made to<br>
programmers make this rather clear. It was reaffirmed in the updated 2003<br>
handbook, which was and is the programmer's guide to requirements and<br>
responsibilities. (I might add I had nothing to do with writing the handbook<br>
as it predates me by five years.) Please note the following excerpts, with<br>
which you should already be familiar:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"RIGHTS, REGULATIONS AND RULES<br>
<br>
This section presents summaries of the rights, rules and regulations at<br>
MCPB. Many of the points summarized here are addressed in more detail<br>
further on in this handbook. Programmers assume responsibility for complying<br>
with both MCPB and FCC rules and regulations. A PROGRAMMER WHO DELIBERATELY<br>
DOES NOT COMPLY IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES<br>
SET FORTH IN THIS HANDBOOK.<br>
<br>
REGULATIONS APPLYING TO PROGRAMMERS<br>
<br>
A programmer is expected to:<br>
<br>
1. be proficient in the operation of all equipment that is routinely needed<br>
during his/her shift, 2. be informed of, and must follow all FCC rules and<br>
regulations, 3. read and understand the contents of this handbook.<br>
<br>
4. participate in and abide by conflict resolution and grievance procedures,<br>
as outlined in this handbook.<br>
<br>
5. read all underwriting announcements assigned to his/her program clearly<br>
and without ad-libs.<br>
<br>
6. keep accurate logs of his/her shift time.<br>
<br>
7. air station promos, PSAs and other announcements as requested."<br>
<br>
I hope you noticed the passage emphasized in the handbook: "A PROGRAMMER WHO<br>
DELIBERATELY DOES NOT COMPLY IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE<br>
PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THIS HANDBOOK."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On more than one occasion during 2014, you did not read the underwriting as<br>
scheduled. You're unhappy? Sorry about that but rules are rules. As for your<br>
drumbeat of a potential grievance filing, I've done nothing but encourage<br>
you to file for conflict resolution so we can both put this behind us. In<br>
fact, again referring to the handbook,<br>
<br>
"The first step of the conflict resolution procedure is to hold a discussion<br>
of the problem by the parties involved, clarifying points of disagreement<br>
and agreement, proposing solutions, and if possible, coming to a<br>
resolution."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
That seems straight-forward and, as indicated above, I have advocated for<br>
the established procedure for conflict resolution since the beginning. The<br>
handbook does not order or recommend that issues be litigated in the press<br>
or on listserves. You, however, have chosen to regularly misrepresent the<br>
disagreement on various listserves, and in the local press (as well as, I'm<br>
told, in at least one local vanity publication.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have no interest in a public litigation of your grievance in competing<br>
emails or the press. And please resist the temptation to couch this in "free<br>
speech" terms. If you truly believe that you are an aggrieved party, then<br>
call for a meeting to find resolution. Until then I'm asking that you stop<br>
writing letters to editors, or op-ed pieces, or postings on the listserves.<br>
It's time to embrace and endorse the conflict resolution procedure you<br>
agreed to when you became a programmer. Meet face-to-face. It really is that<br>
simple.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
David Steffen<br>
<br>
KZYX Business Development<br>
<br>
(707) 895-2324 office<br>
<br>
(707) 322-9895 cell<br>
<br>
(707) 895-2451 fax<br>
<br>
<br>
_____<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:kzyxtalk-bounces@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk-bounces@lists.mcn.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:kzyxtalk-bounces@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk-bounces@lists.mcn.org</a>]<br>
On Behalf Of <a href="mailto:sako4@comcast.net">sako4@comcast.net</a><br>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:58 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:tbray@wildblue.net">tbray@wildblue.net</a>; <a href="mailto:kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22,<br>
2014<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It would seem obvious KZYX is now trying to develop a policy designed to<br>
kick dissidents off the air...a list of forbidden off-air conduct or<br>
behaviours that would result in the cancellation of shows and the revocation<br>
of broadcasting privileges for the "guilty" broadcaster.<br>
<br>
<br>
What conduct, I wonder?<br>
<br>
<br>
Conviction of a felony crime? Imprisonment? I can completely understand<br>
being kicked off the air for serious criminal behavior. But KZYX isn't<br>
talking about that.<br>
<br>
<br>
So, what other conduct gets a broadcaster in trouble, I wonder?<br>
<br>
<br>
Criticism of station management? Is that enough to get a broadcaster kicked<br>
off the air?<br>
<br>
<br>
How about other criticism? Criticism of the Board? Criticism of station<br>
policy? Criticism of another broadcaster?<br>
<br>
<br>
Hmm.<br>
<br>
<br>
What other conduct? Where does the slippery slope end?<br>
<br>
<br>
How about getting kicked off the air for holding controversial opinions?<br>
Holding certain political beliefs? Belonging to certain religions? Belonging<br>
to certain organizations deemed subversive by KZYX station management?<br>
Perhaps even making certain lifestyle choices unacceptable to station<br>
management?<br>
<br>
<br>
Sounds like McCarthyism all over again.<br>
<br>
<br>
Any policy in this area would almost almost certainly be actionable in<br>
court. A policy mandating or regulating off-air conduct would immediately<br>
have KZYX defending itself against claims of reprisals, double standards,<br>
and discrimination.<br>
<br>
<br>
If anyone thinks KZYX's legal bills for the renewal of the FCC licenses are<br>
too high now, I shudder to think what defending against such claims in court<br>
would cost in the future. Station management would bankrupt the station by<br>
trying to mandate or regulate off-air behavior. Almost certainly, none of<br>
the above claims would be dismissed by a judge. The opportunity for making<br>
case law in a constitutional challenge at publicly funded radio station,<br>
like KZYX, would far too compelling. A judge's career is determined by<br>
published case law.<br>
<br>
<br>
Also, if anyone thinks the objections to the renewal of KZYX's two FCC<br>
licenses drew a spark of national attention, then creating a policy for<br>
required off-air conduct would almost certainly create a firestorm of<br>
controversy. I don't think many other public media stations would support an<br>
attempt by KZYX to mandate or regulate off-air behavior.<br>
<br>
<br>
Talk about unpopular!<br>
<br>
<br>
Does KZYX really seek further negative publicity?<br>
<br>
<br>
I can also see Congress getting involved, too. In the1990s, Congress got<br>
involved at the NEA over what constituted freedom of speech issues. Congress<br>
then went way beyond getting involved. In 1995-1997, Congress almost killed<br>
the NEA, along with the NEH and the CPB.<br>
<br>
<br>
Incidentally, there is some relevant case law from that time. The case filed<br>
by the "NEA Four" in 1993, with lead plaintiff Karen Finley, centered on<br>
subsection (d)(1) of 20 U.S.C. ? 954 which provides that the NEA Chairperson<br>
shall ensure that only excellence and merit are the criteria by which<br>
applications are judged. The court ruled in 524 U.S. 569 (1998), that<br>
Section 954(d)(1) is facially valid, as it neither inherently interferes<br>
with First Amendment rights nor violates constitutional vagueness<br>
principles.<br>
<br>
<br>
In other words, it can be inferred that only criteria by which<br>
publicly-funded broadcasters would be judged would be the same criteria that<br>
publicly-funded artists are judged...excellence and merit.<br>
<br>
<br>
That me state that again. If public dollars are involved, then only<br>
excellence and merit matter.<br>
<br>
<br>
Again, the courts have already decided this issue in the area of publicly<br>
funded art. No doubt the courts would jump at the chance for a test case in<br>
the area of publicly funded media.<br>
<br>
<br>
The NEA, NEH, and CPB all have interests that are aligned. For the same<br>
reason the NEA pushed back in the 1990s, I also don't think the CPB would<br>
sit still for a code of required off-air conduct. I don't think they would<br>
sit still for one minute..<br>
<br>
<br>
Then, there are the conservative groups who would be ready to pounce on us:<br>
Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for a<br>
New American Century, and others. They're always ready to pounce on public<br>
television and public radio at almost any opportunity. A code for required<br>
off-air conduct would be like waving a red flag at a bull. They couldn't<br>
resist it.<br>
<br>
<br>
But there's more. Even liberal groups would be concerned about the free<br>
speech issues implied in a code for required off-air conduct at a public<br>
radio station like KZYX.<br>
<br>
<br>
I was once married to a national reporter who was also a Carter Center<br>
Fellow. Yesterday, after following this thread about off-air conduct on<br>
<a href="mailto:kzyxprogrammers@lists.mcn.org">kzyxprogrammers@lists.mcn.org</a>, I spoke with someone affiliated with the<br>
Carter Center. Together, we made a list of all the groups who would be<br>
aghast at a code of required off-air conduct. They include not just many<br>
liberal groups, but also libertarian groups, like the Annenberg Public<br>
Policy Center. I then asked another person who has been a guest on my show,<br>
and who is a prominent and highly-respected media person, to put a call into<br>
Annenberg to get a read on this dubious business of a code for required<br>
off-air conduct. I'll ask that person to poll a few other places, too.<br>
<br>
<br>
KZYX may be small, but our issues are big.<br>
<br>
_____<br>
<br>
From: "Tim Bray" <<a href="mailto:tbray@wildblue.net">tbray@wildblue.net</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:04:59 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [Kzyxtalk] from the AVA's "Mendocino County Today", May 22,<br>
2014<br>
<br>
<br>
The KZYX programmer's listserve is buzzing, and it started off with a<br>
question about whether or not off-air actions should be considered when<br>
evaluating a programmer. Some thoughtful commentary about the programmer's<br>
position ensued.<br>
<br>
But the real buzz is the pushback from programmers who are sick of Sacowicz<br>
and his bullshit. He is getting roundly castigated by several programmers,<br>
and some others are expressing genuine concern for his mental state.<br>
<br>
Sacowicz is, as usual, responding with threats of legal action and heaps of<br>
self-aggrandizing rhetoric.<br>
<br>
The "criticizing station management" mantra is BS and a red herring.<br>
Programmers question and criticize station management all the time, with no<br>
repercussions. I can think of many who do it regularly and are treated with<br>
respect; I have done it myself on several occasions, and undoubtedly will<br>
again.<br>
<br>
What Sacowicz is doing is beyond criticism. Protesting the relicensing has<br>
demonstrably harmed the station and continues to do so. It seems a clear<br>
violation of his duty as a Board member and he should be recalled - but that<br>
would require wasting even more time and money.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/22/2014 1:04 AM, <a href="mailto:sako4@comcast.net">sako4@comcast.net</a> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
=============================<br>
<br>
THE KZYX LISTSERVE is buzzing with a discussion about tightening up the<br>
station?s Programmer Handbook as to how a programmer might lose his air time<br>
to include how he might lose it off-air. Off-air? Off-air. Which seems to<br>
mean criticizing station management in forums other than ?Free Speech Radio,<br>
Mendocino County? itself where, of course, discussion of the station is not<br>
allowed on-air. But off-air? That might be a little much even for Philo?s<br>
intrepid ?speakers of truth to power.?<br>
<br>
=============================<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Kzyxtalk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
<br>
_____<br>
<br>
No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3950/7513 - Release Date: 05/17/14<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <a href="http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140522/b64f822f/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/kzyxtalk/attachments/20140522/b64f822f/attachment.html</a><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Kzyxtalk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org">Kzyxtalk@lists.mcn.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk" target="_blank">http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/listinfo/kzyxtalk</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of Kzyxtalk Digest, Vol 4, Issue 58<br>
***************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>