[sudo-discuss] cuddling it

[rachel lyra hospodar]

eddan, I am going to reply inline below to what you said about the
lennon/ono song, so that hopefully you can see why I find it intensely
problematic.

On May 8, 2013 11:23 AM, "Eddan Katz" <eddan at clear.net> wrote:
>>
>> these are terrible examples.
>
>
> I beg to differ.
>
>>
>> 1. that song has been repeatedly called from as derogatory to both
african americans and the plight they suffer, as well as a text book
example of white feminism co-opting and erasing the struggles and
experiences of POC.
>
>
> In the article you link to below, the objections described are from black
women who thought that the song gave particular lower status to black
women.
>

The objections are from black women - does that make them less valid? Less
complete objections? Of course you didn't intend that meaning but it sort
of reads that way...

> It is an unfortunate interpretation of the song and a depressing
admission of how deeply engrained the word nigger is in our culture.
>

It's not just about the word, but about the persistent attitudes it
signifies, and unavoidably calls to mind.

All interpretations of artistic output are valid. Art is a form of
communication between artist & viewer, and if I write a song and it makes
you feel a certain way, even if that is not my intent, your reaction to my
song is valid.  It's also important to me directly proportional to how much
I care about you & your interpretation. IE, if I don't give a shit about
the feelings of, say, a group of black women, then their responses are of
no great import. If, however, I am seeking to not be a giant asshole, I
might take those complaints as useful feedback about a flawed rhetorical
device. Maybe even some useful & surprising info there about how pissed off
some black folks are about racism. Still! INORITE?

> But it is my understanding of the intent of the songwriters to

The whole thing here is that while intent matters for the songwriter as a
person, ie, yoko ono looking at herself in the mirror every day, it doesn't
matter for the interpretation. If you didn't intend to hit me with your
car, but you did, my ass is still hit. My broken femur or whatever doesn't
give a fuck about what you intended. Similarly, yoko & john having a given
intent with the song only matters in relation to how people heard it.

> expose the degrading aspects of sexism that were being dismissed in
response to the mainstreaming of feminism at the time.
>

My response to this would be that a non-black feminist seeking to respond
to feminism has lots of language to choose from that is not racist.

R.

>> http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/10/06/woman-is-the-n-of-the-world/
>>
>> 2. Dave Chapelle quit his highly popular show because he realized that
white producers were actually making a legit modern day minstrel out of
him, not a parody of that mentality, and white audiences were using his
show to embrace ironic racism.
>>
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/162955-darkest-america-black-minstrelsy-from-slavery-to-hip-hop/
>>
>
> I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make in regards to
this example. Thanks for articulating further what is so illuminating about
it. Though I remember Chappelle blaming audiences as much or more than his
producers, for not getting the parodic nature of his social criticism.
>
>
>
>>
>> -hep
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Eddan Katz <eddan at clear.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rachel,
>>>
>>> I partially agree with the special status of the identified targets of
slurs for self-determination about how the socially acceptable language
evolves. But there's still a trump card aspect to it that doesn't sit right
with me.
>>>
>>> The slutwalk you described, which I had admittedly never heard of,
doesn't seem to be the same as walking in someone else's shoes by the way,
or sensual clothes for that matter. Walking around with just about anything
written on your forehead has a high likelihood of being humiliating - with
that word being slut removing any doubts of misinterpretation.
>>>
>>> I worked at the Museum of Tolerance (http://www.museumoftolerance.com/)
in Los Angeles during high school and during vacations in college,
sometimes giving tours. There's a "Whisper Gallery" in the bottom floor
exhibit that they take school kids through especially. It's a darkened
hallway about 50 feet long with speakers hidden in the walls all around.
They're all set on loop and to go off with all these horrible racist,
sexist, etc. insults at you as you walk through. Unfortunately, my
impression of what the junior high kids got out of it, in particular, is
the delight at having learned some new words they had never heard before.
>>>
>>> A couple of examples that come to mind to challenge the
Re-Appropriation trump card rules you described below. Granted, they are
both examples of extraordinary artists piercing through dominant culture in
provocative ways. John Lennon co-wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World"
with Yoko Ono (http://www.songmeanings.net/m/songs/view/3458764513820543055/),
neither of whom were black. And from the other perspective of the
provocative tightrope on black racist reappropration, I think Dave
Chappelle's public struggle is another important example to consider. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Chappelle)
>>>
>>> My suggestion for a Sudo-Libs kind of thing, by the way, is intended to
help try to toe the line between making the point about the harmful impact
of biased language and the particular sensitivity of entrenched
discrimination through semi-(blind)-randomness, with an ability to have
some prior control over the context.
>>>
>>>
>>> sent from eddan.com
>>>
>>> On May 8, 2013, at 10:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 7, 2013 11:15 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> > There's something to be said for being able to challenge the
mainstream connotations words have and the implicit assumptions they throw
over everyday discourse. Does Heeb Magazine have a place on sudo room's
shelves?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, right next to Bitch Magazine. But woe be unto you if you think
that makes 'heeb' or 'bitch' appropriate descriptors for anyone, or that
they can be used by you in casual conversation.
>>>>
>>>> You are basically bringing up the practice of reclaiming language, a
process where members of oppressed groups take words that are/have been
used pejoratively towards them, and defiantly use the language for
themselves.  I did some quick google searching around this issue and would
like to share two links that seemed most helpful here.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/11/reclaiming-language-and-who-gets-to-say.html?m=1
>>>>
>>>> Basically, any white folks wanting to REclaim language around the
african-american experience, can't. Boo hoo. It's because that language is
already CLAIMED by white folks, for its pejorative purpose. If you don't
like that, well, sit on it. Meditate on our white supremacist culture and
cry big salty tears. Whatever. Similarly, if you want to help women at
large reclaim some kinda nasty word, but you are a man, too bad for you.
There is no way for you to use those words without reinforcing their
negative meanings.  Unless & until a woman invites you, eg, to go on a
Slutwalk. Then you can write the word 'slut' on yourself & walk down the
street amongst a group doing the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> R.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On May 7, 2013 10:30 AM, "Anca Mosoiu" <anca at techliminal.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> +1, and Amen!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Anca.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alcides Gutierrez <
alcides888 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> If I may chime in, I think it would be awesome just to coin our
own phrases and not try to replace anything. Instead of characterizing any
current or past lingo, we could just go ahead and move on... NEW LINGO!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I think this would lessen the chances of political/cultural/social
frustrations due to sensitive associations and differing perspectives of
describing whatever random related concepts.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So, if we actually are interested in creating a new positive
lingo, we can just submit positive words and tech words into a bucket and
creatively combine them to attach to whatever cool concept. (BEAUTIFUL
CODE! = GREAT DISCUSSION!)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So, is there going to be a lingo raffle party!?!?!?! That sounds
kinda fun to me!!! What if it was a raffle / poetry / public reading
party???? I'm sure there would be great code there!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Alcides Gutierrez
>>>> >>> http://e64.us
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On May 6, 2013 2:01 PM, "Max B" <maxb.personal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> +1
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Thank you for that.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On 05/06/2013 01:40 PM, hep wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> it is really sad that this list is literally turning into a game
of oppression bingo. i will make this brief.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 1. using terms like "civilization" to refer to a class of
dominant majority with a huge history of colonialistic oppression, at the
expense of any class who has experiences colonialistic oppression is pretty
offensive. if you want to qualify this as "what they wrongly refer to
themselves as" then use quotes and indicate as such. ie "Doesn't the
so-self-called 'civilized' psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself
apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage
though?" it would be better however to reword this overall to say something
like "Doesn't the privileged majority psyche secretly crave the things it
sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the
oppressed culture though?"
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 2. using tropes like "noble savage" is ok as long as everyone
involves understand that you are referring to the named trope and not using
that term as an offensive term. this can be solved by referencing the trope
at hand. ie http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_savage
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 3. some people are still going to be offended by this term,
because it is still hugely offensive to native peoples even as it is used
as a handy moniker to call out offensive behavior by the privileged
majority.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 4. using the term noble savage in reference to african americans
is doubly offensive, even if it fits the point you are trying to make fyi.
if you MUST use tropes to refer to POC, make sure you are using the correct
one that examines the colonial aspects of the behavior being discussed.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 5. when someone is offended by your choice in language, the
correct thing to do is not double down and try to explain that you weren't
being offensive. the correct thing to do is to say something like "i am
sorry my language choice offended you. what i was trying to say was___". do
not attempt to use dictionary.com, etymology, wikipedia usage, etc to try
and prove that you weren't being offensive. offense is not in the eye of
the person who offended, it is in the eye of that person offended. so just
accept that you behaved offensively even as you did not intend to and move
on. trying to explain to the world at large how you totally weren't
offensive citing media to try and "prove" it just makes you more offensive,
and it is incredibly disrespectful to the person you are communicating with
who likely doesn't give a shit what you were actually trying to say at this
point, and did not sign on for a weeks long multiple page scroll email
battle/war of attention attrition. accept, move on. don't become a cliche.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 6. free speech is not a get out of jail free card. you have the
right to say anything you want. and we all have the right to think of you
as an asshole for saying it. if someone says "don't say that" they aren't
depriving you of your right to free speech, they are trying to save you
from losing friends and allies in your community. "congress shall make no
law abridging free speech." there is nothing in there that says someone HAS
to remain your friend after you were unintentionally a racist asshole.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 7. most people who fight oppression in their communities do not
want to argue about it in their hobbies. respect that. just because you
have the time and inclination to have a long-winded email argument does not
mean that you are not also being totally offensive by assuming the other
person wants/needs/is going to engage in it. often times i see people "win"
arguments on email lists only because they were the more persistant
asshole, not because they are right. and be aware that that is totally
obvious to people not involved but still reading.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 8. a point to everyone: native american peoples are not dead.
there are still many thriving native cultures, and people need to
understand that when they refer to native things or topics they are talking
not just about past people that were wiped out, but also active real
working native peoples still here. the bay area is full of native people
who are active in their tribal affiliations, who work to promote native
rights, and who are invested in the topics of native americans. when you
frame out things like that there is a "civlized" society, and native
societies (implying not civilized) many of those people are GOING to be
super offended. Like when native people try to call out white people on
wearing headdresses as culturally appropriative, and white people rebut
with "YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET. THAT WAS INVENTED BY US MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T
USE THAT". fucked up. (for the ignorant: native people are americans as
well and have equal rights to share in american culture as any other
american. besides which: last i checked many native peoples have also
contributed to the internet, even as there are colonial privileged
oppressionistic usages of native culture as well, such as apache.) try to
keep that in mind as you use terms that may evoke native americans, at the
risk of being seen as a total racist asshole.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> also everything that rachel said.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> -hep
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Anthony Di Franco <
di.franco at aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Rachel, I've had a bit more time to reflect on what you wrote,
and while I don't have anything to add about the immediate question beyond
what I said yesterday, I'd like to talk about some of the broader context
you brought up in your reply and the more general issues involved.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> The first thing is that I am primarily viewing what we are
trying to do as having a discussion, so it seems to me that when there are
misunderstandings that is exactly when we should be having more discussion
to clarify what we are trying to say and find out effective ways to say it,
not less. Meanwhile, you are using the terms of some sort of power struggle
where I am being attacked and defending myself and allegiances are forming
and shifting around the patterns of conflict. I do not see a power struggle
but rather a community trying to communicate and communication depends on
shared understanding among senders and recipients of symbols and how to use
them to convey meaning. Where this is not immediately clear, clarifying it
explicitly seems the most direct way to move towards better mutual
understanding. I hope this can be reconciled with your own views and I
welcome further discussion on this.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Within the attacking and defending point of view, I am also
uncomfortable with some things. To speak of attacking and defending and
also then to say that the subject of the attack should *stop defending*
reminds me too much of the revolting cries of "stop resisting" from police
- I could certainly never meditate on such an ugly phrase and I find the
suggestion grotesque. It's something I've heard while authoritarian thugs
victimize people who are not resisting but only perhaps trying to maintain
their safety and dignity under an uninvited attack, perhaps not even that,
and one way the phrase is used is as a disingenuous way of framing the
situation so that later, biased interpretations of what happened will have
something to latch onto. I am glad we have much less at stake in our
interactions here than in those situations but I still really don't like to
see us internalizing that logic in how we handle communications in our
group.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> There is another aspect of this I am uncomfortable with, which
is the idea that people should respond to feedback only by silently
assenting. This reminds me too much of other situations where people,
sometimes myself, were supposed to be seen and not heard, and it deprives
people of agency over and responsibility for what they do by expecting them
to let others determine their behavior unilaterally. I am happy to take
feedback and, generally, I hope you can trust people to act on feedback
appropriately rather than trying to short-circuit their agency. The more
informative feedback is, then, the better, and it should contain
information people can use themselves to evaluate what they are doing the
way others do so they can figure out how to accommodate everyone's needs.
When feedback consist simply of naked statements it is too much like
trolling in the small or gaslighting in the large, and especially then,
amounts to an insidious way to deprive people of agency by conditioning
them to fear unpredictable pain when they exercise agency, and has a
chilling effect. In general, the idea that certain people are less able
than others to handle the responsibilities of being human, and so they
should have their behaviors dictated to them unilaterally by others, is a
key to justifying many regimes of oppression, especially modern ones, and
because of that I am very uncomfortable when I see any example of that
logic being internalized in our group dynamics.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I don't know what passed between you and Eddan involving trump
cards but if the card game analogy really is apt then it may be a sign of
trivializing the question of safe space by saying that certain people's
concerns trump other people's concerns, based not on the concerns
themselves, but only on who is raising the concerns. Both are important. I
have heard some justifications for 'trumping' as I understand it that
remind me of the debate around the Oscar Grant case. There, defenders of
Mehserle's conduct claimed that police should be the judges of what
legitimate police use of force is because they have special training and
experience that give them a uniquely relevant perspective on what violence
is justified and what demands of compliance they can legitimately make of
people. Another justification I heard was that police are especially
vulnerable due to the danger inherent in their duties and so things should
be biased heavily towards a presumption of legitimacy when they use
violence or demand compliance. To me both these justifications seem
problematic because they create a class that can coerce others without
accountability and can unilaterally force standards of conduct on others. I
am happy that there is much less at stake among us here than there is in
cases of police brutality or Oscar Grant's case, and that there is no
comparison other than this logic being used. But the logic that certain
people's perspectives are uniquely relevant, or that their vulnerability
gives them license to force things upon others unilaterally, is still a
logic I don't think we should internalize among ourselves, because it
produces unaccountable authoritarianism that can be exploited for
unintended ends, and does not help with the ostensibly intended ones
anyway. It results in us 'policing' ourselves in a way much too much like
the way the cities are policed to the detriment of many people and of
values we share.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Finally, you mentioned the evening at Marina's apartment and I
want to clarify my experience of what happened there. My 'aha' moment
didn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make - I can't
even remember exactly what that point was, because it is so strongly
overshadowed by my memory of how you treated me. You called me out for
something that had passed between you and me in the middle of a social
gathering among a mix of friends and strangers, none of whom were involved,
which immediately put me in a very uncomfortable situation. Then, you
dismissed my attempts to defer speaking to a more appropriate setting, and
to open up a dialog with you where I shared my perspective. The only way
out you gave me was to assent without comment to you. My 'aha' moment was
when I realized that things between us had degenerated to that point; it
was when I realized I was mistaken in trying to have a discussion because
we were interacting like two territorial animals, or like a police
interrogator and a suspect, and you were simply demanding a display of
submission or contrition from me before you would let me slink off. While
it felt degrading, I took the way out you offered to spare myself and the
others in the room the experience of things continuing. I take the risk of
sharing this openly with you now because I think we know each other much
better than we did then and we would never again end up interacting like
potentially hostile strangers passing in the night, or worse. I think we
can and should and have been doing better, and overall it's best not to let
a mistaken assumption about what I was thinking and how I felt influence an
important discussion about how we treat one another in our community.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I, like you, hope you can appreciate that I am taking the time
to write this admittedly long-winded reply, not to suck the air out of the
room, whatever that means, but to contribute to a discussion that moves us
towards a better shared understanding of how to respect our shared values
and towards more appreciation of one another's perspectives.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Anthony
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <
rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> I am really sad about this whole thread.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Anthony, I think I know you well enough to say that your
intent here was not to be offensive, but unfortunately... Here we are. I am
responding to the specific message below because it is the one that made me
want to unsubscribe from this mailing list and unassociate myself from this
group. Everything that came after, gah.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Anti-oppression for the priveleged class, ie not being an
unintentional giant jerkface: if someone points out that you are offending
or harming them, they are not seeking an explanation, but a change in
behavior.  Perhaps an apology or acknowledgement, even a query. If someone
says 'i think your POV is fucked up and harmful' please do not go on to
elaborate on your POV to them. Even if you think they don't get your
amazing nuances. Your amazing nuances are not always important, and part of
'oppression' is that some peoples' nuances are always shoved in other
people's faces. Sometimes being a friend means keeping your opinion to your
damn self.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> This relates to something that eddan has on occasion termed
'the trump card'.  We are all individuals, and as such we ultimately need
to keep our own house in order. The trump card concept relates to safe
spaces - as safe as eddan might feel in a space, I'm not going to average
it together with my safety levels to achieve some sort of average safety
rating. My safety reading of a space will always, for me, trump eddan's,
and while I am happy if he feels safe it doesn't really matter to my safety
level.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> The interesting thing about telling most people they are
making you feel unsafe, or that they are offending you, is that for some
reason their response is almost never 'gosh, whoops!'. It's more usually
like what happened here - a bunch of longwinded explanation that completely
misses the point, and then a perceived ally of the offender jumping in,
also talking a lot, and sucking all the air out of the room.  People always
have reasoning for why they did what they did. Requiring offended folks to
read about your reasoning for why you said what you said misses the point,
and to me makes this conversation read like you don't care if you were
offensive.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> It's deja vu to me that you are giving all this definition and
explanation around the terms you used. It seems identical to our debate
around the use of 'constable' and it is sad to me to see you take refuge in
the same pattern of defense. It doesn't matter about the etymological
history of a phrase. It doesn't. As fun as you may find it to think about,
the way things are *heard*, by others, NOW, is a trump card for many.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Anthony, I hope you can understand that I have taken the time
out of my life to write this message in the hopes of helping you to
modulate your behavior to be less offensive. I am sure you remember the
first time I engaged with you on this topic, at Marina's house. Perhaps
you'll remember the aha moment when you *stopped defending* and simply
accepted the input, thanking me. Perhaps you'll find in that a sort of
meditative place of return.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Good luck to you all. I enjoy many things about sudo community
and am sure I will stay connected in many ways.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> R.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On May 3, 2013 3:05 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <
di.franco at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the things it
sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble
savage though?
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> Your description seems more like meditatively flowing through
it.
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva <netdiva at sonic.net>
wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of
appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote
excellence and immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> friends in the circus community - through empirical
evidence - have established a belief that operating at the highest levels
of talent requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a better term,
which they have started to playfully use, is "cuddling it."
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thought sudoers would appreciate this.
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> cuddling it,
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> len
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> founder, ligertail
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://ligertail.com
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> --
>>>> >>>>> hep
>>>> >>>>> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>>>> >>>>>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> -=-=-=-
>>>> >> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal
>>>> >> anca at techliminal.com
>>>> >> M: (510) 220-6660
>>>> >> http://techliminal.com | T: @techliminal | F:
facebook.com/techliminal
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> > sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> hep
>> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130508/b9621959/attachment.html>