[IMC-bristol] editorial responsibilities
ian i-contact
ian at videonetwork.org
Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:24:27 +0000
--=====================_16774270==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
apologies to all peeps who are not interested in this little discussion on
editorial reponsibilities - best delete this message now then eh?
I wasn't going to but I wanna reply to a couple of points that Tony has
raised because I feel that they have certain implications for the way the
site is being run at the moment and how it can be improved for the future.
First up Tony the business with me & the Cube has nothing to do with BIMC,
& using a public list to air this matter I feel is shitty e-mail etiquette
- salacious gossip it may well be though...
>I'm not angry - just really disappointed with your editorial stewardship of
>the Bristol IMC site.
'Editorial stewardship' suggests that I've been delegating certain
tasks. This has not been the case as you well know. I've been trying to
muddle through doing the middle column mainly on my own. I am not
'editor' - which is what you are now accusing me of. Although i might be
an asshole at times, no argument there mate...
In my previous e-mail I answered your query about why you were removed as
an Administrator and I in turn asked why you haven't been doing any work on
the centre column as you promised. Its telling to see that you haven't
replied about either. I've spent fucking hours attempting to keep that
site up to date. Disappointment? As a famous man said " you can't please
everyone all of the time..."
>Let's get this straight. You didn't condense the Fairford piece Ian, you
>replaced it with an inaccurate triumphalist rant. Keeping one quote about
>the song they were singing removing the quote from the Gloucs weapons
>inspectors and distorting what actually happened on the day - boosting
>numbers etc. (as well, admittedly, as adding some useful info about the
>fence being broken into). I knew it was you who'd done it and I took it as
>a personal attack by Bristol's self-styled Indymedia editor on my work.
>
>When I've spent 2 hours writing up a stressful story which is then removed
>it is a very good way to ensure I don't contribute again.
For the record Tony I was also in attendance that day and I refute your
accusation of distortion & number boosting. Your feature was lacking in
accuracy & missing vital content and I only did what I believed was the
right thing - much like you did. Also again you are accusing me of removing
your news wire article, which is something I just didn't do and have never
done. See my previous e-mail reply for what really happened...If you're
aggrieved by the changes I made to the middle column then I apologize but
there was no malice (as you're implying) involved and I sure as hell didn't
change your news wire article... Adjusted a couple of sentences in the
middle column yes - but theres a big difference between that and adjusting
the content of the newswire, so quit your 'Ian is a fucking censor' routine
and get with the facts. And another thing, if you were sure that it was me
who made these changes then why didn't you phone me or e mail me? it could
of easily solved your problem...
In hindsight there was no communication between you & I - something to
learn by for the future methink...As you well know your contributions are
valued & always welcome. When you get 2 people updating the same middle
column feature on the same day then shit like this happens - i've seen this
on UK IMC a number of times. These mishaps can be worked out though. So
lets make sure this doesn't happen again eh?
>Every single centre piece I put up got abuse from you as you remember.
>Saying that bristol IMC was just a front for Bristol Stop the War because
>of the prominence of the Fairford story. Just mean. The editorial line of
>most of the stuff you've been doing since will find little or no resonance
>in the community but that doesn't appear to bother you. Several months on
>now and the Bristol IMC site has heavily featured The Bristolian election
>campaigns. And still pretends to be non- party political- - it's becoming a
>parody of itself. It's become the very 'activist' ghetto it was supposed
>not to be.
"most of the stuff you've been doing since will find little or no resonance
in the community but that doesn't appear to bother you." That's a
downright shitty thing to level at me Tony. You make it sound is if i'm
some kind of powercrazed megalomaniac - OTT? Yours is the first complaint
that i've encountered. Get real,
BIMC is only as good as the News wire submissions. The middle column
section has only ever drawn stories from the news wire - i have done very
little sub-editing. If community groups are not using the newswire in the
way that we want them to then how is that my personal responsibility? That
aside the point that you're trying to make is important. BIMC is wallowing
in the proverbial activist ghetto but not entirely. It deserves to be so
much more and i'm sure it will be soon. But your criticism here is of a
personal nature where it really should be directed towards the entire BIMC
collective. If BIMC is failing to engage community groups then yes this
needs to be addressed (i've been saying this from the begining) but you are
as much responsible for this situation as I am - both being involved in the
collective. You can't lay the blame for BIMC's failings solely at my
doostep....that sucks shit and you know it.
& The Bristolian party? well It seems to get as much middle column action
as Fairford but I know that you and Bone don't get on, so i'll let that one
slide. Does anyone else feel that the Bristolian party is getting too much
middle column action? In my personal opinion BIMC should support it all
the way - and i don't think it puts the integrity of the site in any
danger whatsoever, in fact the opposite - its presence enhances the
site...Look at Chiapas Indymedia - should they stop supporting the
Zapatistas? Should Brazil Indymedia stop supporting the MST? Ya Basta We
are all Bristolians!
>I have absolutely no intention of contributing if my work is simply going
>to be lacerated. I had subbed middle column pieces once or twice. But
>NEVER detracted anything from the content of a piece.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I've had to change back a
feature of John Serpicos that you edited because I felt that he wouldn't
appreciate being sub-edited by Anyone - not just you. Also you included
links to corporate websites which again I felt detracted from Johns
story. If you're unhappy then I suggest you take this up with him and not me.
>There is also a new policy of not having 'read more' sections from the
>centre page - this ensures that anyone who wants to point out factual
>inaccuracies or add useful info to your work can't - insulating you from
>criticism and totally against the spirit of the site.
This is a new one on me...did I miss a meeting? obviously...I thought the
golden rule of the middle column was to not fuck with peoples copy. Yes
correct spelling mistakes but try to avoid sub-editing if you can. That is
not always possible but thats the way I've been trying to do it. Maybe you
need to learn one line of simple HTML and then you can insert as many
extraneous links to a feature as you desire. Factual inaccuracies or
criticism are fore comments section - when it works... maybe i'm
misinterpreting what you've written here - i'll leave it for a meeting
discussion...
>Unless there are guarantees of
>1. my copy not being torn to shreds
1- a slight over exagaration
>2. features being posted as newswire stories and linked from the centre
>column - so readers can comment
2- Features ALWAYS HAVE BEEN News wire stories Tony
>I see no purpose in contributing to Bristol IMC anymore.
Your choice. Although I think you're making a mistake in your
assumptions. As I said b4 your contributions are important.
>Your assertion that I should be grateful that none of my pieces have been
>removed from the newswire is both laughable and sinister.
you're making shit up now Gosling. I'm now the 'sinister editor' as
well. do me a favour...that's the funniest thing I've heard all day
>Anyway - I thought I deserved a right of reply since there were so many
>points in your reply I disagreed with - - feel free to reply to this on the
>list Ian but that's my last word on this subject. We'll have a cup of tea
>and a chat eh? And I for one will spare everyone any more online
>disagreements .
ditto. Your criticism Tony is mostly welcome, the site does indeed need a
shake up ...but your personal tirade against me is well OTT geezer. As i
said before yours has been the only complaint that I've seen. But i've
heard more people praise Bristol Indymedia then slag it off. Its on the
right track. There are still teething problems but its getting there.
cheerz
ian
>Tony
>0117 944 6219
>
>At 20:03 14/02/03 +0000, you wrote:
>
>At 15:22 2/14/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>You still haven't explained why I have been removed as an IMC administrator.
>
>
>You were removed as an administrator in the summer as you weren't filtering
>the e-mails and hence not doing the job of administrator. It took you till
>JANUARY to realise that you've been removed. Need I say anymore? Flaco
>complained about this as well b4 he left town - which is why i was asked to
>help out (along with Joey).
>
>No Passwords have been changed - if you want to go back on as an
>Administrator then i'll happily go along with the consensus decision
>regarding this. But frankly if you're not gonna do the job then what's
>the point? I have no real want for doing this tedious role (filtering
>20-30 daily spams by hand is such a laugh) but somebody has to do it...A
>huge back log quickly bulids up if it doesn't get done and important
>message can easily get buried amongst the multiple requests to Invest
>$20,000,000 for a deposed Lagos President or advertisements for penis
>enlarging kits.
>
>You also agreed that you were gonna put up one middle column feature a week
>to help take the load of me. Again you haven't done any since around
>October. Again I've been doing the middle column all by myself. Which is
>a situation that I raised back in the summer...Now I don't have a problem
>with that - you have your reasons for not doing this. Heck i've lunched
>out enough recently as you all well know...so who am I to talk about
>commitment? After all this is a voluntary run thang. I can't force you to
>take a more proactive role Tony. The way I see it is you either do it or ya
>don't. Pure and simple.
>
>
>
>Neither why you removed my centre page article on the evening of the first
>Fairford demo.
>
>
>I condensed two Fairford pieces (1 old + 1 current ) into one middle column
>feature as you fully know. Nothing of yours has ever been removed from the
>news wire to my knowledge. Did we not talk about this adequately b4
>christmas at the cube? I thought we had... You still seem aggrieved But
>your aggressive accusations of censorship (which you flagged up into the
>middle column ) were slightly misplaced and a little OTT i thought
>considering that you've removed out of date features from the middle
>column as well ( a practice I think that should be avoided (in hindsight)
>because of archiving etc) Misunderstandings such as this can easily be
>solved by a little dialogue don't you think?
>
>It seems that we need to have a session about middle column
>protocol/etiquette in order to avoid any further problems...
>
>Originally important decisions were made about the middle column protocol
>when the site was set up back in Nov2001. These decisions were made by
>consensus. If I remember correctly you weren't involved in BIMC at that
>time. Now I've tried to stick by this as best as I can - in fact there
>hasn't been any complaints about the middle column content to my knowledge
>(apart from your Fairford censorship allegations) . I've said it b4 and
>i'll say it again, If these middle column editorial decisions need altering
>( as often things do from time to time, new people coming on board etc)
>then lets discuss them at a meeting and vote on it. That's the way all
>decisions have been made so far.
>
>
>
>You are not replying to my questions by telephone or email - hence this
>post to the list.
>
>
>
>
>I've been ill since just after christmas Tony. I thought you knew this.
>mibbee not. But i haven't had any phone calls from you ...although I have
>left messages for you! sigh
>
>I'm not gonna get into a flame session Tony which is what I think your
>trying to provoke. They generally serve no purpose. If you want to speak
>further about this and other stuff then lets get together over a nice cup
>of tea and do so.
>
>By the way is anybody planning on going to Lancaster next weekend for the
>indymedia moot? do you wanna run a car up Tony? I'm up for it...can we take
>petrol money out of the kitty for this?
>
>
>cheerz
>ian
>[07817-953579]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/03
>
>Bristol branch - National Union of Journalists
>10-12 Picton Street
>Montpelier
>BRISTOL
>BS6 5QA
>http://lists.southspace.net/listinfo/nuj_bristol/
>http://www.gn.apc.org/media/nuj.html
>http://www.nuj.org.uk
>0117 944 6219
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Unless you're using Norton Antivirus.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03
--=====================_16774270==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<b><i>apologies to all peeps who are not interested in this little
discussion on editorial reponsibilities - best delete this message now
then eh?<br><br>
I wasn't going to but I wanna reply to a couple of points that Tony has
raised because I feel that they have certain implications for the way the
site is being run at the moment and how it can be improved for the
future. <br><br>
First up Tony the business with me & the Cube has nothing to do with
BIMC, & using a public list to air this matter I feel is shitty
e-mail etiquette - salacious gossip it may well be though...<br><br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>I'm not angry - just reall=
y
disappointed with your editorial stewardship of<br>
the Bristol IMC site.</blockquote><br><br>
<b><i>'Editorial stewardship' suggests that I've been delegating certain
tasks. This has not been the case as you well know. I've been
trying to muddle through doing the middle column mainly on my own.
I am not 'editor' - which is what you are now accusing
me of. Although i might be an asshole at times, no argument there
mate...<br><br>
In my previous e-mail I answered your query about why you were removed as
an Administrator and I in turn asked why you haven't been doing any work
on the centre column as you promised. Its telling to see that you
haven't replied about either. I've spent fucking hours attempting
to keep that site up to date. Disappointment? As a famous man said
" you can't please everyone all of the time..."<br><br>
<br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Let's get this straight.
You didn't condense the Fairford piece Ian, you<br>
replaced it with an inaccurate triumphalist rant. Keeping one quote
about<br>
the song they were singing removing the quote from the Gloucs
weapons<br>
inspectors and distorting what actually happened on the day -
boosting<br>
numbers etc. (as well, admittedly, as adding some useful info about
the<br>
fence being broken into). I knew it was you who'd done it and I took it
as<br>
a personal attack by Bristol's self-styled Indymedia editor on my
work. <br><br>
When I've spent 2 hours writing up a stressful story which is then
removed<br>
it is a very good way to ensure I don't contribute
again.</blockquote><br><br>
<br>
<b><i>For the record Tony I was also in attendance that day and I refute
your accusation of distortion & number boosting. Your feature was
lacking in accuracy & missing vital content and I only did what I
believed was the right thing - much like you did. Also again you are
accusing me of removing your news wire article, which is something I just
didn't do and have never done. See my previous e-mail reply for what
really happened...If you're aggrieved by the changes I made to the middle
column then I apologize but there was no malice (as you're implying)
involved and I sure as hell didn't change your news wire article...
Adjusted a couple of sentences in the middle column yes - but theres a
big difference between that and adjusting the content of the newswire, so
quit your 'Ian is a fucking censor' routine and get with the facts. And
another thing, if you were sure that it was me who made these changes
then why didn't you phone me or e mail me? it could of easily solved your
problem...<br><br>
In hindsight there was no communication between you & I - something
to learn by for the future methink...As you well know your contributions
are valued & always welcome. When you get 2 people updating the
same middle column feature on the same day then shit like this happens -
i've seen this on UK IMC a number of times. These mishaps can be
worked out though. So lets make sure this doesn't happen again
eh?<br><br>
<br><br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Every single centre piece =
I
put up got abuse from you as you remember.<br>
Saying that bristol IMC was just a front for Bristol Stop the War
because<br>
of the prominence of the Fairford story. Just mean. The editorial line
of<br>
most of the stuff you've been doing since will find little or no
resonance<br>
in the community but that doesn't appear to bother you. Several months
on<br>
now and the Bristol IMC site has heavily featured The Bristolian
election<br>
campaigns. And still pretends to be non- party political- - it's becoming
a<br>
parody of itself. It's become the very 'activist' ghetto it was
supposed<br>
not to be.<br>
</blockquote><br>
<b><i>"<u>most of the stuff you've been doing since will find little
or no resonance<br>
in the community but that doesn't appear to bother you."
</u> That's a downright shitty thing to level at me
Tony. You make it sound is if i'm some kind of powercrazed
megalomaniac - OTT? Yours is the first complaint that i've
encountered. Get real,<br><br>
BIMC is only as good as the News wire submissions. The middle column
section has only ever drawn stories from the news wire - i have done very
little sub-editing. If community groups are not using the newswire in
the way that we want them to then how is that my personal
responsibility? That aside the point that you're trying to make is
important. BIMC is wallowing in the proverbial activist ghetto but
not entirely. It deserves to be so much more and i'm sure it will
be soon. But your criticism here is of a personal nature where it
really should be directed towards the entire BIMC collective. If BIMC is
failing to engage community groups then yes this needs to be addressed
(i've been saying this from the begining) but you are as much responsible
for this situation as I am - both being involved in the collective.
You can't lay the blame for BIMC's failings solely at my doostep....that
sucks shit and you know it. <br><br>
& The Bristolian party? well It seems to get as much middle column
action as Fairford but I know that you and Bone don't get on, so i'll let
that one slide. Does anyone else feel that the Bristolian party is
getting too much middle column action? In my personal opinion BIMC
should support it all the way - and i don't think it puts the
integrity of the site in any danger whatsoever, in fact the
opposite - its presence enhances the site...Look at Chiapas
Indymedia - should they stop supporting the Zapatistas? Should Brazil
Indymedia stop supporting the MST? Ya Basta We are all
Bristolians! <br><br>
<br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>I have absolutely no
intention of contributing if my work is simply going<br>
to be lacerated. I had subbed middle column pieces once or twice.
But<br>
NEVER detracted anything from the content of a piece.
</blockquote><br>
<b><i>I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I've had to
change back a feature of John Serpicos that you edited because I felt
that he wouldn't appreciate being sub-edited by Anyone - not just
you. Also you included links to corporate websites which again I
felt detracted from Johns story. If you're unhappy then I suggest
you take this up with him and not me.<br><br>
<br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>There is also a new policy
of not having 'read more' sections from the<br>
centre page - this ensures that anyone who wants to point out
factual<br>
inaccuracies or add useful info to your work can't - insulating you
from<br>
criticism and totally against the spirit of the site.</blockquote><br>
<b><i>This is a new one on me...did I miss a meeting? obviously...I
thought the golden rule of the middle column was to not fuck with peoples
copy. Yes correct spelling mistakes but try to avoid sub-editing if
you can. That is not always possible but thats the way I've been
trying to do it. Maybe you need to learn one line of simple HTML
and then you can insert as many extraneous links to a feature as you
desire. Factual inaccuracies or criticism are fore comments section
- when it works... maybe i'm misinterpreting what you've written
here - i'll leave it for a meeting discussion...<br><br>
<br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Unless there are guarantee=
s
of <br>
1. my copy not being torn to shreds</blockquote><br>
<b><i>1- a slight over exagaration<br><br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>2. features being posted a=
s
newswire stories and linked from the centre<br>
column - so readers can comment</blockquote><br>
<b><i>2- Features ALWAYS HAVE BEEN News wire stories Tony<br><br>
<br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>I see no purpose in
contributing to Bristol IMC anymore.</blockquote><br>
<b><i>Your choice. Although I think you're making a mistake in your
assumptions. As I said b4 your contributions are
important.<br><br>
<br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Your assertion that I
should be grateful that none of my pieces have been<br>
removed from the newswire is both laughable and sinister.
</blockquote><br>
<b><i>you're making shit up now Gosling. I'm now the 'sinister
editor' as well. do me a favour...that's the funniest thing I've
heard all day<br><br>
<br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Anyway - I thought I
deserved a right of reply since there were so many<br>
points in your reply I disagreed with - - feel free to reply to this on
the<br>
list Ian but that's my last word on this subject. We'll have a cup
of tea<br>
and a chat eh? And I for one will spare everyone any more
online<br>
disagreements .<br>
</blockquote><br>
<b><i>ditto. Your criticism Tony is mostly welcome, the site does
indeed need a shake up ...but your personal tirade against me is well OTT
geezer. As i said before yours has been the only complaint that
I've seen. But i've heard more people praise Bristol Indymedia then
slag it off. Its on the right track. There are still teething
problems but its getting there. <br><br>
cheerz<br>
ian<br><br>
<br>
</i></b><blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Tony<br>
0117 944 6219<br><br>
At 20:03 14/02/03 +0000, you wrote:<br><br>
At 15:22 2/14/2003 +0000, you wrote:<br>
You still haven't explained why I have been removed as an IMC
administrator.<br><br>
<br>
You were removed as an administrator in the summer as you weren't
filtering<br>
the e-mails and hence not doing the job of administrator. It took
you till<br>
JANUARY to realise that you've been removed. Need I say anymore?
Flaco<br>
complained about this as well b4 he left town - which is why i was asked
to<br>
help out (along with Joey). <br><br>
No Passwords have been changed - if you want to go back on as an<br>
Administrator then i'll happily go along with the consensus=20
decision<br>
regarding this. But frankly if you're not gonna do the job
then what's<br>
the point? I have no real want for doing this tedious role
(filtering<br>
20-30 daily spams by hand is such a laugh) but somebody has to do
it...A<br>
huge back log quickly bulids up if it doesn't get done and=20
important<br>
message can easily get buried amongst the multiple requests to
Invest<br>
$20,000,000 for a deposed Lagos President or advertisements for
penis<br>
enlarging kits.<br><br>
You also agreed that you were gonna put up one middle column feature a
week<br>
to help take the load of me. Again you haven't done any since
around<br>
October. Again I've been doing the middle column all by
myself. Which is<br>
a situation that I raised back in the summer...Now I don't have a
problem<br>
with that - you have your reasons for not doing this. Heck i've
lunched<br>
out enough recently as you all well know...so who am I to talk=20
about<br>
commitment? After all this is a voluntary run thang. I can't
force you to<br>
take a more proactive role Tony. The way I see it is you either do it or
ya<br>
don't. Pure and simple. <br><br>
<br><br>
Neither why you removed my centre page article on the evening of the
first<br>
Fairford demo.<br><br>
<br>
I condensed two Fairford pieces (1 old + 1 current ) into one middle
column<br>
feature as you fully know. Nothing of yours has ever been removed from
the<br>
news wire to my knowledge. Did we not talk about this adequately b4<br>
christmas at the cube? I thought we had... You still seem
aggrieved But<br>
your aggressive accusations of censorship (which you flagged up into
the<br>
middle column ) were slightly misplaced and a little OTT i thought<br>
considering that you've removed out of date features from the
middle<br>
column as well ( a practice I think that should be avoided (in
hindsight)<br>
because of archiving etc) Misunderstandings such as this can easily
be<br>
solved by a little dialogue don't you think?<br><br>
It seems that we need to have a session about middle column<br>
protocol/etiquette in order to avoid any further problems...<br><br>
Originally important decisions were made about the middle column
protocol<br>
when the site was set up back in Nov2001. These decisions were made
by<br>
consensus. If I remember correctly you weren't involved in
BIMC at that<br>
time. Now I've tried to stick by this as best as I can - in fact
there<br>
hasn't been any complaints about the middle column content to my
knowledge<br>
(apart from your Fairford censorship allegations) . I've said it b4
and<br>
i'll say it again, If these middle column editorial decisions need
altering<br>
( as often things do from time to time, new people coming on board
etc)<br>
then lets discuss them at a meeting and vote on it. That's the way
all<br>
decisions have been made so far. <br><br>
<br><br>
You are not replying to my questions by telephone or email - hence
this<br>
post to the list.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
I've been ill since just after christmas Tony. I thought you knew
this.<br>
mibbee not. But i haven't had any phone calls from you ...although I
have<br>
left messages for you! sigh <br><br>
I'm not gonna get into a flame session Tony which is what I think
your<br>
trying to provoke. They generally serve no purpose. If you want to
speak<br>
further about this and other stuff then lets get together over a nice
cup<br>
of tea and do so. <br><br>
By the way is anybody planning on going to Lancaster next weekend for
the<br>
indymedia moot? do you wanna run a car up Tony? I'm up for it...can we
take<br>
petrol money out of the kitty for this?<br><br>
<br>
cheerz<br>
ian<br>
[07817-953579]<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
---<br>
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<a href=3D"http://www.grisoft.com/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/03<br><br>
Bristol branch - National Union of Journalists<br>
10-12 Picton Street<br>
Montpelier<br>
BRISTOL<br>
BS6 5QA<br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.southspace.net/listinfo/nuj_bristol/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://lists.southspace.net/listinfo/nuj_bristol/</a><br=
>
<a href=3D"http://www.gn.apc.org/media/nuj.html"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.gn.apc.org/media/nuj.html</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.nuj.org.uk/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.nuj.org.uk</a><br>
0117 944 6219 <br><br>
---<br>
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<br>
Unless you're using Norton Antivirus.<br>
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<a href=3D"http://www.grisoft.com/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.grisoft.com</a>).<br>
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date:
27/01/03</blockquote></html>
--=====================_16774270==_.ALT--