LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  April 2013, Week 4

CONLANG April 2013, Week 4

Subject:

Re: Edeinal: Language of the Edeinos

From:

"H. S. Teoh" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:34:45 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (499 lines)

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 06:39:22PM -0600, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> On 22 April 2013 17:02, H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:18:10PM -0600, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> >> On 12 April 2013 13:04, H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:58:14PM -0600, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> >> >> On 11 April 2013 20:00, H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [...]
> >> While it is clearly wildly different in many other ways, lots of
> >> your descriptions of the Ferochromon remind me of various aspects
> >> of the Unicorn Jelly cosmi. I wonder if that says something about
> >> general psychological tendencies when humans try to make up worlds.
> >> The Ebisedi with their proclivity for describing everything in
> >> threes would probably feel quite at home in Tryslmaistan (the
> >> primary cosmos of Unicorn Jelly) as physics there genuinely does
> >> favor triplets of everything (three electric-equivalent charges,
> >> space segmented in a triangular-faceted latticework, etc.).
> >
> > Heh. I guess it's a much more realistic take on my childhood
> > question of "what if there were 3 electric charges", than the way
> > the Ferochromon turned out to be. :-P
> 
> Funny thing is, real physics *has* particles with tripartite charge
> (quarks & gluons). Those obey the Yukawa potential that I previously
> mentioned, but one could imagine replacing that with a regular
> inverse-square law to get a three-way version of electricity which
> actually would be less complicated than the Tryslmaistan version.

Yeah, I realize that real physics *has* a 3-way color charge in quarks.
I ruled that out early on in the development of the Ferochromon because
the Yukawa potential makes color interactions obvious only at subatomic
scales, and I wanted a macroscopic 3-way charge. :)


> > So there are some fundamental things about the Ferochromon that
> > "violate" the way *our* universe works. And one such thing is sight
> > by instantaneous perception. :) As for light... it's arguably if
> > light even exists in the Ferochromon. All matter has intrinsic
> > brightness (dependent on a number of parameters like energy state,
> > etc.), which is directly perceived by the sight organs. So there is
> > no need for such a thing as light as a carrier of visual
> > information! (Indeed, various notes I have on the Ferochromon
> > describe it as a "very bright" and "very colorful" place -- probably
> > because light and shade aren't part of the equation.)
> 
> This makes me wonder how perspective and range and transparency /
> opacity work out. And whether information transfer is instantaneous or
> not.

I haven't worked on the Ferochromon for a good number of years, I've to
admit, so some details may be hazy (or outright wrong!). My memory is
not known to be the most reliable thing, as my wife can testify. But
IIRC, it went something like, perceived brightness diminishes with
distance (I don't remember if there's a linear/reciprocal/exponential
relation, though), and (almost?) all solids are opaque. Sight is
instantaneous.

Also, inhabitable space is not affine, because space itself is actually
composed of space quanta, and inhabitable space is "crystallized space
quanta". So relativity doesn't work here; there is absolute velocity
(i.e. relative to the underlying space quanta) and absolute directions
(i.e. relative to the orientation of the underlying space quanta).
Needless to say, orbits aren't possible... curved motion induces a kind
of resonance in the space quanta that, if sustained, causes a gradual
convergence toward some point. Fast circular motions, if timed
correctly, can cause feedback loops of induced "forces", and thus one
has the ability, to a certain extent, to "manipulate space" and cause
magic-like effects (without needing to invoke unexplainable forces!).


> > I guess we started from very different footings. When I started
> > working on the Ferochromon decades ago, I started from an entirely
> > different premise. I didn't even consider whether suitable
> > modifications of real-world physics would yield what I wanted;
> > instead, I started by asking, what would a self-consistent system
> > that could operate as a functioning universe look like, if it would
> > ultimately give me phenomenon X, Y, Z? I didn't constrain myself
> > with considerations such as "it must be mathematically analysable"
> > or "it should be similar to the real world" or "it has forces
> > analogous to the real world".
> >
> > I *did* require it to be self-consistent, so cop-outs like "X, Y,
> > and Z happen because it's magic and magic can do anything" are ruled
> > out.  Cheesy clichés like elves and dragons are also excluded. And
> > it must exhibit the phenomena I wanted to include (I was trying to
> > retrofit some childhood story fragments into a larger cohesive
> > whole).  Other than that, though, the Ferochromon was allowed to
> > develop in fundamentally different ways from our universe.
> 
> If it's fully internally consistent, I bet it would turn out to be
> mathematically analyzable, if any physicists/mathematicians decided
> they had the free time to try analyzing it. :)

That may be so, but then I don't know if I actually achieved *full*
internal consistency -- it's no small feat to create an entire
constructed universe that at least has the *potential* to be fully
self-consistent, much less to work out every last detail in full
consistency! With real-world physics, at least you could just do
experiments to rule out certain hypotheses, and you *know* (or at least,
we've come to expect) that the universe will turn out to be consistent
in the end.  And yet it's taken us so long to arrive at the Standard
Model, and we still haven't figured it all out yet.  With a
con-universe, there's canon to be kept or adjusted, possibilities to be
left open, consequences of previouly accepted rationalizations to
explore ... and there's only one person working on it. :-P  While I was
still working on it, I had to retcon a lot of stuff every now and then
just to keep things consistent. I think it eventually just got to a
point where it was so much work that I started losing interest in the
endeavor (plus there were some points about it that I found not fully
satisfactory).


> The possible natures of alternate universes is an interesting problem
> in both physics & philosophy. Max Tegmark defined a hierarchy of
> different cosmic structures that could reasonably be called "alternate
> universes", the highest level of which is the idea that any universe
> that can be imagined actually exists in some sense (kind of like
> Heinlein's idea that, if universes are infinite, all fictional
> universes exist somewhere), and thus every mathematically consistent
> model describes some real (potentially extremely boring) universe.

Well, the idea is certainly intriguing, but somehow I have a hard time
accepting that there *physically* exist an uncountable number of
universes. (It cannot be countable, because you have to include
arbitrarily small (or large!) adjustments to the physical parameters of
every model.)

The thing is, after having delved into the subject some time ago, I
discovered that the continuum is, in some sense, extremely, *extremely*,
EXTREMELY large. I don't think many people fully appreciate just how
large the cardinality of the continuum is. I mean, it's just too easy to
say "1, 2, 3, ..." then make the leap to "infinity!". Very few people
have any idea how insanely huge that leap is. But then you discover
things like Graham's number, and you realize that your concept of
infinity is actually a rather small finite number in comparison.
(Conjecture: most people's concept of infinity is not significantly
larger than about 10^10 or so; I suspect far less.) Graham's number
exploded my perception of infinity several times over, and it's still a
*finite* number! And in fact, a rather smallish one as far as huge
numbers are concerned (look up Jonathan Bowers' "infinity scrapers"
sometime, if you feel like having your perception of infinity blown off
the face of the universe, many times over).

But all of this is still in the realm of the *finite*. Infinity? Do we
even remotely have any idea just how unbelievably huge the first
countable infinity is? And here we're talking about an *uncountable*
infinity?  Occam's Razor already kicked in before we started counting
past 1, and now we're positing an uncountable number of universes? I
just find that a *little* hard to swallow. :-)


> I am deeply intrigued by the idea of designing mathematical systems of
> sufficient complexity that they could support something like life
> (like cellular automata- there are even straight-faced theories of
> real physics based on the idea that our universe is some kind of
> higher-dimensional cellular automaton) with no regard for the
> mathematics that happens to underly our universe. But that's a whole
> lot harder than just twiddling the parameters in string theories. :)

It certainly shows signs of it!! I mean... while things like
Heisenburg's uncertainty principle can be explained rigorously and
rationalized with some nifty mathematics, sometimes one still wonders
... what if the universe *doesn't* have a scale smaller than the Planck
scale? Perhaps that's a manifestation of some kind of underlying
computation unit!

Anyone who has done game programming or simulation will be familiar with
time-step simulations: since computers can't run at infinite speed, to
simulate continuous motion what is often done is to take the starting
point of an object and its velocity, and calculate its next position by
computing a linear motion for it. To compensate for accumulated roundoff
errors and "odd effects" like objects moving at 1 unit per unit time at
each other can fail to collide (due to exchanging positions at the
critical time step and "missing" each other), this approximate motion is
then adjusted by interpolating between the starting and ending points
and figuring out what *would* have happened had there actually been
motion through a continuum of space.

The Heisenburg uncertainty principle smells suspiciously like the
"universe computer" is running a simulation over Planck-scale
time-steps, with after-the-fact adjustments that makes the result appear
as though things are happening in a continuum of space-time. But once
you start probing it enough, you discover this impenetrable uncertainty
that somehow stops you from getting any smaller than the Planck scale.
Maybe the reason is that smaller time (and space) scales simply don't
exist! Maybe the universe only exists down to Planck units, and
everything apparently smaller is only an illusion created by the
self-correcting adjustments of the "universe computer"!


> > I guess you're operating within the confines of a universe/cosm that
> > is essentially the real world + some modifications. With the
> > Ferochromon, I relaxed the requirement to "things must have a
> > consistent explanation" but no constraint on whether that
> > explanation even remotely looks like how the real world works. I
> > don't even know if there's such a thing as entropy in the
> > Ferochromon! To each his own, I suppose.
> 
> Entropy is a fairly basic consequence of information theory, so I find
> it hard to imagine how an internally consistent universe could be
> without it; but it's entirely conceivable that entropy in the
> Ferochromon may not be nearly as *annoying* as it is here, if there
> are different rules about how it gets created, destroyed, and shuffled
> around.

Well, I'm not sure I'm ready to assert that consistency is possible
while violating information theory, but I'm also uncertain how to even
*define* entropy in the Ferochromon. Perhaps it's because I haven't
gotten enough details down to be able to rigorously derive such things.


[...]
> > The thing is, travel between cosms, if such were possible, cannot be
> > mere physical travel, because what happens to, say, the atoms and
> > molecules in your body once they are embedded in a space that
> > doesn't obey the same physical laws that are holding them together
> > in the first place?
> 
> They don't get to be embedded there in the first place; that's the
> point of domain walls. :) Particles encountering a domain wall either
> a) cross over, potentially with some parameters (like mass) altered if
> the same basic kind of particle is capable of existing on the other
> side,
> b) reflect off, if they can't exist on the other side
> c) instantly decay into a bunch of particles that can exist in the
> other space and preserve inter-universal properties (like energy).
> E.g., if we created an alternate vacuum state in a lab that had
> massive photons, the domain wall surrounding it would be a perfect
> mirror for photons below a certain energy level, and a partial mirror
> (because some will pass through converting energy to mass and dumping
> momentum into the domain wall, while some will reflect off) for
> photons of higher energy. Don't try poking an unknown domain wall with
> your finger!

Interesting. But that means if you walk through a domain wall, you may
discover that all your electrons have decided to stay on the near side
while your nuclei made it through... instant disintegration!


> But then, that's assuming your universe operates according to some
> variety of string theory. Which I gather the Ferochromon almost
> certainly does not.

Yeah well, I think the first 3 paragraphs of the link I gave you already
contradicts string theory. :-P  Even the concept of "energy" in the
Ferochromon probably doesn't match any string theory.


> > So ultimately, any actual travel across domain walls or between
> > cosms necessarily implies metaphysical existence. (If you want such
> > travel to be story-worthy, that is.) That's the conclusion I came to
> > years ago w.r.t. the Ferochromon, which is why I adopted the "human
> > essence" theory. (So perhaps it *isn't* so out-of-thin-air after
> > all. :-P) That's the only way to make inter-cosm travel possible
> > without immediately introducing a whole bunch of unresolvable
> > contradictions or requiring much more elaborate rationalizations
> > than is justifiable just to make a story plot work!
> 
> One of my CS professors has an interesting idea about consciousness &
> quantum mechanics which (unbeknownst to him) has a lot of similarity
> to ideas in _Anathem_ (which involves some made-up languages! Hah,
> back on topic!)
>
> Basically, it's that quantum 'randomness' isn't actually random, it's
> just seeing the effects of unobservable processes outside the universe
> that inject information into our universe. It lets you posit that
> spirits are real (and just exist outside our space, and take advantage
> of this process to manipulate physical brains inside our space)
> without having to give up on strict materialist physics.  It seems
> something like that matches up pretty well with the idea of "human
> essence" impinging on the Ferochromon as well.

Most fascinating!!

I'm also a fan of higher-dimensional space speculations... Having
learned how to visualize 4D objects (to a certain extent), it seems to
me to be almost obvious to posit that perhaps there exist other
macroscopic dimensions outside the 3 we know (not counting microscopic /
confined dimensions posited by string theory). Hypothetical entities
that exist in such a space can be standing 1/8 of an inch away from our
3D space, and we would be absolutely oblivious to their presence, much
as hypothetical 2D beings confined to the surface of a desk would be
absolutely oblivious to our hand hovering 1/8 of an inch above the desk.

What may not be so obvious, in the usual discussions involving
higher-dimensional spaces, is that if such macroscopic dimensions exist,
and if there are indeed such things as living entities inhabiting that
extra space, then they can't possibly be made of the same matter as we
(or our physical bodies) are -- since otherwise, why are they *not*
confined to our 3D space? This is another motivation for my automaton
idea (quoted below), and another objection to the way higher dimensions
are depicted in the Flatland and Spaceland novels. How are we to know,
for example, if the atoms and molecules we (or our body) are made of,
are the consequence of confinement to 3D space? If they were suddenly
freed from this confinement, would they not instantly disintegrate?
Therefore, any living beings in these higher-dimensional spaces, if
indeed they exist, must be of a fundamentally different nature than the
physical beings we know. Consequently, any interaction they have with
physical matter in our 3D space must be of a different sort than merely,
for example, poking their thumb through our space to produce 3D
cross-sections, the way Rucker's novel portrays. Your professor's idea
of quantum "randomness" being actually information input certainly fits
into these considerations rather nicely!

My "human essence" idea is rather more radical though (and probably also
rather less realistic :-P). It posits that when the "human essence",
whatever that is, comes into contact with a cosm, the interaction
between the two spontaneously "creates" a body that allows the essence
to interact with the cosm natively. Or, put another way, the body that
the "essence" acquires upon entering a cosm is the reaction product of
the essence with the physical laws of the cosm, almost like a
chemical/physical reaction that produces, say, a shell of hardened rock
when a glob of 1200°C lava falls into cold water. (Sorry, I was watching
too many lava movies on Youtube last night, while doing some Tatari
Faran conworlding...)


> > Barring actual inter-cosm travel, though, interesting things *might*
> > be possible if you can think of some way of interacting with matter
> > across a domain wall, say. In theory, one could build an automaton
> > by indirectly assembling matter across a domain wall, and use that
> > automaton to explore what's on "the other side".
> 
> I've toyed with the idea of explorers taking along an "inter-space
> suit" made out of domain wall that holds a bubble of their own space
> around them. In some universes, you'd essentially be stuck in a
> sensory deprivation box; in others, where the physical laws are
> similar enough in the right ways, you could figure out some way to
> exchange particles across the boundary to communicate. But in any
> case, you could push the domain wall itself around to interact tactily
> (if dangerously!).

But if some particles of your body transfer across the domain wall but
others don't, wouldn't you lose a hand the instant you tried pushing the
domain wall?


[...]
> > Regardless, living at different speeds is certainly a fun issue to
> > deal with, which, if you're operating within the confines of our
> > universe, is something that *needs* to be considered when writing
> > about alien races (due to relativity). Size is another issue that
> > seems rarely dealt with in an adequate way. Unfortunately, a large
> > number of scifi novels simply assume without further consideration
> > that alien beings are approximately the size of an average human
> > being.  Some may be bigger, some smaller, but essentially, their
> > size is in the same ballpark as a human's size.  So here, it's quite
> > refreshing to see the author of Dragon's Egg deal with this issue in
> > a more realistic way.
> 
> Well, for most Sci-Fi, human-ballpark *is* realistic. Brains require a
> certain minimum number of components, after all. The Cheela get to
> cheat by being just as massive as an average human, just way more
> *dense*.

I don't know, IMO intelligent beings on potentially radically different
alien planets are not necessarily limited by the same parameters that
humans are. I mean, we already have silicon-based computers that, in
some ways, can be made to act "intelligently" -- granted, still a far
cry from true sentience, but the point being, they are not subject to
the same size/mass constraints as we are at all. I'm not sure I see why
a truly alien being would even have any resemblance to us, even in
matters of shape and size.


> >> Incidentally, I also recently discovered some very interesting
> >> things about short-vs.-long form selection for Russian predicate
> >> adjectives as part of a corpus project. Gave me lots of conlanging
> >> ideas.
> > [...]
> >
> > I've always understood the short-form adjectives as being
> > predicative adjectives. Same with certain predicative verb forms (I
> > don't know what the correct term is, but sometimes you want to say
> > "X has been Y-ed" and you'd use a verb form that's reminiscient of
> > the short-form adjectives).  Now, I know that long-form adjectives
> > *can* be used in a predicative sense as well, but, given my current
> > not-so-strong grasp of the distinction, I'll just stick with the
> > "use short-form when it's the predicate, long-form when you're only
> > modifying the noun" rule-of-thumb.
> 
> Ah, but sometimes you *can't* (or, I should say, "natives are
> incredibly unlikely to") use the short form! More generically, some
> adjectives just don't get used as predicates. For example, I
> discovered that, out of 618 instances of "важный" in short form, only
> about 5 were anything other than predicate *adverbial* uses (i.e.,
> "важный" just isn't used as a predicate for nouns), while out of 214
> instances of non-short-form "важный" appearing in translations of
> English predicate adjectives, only 2 or three were actual predicate
> adjectives, and the rest were attributives in redundant noun phrases
> (i.e. "это имеет важное значение" is used in place of "это важно").

Interesting.


> All in all, I discovered three general classes of adjective behavior
> while analyzing short vs. long forms in Sketch Engine.
> 1) Adjectives that are almost exclusively used as short-form predicates.
> 2) Adjectives that really do seem to exhibit
> non-contextually-dependent free choice of either form in predicate
> position.
> 3) Adjectives that are almost never used as predicates, and get
> stuffed into redundant noun phrases when they have to be put in
> predicate positions.

Hmm, interesting.  And in retrospect, yeah, adjectives do seem to fall
into these three categories.


> (3) is the one that really piques my conlanging interest; (1) fits
> well with the idea of dedicated predicate words that I had during that
> disucssion on how to come up with as many parts of speech as possible
> that we had a few months ago, but (3) implies the possibility of a
> language in which adjectives are never nominalized and never used as
> predicates, and thus always have to be packaged up in a larger phrase,
> with some generic nouns available just for that purpose. Kind of like
> how lots of languages don't allow nouns to be counted unless they're
> packaged up in a phrase with a special counter word.

Right, so one could conceivably have a conlang in which predicative
adjectives must be used on a generic noun, or maybe reflexive noun, that
refers back to the subject. So you couldn't say "the car is red", but
you have to say "the car is a red one" with "one" being a suitable
generic noun.


> > In any case, the existence of the distinction inspired me to think
> > about how predicative vs. non-predicative adjectives would work in
> > Tatari Faran. That was when I realized that in TF, a bare adjective
> > in utterances of the form "<noun> is <adjective>" sounds hollow and
> > incomplete. So I decided that predicative adjectives should be
> > paired with a finalizer, much like a verb does (in the indicative
> > mood). For example:
> >
> >         kiran     teinin sa.
> >         young_man smart  CVY:MASC
> >         A smart young man (non-predicative; sounds incomplete).
> >
> >         kiran     sa       teinin tipai.
> >         young_man CVY:MASC smart  perceptive(FIN)
> >         The young man is smart (predicative; the finalizer makes the
> >         utterance feel much more complete and assertive).
> >
> > (The finalizer, although often assigned colorful meanings by native
> > speakers, does not actually carry any factual content. It does,
> > however, reinforce the predicativity of the adjective.)
> >
> > This did mean coining a LOT more finalizers than I had initially
> > intended, but I think the language as a whole is much more
> > consistent and aesthetically-pleasing because of it.
> 
> Indeed, that is quite nice. I rather like it.
[...]

Thanks!

This decision also led to some intriguing conlang considerations: once
TF adjectives are paired with finalizers in the same way verbs are, then
the above clause structure NP-ADJ-FIN completely parallels the clause
structure of monovalent verbal clauses NP-V-FIN.

Furthermore, in TF, NP structure is of the form N-ADJ-CASE when an
adjective is present; a similar structure exists for single-verb
relative clauses: N-REL_V-CASE. The relative verb in the latter is
formed by inflecting the verb with suitable affixes to indicate that
it's a subordinate verb instead of the main verb.

These two observations put together seems to imply that adjectives
behave almost exactly like monovalent verbs!

What's more, my recent reanalysis of the TF lexicon for affixation
patterns shows that a significant number of adjectives are derived by
the adjectivising suffix -s/-as. Now, in predicative adjectival
statements (NP-ADJ-FIN) the NP is always in the CVY case. Given a
monovalent *verbal* clause where the NP is in the CVY case, the
subordinate form for the monovalent verb is ... guess what?
-s/-as/-satas when the verb is vowel-initial! So then an NP with such a
verb in a relative clause would be N-REL_V-CASE, where REL_V has the
essentially the same morphology as ADJ!

This suggests that perhaps TF adjectives are equivalent to monovalent
verbs. Or at least, a good number of them can be regarded as such.  It's
a rather surprising conclusion, but certainly a very compelling one!  In
fact, it seems likely that perhaps in a descendent lang these two word
classes will completely merge, and thus adjectives will *be* stative
verbs then!

(I did not plan for this coincidence to happen... but somehow,
subconciously, something must have made the equivalence, which shows up
as assigning essentially the same morphology between a good number of
adjectives and monovalent verbs. Talk about serendipity!)


T

-- 
For every argument for something, there is always an equal and opposite
argument against it. Debates don't give answers, only wounded or
inflated egos.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019, Week 3
October 2019, Week 2
October 2019, Week 1
September 2019, Week 5
September 2019, Week 4
September 2019, Week 3
September 2019, Week 2
September 2019, Week 1
August 2019, Week 5
August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 5
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 5
December 2007, Week 4
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 2
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 5
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 3
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 5
August 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 5
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 5
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
May 2007, Week 2
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 5
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 5
March 2007, Week 4
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 2
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 5
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
December 2006, Week 1
November 2006, Week 5
November 2006, Week 4
November 2006, Week 3
November 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 5
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 5
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 5
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 5
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004, Week 2
September 2004, Week 1
August 2004, Week 5
August 2004, Week 4
August 2004, Week 3
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 5
July 2004, Week 4
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 5
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
April 2004, Week 2
April 2004, Week 1
March 2004, Week 5
March 2004, Week 4
March 2004, Week 3
March 2004, Week 2
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 5
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 3
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 5
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 5
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 3
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 5
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
April 2003, Week 1
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 5
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 5
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 5
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 2
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 5
December 2001, Week 4
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 4
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 2
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 5
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 5
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 4
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
May 2001, Week 2
May 2001, Week 1
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 4
April 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 2
April 2001, Week 1
March 2001, Week 5
March 2001, Week 4
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
January 2001, Week 1
December 2000, Week 5
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 5
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 5
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 5
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 5
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 5
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 5
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 5
December 1998, Week 4
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 5
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager