<div dir="ltr"><div>Sonja,</div><div><br></div>For some people masturbation can sometimes be better than sex with another person for a variety of reasons.<div><br></div><div>I think it's also important to point out that massage can also be "better" than sex for a lot of people, or eating a really good meal, or rock climbing, or programming. But, none of these activities is intrinsically better than any other activity and sex is definitely not intrinsically better than any of them. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I know plenty of people (of lots of genders) who masturbate for reasons other than substituting sex. I am one of these people. I don't masturbate because I'm not having enough sex. I masturbate because it's a personal space where I can engage with my mind and my body in ways I don't think I can reach with another person. Of course not all masturbation is covered in heavy meaning, as not all sex is.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In addition it's important to realize that for a long time people where taught (using a lot of the same arguments you are making) that masturbation was a shameful thing. Personally I think that it's important to respect people's sexually how ever they experience it. sex with zero, one, two, or more.</div>
<div><br></div><div>PS. It was nice meeting you yesterday, I like your "local dicks" idea.</div><div><br></div><div style>--Andrew</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:45 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Sonja & Yo's-<br>
<br>
Uh - you're still stuck on superiority/inferiority, which is the
nexus of the problem, and generalizes far beyond one's choice of
partners and hands.<br>
<br>
The latest example is the word "subpar," which means "less than
equal." <br>
<br>
It may be that _for you_, a hand is "less than equal" compared to
your partner. But the way you've been wielding the language is
ontological with an imperative tone, rather than personal, starting
right here: <br><div class="im">
<br>
"No, masturbation is not sex. In the same way that vitamin pills are
not food. Masturbation is a thing too thoroughly inferior to sex to
be classed with it."<br>
<br></div>
That statement is radically different to the following: "For me,
masturbation is hardly as satisfying as sex with my partner."<br>
<br>
The two statements are as different as "X isn't music, it's animal
noise!" vs. "X doesn't appeal to me, I like music that's more Y and
Z."<br>
<br>
Sex and sexuality, along with religion, politics, and a few other
things, are intimately connected to peoples' identities. Saying
"My form of sex/sexuality is superior, and yours is inferior," has
the same effect as saying "My form of religion is superior, and
yours is inferior," and the immediate association, thus implication,
is "I am superior, and you are inferior." Whether that association
and implication is strictly logically justified is beside the point:
it's the natural human response. <br>
<br>
Atheists in particular can relate to that example: often being
subjected to "if you don't believe in God, you don't have morality,"
from religious fundamentalists. For that matter, Jewish children
have (and still are) often subjected to "if you don't believe in
Jesus, you're going to Hell!" from their nominally Christian
classmates in school.<br>
<br>
Admittedly, bringing the statement down from the level of ontology
to the level of personal preference, carries risks. Saying "I
prefer my partner to my hand," might get others speculating and
gossiping, "does this mean that so-and-so's partner is a super-duper
sexual athlete?, or does it mean that so-and-so's autoerotic
technique is barely at 'beginner' level...?" <br>
<br>
As with religion, saying "My moral code is based on my belief in
God," might get others wondering, "does this mean that so-and-so's
religiously inspired morality is consistent and uncompromising?, or
does this mean that so-and-so only refrains from robbing &
murdering because s/he's afraid of going to hell?" <br>
<br>
But if anything, those kinds of speculations are more likely when
someone proclaims the superiority of their own preferences by using
language that makes ontological statements of "what is," rather than
personal statements of "my preference." <br>
<br>
A statement of personal preference is the more convincing mode of
expression: a report of an empirical fact of one's own experience, a
small nugget of one's own reality that nobody else can judge or
deny. But sweeping generalizations about others' experiences are at
high risk of easy refutation, and once skepticism takes hold, the
rest of what went along with those generalizations also becomes
questionable. <br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-05-06-Mon 1:28 AM, Sonja Trauss
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Uh - you're confusing an inferior experience to with an
inferior person. You should judge yourself however you like, but
it wouldn't have occurred to me to judge myself poorly for
experencing something subpar. Like, sometimes I eat mealy
apples, I say, 'ew I hate this apple, I will throw it away' it
wouldn't have occurred to me to say, 'i am less of a person for
having experienced that subpar apple.' </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 6, 2013 1:19 AM, "GtwoG
PublicOhOne" <<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Sonja & Yo's-<br>
<br>
Not absurd, it's in the language you used: "thoroughly
inferior" and "classed with it." Those are strong words,
and unequivocal words. <br>
<br>
Translate to housing and it sounds like the way home-owners
often put down apartment-renters. Speaking of which: <br>
<br>
"There are lots of reasons people in single-family homes
don't have gardens or don't have them much, and ways that
apartment-renters can have gardens, although having a garden
is easier if you have a house...."<br>
<br>
In context, that sounds like an attempt to back out of a
dead-end in an arguement, but as long as the "thoroughly
inferior" statement is not repudiated, the subsequent
statement also comes across as condescending. <br>
<br>
The problem here is with "superior/inferior" and "class."
You can call this a class-struggle.<br>
<br>
One thing we ought to do here is break out the subject
matter: porn and masturbation and relationship status
("status" in both senses of the word, heh) are not the same
things. It's good that porn is starting to evolve in a
direction that's more appealing to women, and less engaged
with sexual power-dynamics. It would also be a good thing
if there was a reasonable balance between genders and
sexualities in terms of percentage of people who play with
themselves (I don't have the numbers offhand). And it will
be a great day when "relationship status" isn't equivalent
to "status." <br>
<br>
But the fact is that we live in a culture of sexual
phocomelia. For those who don't know the word, it refers to
the (otherwise-rare) congenital disability that was famously
caused in large numbers by thalidomide, whereby people were
born with no arms or legs, their hands and feet attached
directly to their trunks. Someone with phocomelia has a
uniquely difficult time eating, because they can't reach to
pick up their own food and put it in their own mouth. One
way to solve this is with a partner, where each person picks
up the food for the other, and puts it in the other's
mouth. <br>
<br>
Our sexual culture is like that: it starts from the
assumption that you require another person to meet a basic
physical need. From that assumption, applied to sexuality,
comes all of the weird power-dynamics around sex. And while
it may be true for reproduction (plus or minus cloning),
it's not true for love (which has avenues of expression
other than sex), and for the neurochemical benefits (read:
pleasures) and other health benefits (such as reduction of
risk for prostate cancer in men) of sexual stimulation and
orgasm. <br>
<br>
The Abrahamic religious traditions, originating in cultures
that were harshly oppressed at the hands of the
powers-that-be of their times, had to conflate reproduction,
love, and pleasure, and seek to control the latter to ensure
the former, else they would not have survived. That
conflation persists in the mainstream culture to this day,
where it's the equivalent of a state of civil emergency
after the hurricane has long since passed. <br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-05-05-Sun 11:43 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>No that's absurd. There are lots of reasons ppl in
relationships don't have sex or don't have it much and
ways single people can, although it is easier if you
have a partner.<br>
Also, comparing options means you must have them - if
you don't have access to sex then you don't have access
to it. Comparing it to masturbation, or comparing it to
camping, or to pie, or to music, it's moot. <br>
The whole conversation hinges on the notion that you
have access to both, which I think more people do than
realize it.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 5, 2013 10:00 PM, "GtwoG
PublicOhOne" <<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Sonja, Andrew, Et. Al.-<br>
<br>
So now the implicit assumption goes explicit:<br>
<br>
"Masturbation is a thing too thoroughly inferior to
sex to be classed with it."<br>
<br>
The necessary and inevitable corollary to that is,
"Single people are thoroughly inferior to coupled
people." Care to argue that point?<br>
<br>
It wasn't long ago that us queerz were also
subjected to "Homosexual sex is a thing thoroughly
inferior to heterosexual sex." <br>
<br>
Inferior by way of "immoral," and for the longest
time (and still, in many places), illegal. In a
wide swath of the world, I can go to prison for who
I love, and in a slightly less wide swath of the
world, I can get beheaded in the public square or
hanged by the neck at the end of a crane borrowed
from the Public Works Department (as is the custom
in Iran, 16-year-old queer guys included, go search
BBC.com for that story).<br>
<br>
Comparisons based on assertions of one's own
superiority and others' inferiority, are the last
refuge of the will-to-power mentality that is
exploitative, oppressive, and ultimately insecure of
its own niche in the human social ecosystem. <br>
<br>
In any ontological sense, arguements about the
superiority and inferiority of personal matters of
taste among consenting adults, are groundless,
pointless, and ultimately meaningless. <br>
<br>
Would anyone care to argue whether rock is better
than rap or vice-versa, or whether jazz is better
than country & western or vice-versa, or whether
playing a piano, harmonica, guitar, saxophone, or
banjo is better? Any such assertion of "better"
(and its necessary corollary, "worse"), is nothing
more than a linguistic confound of the phrase "I
prefer." <br>
<br>
I prefer music X, sexuality Y, and pizza with Z on
it. <br>
<br>
I have no need to prove to anyone, that any of those
things are "better than" music Q, sexuality R, and
pizza with S on it. And I will fight for the right
to full equality among people who prefer music X or
Q, sexuality Y or R, and pizza with Z or S on it. <br>
<br>
It will be a great day when people stop seeking to
dominate each other over matters of personal choice
and personal taste. It will be an even better day
when people stop seeking to dominate each other
altogether, aside from consenting adult dom/sub
play;-)<br>
<br>
-G. <br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-05-05-Sun 12:29 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>mmm according to conservative readings of
the bible, all non-reproductive sex is
sinful. masturbating and pulling out are
both sins, and in that way equivalent. So if
you want to throw around the 'puritanical'
label, it would have to stick to the idea
that masturbation and sex are
interchangeable, and not the idea they they
are two pretty different types of
activities. <br>
<br>
</div>
Other women should pipe up here, but the only
people who have ever tried to tell me that
"masturbation is a type of sex" have been men.
No, masturbation is not sex. In the same way
that vitamin pills are not food. Masturbation
is a thing too thoroughly inferior to sex to
be classed with it. I guess, from a male
pleasure point of view, they are equivalent,
if you cum from sex or you cum from jerking
off, you cum, who cares, but they are not
equivalent from your gf's pov. I would 1000%
prefer my partner to cum from fucking me than
from jerking off. I get nothing out of him
jerking off, if he fucks me I will almost
surely cum. <br>
<br>
</div>
The idea that we should make more porn (for
women!) has always struck me as an example of
men thinking women should be more like men.
Maybe women aren't that into porn, not because
there's not that much porn that women like, but
because porn is lame and boring. Maybe instead
of women going against their natures and
learning to enjoy passively watching other
people have sex, men should go against their
natures and learn to enjoy closing the laptop,
picking up the phone, waiting 15 minutes for
your girl to come over, and then fucking her. <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 5, 2013 at
1:58 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Sonja, Andrew, and Yo's-<br>
<br>
Whoa there! All this about "masturbation
replacing sex" reinforces an artificial
duality that's ultimately founded in
puritanism, in which masturbation may not
be "sinful" but it's "not real sex."<br>
<br>
To paraphrase an old Campbell's Soup ad,
"It's Sex for One and that one is you!"<br>
<br>
What I personally find bizarre as hell, is
the degree to which our culture is so
couple-normative, and the degree to which
sexual coupling is normalized and expected
as the primary axis on which lifetime
relationships are based. This when
there's a near-infinite range of potential
upon which humans could base their
relationships.<br>
<br>
Have you ever seen a couple that appeared
to you to be either overtly dysfunctional
or just plain weird in the manner of "what
the hell could s/he possibly see in
him/her?!" The answer usually turns out
to be "in bed," as in: they may be totally
incompatible in all other ways, but they
have some unique kink in common, or just
screw like mad weasels, and apparently
that's enough to keep them together. <br>
<br>
Under all of this is the genetic
competition algorithm, that dates back to
bacteria but seems remarkably incapable of
producing humans with the intelligence
needed to overcome war, climate change,
and all the other forces of our own making
that threaten our near-extinction. In an
era where "the cybernetically-enhanced
human" is a common cultural meme, surely
we can do better! <br>
<br>
Anyone who thinks that their precious
genes are something special (or that there
is any such thing as a superior race), is
in for a rude awakening: we share well
over 99% of our genome with chimpanzees
and bonobos. Selfish genes helped us get
from our birth as a species to the point
where our survival was assured. Since
that time we have overpopulated and
overconsumed the planet, threatening our
own continued existence within our
lifetimes. <br>
<br>
It's time to move beyond obedience to
algorithms that no longer serve us. <br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
======
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-05-05-Sun 1:22 AM, Sonja
Trauss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>That study says nothing about
whether masturbation does or
doesn't replace sex. It says that
teens who masturbate more have
more sex, which makes perfect
sense. These are things that you
expect to see together, like
umbrellas and rubber boots, but
you would never say that the
umbrella caused the boots, or vice
versa. And this study says nothing
about whether sex causes
masturbation or the other way
around.<br>
It also doesn't say anything about
masturbation with or without porn
(although I wish it did). <br>
Masturbation is all well and good,
of course, but that's not
sufficient to explain why porn is
well and good. <br>
I'm super curious. I can't
experimentally not watch porn and
see what happens because I already
don't, but if any of you do, then
you will be able to tell me what
you would be missing. </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 5,
2013 12:43 AM, "Andrew" <<a href="mailto:andrew@roshambomedia.com" target="_blank">andrew@roshambomedia.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Sonja,<br>
<br>
</div>
I disagree with your views
on masturbation. For one, I
don't think that
masturbation causes people
to have less sex. Here's a
study a found by googling
I'm sure there is more data
to back up the fact that
masturbation does not reduce
the amount of sex someone is
having.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2011/08/01/study-tracks-masturbation-trends-among-us-teens" target="_blank">http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2011/08/01/study-tracks-masturbation-trends-among-us-teens</a><br>
<br>
It is also just, in general
a healthy practice.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>second, I can masturbate
without porn, and with porn
(as can most people).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I really believe that
part of being sex positive
is also being accepting of
masturbation as natural and
healthy.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>--Andrew<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:25
AM, Sonja Trauss <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com" target="_blank">sonja.trauss@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>Yeah .... so what if
you didn't have
anything, and you
couldn't concentrate.
Would you give up? Maybe
the first day. Maybe
even the 2nd day, but
eventually you would be
able to masterbate on
your own I bet.</p>
<p>I'm a girl and never
encountered very much
porn I liked at all. I
*guess* a solution could
be to make porn a girl
would like, but my
solution was to have sex
instead, which has been
overall great. It's
forced me to get in
contact, and stay in
contact, with people I
otherwise wouldn't have.
Making porn that girls
like, so they can join
men in having an
activity that allows
them to have less sex,
seems antisocial and a
step backwards. <br>
Yeah the more I think
about this the more
absurd it seems that a
crowd that is interested
in expanding the
audience for porn would
overlap with a
'do-acracy' hackerspace
crowd. Watching porn is
watching, not doing.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On May 4, 2013 7:53
PM, "Andrew" <<a href="mailto:andrew@roshambomedia.com" target="_blank">andrew@roshambomedia.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>People want
porn for
somthing easy to
focus on while
masturbating.
Masturbating
being a natural
part of life. I
also dont think
that all people
who can have sex
with others, but
don't , are
doing so because
they don't have
the "skills"</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
May 4, 2013 7:20
PM, "Sonja
Trauss" <<a href="mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com" target="_blank">sonja.trauss@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>Or less
representation
of sex
altogether.
What does
anyone need
porn for?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
May 4, 2013
7:10 PM,
"Andrew" <<a href="mailto:andrew@vagabondballroom.com" target="_blank">andrew@vagabondballroom.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>When i ran
an erotic
event in
oakland our
crew made it a
point to
balence
genders as
much as
possible. We
had male and
female
co-hosts and
male and
female
strippers.</p>
<p>Also.
Somthing to
keep in mind
is that there
are more than
two genders.
In my mind
objectification
is not the
issue.
Representation
is. Porn is
mostly filmed
from a
hetero-cis-male
perspective
and because of
that, taken as
a whole, is
exploitive.
There is porn
that fights
this
perspective
and
representation
of sex and
there needs to
be more.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
May 4, 2013
6:55 PM,
"Sonja Trauss"
<<a href="mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com" target="_blank">sonja.trauss@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>Can I get a
link for this
gonorreah
story?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
May 4, 2013
6:42 PM,
"GtwoG
PublicOhOne"
<<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Romy &
Yo's-<br>
<br>
Re. "womens'
bodies with
their faces
cut off."<br>
<br>
Wow. Thanks
for pointing
that out. I
never noticed
that before
(OTOH<br>
attempts to do
"sexy" in
advertising
generally
don't get my
attention),<br>
but I vaguely
recall seeing
ads like that
somewhere.<br>
<br>
I agree, a
torso minus a
face is
depersonalizing
and
objectifying
as<br>
hell, unless
there's a very
good reason
for taking a
photo that way<br>
(e.g. medical
contexts).
Being looked
at "that way"
produces the
creepy<br>
feeling that
the looker's
intentions are
non-consensual.<br>
<br>
The only
borderline-legit
reason I could
see for doing
it in clothing<br>
ads is, "we
want you to
imagine
yourself
wearing this,
and we don't
want<br>
to risk
putting you
off by showing
a face that's
substantially
different<br>
to yours, so
imagine your
face on this
person's
body." But it
would be<br>
foolish to
think that's
what's
intended every
time that
photographic<br>
method is
used.<br>
<br>
This brings up
the question
of what people
find sexy in
photography.<br>
For me (gay
male), a photo
minus a face
is a
non-starter:
there's no cue<br>
for
communication
with the
person. Nudes
in general
don't do it
either:<br>
all the usual
contextual
cues as to
someone's
personality
are missing,<br>
so why would I
even begin to
imagine being
in an intimate
context with<br>
someone I
don't really
know? I've
always felt
that way but
now we have<br>
the HIV
pandemic to
reinforce it:
in general
it's not a
good idea to
get<br>
intimate with
someone you
don't know
very well,
because the
outcome<br>
could be a
life-threatening
illness.<br>
<br>
For that
matter, now
that
massively-drug-resistant
gonorrhea is
loose in<br>
the USA, which
is hella'
easier to
catch than HIV
and can kill
you in a<br>
matter of days
through a
raging
bacterial
infection,
it's probably
a<br>
darn good idea
for everyone
to "get smart
& play
safe" ALL the
time,<br>
zero
exceptions,
even more so
than with HIV.
In which case
photography<br>
that portrays
an objectified
sexuality
without
communications
isn't just<br>
gross and
exploitative,
it's a public
health hazard
that
reinforces<br>
attitudes that
put people at
risk for their
lives.<br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
On
13-05-04-Sat
10:34 AM, Romy
Snowyla wrote:<br>
> It's
interesting to
me how porn a<br>
> Nd
erotica always
advertise with
women's bodies
with their
faces cut off<br>
> American
apparel digs
this etc<br>
> Lots of
art theory
discusses this<br>
><br>
> I would
love for any
Sudo room
event to break
the mold and
show men's
bodies in any
erotic theme
as well ...
Also would
love to see
the male body
as the focus
of any erotic
film or dance
to balance out
the Imbalance
and unnatural
obsession with
t and a we see
on the porn
industry<br>
><br>
> Sent from
my iPad<br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
>
sudo-discuss
mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss
mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss
mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
-------
<div>Andrew Lowe</div>
<div>Cell: <a href="tel:831-332-2507" value="+18313322507" target="_blank">831-332-2507</a></div>
<div><a href="http://roshambomedia.com" target="_blank">http://roshambomedia.com</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>-------<div>Andrew Lowe</div><div>Cell: 831-332-2507</div><div><a href="http://roshambomedia.com" target="_blank">http://roshambomedia.com</a></div><div><br></div>
</div>