[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
Re: AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #158
Okay, so that I might understand the next few days of discussion, is
it possible for me to view the web site? Is it too late to be a
judge?
I didn't mean to bash you or anything, I just wondered why everyone
wasn't included in the mock contest.
Jenn
--
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use
being a damn fool about it."
----------------------
> If you saw my invitation, which was open to _everyone_, you haven't missed
> anything. Everyone is here of their own free will, so all I can do is _ask_
> that people get involved. Anyone who choses not to is free to do so. We all
> have varying amounts of time and energy to devote to this and I realize that
> not everyone would care to get involved with the mock contest.
>
> The mock contest, in order to be done as realistically as possible was set
> up on a _separate_ website. Due to the fact that the owner of _some_ of the
> images which are on that web-site and which were used for the Mock Judging
> specifically requested that they NOT be put on general display, I have not,
> and will not, be making the URL of the site publicly available. I have
> permission from the owner to use them for the mock judging and that is all.
> Once we have discussed the results of the mock judging and settled on our
> procedures in that regard, the other web-site will be taken off-line.
>
> As for feeling excluded, I don't know why anyone should feel that way - I
> invited _anyone_ on this list who cared to do so to try the mock testing. If
> you had wanted to get involved you could have. It is true that the
> discussion for the next little while is probably not going to make sense to
> anyone who wasn't a mock judge, but those are the breaks - the issue of
> judging guidelines and the policies and procedures surrounding them are
> important. I want them discussed throughly and settled before we can move
> beyond them.
>
> Hope this makes things clear for you Jennifer, and I hope that you jump in
> with your comments when you feel able.
>
> James Purchase
> Toronto
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
> with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
> To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
> in the same message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 17:08:00 -0400
> From: "Ken Guin" <kenguin@homemail.com>
> Subject: Re: Mock Judging results Part I
>
> James wrote: >>>>Submission Guidelines Explicit statement that altered/faked
> entries are NOT eligable for the contest. (Do we allow them in the
> showcase???)<<
>
> Ken writes: I think we could be chancing it if WE decided to exclude ANY
> entry without first doing some investigation into a questionable entry. A
> simple telephone call or email to the entrant to ask him/her a few questions
> about the authenticity of the entry should resolve the matter. Several
> volunteers could easily handle the few that would be questionable (I would
> volunteer to do this). However, we should make it VERY explicit that
> altered/fake entries will not be acceptable.
>
> James wrote: >> Clear guidelines provided on the number and viewpoint of
> individual images in each submission.<<
>
> Ken writes: Yes, definitely. To keep things simple, I suggest two, maybe
> three photos at the most (with only one encouraged). One overall, frontal
> shot and maybe two angled, front shots which some of the sides showing. All
> photos should be within a short time frame of minutes, not days or months.
>
> James wrote:>>- Tank details that should accompany entries.
>
> Ken writes: I would make this optional. There is a current thread on the APD
> concerning a tank that is supposedly doing great with somewhat unusual tank
> parameters (e.g., low light, high phosphorus and nitrate levels). If the
> tank looks great, why should we get into an argument over which are the best
> parameters? However, I do think that tank details would be very educational
> for the viewers. So, for that reason, I would encourage the entrants to
> include them, BUT I would ask the judges to not take them into account
> during judging.
>
> James wrote: >>Judging Guidelines. Should entries be pre-screened for
> altered/faked images BEFORE being passed to Judges?<<
>
> Ken writes: If we go the route of sending the judges CDs, there is going to
> have to be a some sort of pre-screening done along the way. I would hate to
> think that we would dump everything on Erik and ask him to produce some
> judgeable CDs from it all. I think we will need to have some sort of panel
> to review (pre-screen) the entries. I really don't think we are going to get
> that many altered/fake entries though. I just don't see that as being a
> really big problem, and if it is, I think my earlier suggestion about
> contacting the entrant would be reasonable. However, I do think we need
> someone (a panel?) to organize everything before it is burned onto a CD. I
> see this as being our biggest coordination problem. We will need to decide
> who receives them, how we centralize them (after being scanned, etc.). We
> will also have to decide what we will do if we receive entries that don't
> meet established criteria. For example, what happens if we ask for two
> photos and we get four?. What do we do? Send them back, or pick the best of
> the four? I see a lot of problems arising that will make good coordination
> imperative. If we don't do this part right, I am afraid the whole thing will
> collapse under it own weight. However, I don't see this as something we will
> not be able to handle.
>
> James wrote: >>- Should Criteria points be expanded upon so that ALL
> Judges know exactly what we expect to be consided under each main point?
> (Jose posted something regarding this last week (see message 00512, Aug.
> 4).<<
>
> Ken writes: Absolutely.
>
> James wrote: >>- Should we clarify how the Judges are to calculate their
> "point scores"? Two of the test judges used non-standard schemes - to be
> fair, ALL Judges should be working from the same base and using the SAME
> yardstick. It is _my_ view that in anything rated like this, the scoring
> range starts at 0 and ends at 100, not 0 to 10 or 50 to 100.<<
>
> Ken writes: If the judges' scores are to be published, I think it would be
> important that they judge on a 100 point scale. If a judge decides to rank
> from 50 to 100, then they should have that option. I mean, how much worse
> could an entry be than 50 points? I noticed on the mock judging, when the
> obvious fake entry is eliminated, there was only one entry by one judge that
> rated a score lower than 50 points. So, I don't see this as a problem. If we
> decide for the judges to keep their scoring to themselves and just pick the
> first, second, etc., it makes no difference what point scale they use.
>
> James wrote: >> -The alternative might be to throw out "points" all together
> and
> just request the Judges to rate things as "Unacceptable", "Acceptable",
> "Good", "Very Good", "Excellent". However, this could present problems with
> deciding a clear winner in any particular Category.<<
>
> Ken writes: I agree. And, for that reason, I suggest a 100 point system.
> (part II to follow - I am having problems with my ISP).
>
> Ken Guin
> Arlington, VA
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
> with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
> To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
> in the same message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 17:09:37 -0400
> From: "Ken Guin" <kenguin@homemail.com>
> Subject: RE: Mock Judging results Part II
>
> Part II (Continued from previous Post)
> James wrote: >>Categories We have to decide what kind of Categories we want
> to set up, keeping in mind that this is NOT a typical fish show.<<
>
> Ken writes: This ain't gonna be easy. I realize that the mock judging we
> just did was VERY limited, but how would you have grouped those five (six)
> entries into categories? From the beginning, I believe we all agreed that we
> would have to decide on categories once we receive all the entries. I don't
> know why we should decide that now. The categories will probably fall into
> place once we get all of the entries. If there are some entries that are
> really oddballs, we would have the flexibility of including them into a
> separate category ourselves, or melding them into the more traditional
> categories that will surely reveal themselves as we examine the entries.
> Again, this is going to be part of the VERY hard
> receiving/sorting/coordination phase.
>
> James wrote: >>Do the Judges look at ALL of the entries in each Category or
> do we have specific experts/judges examine and rate only those entries in
> particular Categories?<<
>
> Ken writes: I believe each entry should be examined by each judge,
> regardless of category. Unless, I am wrong, I am not sure we are going to
> have the luxury of having enough judges to have specialized judges in
> particular categories. However, if we anticipate that there are more than
> enough judges to do this, I think it would probably work.
>
> James wrote: >>- How many entries are required before a Category can be
> examined and a winner declared?
> Ken writes: If we wait until we see how many entries there will eventually
> be, I think this will fall into place. When we announce the
> showcase/competition, I think we should encourage all types of aquascapes to
> be entered. We could tighten down the definition of "aquascape" to eliminate
> things like "reef tanks", fakes, etc., but if we get some beautiful examples
> of aquascapes we didn't have the foresight to predict, why should we exclude
> them from the competition? In subsequent competitions/showcases, we should
> have a much better feel for what the categories will be. I just think it
> would be more prudent to wait to see what we are dealing with before the
> categories are decided.
>
> James wrote:>>- Is only First Place to be awarded, or do we award 1st, 2nd
> and 3rd Place? What about Honourable Mentions for tanks which are nice but
> don't place?<<
>
> Ken writes: I would go along with 1st, 2nd and third places, with honorable
> mentions in categories that have enough entries and deserve to be mentioned.
> I would also like to see the Best of Show award too.
> James wrote >>General How feasible is it to provide Judges with all entries
> on CD-ROM for judging? This is really up to Erik. How much would each CD-ROM
> cost?<<
>
> Ken writes: If Erik can do it, I think this is the only way to go. If each
> judge reviews each entry and they have to review it via the Internet, we
> might lose some judges along the way unless they have high speed access.
> Although I realize that the mock judging was our first attempt at this, and
> James you did a heck of a job doing it, I found the process to be confusing,
> problematic and time consuming. Given the same circumstances, and I were a
> judge with the responsibility of reviewing 100 or so entries, I believe I
> would be looking for a way out. AND, I have high speed access.
> Ken Guin
> Arlington, VA
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
> with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
> To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
> in the same message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:37:49 -0500
> From: "James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>
> Subject: RE: Mock Judging Results - Ken's Points
>
> Ken recently made some excellent points -
>
> Re: Screening out Fakes - I agree that we are going to have to be very
> careful about screening out something without first doing some
> investigation. The first part of the investigation could be to require
> people to give us a list of materials, plants and fish in the tank. If we
> see something in the photo which is not on the list.....or vice versa.....
> that is at least a start. Again, I don't know if this will even be a
> problem, but it is a _potential_ problem and we should have a policy on how
> we want it dealt with _should_ it arise.
>
> Re: Submission Elements, number of Images per submission - I definately want
> to see more than one image of a tank and less than 5 but that is more to be
> fair to the aquascape and the aquarist who submitted it than anything else.
> It is very difficult to judge a tank with only one picture and having too
> many can lead to problems like we had with Entry 005.
>
> Submission Elements - like a listing and description of how the aquascape
> was put together, i.e. materials used, plant and fish list will not only
> help screen out potential fakes, it will help us place tanks into Categories
> for Judging and display. It isn't always obvious in a picture that that
> beautiful piece of driftwood just right of centre is in actuallity printed
> on a commercially made background, or even that those nice red plants are
> 100% plastic. We can ask for those sorts of details in the Submission
> elements.
>
> Contest Entries which come in without the required elements should be placed
> in the Showcase but not the Contest (this shouldn't cause concern - life has
> certain rules, if we set a few and people choose to ignore them, they can't
> complain about the consequences. I am tired of pandering.).
>
> Re: Point Scores and consistency between judges - I can see the point that
> Ken (and earlier Erik) makes about it being nearly impossible to force
> Judges to ALL play by our rules - they are going to have their own ideas and
> nothing we can do or say will change that. I found it fascinating to look at
> how the individual Judges scored the various entries and also to real their
> comments. This has the potential to be VERY educational for everyone.
>
> But I have to tell you, while I was putting the scores and comments into
> the web-site, in some cases it was MURDER trying to figure out how some of
> the mock judges arrived at their scores or in translating what they passed
> to me into the numbers which appear on the web-site. If numbers from
> different judges appear side by side, they should at least be on the same
> order of magnitude.
>
> I think we will have to tell them that the scale for each Criteria is 0 -
> 100. Once they arrive at their decision, they multiply it by whatever
> percentage value the particular Criteria point carries, and then report THAT
> value. If someone wants to start at 50, and mark upwards to 100 that's cool
> with me - at least they will be consistent with themselves. But we had some
> judges do this on the basis of 1-10. I was getting very confused, jumping
> back and forth between their e-mail, an Excel spreadsheet, and the web-site
> opened in Front Page. Sometimes, a 17" monitor is just NOT big enough! Once
> I got them all sorted out and in place, they all made sense, but it was NO
> FUN doing the sorting out and trying to figure out how they got their
> numbers - in one case, I just had to leave out a judge's individual criteria
> points because I was just too tired to worry about it anymore. This isn't a
> crack at the judges - or how they did this, I'm just saying that without
> specific guidelines provided up front which we ask each judge to adhere to,
> I'm going to be bald before this is over.
>
> Re: Categories - I can see the validity of what Ken says about Categories,
> and I think I had suggested long ago that we forego that kind of discussion
> until later or until we actually get the images. We'd look awfully stupid to
> pre-announce 50 to 100 specific Categories and then only get 10 entries for
> the whole Contest. But the kinds of Categories I was thinking of here, and
> now, are really rather wide ranging and general, as in the following:
>
> Underwater Gardens - only natural materials allowed
> Underwater Gardens - natural and man-made materials allowed
> Biotope Tanks - only natural materials allowed, and the tank must be an
> attempt to re-create a specific natural environment.
> - - Planted
> - - Non-Planted
> Rift Lake Tanks
> Community Tanks - plastic and man made materials allowed
> Fantasy Tanks - anything goes, so long as the image is REAL.
> etc.
>
> These are _only_ suggestions and I'm putting them forward now because I can
> forsee major logistical problems for Erik if he has 200 entries of all types
> and he has to try sorting them out himself before he burns a CD-ROM without
> having at least _some_ idea of general categories to go by.
>
> We _could_ have them sorted like that, burnt onto CD-ROM, distributed to
> several people for screening and sorting into more specific Categories (as
> numbers warrant, I venture) and then just the Entry numbers would have to
> traverse the Internet, as the pre-screeners sorted out among themselves how
> the Entries should be grouped for Judging and Display.
>
> Once the pre-screeners have reached a concencus - a "master list" could go
> to Erik and the appropriate Entries could be placed into specific
> subdirectories on the CD-ROMs which we pass to the Judges.
>
> This is just me thinking out loud about the co-ordination/logistics bit that
> Ken mentioned.
>
> Re: Categories and 1st, 2nd and 3rd Place - one thing that we have to keep
> in mind is that when we announce this publicly and invite people to submit
> entries, if it is a Contest they are going to expect to know what the Prizes
> are going to be (even if there ARE going to be prizes). Again, it would look
> dumb to pre-announce all these ribbons and certificates in a zillion
> Categories and not have the entires to pin them to. Conversly, without a bit
> of incentive, we might not get a lot of entries unless we DO tell folks what
> they could stand to win (I was never a fan of "Door Number Three, Please").
>
> Re: Judges getting the entries on CD-ROM - I got to cheat on this, I know -
> I have all of the images on my hard-drive so I didn't have to wait for
> things to download (of course, it DID take a while to get the web-site set
> up...). One test judge told me that it took most of her afternoon to review
> the small number of images that we had, primarily because of Internet
> delays. Having these things on CD-ROM's will be the only way that we can get
> Judges to do this.
>
> Great feedback Ken!
>
> James Purchase
> Toronto
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
> with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
> To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
> in the same message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 18:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
> Subject: RE: Mock Judging Results - Ken's Points
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, James Purchase wrote:
>
> > Re: Point Scores and consistency between judges
> ...
> >
> > I think we will have to tell them that the scale for each Criteria is 0 -
> > 100.
>
> I've only been skimming much about judging to date, so I apologize if this
> was brought up...
>
> Going back to the aquarium show scorecard approach, we could easily adapt
> this to solve James' dilemna. Take a *total* score of 100 points possible
> for all criteria combined, then split it up based on percentage for each
> criteria (30 points this, 20 points that...). Then on the web forms, we
> use radio buttons, drop-downs or sliders to select the score points (this
> being the electronic equivalent of numbers circled on scorecards). I would
> suggest *not* normalizing each criteria to the same max points, but rather
> keep them appropriately weighted so the judges remember how important each
> category is.
>
> [categories]
>
> > Underwater Gardens - only natural materials allowed
>
> Uh, we've been here before. I don't want to go here again. I think
> everyone would be disqualified in this category.
>
> - Erik
>
> - --
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
> with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
> To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
> in the same message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 21:42:27 -0500
> From: "James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>
> Subject: Re: Mock Judging Results - Erik
>
> Erik wrote:
>
> "Going back to the aquarium show scorecard approach, we could easily adapt
> this to solve James' dilemna. Take a *total* score of 100 points possible
> for all criteria combined, then split it up based on percentage for each
> criteria (30 points this, 20 points that...). Then on the web forms, we
> use radio buttons, drop-downs or sliders to select the score points (this
> being the electronic equivalent of numbers circled on scorecards). I would
> suggest *not* normalizing each criteria to the same max points, but rather
> keep them appropriately weighted so the judges remember how important each
> category is."
>
> James responds - My biggest problem was not necessarily that different
> people felt differently about the various entries, or that their scores
> sometimes varied widely - this is in the realm of personal opinion and is to
> be expected. But some judges (most, actually) gave me scores which indicated
> that they had understood my possibly sketchy instructions, while others
> seemed to have substituted other marking schemes and their numbers did not
> correspond to anything I was expecting. In the actual Contest, if there were
> say 200 entries and 10 Judges - if everyone followed their own whiles and
> gave me numbers that I had to scratch my head over before they could be
> plugged into a spreadsheet with everyone elses' results, I'd simply dump the
> judge AND their scores. I'm doing enough work as it is, rather than inviting
> more.
>
> Your suggestion of web forms with radio buttons or some other such scheme
> would probably solve that, but it would require that the Judge had Internet
> access (which I suppose they all would anyway). Could a Pearl script or
> relational database be interfaced with this sort of thing to capture and
> collate this information so that human interraction can be kept to a minumum
> once Judging is actually underway (like me having to manually receive
> e-mails and cut and paste scores and comments into a spreadsheet program)?
>
> >> Underwater Gardens - only natural materials allowed
>
> >Uh, we've been here before. I don't want to go here again. I think
> >everyone would be disqualified in this category.
>
> Hahahahaha! As I recall, while we were "discussing" underwater gardening and
> everyone here was telling me that they don't try to design aquascapes to
> "themes" or "concepts", there was a thread on the APD about exactly that -
> and there seemed to be a lot people who expressed an interest in being as
> accurate as possible in their tanks.
>
> I'm not bringing up "underwater gardens" to re-open old wounds - I'm just
> trying to find a way of lessening or simplifying the amount of work that is
> going to have to be done once entries start coming in. We should have _some_
> idea of general categories tanks might fall into...... seems reasonable to
> me.
>
> James Purchase
> Toronto
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
> with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
> To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
> in the same message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
> Subject: Re: Mock Judging Results - Erik
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, James Purchase wrote:
>
> > Your suggestion of web forms with radio buttons or some other such scheme
> > would probably solve that, but it would require that the Judge had Internet
> > access (which I suppose they all would anyway). Could a Pearl script or
> > relational database be interfaced with this sort of thing to capture and
> > collate this information so that human interraction can be kept to a minumum
> > once Judging is actually underway (like me having to manually receive
> > e-mails and cut and paste scores and comments into a spreadsheet program)?
>
> Yes, of course. My plan is for zero cutting and pasting. The judge pops
> in the CD-ROM into their computer, fires up the internet connection, and
> off they go. Alternatively, if we end up with judges with computers but
> no internet connection, I'll have some backup.
>
> As things start to shape up here, I'll start programming the necessary
> stuff (mock site II?).
>
> >
> > >> Underwater Gardens - only natural materials allowed
> >
> > >Uh, we've been here before. I don't want to go here again. I think
> > >everyone would be disqualified in this category.
> >
> > Hahahahaha! As I recall, while we were "discussing" underwater gardening and
> > everyone here was telling me that they don't try to design aquascapes to
> > "themes" or "concepts", there was a thread on the APD about exactly that -
> > and there seemed to be a lot people who expressed an interest in being as
> > accurate as possible in their tanks.
>
> Actually, I was referring to the "only natural materials" aspect, which I
> believe to be an impossible condition.
>
> - Erik
>
> - --
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
> with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
> To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
> in the same message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 22:47:17 -0500
> From: "Jose Correa Lohmann" <jcl@pol.com.pe>
> Subject: Re: Mock Judging results
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, James Purchase wrote:
>
> >- Explicit statement that altered/faked entries are NOT eligible for the
> >Contest. (Do we allow them in the Showcase???)
> We should make this clear.
>
> >- Should entries be pre-screened for altered/faked images BEFORE being
> >passed to Judges?
> This could be done by a group of the organizers. Someone (I think it was
> Erik?) early in the discussion offered his knowledge on this to help
> identify faked images.
>
> >- Should Criteria points be expanded upon so that ALL Judges know exactly
> >what we expect to be consided under each main point? (Jose posted something
> >regarding this last week (see message 00512, Aug. 4).
> I think this is _very_ important not only for the judges but also for the
> entrants to know what are the general ideas behind the judgment. My post was
> based 99% on James' ideas posted early. Since then nobody has comment this
> descriptions, I will like to hear something new about them. The descriptions
> where useful to me during judgment test.
>
> >- Should we clarify how the Judges are to calculate their "point scores"?
> >Two of the test judges used non-standard schemes - to be fair, ALL Judges
> >should be working from the same base and using the SAME yardstick. It is
> >_my_ view that in anything rated like this, the scoring range starts at 0
> >and ends at 100, not 0 to 10 or 50 to 100.
> This should be clarified since the judges maybe are from different countries
> and have different experiences. I based my judgment from 0 to 10 on the test
> and wasn't sure how it would have to be done.
>
> >-The alternative might be to throw out "points" all together and just
> >request the Judges to rate things as "Unacceptable", "Acceptable", "Good",
> >"Very Good", "Excellent". However, this could present problems with
> deciding
> >a clear winner in any particular Category.
> I like more the points.
>
> >- We have to decide what kind of Categories we want to set up, keeping in
> >mind that this is NOT a typical fish show.
> I could think of three categories General, Biotype/Theme and Paludarium.
> This could be divided on subcategories by volume as suggested early.
>
> >- How many entries are required before a Category can be examined and a
> >winner declared?
> At least 5.
>
> >- Is only First Place to be awarded, or do we award 1st, 2nd and 3rd Place?
> >What about Honourable Mentions for tanks which are nice but don't place?
> Since the points and comments are going to be public it could be define the
> exact place of each entry in the contest and put it behind the points and
> comments for each one.
>
> Jose
>
> ------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
> with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
> To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
> in the same message.
> Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #158
> ***********************************
------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
in the same message.
Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest