Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan Michael Reiter
    That s true. It was only just recently that I myself heard about the BBC s practice of throwing out old videotape recordings or recording over them... Ouch.
    Message 1 of 23 , Dec 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      That's true. It was only just recently that I myself heard about the BBC's practice of throwing out old videotape recordings or recording over them... Ouch. Just think about all the cool old TV shows that will be seen again...
      Atomtetsuwan2002
      at2k2
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Bratman
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:56 PM
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"


      At 06:39 AM 12/1/2005 -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
      >I did not know about this radio version. Were the other Chronicles adapted
      >during Lewis' lifetime? Do any copies exist?

      Walter Hooper's Lewis Companion lists the 1959 LWW as the only Chronicle
      radio dramatization in Lewis's lifetime. (There have been others since.)
      It says nothing about whether it still exists in any form (a lot of radio
      in those days was live and never recorded).

      DB



      The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org



      SPONSORED LINKS Writing book Writing a book Writing child book
      Book writing software Science fiction and fantasy Writing a book report


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      a.. Visit your group "mythsoc" on the web.

      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      mythsoc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Hugh Davis
      Thank you. I need to read up on this in the Companion. I d love to find out more about the production. Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were
      Message 2 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you. I need to read up on this in the Companion. I'd love to find out
        more about the production.

        Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were following the
        chronology (just to stir that pot)?


        >From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
        >Reply-To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"
        >Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:56:17 -0800
        >
        >At 06:39 AM 12/1/2005 -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
        > >I did not know about this radio version. Were the other Chronicles
        >adapted
        > >during Lewis' lifetime? Do any copies exist?
        >
        >Walter Hooper's Lewis Companion lists the 1959 LWW as the only Chronicle
        >radio dramatization in Lewis's lifetime. (There have been others since.)
        >It says nothing about whether it still exists in any form (a lot of radio
        >in those days was live and never recorded).
        >
        >DB
        >
      • WendellWag@aol.com
        In a message dated 12/3/2005 8:11:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, HughHDavis@hotmail.com writes: Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were
        Message 3 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 12/3/2005 8:11:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
          HughHDavis@... writes:

          Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were following the
          chronology (just to stir that pot)?



          That's unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the mid-1990's by the
          publishers, hardly anyone even thought about the books being ordered in any
          way except for the publication order. The only reason that the books got
          re-ordered is that Douglas Gresham, who essentially controls any decisions by the
          Estate, decided that he liked the new ordering. The letter that they
          constantly cite is a hopelessly flimsy excuse. Lewis never communicated any thought
          about re-ordering the books to anyone else except that one child, and that
          doesn't sound like anything except him being nice to the kid.

          Wendell Wagner


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mike Foster
          We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW. Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University s CSL conference Nov. 3.
          Message 4 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
            Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
            conference Nov. 3. Applauders included me. Though I had tried
            severally to read in the publication order, never got further than VotDT.

            Bought the reordered set & sped through those puppies.

            LWW: having re-read it for 3rd? time for smial, it was both better and
            worse than I remembered it was. It will make a smashing film of the
            Action Jackson variety.

            Can we have Mythsoc prize for Most Tolkien Ripoffs in LWW Noted?
            I stopped counting at ten, but I'm sure we can find more.

            Jo & I did a dramatic reading of the Ruth Pitter-CSL debate re:
            catechesis on the Beavers' hospitality that RP records in Hooper's CSL
            Companion in 'Who's Who' to amuse the group. Twice.

            To better understand Aslan, observe sparrows at a bird feeder when a big
            scarlet tom cardinal flies up.

            Cheers,
            Mike

            Guess who won both debates?

            WendellWag@... wrote:

            >
            >In a message dated 12/3/2005 8:11:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
            >HughHDavis@... writes:
            >
            >Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were following the
            >chronology (just to stir that pot)?
            >
            >
            >
            >That's unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the mid-1990's by the
            >publishers, hardly anyone even thought about the books being ordered in any
            >way except for the publication order. The only reason that the books got
            >re-ordered is that Douglas Gresham, who essentially controls any decisions by the
            >Estate, decided that he liked the new ordering. The letter that they
            >constantly cite is a hopelessly flimsy excuse. Lewis never communicated any thought
            >about re-ordering the books to anyone else except that one child, and that
            >doesn't sound like anything except him being nice to the kid.
            >
            >Wendell Wagner
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • juliet@firinn.org
            ... Er, doesn t the mail below say the 1959 LWW and nothing about Magician s Nephew? Maybe I missed something.
            Message 5 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 08:09:22AM -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
              > Thank you. I need to read up on this in the Companion. I'd love to find out
              > more about the production.
              >
              > Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were following the
              > chronology (just to stir that pot)?

              Er, doesn't the mail below say "the 1959 LWW" and nothing about
              Magician's Nephew? Maybe I missed something.
              >
              >
              > >From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
              > >Reply-To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              > >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              > >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"
              > >Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:56:17 -0800
              > >
              > >At 06:39 AM 12/1/2005 -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
              > > >I did not know about this radio version. Were the other Chronicles
              > >adapted
              > > >during Lewis' lifetime? Do any copies exist?
              > >
              > >Walter Hooper's Lewis Companion lists the 1959 LWW as the only Chronicle
              > >radio dramatization in Lewis's lifetime. (There have been others since.)
              > >It says nothing about whether it still exists in any form (a lot of radio
              > >in those days was live and never recorded).
              > >
              > >DB
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Hugh Davis
              Well, I was partly being facetious. It s interesting that they adapted that one, but it is one that is much better for radio than television (at least at that
              Message 6 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, I was partly being facetious. It's interesting that they adapted that
                one, but it is one that is much better for radio than television (at least
                at that time), in terms of the scope of the imagination.


                >From: WendellWag@...
                >Reply-To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"
                >Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:11:17 EST
                >
                >
                >In a message dated 12/3/2005 8:11:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                >HughHDavis@... writes:
                >
                >Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were following the
                >chronology (just to stir that pot)?
                >
                >
                >
                >That's unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the mid-1990's by the
                >publishers, hardly anyone even thought about the books being ordered in any
                >way except for the publication order. The only reason that the books got
                >re-ordered is that Douglas Gresham, who essentially controls any decisions
                >by the
                >Estate, decided that he liked the new ordering. The letter that they
                >constantly cite is a hopelessly flimsy excuse. Lewis never communicated
                >any thought
                >about re-ordering the books to anyone else except that one child, and that
                >doesn't sound like anything except him being nice to the kid.
                >
                >Wendell Wagner
                >
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Hugh Davis
                The letter (on http://www.nthposition.com/blasphemyinnarnia.php) says Magician s Nephew in brackets, so I had that in my head as the one adapted. Perhaps I m
                Message 7 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  The letter (on http://www.nthposition.com/blasphemyinnarnia.php) says
                  Magician's Nephew in brackets, so I had that in my head as the one adapted.

                  Perhaps I'm wrong, and I admit I didn't know about this radio version before
                  this thread. Will someone confirm?

                  Hugh


                  >From: juliet@...
                  >Reply-To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"
                  >Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:54:08 -0600
                  >
                  >On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 08:09:22AM -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
                  > > Thank you. I need to read up on this in the Companion. I'd love to find
                  >out
                  > > more about the production.
                  > >
                  > > Does the fact their only take was MN suggest they were following the
                  > > chronology (just to stir that pot)?
                  >
                  >Er, doesn't the mail below say "the 1959 LWW" and nothing about
                  >Magician's Nephew? Maybe I missed something.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > >From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
                  > > >Reply-To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  > > >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                  > > >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] CSL on live-action Aslan: "Blasphemy"
                  > > >Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:56:17 -0800
                  > > >
                  > > >At 06:39 AM 12/1/2005 -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
                  > > > >I did not know about this radio version. Were the other Chronicles
                  > > >adapted
                  > > > >during Lewis' lifetime? Do any copies exist?
                  > > >
                  > > >Walter Hooper's Lewis Companion lists the 1959 LWW as the only
                  >Chronicle
                  > > >radio dramatization in Lewis's lifetime. (There have been others
                  >since.)
                  > > >It says nothing about whether it still exists in any form (a lot of
                  >radio
                  > > >in those days was live and never recorded).
                  > > >
                  > > >DB
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                • David Bratman
                  ... And that is what the news article originally quoted by Patrick Wynne (based on the letter, presumably) says too, which I didn t notice when I wrote about
                  Message 8 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 02:23 PM 12/3/2005 -0500, Hugh Davis wrote:
                    >The letter (on http://www.nthposition.com/blasphemyinnarnia.php) says
                    >Magician's Nephew in brackets, so I had that in my head as the one adapted.

                    And that is what the news article originally quoted by Patrick Wynne (based
                    on the letter, presumably) says too, which I didn't notice when I wrote
                    about the 1959 LWW.

                    But Hooper's Companion, my source, is very clear that it was LWW. He gives
                    a cast list, and I do not recall Peter, Susan, Edmund, Lucy, and Mr Tumnus
                    appearing in The Magician's Nephew.

                    I suspect what happened is this: whoever added the bracketed reference to
                    MN to the letter had registered that the book dramatized was the first of
                    the Chronicles, and then went to look at a current copy and found that MN
                    was the "first"!!!

                    Yet another example of the toxicity of the change of ordering.

                    David Bratman
                  • David Bratman
                    ... That s very interesting; you re the first person I ve encountered to report feeling that way. However, it need not prove that the reordering is better.
                    Message 9 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 10:25 AM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                      >We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
                      >Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
                      >conference Nov. 3. Applauders included me. Though I had tried
                      >severally to read in the publication order, never got further than VotDT.
                      >
                      >Bought the reordered set & sped through those puppies.

                      That's very interesting; you're the first person I've encountered to report
                      feeling that way.

                      However, it need not prove that the reordering is better. After all, by
                      your own account you had read LWW, PC, and VDT before you first read MN.
                      So in fact your first-reading order (the ordering debate is not meant to
                      apply to subsequent readings) was closer to a publication-first order than
                      to a chronological order, even though it was not exactly the same as either.

                      The one good argument against publication-first order is that Lewis became
                      a better writer as he went along through the Chronicles. Or at least I'd
                      agree with that statement, though that hasn't prevented LWW from becoming
                      the most indispensable classic volume of the set (which is why the first
                      movie was made of it, and why, for instance, children's lit expert K.V.
                      Johansen believes you should read LWW first, even though she accepts the
                      chronological order). But despite Lewis's improving writing I'd call the
                      best books SC (my own favorite of the set) and HHB, as MN and LB, though
                      written later, to my mind suffer slightly from being too concerned with
                      wrapping up beginnings and endings.

                      David Bratman
                    • WendellWag@aol.com
                      In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:16:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, WendellWag@aol.com writes: That s unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the
                      Message 10 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:16:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                        WendellWag@... writes:

                        That's unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the mid-1990's by the
                        publishers, hardly anyone even thought about the books being ordered in any
                        way except for the publication order. The only reason that the books got
                        re-ordered is that Douglas Gresham, who essentially controls any decisions
                        by the
                        Estate, decided that he liked the new ordering. The letter that they
                        constantly cite is a hopelessly flimsy excuse. Lewis never communicated any
                        thought
                        about re-ordering the books to anyone else except that one child, and that
                        doesn't sound like anything except him being nice to the kid.



                        When I wrote that, I was *not* discussing whether the publication or the
                        chronological ordering is "better." That's an argument about literary opinion,
                        and while I have an opinion about it, I'm willing to concede that there's an
                        argument for each side. On the subject of whether the subject of the
                        ordering of the books even came up before the mid-1990's though, I don't think
                        there's any question. No one even discussed the issue of the ordering before
                        then. The only reason that the change happened is because of the taste of
                        Douglas Gresham.

                        Wendell Wagner


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Mike Foster
                        This rather reminds of some of my more purist JRRT students who suggested beginning course readings with The Silmarillion. Right, I would say. And who
                        Message 11 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          This rather reminds of some of my more purist JRRT students who
                          suggested beginning course readings with The Silmarillion. Right, I
                          would say. And who besides the three or two of you wd. be still be
                          enrolled as of week 4?

                          Mike

                          WendellWag@... wrote:

                          >
                          >In a message dated 12/3/2005 11:16:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                          >WendellWag@... writes:
                          >
                          >That's unlikely. Until the books were re-ordered in the mid-1990's by the
                          >publishers, hardly anyone even thought about the books being ordered in any
                          >way except for the publication order. The only reason that the books got
                          >re-ordered is that Douglas Gresham, who essentially controls any decisions
                          >by the
                          >Estate, decided that he liked the new ordering. The letter that they
                          >constantly cite is a hopelessly flimsy excuse. Lewis never communicated any
                          >thought
                          >about re-ordering the books to anyone else except that one child, and that
                          >doesn't sound like anything except him being nice to the kid.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >When I wrote that, I was *not* discussing whether the publication or the
                          >chronological ordering is "better." That's an argument about literary opinion,
                          >and while I have an opinion about it, I'm willing to concede that there's an
                          >argument for each side. On the subject of whether the subject of the
                          >ordering of the books even came up before the mid-1990's though, I don't think
                          >there's any question. No one even discussed the issue of the ordering before
                          >then. The only reason that the change happened is because of the taste of
                          >Douglas Gresham.
                          >
                          >Wendell Wagner
                          >
                          >
                          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Mike Foster
                          ... Obviously others were applauding to in Nashville. ... Agreed! LWW has some of the same flaws of Out of the Silent Planet Perelandra, to a lesser extent in
                          Message 12 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David Bratman wrote:

                            >At 10:25 AM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >>We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
                            >>Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
                            >>conference Nov. 3. Applauders included me. Though I had tried
                            >>severally to read in the publication order, never got further than VotDT.
                            >>
                            >>Bought the reordered set & sped through those puppies.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >That's very interesting; you're the first person I've encountered to report
                            >feeling that way.
                            >
                            Obviously others were applauding to in Nashville.

                            >
                            >However, it need not prove that the reordering is better. After all, by
                            >your own account you had read LWW, PC, and VDT before you first read MN.
                            >So in fact your first-reading order (the ordering debate is not meant to
                            >apply to subsequent readings) was closer to a publication-first order than
                            >to a chronological order, even though it was not exactly the same as either.
                            >
                            >The one good argument against publication-first order is that Lewis became
                            >a better writer as he went along through the Chronicles.
                            >

                            Agreed! LWW has some of the same flaws of Out of the Silent Planet
                            Perelandra, to a lesser extent in the second but Lord, Perel. drags. THS is the best written of
                            the Ransom trilogy but as John Rateliff so aptly said, OotSP, attempts
                            least but succeeds most.

                            For short but more detailed observations on this, interested readers can
                            post me separately.

                            So LLW has that same baby-lion's-first-stumbling-steps charm.

                            But if Tolkien and Rowling have what Auden called "the nominative gift",
                            CSL lacks it. Rumblebuffin?

                            Mike

                            > Or at least I'd
                            >agree with that statement, though that hasn't prevented LWW from becoming
                            >the most indispensable classic volume of the set (which is why the first
                            >movie was made of it, and why, for instance, children's lit expert K.V.
                            >Johansen believes you should read LWW first, even though she accepts the
                            >chronological order). But despite Lewis's improving writing I'd call the
                            >best books SC (my own favorite of the set) and HHB, as MN and LB, though
                            >written later, to my mind suffer slightly from being too concerned with
                            >wrapping up beginnings and endings.
                            >
                            >David Bratman
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • David Bratman
                            ... Not clear exactly what aspect they were applauding. Your story - which, don t forget, essentially amounts to finding MN easier to read AFTER you d already
                            Message 13 of 23 , Dec 3, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 08:03 PM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                              >>That's very interesting; you're the first person I've encountered to report
                              >>feeling that way.
                              >>
                              >Obviously others were applauding to[o] in Nashville.

                              Not clear exactly what aspect they were applauding. Your story - which,
                              don't forget, essentially amounts to finding MN easier to read AFTER you'd
                              already read LWW, apparently more than once - remains the only one I know
                              that thereby leads to a preference for the MN-first order.

                              >This rather reminds of some of my more purist JRRT students who
                              >suggested beginning course readings with The Silmarillion. Right, I
                              >would say. And who besides the three or two of you wd. be still be
                              >enrolled as of week 4?

                              Beginning Narnia with LWW would only remind me of beginning Tolkien's
                              legendarium with The Silmarillion if LWW were as difficult and challenging
                              as The Silmarillion. Not very likely.

                              DB
                            • Stolzi
                              ... Umm, I =like= Rumblebuffin. I think there are far more problematic names elsewhere in Lewis. Bardia? Redival? I never even cared much for Elwin as
                              Message 14 of 23 , Dec 4, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > But if Tolkien and Rowling have what Auden called "the nominative gift",
                                > CSL lacks it. Rumblebuffin?
                                >

                                Umm, I =like= "Rumblebuffin." I think there are far more problematic names
                                elsewhere in Lewis. Bardia? Redival? I never even cared much for "Elwin" as
                                Ransom's first name, Tolkien-tribute though it may be.

                                Elwin Ransom
                                Was very handsome.
                                He kindled in Jane a romantic spark,
                                But then sent her back to silly old Mark.

                                Diamond Proudbrook
                              • Stolzi
                                ... Where or when did he do that, Mike? I asked him a question at the banquet which touched on this, but don t remember such a specific defense in his answer;
                                Message 15 of 23 , Dec 4, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >
                                  >>At 10:25 AM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>>We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
                                  >>>Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
                                  >>>conference Nov. 3.

                                  Where or when did he do that, Mike? I asked him a question at the banquet
                                  which touched on this, but don't remember such a specific defense in his
                                  answer; but then I have a memory like a sieve, and I don't mean a Pensieve.

                                  Diamond Proudbrook
                                • Mike Foster
                                  At the banquet on Nov. 3, during the Q&A after his speech. Reepicheep is the worst nominative offender. Mike ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Dec 4, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At the
                                    banquet on Nov. 3, during the Q&A after his speech.

                                    Reepicheep is the worst nominative offender.

                                    Mike

                                    Stolzi wrote:

                                    >>>At 10:25 AM 12/3/2005 -0600, Mike Foster wrote:
                                    >>>
                                    >>>
                                    >>>
                                    >>>
                                    >>>>We discussed this yesterday when Far Westfarthing smial discussed LWW.
                                    >>>>Gresham had defended his re-ordering at Belmont University's CSL
                                    >>>>conference Nov. 3.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >
                                    >Where or when did he do that, Mike? I asked him a question at the banquet
                                    >which touched on this, but don't remember such a specific defense in his
                                    >answer; but then I have a memory like a sieve, and I don't mean a Pensieve.
                                    >
                                    >Diamond Proudbrook
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.