<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I am pleased to see Offner demonstrated a clear difference
between our respective views on Nezahualcoyotl and his Texcoco. At the same
time, I am very much disappointed by the fact that he continues to
misunderstand or ignore the main point of my argument. Please see the following
quote from Offner’s book: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>“I selected the Texcocan empire for investigation
because its political structure is significantly different from that of
Tenochtitlan and because its legal systems are the best reported of all of the
Aztec legal systems” (xiii).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>One of the main arguments of my article was to show that
there was no significant difference between the systems of Texcoco and
Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Offner’s points on legal anthropology are well
taken, but I am not trying to reconstruct the legal systems. And my argument
makes no value judgment about such systems. I am more interested in the representation
of these systems and the value judgments made by colonial writers. I should say
that I appreciate the substantive critique that Offner has provided in his last
two posts, and I will certain look closely at them. It may be that I need to
reassess some of the details of my interpretation of the pictographic sources
that I analyze. I’m sure I will learn from his critique as I have learned
from his published work. However, I still see nothing that refutes my central
argument. Aside from the issue of whether I have committed errors in some of
the details of my interpretation of the pictographic sources, one of the main
issues here has to do with our views of colonial texts such as those of
Ixtlilxochitl, Duran, and Motolinia. Although I recognize that these and other
writers had extensive knowledge of indigenous culture and history, this does
not mean that they were completely objective in their writings. From what he
says, Offner essentially wants to defer to them. It turns out that this
uncritical reliance upon colonial sources was already pointed out by Pedro
Carrasco’s review of Offner’s book (American Ethnologist, Vol. 12,
No. 4, 1985: pp. 803-805). For more information on the methodological problems
of Offner’s approach to the Texcocan legal system, see Elizabeth
Brumfiel’s review of Offner’s Book (Ethnohistory, Vol. 32, No. 2,
1985: pp. 187-188). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>My argument does not deny that colonial Spanish and Texcocan
writers had more knowledge about indigenous culture and history than we do
today. Rather, I argue that their works willfully transform and misinterpret
certain aspects of that culture and history to serve their ideological ends
derived from the colonial context in which they were writing. It seems clear
that this approach offends Offner as he names it “arrogant
revisionism,” because it runs contrary to his own views. While it is true
that my argument maintains that Offner and others have not been sufficiently
critical of colonial sources, I have attempted to be as respectful as possible
in this critique. My work is certainly revisionist, and I suppose that in a
way any revisionist work may seem to have an inherent arrogance. But I hope
that such arrogance is limited to the inherent nature of the revisionist
project. Although it seems that Offner has taken my respectful critique
personally, I do not take offense at the substance of his critique of my work.
As I said, I’m sure I will learn from it. In a way I am flattered that
Offner attributes such influence to my work that he fears it will change everyone’s
mind about Nezahualcoyotl. Although I am sure that I may have made some errors
of interpretation (who hasn’t?), I think my general argument is correct,
so I hope it does change everyone’s mind. But that is not the way scholarship
works. Offner himself will be championing his views as will others with the
same perspective. I’m sure that many people will agree with him. And as
is evident from the reviews I cited above, others may agree more with me,
although perhaps not in all the details. This is the way things work. As I said
before, I hope people interested in the topic will actually read all the
relevant research, look at the original sources, draw their own conclusions,
and perhaps make their own contributions. And afterward we can all go out for
that virtual beer that Michel mentioned.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Jongsoo <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org [mailto:nahuatl-bounces@lists.famsi.org] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Jerry Offner<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nahuat-L<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Nahuat-l] Interpreting the Mappe Quinatzin, leaf 2 and leaf 3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Recently,
I said I would point out basic and serious errors in just two paragraphs of
Jongsoo Lee’s recent article in <i>Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl</i>. Here
is the second post. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Note:
Robert Barlow’s article on <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i>, leaf 3 can be found at
this location, although, unfortunately the overall photo and line drawing have
been obscured. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a
href="http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/jsa_0037-9174_1950_num_39_1_2384">http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/jsa_0037-9174_1950_num_39_1_2384#</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>A
quick search has found no other free-access on-line images of leaf 3, although
those with on-line journal access—increasingly available with a public
library card--can use the excellent illustration on the first page of Douglas’s
discerning article in <i>The Art Bulletin</i> cited below).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Here are
errors in the paragraph on the <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i> that spans pages 246-247.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>1. Lee
relates: “Regarding adultery, the <i>Mapa Quinatzin</i> describes three
types of adultery and their punishments.” This is not true. It depicts
three punishments for adultery dictated by only two separate fact sets of a
given case, or in Lee’s terms, only two types of adultery and their
punishments. These are shown in only two of the three rows of the third column
of leaf 3. The second row shows that in the case of “los adúlteros que
mataban el adulterado” (Ixtlilxochitl’s explanation [1975:II,102];
the glosses on the codex offer no help), the man was roasted alive with water
and salt (1975:II,102) splashed on him while the woman was executed by some
form of strangulation. In the third row, adulterers are shown being stoned to
death. The first row is not a c! rime and punishment vignette at all but
instead deals with legal process—temporary imprisonment before the
accused could be investigated and tried. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>2. Lee then
attributes his own false interpretation of the third column, row one to
Ixtlilxochitl. “According to Ixtlilxochitl’s interpretation,
adulterers were flattened by a large and heavy stone, or were stoned in the <i>tianguis</i>
(market); or if the adulterers had killed their spouses, then the male was
burned to death and the female was hanged.” This is not
Ixtlilxochitl’s interpretation. I spend many pages discussing adultery
legal rules in 1983 (257-266) and point out where Ixtlilxochitl’s
descriptions do not resemble this column and the one instance where they do
resemble it most closely (1983:258-59; Ixtlilxochitl 1975: II,101-102) and in
this instance, Ixtlilxochitl does not mention head crushing by stones at all
but instead describes the contents of ! column 3, rows two and three only.
What is clear is that Ixtlilxochitl does not confuse the first row of column 3
with being crushed by stones. Lee must instead be the confused party, because
he speaks of the <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i> describing “three types of adultery
and their punishments” and then proceeds to describe rows two and three
but also volunteers his own false description for the first row. This is a
fundamental error in pictorial interpretation contravened by plainly visible
evidence and all other interpretations (except for Mohar Betancourt’s
post-2001 confusion regarding this scene pointed out in my reviews recently in<i>
Ethnohistory</i> [English] and<i> ECN</i> [Spanish, with additions] of her book
on the<i> Mappe Quina! tzin</i>). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The scene in
the first row of column 3 is not a legal rule and punishment, as is clear from
Barlow’s article in 1950 and from my work in 1983. My 34 year old
photocopy of Barlow’s article </span><span class=apple-converted-space><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>(</span></span><span
class=apple-style-span><i><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>Journal de Ia Société des Américanistes</span></i></span><span
class=apple-style-span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>, n.s., 39 [</span></span><em><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black;font-style:normal'>1950]</span></em><span class=apple-style-span><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>! : 111-24), which Lee
cites, clearly </span></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>shows
the Nahuatl gloss describing the scene in the first row as a wooden structure
or jail where people are put </span><span class=apple-style-span><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>and </span></span><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Barlow correctly translates it and
describes it as a wooden jail and surmises correctly that it contains an
adulterous pair. Barlow (1950:120) reports and interprets the large and bold
Nahuatl gloss as “coauhcalco tetlaliloya” “lugar de la casa
de madera, lugar donde se pone a la gente” (cf. very similar paleography
and translation in Mohar Betancourt 2004:307). In addition, Motolinia describes
exactly this sort of holding cell and its general role in legal process
(1971:359). Chimalpopoca i! s shown in one in the <i>Codex Xol otl</i> prior
to his death (X.080.J, using Thouvenot’s modern, standard reference
system). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>3. Before
these errors, Lee makes the claim that “The majority of the crimes and
punishments that appear in Ixtlilxochitl’s texts are clearly depicted in
leaf 3 of this map.” This is a false claim. There are indeed eleven
legal vignettes on this leaf, showing ten crime and punishment pairs, although
Lee would probably only count eight because he prefers not to understand the
content of the fourth column as I explained it in 1982 and in 1983 (confirmed
by Eduardo Douglas in 2003; <i>Art Bulletin</i>, LXXXV, no. 2 [June 2003]:
281-309; Mohar Betancourt also largely mishandles this column; both Lee and
Mohar Betancourt falter where legal process, as opposed to mere legal rules, is
depicted).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>In column 1,
there are three forms of one crime, theft, each with the same punishment. In
column 2 are two forms of offenses against the state with their punishments,
one of which is the same as in column 1, and in column 3, there are three
punishments (two of which are new) for one crime: adultery. The fourth column
depicts no new punishments but it does record two crimes of judicial
corruption, at least one of which we know was a violation of a legal rule or
became the case basis (or precedent) for a legal rule. One vignette is in the
time of Nezahualcoyotl and the other during the reign of Nezahualpilli, whose
elaborately drawn glyphs respectively appear in each scene. (A third scene in
this column is cut off and onl! y partly decipherable but a gloss seems to name
Nezahualpilli). In all, four separate kinds of punishment are shown. Lee
would evidently count five kinds of punishment (to include heads being crushed
by stones) and four types of crimes or even eight if he wishes to consider each
form of theft and adultery (i.e. the three he mistakenly describes) a separate
crime. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Lee himself
cites a group of legal rules found in Ixtlilxochitl (1975:I, 385-386) earlier
in this same paragraph. These rules are considered without hesitation by
O’Gorman to be his work (1975:I, 199), and contain at least seventeen
additional offenses and three additional punishments—most of the time it
does not define the exact punishment involved. And there are a good number of
other legal rules dealing with (additional) crime and (additional) punishment
pairs in other places in Ixtlilxochitl, not to mention other sources with close
ties to Texcoco. Lee’s mathematics is incorrect. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>4. Lee
states: “His (Ixtlilxochitl’s) alphabetic texts are supported by a
pictorial source, the <i>Mapa Quinatzin</i>.” This assertion of “a
source” is a very weak argument from absence. Lee cannot be sure this
was the sole pictorial source and he would be clearly wrong if he is implying
it was his sole source (see below). Lee goes on to say: “A comparison
between the description of the crimes and punishments and the third part of the
map reveals that the alphabetic texts are exact transcriptions/translations of
the map.” This is another false claim, and on two counts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>First, as can
be seen by the variety of reports of legal rules in Ixtlilxochitl that are
presented in my book from 1983, the simple reason that the alphabetic texts are
not “exact transcriptions/translations of the map” is that the
very great majority of legal rules reported in the alphabetic texts are not
shown on the <i>Mappe Quinatzin </i>at all. Second, Ixtlilxochitl provides information
that is not found on the <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i>, leaf 3 itself. For example,
without Ixtlilxochitl’s additional information, we would not know why
there are differing punishments for the adulterous man and woman in column 3,
row 2, nor would we know the details of the case of judicial corruption in
column 4, row 2, and we would only have Vetancurt’s creative narrative
tran! sformation (or perhaps only defective explanation) of column 2, row 2,
cited by Lee later in the article. A careful consideration of the content of
the alphabetic sources in comparison with the content of the <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i>
shows that the <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i> was not Ixtlilxochitl’s principal
source of information on Texcocan law. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>5. Having
misinterpreted and misrepresented the <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i>, leaf 3 and its
role in Ixtlilxochitl’s work, Lee closes the paragraph with a singular
misrepresentation of the work of Ixtlilxochitl: “Based on his [actually,
Lee’s erroneous perception and presentation of Ixtlilxochitl’s]
reading of the<i> Mapa Quinatzin</i>, therefore, Ixtlilxochitl sees
Nezahualcoyotl as the greatest lawmaker in all of Anahuac.”
Ixtlilxochitl, thoroughly bilingual beyond Lee’s or any modern
person’s abilities, and with decades of intelligent fieldwork exploring
Texcocan history and culture, with Texcocan and many other informants from the
sixteenth century with whom any one of us would pay a great price to spend a
single hour, and with ac! cess to many documents now lost to us, based his
opinion on a rather broader set of evidence than Lee wishes to admit or advise
the reader to perceive. Lee consistently writes to diminish what evidence
there is and thereby diminish and demean the judgment of people such as
Ixtlilxochitl, Motolinia and Duran who knew more about Nahua culture and
history than Lee or any of us can imagine. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>It is
important to note that these errors are not differences in interpretation or
differences in opinion. They are serious mistakes in interpreting the central
pictorial documents of Texcocan political and legal administration and history
and relating them to the alphabetic texts. Barlow, Dibble, Gibson and others
were modern pioneers in the correct interpretation of such materials and their
links to the alphabetic texts. With regard to proper understanding of leaf 3
of the <i>Mappe Quinatzin</i>, first recognized by Barlow and published in
1950, Lee has set the clock back by more than half a century. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Ethnohistorians
take on a special burden in understanding a dead culture and must struggle to
acculturate themselves into that culture through years of dedicated practice
with the scant information available. Lee is not well along in this process. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>For me it
boils down to this: what evidence is more credible: (1) the opinions of
people such as Duran and Motolinia, who lived and worked with the people on the
ground in the early colonial period, regarding the origin, history, quality and
relative reputation of the Texcocan legal system, or (2) the opinion of a
literary critic well over four centuries later who wishes to expose such
sources as somehow gullible or incompetent but who cannot interpret the scant
available basic legal and political pictorial information accurately, relate it
to the alphabetic texts correctly and report it accurately? Careful and
well-reasoned criticism of sixteenth century sources is valuable, but only when
it is carried out without such basic errors involved. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I am glad to
hear that at least one of these errors in the <i>ECN</i> article was revised
out by Lee and expunged during the peer review of the manuscript for
Lee’s recent book. Hopefully, enough were caught so the trajectory of
argumentation was significantly changed, but perhaps instead, blindered and
boxed-in by this early demonstrably poor basic research, it has persisted
unrevised. If so, then this misrepresentation and disfigurement of Nezahualcoyotl,
Texcoco, Duran, Motolinia, Ixtlilxochitl and others will simply expand.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>It is time to
set limits on such involuntary masquerades for the dead, arranged and conducted
by practitioners proclaiming their superior critical abilities and going out of
their way to demean those of others, while thrusting false masks in the face of
the far more accomplished dead. This overconfidence in the discipline and the
subsequent objectification and excessive and faulty criticism of these worthy
sources need study and the resulting problems require correction. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Can sources
be effectively and critically handled within the limits of our current
knowledge? The answer of course is yes, with the best recent example being
Sylvie Peperstraete’s <span class=apple-style-span><u>La Chronique X :
Reconstitution Et Analyse D'une Source Perdue Fondamentale Sur La Civilisation
Azteque, D'apres L'Historia De Las Indias De Nueva Espana De D. Duran (1581) Et
La Cronica Mexicana De F.A. Tezozomoc (Ca. 1598)</u>. It is published by <i>Archaeopress</i>
and is available through their US distributor at this address: <a
href="http://www.oxbowbooks.com/results.cfm/q/peperstraete/qt/All/ST/QS/StartRow/1">http://www.oxbowbooks.com/results.cfm/q/peperstraete/qt/All/ST/QS/StartRow/1</a></span></span><span
class=apple-style-span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Upon
finishing the book, the reader will understand as never before the limitations
on the accuracy of this Tenochcan source and its two dependent sources, Duran
and Tezozomoc, but, because of the author’s discerning, patient and
perspicacious approach, the reader will also be part of a process of unlocking
and understanding much additional information within these sources. </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Jerry Offner<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a
href="mailto:ixtlil@earthlink.net">ixtlil@earthlink.net</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>