<font face="times new roman, serif">On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<br></font><div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<font face="times new roman, serif">I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important as an OA tipping point.</font></blockquote><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br>
</font></div><font face="times new roman, serif">We are clearly not understanding one another:</font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents">
<font face="times new roman, serif">Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they still need a tweak (as noted).</font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br>
</font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.)</font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br>
</font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">But no, <i>Delayed Access is not OA</i>, let alone <i>Green OA</i>, although that is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA.</font></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<font face="times new roman, serif">As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with CHORUS.</font></blockquote><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div>
<font face="times new roman, serif">Yes, that's the point: <i>CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it in the hands and on the site of publishers</i>. That is abundantly clear.</font></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">And my point was about how <i>bad</i> that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the research community and the future of OA.</font></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">But the verb should be CHORUS "<i>would be</i>," not CHORUS "<i>is</i>" -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. </font></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">(The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community are working hard to keep it out!)</font></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<font face="times new roman, serif">The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model.</font></blockquote>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><font face="times new roman, serif">Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the future of OA.</font></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a <i>fait accompli</i>, and the hope (of OA advocates </font><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">and the concerned research community) is that it never will be.</span></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, PMC) needs is an upgrade </font><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the </span><span style="font-family:'times new roman',serif">allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject based </span></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the time being).</font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br>
</font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct it.</font></div>
<div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div class="AppleOriginalContents"><font face="times new roman, serif">Stevan Harnad</font></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, not <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-Tilting-at-the-Tipping-Point.html" target="_blank">the one I was discussing</a>. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. The <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html" target="_blank">Trojan Horse</a> would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" invitation <i>to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to publishers</i>, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own institutional repositories.</div>
<div><br></div><div>3. To repeat: <i>Delayed Access</i> is not <i>Open Acces</i>s -- any more than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access, toll-free, for all.</div><div><br></div><div>
4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But OA means <i>immediate access</i>, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.)</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own language.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly) <i>criticizing</i> the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.]</div>
<div><br></div><div>But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes <a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/" target="_blank">for the time being</a> -- as long as deposit is mandated to be done <a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html" target="_blank">immediately</a> upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated <a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy" target="_blank">Eprint Request Button</a>.</div>
<div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html" target="_blank">The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model</a></div>
</div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-guid.html" target="_blank">Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI)</a></div>
</div> </div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html" target="_blank">Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate</a></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font face="times new roman, serif">On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</font><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif"> </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif">
The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based
even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12
months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that
meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. Many
of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will
significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is
implemented over the next few years.<br></font></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><strong style="vertical-align:baseline;line-height:18px;text-align:left;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:12px;margin:0px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,sans-serif;padding:0px;border:0px">[David Wojick </strong><span style="line-height:18px;text-align:left;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,'Lucida Grande',Verdana,sans-serif"> works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering.]</span> </blockquote>
</div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif">Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will <u><i>not</i></u> be taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">"</span><a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/scientific-publishers-offer-solu.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px" target="_blank">CHORUS</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">." </span> It is tripping point, not a tipping point.</font></div>
<div><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif">If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year embargo.</font></div>
<div><font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving </span><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=psy-ab&q=(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=serp.3...14364.16642.0.17599.8.8.0.0.0.0.165.748.7j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.9T7OcUOL6gE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=674" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px" target="_blank">anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px"> by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "</span><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=psy-ab&q=(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=serp.3...41865.56372.1.57067.38.30.8.0.0.0.129.2666.28j2.30.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.oY8Xj19aWIM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=674" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px" target="_blank">PRISM coalition</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">" and the "</span><a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=serp.3...15413.22277.0.23563.20.20.0.0.0.1.137.1792.17j3.20.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.JkaNf1Hb3Oc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=674" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px" target="_blank">Research Works Act</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">."</span></font><blockquote style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">
<font face="times new roman, serif">1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research.<br>
<br>2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research,<em> not vice versa</em>!<br>
<br>3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See <a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" target="_blank">ROARMAP</a>.<br>
<br>4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#q=embargo+OR+embargoes+OR+embargoed+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=xemwUeqMEOSwyQGjn4DgBg&ved=0CBsQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47534661,d.aWc&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=672" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" target="_blank">embargoes</a> of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be <a href="http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/delayed/laakso_bj_rk_delay_preprint.pdf" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" target="_blank">immediate</a> in the online era.<br>
<br>5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA.<br><br>6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under the pretext of <em>saving "precious research funds" for research</em>!<br>
<br>7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes.<br>
<br>8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers.<br><br>9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA.<br>
<br>10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research.<br>
</font></blockquote><font face="times new roman, serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either.</span></font></div><div>
<font face="times new roman, serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif">[And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing industry?]<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">
<br>Eisen, M. (2013) </font><a href="http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1382" target="_blank">A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their “solution” to public access</a></div><div><br><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:'times new roman',serif">Giles, J. (2007) </span><a href="http://cwis.usc.edu/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Nature_PR%20Pit%20Bull%2007-0124.pdf" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px;font-family:'times new roman',serif" target="_blank">PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:'times new roman',serif">. Nature 5 January 2007.</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:'times new roman',serif">Harnad, S. (2012) </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.htm" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px;font-family:'times new roman',serif" target="_blank">Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:'times new roman',serif">. </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:'times new roman',serif">Open Access Archivangelism</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:'times new roman',serif"> 287 January 7. 2012</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">
</div><div><font face="times new roman, serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px"><br></span></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><font face="times new roman, serif">At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote:</font><br><blockquote type="cite"><font face="times new roman, serif">
<b>Summary:</b> The findings of Eric Archambault’s (2013) pilot study
“<a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/ISSI-ARchambeault.pdf" target="_blank">
The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age</a>” on the percentage of OA
that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The
study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA
in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, <i>when in that
5-year interval the articles were made OA</i>. Hence the study cannot
indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being
made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles
published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is
through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA,
immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline.<br><br>
See:
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html" target="_blank">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html</a>
</font></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br>