[Dialogue] The Grand Design

[jlepps at pc.jaring.my]

These are good, Jim. Thanks.

The Winquist quote reminded me of something from 
CS-1: the sacred has shifted from edge 
experiences to central onest. It's no longer the 
lovely sunset or the stunning music that is the 
source of awe; these days that experience comes 
in doing the dishes...something like that..

John

At 11:21 PM 5/17/2012, you wrote:
>This two sided conversation needs 
>broadening.  Consider, for instance, Butter 
>Pecan -- home made, with fresh roasted pecans from the back yard . . .
>
>On another subject, I recall a moment in some 
>collegium or something when JWM was being a 
>philosopher and got talking about your principal 
>of reality and your principal of value and which 
>was prior to which.  His point seemed to be if 
>you start with the principal of reality, then 
>"good" is a description of what is.  If you 
>start with the principal of value, then you have 
>some notion of good by which you judge what 
>is.  I was wandering around the Realistic Living 
>website and found these two comments there.
>
>My point, once again, is not that those ancient 
>people told literal stories and we are now smart 
>enough to take them symbolically, but that they 
>told them symbolically and we are now dumb 
>enough to take them literally. They knew what 
>they were doing; we don't." -  John Dominic Crossan
>The notion of depth is a valuation of 
>experiences and the real question is whether 
>such a value can be assigned to any experience 
>or complex of experiences in our secular 
>culture. Schliermacher's feeling of absolute 
>dependence or Tillich's ultimate concern would 
>qualify for a valuation of depth if we had such 
>experiences. Traditional concepts of revelation 
>cloaked in numinosity would qualify if we had 
>such experiences. A secular postmodern theology 
>begins with an acknowledgement of a lack of such 
>experiences in many of our lives and asks if any 
>such experience can be had or so transformed 
>such that it can be valued as real and important." -  Charles E. Winquist
>
>
>Jim Wiegel
>
>Many have tried to define creativity, to 
>quantify and qualify it . . .  Some say it 
>involves imagination;  Whatever your definition 
>of creativity or the creative process, marvelous 
>creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center
>
>401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
>+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel
>jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com
>
>Upcoming public course opportunities:
>ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012
>ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012
>The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012
>Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the 
>Technology of Participation program is available 
>in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 
>22-24, 2012. See website for further details.
>AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses
>
>--- On Thu, 5/17/12, jlepps at pc.jaring.my <jlepps at pc.jaring.my> wrote:
>
>From: jlepps at pc.jaring.my <jlepps at pc.jaring.my>
>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
>To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>
>Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 7:52 PM
>
>Just one more thought tonight, Jack.
>
>I think our point of difference is in the matter 
>of values (of which we share many). You describe 
>them (beyond the ice cream) as "part of the 
>fabric of creation itself that are always 
>present and can't be negated." That sounds a lot 
>like how Hawking describes laws of science. But 
>I assume you mean something different.
>
>When I use the term "values" I am pointing to a 
>relationship between two entities, usually me 
>and the item valued. The value is not a thing 
>that can be eternal, absolute, and unchanging. 
>It's a relationship I take to the entity, 
>whether it be life, being-itself, or strawberry 
>ice cream (actually I prefer mint-chocolate). I 
>believe the point of Christianity is that a 
>positive relationship to all of reality (animal, 
>vegetable, mineral, and whatever else is real) 
>makes for authentic humanness. We often fail to 
>attain that positive posture (speaking for 
>myself, at least), but that doesn't make the 
>point less valid. If that point is what you mean 
>by "absolute value", a structure of the cosmos, 
>then OK. But that's a faith statement, a 
>decision, and not a scientifically-provable one.
>
>That position has been communicated in a large 
>number of scientific world-views, many of which 
>have been discarded -- though our expressions 
>meant to communicate that posture seem to lag 
>behind the changing world views by decades or centuries.
>
>Your desire to create a grand union of science 
>and religion leaves me a little uneasy. Clearly 
>it does not now exist. But there have been times 
>when it did -- the Middle Ages, for example. The 
>science was a two-story universe bridged by the 
>hierarchy, both religious and feudal. People 
>were able communicate the goodness of reality in that universe of discourse.
>
>My guess is that there is not a world view 
>established enough to merge seamlessly with 
>faith statements, so I choose to keep them 
>separate. This leaves me at liberty to enjoy 
>reading Brian Green's Fabric of the 
>Cosmos    without understanding much of it. 
>There are entire paragraphs that seem to be in 
>English -- at least the words do -- but I have 
>no idea what he's talking about. It's sort of an 
>exercise in humility. But it's also valuable to 
>keep up with what changes are taking place in understanding the world.
>
>Thanks again for your insights.
>
>John
>
>John
>
>
>At 06:24 PM 5/17/2012, you wrote:
>
>>On May 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>>
>>>Who said the list serve can't be a place for significant dialogue!!?!
>>
>>You're right about that.  I'm getting some heat 
>>from Steve Herrington that we are talking in 
>>abstractions and I guess we need to include 
>>some groundings.  So I hope he likes my comments on ice cream!
>>>
>>>Thanks Jack, Jim, and Randy for your comments. 
>>>Here are a couple of additional thoughts 
>>>mostly in response to Jack's latest (below).
>>>
>>>First of all, I thoroughly agree with Jack's 
>>>assertion about our being able to cooperate in 
>>>the ongoing creation of reality. We are able 
>>>to apprehend a dimension of awesomeness.
>>>
>>>Secondly, I don't agree with the idea that 
>>>creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) renders 
>>>all values void. In fact, creation from 
>>>nothing has been a Christian principle since 
>>>the second century. (Google it for more 
>>>details.) It does not render values void at 
>>>all. If anything, it increases the wonder of it all.
>>
>>John, it may be a "wonder" but where do the 
>>values come from?  It is just our personal 
>>opinion, or are they indeed universal - present 
>>as part of the eternal.  But if we have all of 
>>creation just coming at a particular point in 
>>time, some 21 billion years ago, then are 
>>values part of the "energy" set that began the 
>>whole thing, or they just creation of our 
>>minds?  And as for creation out of nothing (ex 
>>nihilo) I agree, but let's be clear that when 
>>you say "no-thing" your saying that it is 
>>coming from the void, which is not a thing, or 
>>place, or a time, it is a repository of all.
>>>
>>>Thirdly, if "All that is, is good" -- HR 
>>>Niebuhr), then the idea of absolutes gets a 
>>>good kick in the shin! If everything is good, 
>>>what more is needed? That would also mean that 
>>>whatever science discovers about reality, that's good too.
>>
>>I'm not to clear about what you're saying with 
>>this.  Are you saying there are no 
>>absolutes??  Not to be picky, but wouldn't a 
>>statement that there are no absolutes be an 
>>absolute?  Certainly whatever science discovers 
>>about this world is good and valid.  It is just 
>>not complete nor the final word.  I'm glad 
>>someone discovered medicines, engines and a few 
>>other helpful things!  Hell, I even have a few patents myself!
>>>
>>>Fourth, I don't quite understand your 
>>>statement that unless some version of science 
>>>is valid, then nothing is valuable. It seems 
>>>to me that there are things and people I 
>>>value, regardless of whether or not there is a 
>>>superior intelligence that also values them. 
>>>In fact if there is, then (s)he/it has good 
>>>taste! But whether or not there is, I still 
>>>value you, the people reading this, our common 
>>>past experiences, music, and much more. Their 
>>>value to me does not depend on some scientific view of reality.
>>
>>I hope I didn't say that, and if I did, I 
>>misspoke.  Of course much of science is great, 
>>sound and highly beneficial.  But I think we're 
>>not talking about just any values.  I like 
>>vanilla ice-cream and you value strawberry.  It 
>>may be relative and/or subjective.  We live 
>>with those difference in values every day.  The 
>>question is; are there a set of universal 
>>values, part of the fabric of creation itself 
>>that are always present and can't be 
>>negated.  And are these values something we can 
>>intuit, access and live.  If so, how did they 
>>emerge from nothing (as in a Big Bang) or are they inventions of our minds?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd like to pose a position: I do not think 
>>>faith depends on any scientific world view. 
>>>Time after time, scientists have made 
>>>discoveries that the religious regarded as 
>>>incompatible with faith, and proceeded to hold 
>>>back progress for ages. I believe that the two 
>>>speak of different dimensions: the surface 
>>>(science) and the depth (faith). Whatever 
>>>science allows to be the case, I am quite 
>>>prepared to accept. If they are questionable, 
>>>it will be disproven on their own terms.
>>
>>This question you raise is at the heart of the 
>>matter.  Are we destined to live forever in two 
>>realms, science and faith?  Or, is there a way 
>>that enables the integration of both into one 
>>system, that validates both and allows both to 
>>communicate with a discipline?  The point I'm 
>>trying to make is that "surface" and "depth" 
>>are not two things, they are one thing.  Isn't 
>>that what our insight and breakthrough is when 
>>we say NSV/NRM are the same thing seen in two different lights?
>>>
>>>I'm not a scientist!  But I am quite 
>>>interested in what they have to say about 
>>>reality and looking for implications. Some of 
>>>it seems pretty far-fetched -- like the notion 
>>>of an infinite number of universes, which, if 
>>>true, would mean that somewhere in some other 
>>>universe there is another carbon copy of me 
>>>writing another carbon copy of you! The 
>>>reasoning seems to be that since you and I and 
>>>our surroundings are all composed of a finite 
>>>number of atoms (or strings or whatever), in 
>>>an infinite number of universes, there would 
>>>have to be duplication! I can appreciate the 
>>>shock of discovering that Earth is not the 
>>>center of the universe, but the notion that 
>>>you and I are not necessarily unique and un-repeatable seems a bit much!
>>
>>Amen to that!
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks again for your comments, and let's hear from others.
>>>
>>>Grace & Peace
>>>John
>>>
>>>At 11:49 AM 5/17/2012, you wrote:
>>>>John,
>>>>
>>>>That (where did they come from?) is one of 
>>>>the issues regarding values as well.  If it 
>>>>all started as "nothing" then there is no 
>>>>reason to say there are any absolutes 
>>>>regarding values.  Nothing has value, 
>>>>including us.  That is why they can talk about a "selfish gene".
>>>>
>>>>But there are more serious problems with the 
>>>>the scientific theory as it is presently 
>>>>modeled.  For one, they speak of space and 
>>>>time as a continuum separate from the 
>>>>creative process.  It is stated that 
>>>>everything started from a "place" of infinite 
>>>>density and singularity of space.  A theory 
>>>>that can never be proven but only is a 
>>>>mathematical equation.  The same thing for 
>>>>"time".  To speak of what "started" something 
>>>>is to see time (like space) as something 
>>>>independent of matter, like "Everything 
>>>>exists in a space and time continuum".  So if 
>>>>we exist "in space" and space is expanding 
>>>>(like a balloon), like the Big Bang says we 
>>>>are all growing away from each other, then 
>>>>why aren't the parts we can see like atoms 
>>>>etc. (which also exist in this independent space time continuum) expanding?
>>>>
>>>>The third problem area is 
>>>>"causality".  Something outside (of what?) 
>>>>must have caused things to happen if it 
>>>>wasn't the Big Bang, an intelligence, which 
>>>>if followed to infinite regression leads to no answer.
>>>>
>>>>So we are left with the scientist saying 
>>>>"accept the Big Bang" and YOU deal with all 
>>>>the questions that arise.  But think for a 
>>>>moment of what you're being asked to take on 
>>>>"faith" (science would say "almost confirmed 
>>>>theory").  It all started from singularity, 
>>>>(and we can tell you within a billion years 
>>>>of so) of "when" that was, that every morsel 
>>>>of "stuff" was somehow compacted in some way 
>>>>so that it all fit in basically no space at 
>>>>all, and, oh by the way, there is also 95% of 
>>>>it we can't see, identify, detect only by 
>>>>inference or indirectly, but our model tells 
>>>>us exists and we'll call that "dark matter".  Talk about a leap of faith!!!
>>>>
>>>>No, there was no "beginning" and there is no 
>>>>"end".  The creative process is inherent in 
>>>>the universe and is present everywhere (and 
>>>>nowhere).  Space and time are an integral 
>>>>part of the creative process.  All "things" 
>>>>exist in space and time, but they also exist 
>>>>in the void that transcends space and 
>>>>time.  That is what the quantum reality 
>>>>is.  GOD is not "outside" of anything, 
>>>>because there is no outside, but there is a 
>>>>void, which is just another aspect of what 
>>>>is.  If you only base all your knowledge on 
>>>>the ability of left side of the brain to 
>>>>"understand", that is, language and 
>>>>mathematics, you get these contorted 
>>>>expressions of explanations that require 
>>>>alternative universes, 10-11 dimensions of 
>>>>reality, and stories that everything came 
>>>>from nothing.  But we have access to another 
>>>>side of the brain, the intuitive side, one 
>>>>that is capable of direct knowledge of the void.
>>>>
>>>>People from the beginning of civilization 
>>>>have struggled with understanding the purpose 
>>>>of it all, the Mystery, the wonder, the awe 
>>>>of life.  And it cannot be reduced to "Oh, we 
>>>>just haven't had enough time to figure it 
>>>>out, or the mathematics to confirm".  "If you 
>>>>only knew the "facts" then the "unknown 
>>>>unknown" as a friend once put it in a poem, 
>>>>would be known and understood".  No!!  GOD is 
>>>>not that which we haven't quite figured out 
>>>>yet.  To be "made in God's image" means that 
>>>>we have the inherent capacity to directly 
>>>>know, to access the Void and to be part of 
>>>>the one and only creative process.  Indeed, 
>>>>that one creative process, like a fractal, 
>>>>can be seen and understood to be a system 
>>>>that operates at any level you want to focus 
>>>>on; the atom, the cell, the body, the 
>>>>community, the organization, the biosphere, 
>>>>the earth, the solar system or the galaxy.
>>>>
>>>>It is so easy for people like Bill Maher to 
>>>>destroy religious statements or beliefs.  But 
>>>>if you want to counter his stupid put downs, 
>>>>you have to play only on the field of his 
>>>>(and scientists) definition; objective, 
>>>>explicit causality.  But there are 
>>>>alternatives to this field, which take into 
>>>>account both objective and subjective, 
>>>>explicit and implicit reality and allows one 
>>>>to understand how the creative process unfolds.
>>>>
>>>>That is why our work on The Other World (in 
>>>>the midst of This World) is of such earth 
>>>>shaking importance.  We are not talking about 
>>>>how we found some words to hold awesome 
>>>>experiences and that can really be 
>>>>helpful.  No, we (and many others) stumbled 
>>>>upon a reality that was hidden from us for 
>>>>centuries because of giving credence and 
>>>>truth only to objective, explicit and 
>>>>verifiable dimensions of reality.  Everything 
>>>>else was just waiting its turn to be 
>>>>understood and figured out.  The Universe is 
>>>>just a gigantic bake shop and us muffins are 
>>>>just random products of a rather wild cooking 
>>>>process.  No recipe, no cook, just rather 
>>>>marvelously looking and behaving "accidents" 
>>>>of a whirling soup.  Get over your 
>>>>importance, your sense of purpose, your sense 
>>>>of awe and wonder.  These are just 
>>>>psychological inventions we have created to 
>>>>deal with that which we don't know and they 
>>>>really don't exist except as helpful coping concepts.
>>>>
>>>>I won't go on, this is far to much 
>>>>already.  But let me conclude with the 
>>>>following.  Most physicists and 
>>>>mathematicians would have you believe that 
>>>>the Big Bang theory is the only real game in 
>>>>town.  But if you Google "Alternatives to the 
>>>>Big Bang Theory" you'll see there are many 
>>>>other answers.  I think most are still trying 
>>>>to play on the Objective, Explicit playing 
>>>>field (because that is the boundary science 
>>>>has put on understanding reality) but it 
>>>>ain't quite the consensus that you would be led to believe from most people.
>>>>
>>>>Peace brother,
>>>>
>>>>Jack
>>>>On May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks Jack.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think the book characterizes reality 
>>>>>as the result of mindless randomness. But 
>>>>>here's a question: if the universe is an 
>>>>>"intelligent system," how did it get 
>>>>>started? Was the big bang caused by 
>>>>>something else? This can lead to infinite regression.
>>>>>
>>>>>My argument with scientists is not with what 
>>>>>they do or how they do it. It's when they 
>>>>>step outside their own discipline and 
>>>>>attempt to argue theology which is 
>>>>>difference from science. Us theologians also 
>>>>>need to be careful in evaluating science! Galileo found that out the hard way!
>>>>>
>>>>>Saying "God created heaven and earth" is not 
>>>>>a statement about science. it's a faith 
>>>>>statement that accords value to all of creation, whatever it looks like.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks again for your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>At 08:30 PM 5/16/2012, you wrote:
>>>>>>John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I appreciate your insights regarding the 
>>>>>>book.  I have no real interest in debating 
>>>>>>string theory or Theory M.  There are those 
>>>>>>whom I respect who have profound questions 
>>>>>>regarding them and certainly they struggle 
>>>>>>with any ability to confirm the theory in 
>>>>>>practice, instead relying on mathematics to "prove" their points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is easy for secular scientist to pooh 
>>>>>>pooh the intelligent design arguments as 
>>>>>>they are, for the most part, presented by 
>>>>>>those who are more literalist in their 
>>>>>>theology.  They tend to externalize God 
>>>>>>which is just another form of the two story 
>>>>>>universe.  But for me, the intelligent 
>>>>>>design is really about the entire universe 
>>>>>>as an intelligent system.  It is not a 
>>>>>>mindless result of random collisions.  I 
>>>>>>won't go into the depth that is required to 
>>>>>>present the alternative, but it is there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The more interesting point is that mindless 
>>>>>>randomness means there is no basis for the 
>>>>>>emergence of values.  In deed, there is no 
>>>>>>meaning nor purpose for anything.  But our 
>>>>>>personal experience tells us something 
>>>>>>else.  And is not simply a way for us to 
>>>>>>live with meaninglessness of reality.  I 
>>>>>>won't expand on this because this is not 
>>>>>>the forum for a long discussion.  But we 
>>>>>>shouldn't allow the scientist to set all 
>>>>>>the rules for how to debate these questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for the review!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jack
>>>>>>On May 16, 2012, at 5:52 PM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some thoughts you might enjoy:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Reflections on “The Grand Design[1]”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>May 2012
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinov have 
>>>>>>>undertaken to challenge the “Intelligent 
>>>>>>>Design” theory of creation with the 
>>>>>>>latest science from Quantum Physics and 
>>>>>>>the M-Theory. In my opinion, they deserve 
>>>>>>>each other. One says an intelligent being 
>>>>>>>created and runs the cosmos. The other 
>>>>>>>says no such being is necessary to account 
>>>>>>>for reality as we know it scientifically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Neither “side” seems aware of the 
>>>>>>>distinction between faith statements as 
>>>>>>>expressive vs. faith statements as 
>>>>>>>explanatory. The former occurs in rituals, 
>>>>>>>creeds, worship, and hymns and is 
>>>>>>>primarily intended to express one’s 
>>>>>>>interior posture of affirmation. They are 
>>>>>>>poetic and not intended to be taken as 
>>>>>>>literal. The latter can be found in 
>>>>>>>theological formulations that attempt to 
>>>>>>>provide a rational understanding of that 
>>>>>>>posture. Theological formulations are 
>>>>>>>intended to be taken literally and tend to 
>>>>>>>provide a viable model of reality 
>>>>>>>(“model-dependent realism” is the mode 
>>>>>>>of Hawking and Mlodinov) which is 
>>>>>>>compatible with contemporary scientific understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Intelligent design movement misses 
>>>>>>>this distinction and tends to take 
>>>>>>>expressive statements as literal, 
>>>>>>>sometimes even missing the deep truth they 
>>>>>>>express. The scientists also miss the 
>>>>>>>distinction and wind up creating a straw 
>>>>>>>man which they demolish with considerable relish and humor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The book, however, is a useful history of 
>>>>>>>scientific achievement, and filled with 
>>>>>>>informative and entertaining graphics. 
>>>>>>>When compared with the works of Brian 
>>>>>>>Greene[2], the book seems a bit 
>>>>>>>simplistic; still it’s a useful introduction to the present state of physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Particularly interesting is its 
>>>>>>>perspective of “model-dependent 
>>>>>>>realism.” Instead of attempting to 
>>>>>>>establish the external reality of anything 
>>>>>>>outside of the viewer, it says that what 
>>>>>>>we perceive is shaped by the brain which 
>>>>>>>uses a model to coordinate and make sense 
>>>>>>>of our perceptions. Whether or not the 
>>>>>>>model accords with some external reality 
>>>>>>>is beyond the possibility of establishing. 
>>>>>>>Instead one establishes the usefulness of 
>>>>>>>the model in accounting for experience. 
>>>>>>>There are four criteria a model must meet 
>>>>>>>to be regarded as accurate: 1) elegance; 
>>>>>>>2) contains few arbitrary or adjustable 
>>>>>>>elements;  3) agrees with and explains all 
>>>>>>>existing observations; and 4) makes 
>>>>>>>detailed predictions about future 
>>>>>>>observations that can disprove or falsify 
>>>>>>>the model if they are not borne out 
>>>>>>>(p.51). Unfortunately the book does not 
>>>>>>>show how intelligent design fails to meet 
>>>>>>>those same criteria for validity. Still, 
>>>>>>>the authors insist that no God hypothesis 
>>>>>>>is required to account for all we observe, 
>>>>>>>including creation ex nihilo (which, 
>>>>>>>though we do not observe it, seems to be the way things got started).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It may be that the book is most useful if 
>>>>>>>the reader dispenses with the theological 
>>>>>>>issues the authors purport to raise. It is 
>>>>>>>indeed a useful capsule of string theory 
>>>>>>>and M-theory along with quantum physics, 
>>>>>>>and provides a useful look into a model of 
>>>>>>>reality that may hold possibility for the 
>>>>>>>future. Maybe the theology was just a 
>>>>>>>gimmick to attract readers to a subject 
>>>>>>>that is covered more adequately elsewhere, 
>>>>>>>and is essentially uninteresting to most. 
>>>>>>>It seems to have succeeded as a marketing 
>>>>>>>effort since the book is currently on the 
>>>>>>>NY Times best seller list at #18 of 20.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 
>>>>>>>The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2012)
>>>>>>>[2] See his The Elegant Universe (New 
>>>>>>>York: Vintage Books, 2000), The Fabric of 
>>>>>>>the Cosmos (New York: Vintage Books, 
>>>>>>>2004), The Hidden Reality (New York: 
>>>>>>>Penguin, 2011). He also has fascinating 
>>>>>>>presentations on TV, the Discovery Channel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your responses are more welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>>>>>>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>>>>>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>>>>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>>>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Dialogue mailing list
>>>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Dialogue mailing list
>>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>><http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net 
>>
>
>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20120518/3317edf5/attachment.html>