<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:tahoma, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>My thought on the subject of values is that some perception of reality precedes, and becomes the context from which I select, what I consider to be of value. A value is chosen based upon some expected promise, and the question of the validity of the value is, can it deliver on what it promised to deliver, as I perceived it, when I decided it was of value. (I do, by the way, have to distinguish between "preferences" and "values." Butter pecan over strawberry is a preference, and I may choose one tonight and another tomorrow night. On the other hand I acknowledge that ice cream may be a value!)</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>It is possible that the "value" of values is somewhat relative, depending upon what I value it for. If my perception of reality is that to live one
must procure and ingest food, then I may value money for its ability to help me procure food. In that instance it delivers and I experience that my assignment of value to money to procure food is valid.</span></div><div><span><var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></span> </div><div><span>On the other hand, I may perceive that the reality is that there is depth meaning to be found in life, and that the source of that meaning is material acquisition. Therefore I may come to value money for the promise that if I have enough of it I can find the meaning of life. I amass material wealth but find that regardless how much I have I am unhappy and unfulfilled to the point of chronic depression. At some point, therefore, I may conclude that money is not delivering what I thought it promised and in this case it is therefore not a "valid" value. This may cause me to reexamine my perception of
reality, change my story and my values, and subsequently live my life differently, with a new story of reality and corresponding new values.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>A dilemma occurs when two or more values which I consider to be "valid" come into conflict with each other, and I must choose one over the others by making a "value judgment." (This, of course, is what we dealt with in the Freedom section of RS-1.) For a grounding example, four and one-half years ago Mary Beth and I decided we had had enough of city life and the daily grind and decided to move to the lake country of east Texas where we bought a nice little waterfront cottage amidst the piney woods, leaving our friends and associates behind. The two conflicting values were the quiet serenity of nature versus relationships with close friends. We knew both to have value, but we decided serenity was of more value in delivering
ultimate meaning in life than relationships. Four and one-half years later, after much reflection that you can sit on the back porch gazing out over the water just so long and take just so many nature treks, we sold our waterfront cottage and moved back to a suburban home with a small back yard in order to reestablish our relationships. Several people asked, "Are you crazy?" The question was asked from an assumption of value.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Our conclusion is, that as far as depth meaning in life is concerned, place and relationships are both of value, but relationships are more valuable than place. So we will live in the city, surrounded by our friends and associates, and we will find other ways to partake of and participate in nature, which we also discern also to be of great value.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>I hope this
adds something to the conversation about value.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Randy</span></div><div></div><div> </div><div>"Listen to what is emerging from yourself to the course of being in the world; not to be supported by it, but to bring it to reality as it desires."<br>-Martin Buber (adapted)<br></div> <div style="font-family: tahoma, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <div style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); height: 0px; line-height: 0; font-size: 0px;" class="hr" contentEditable="false" readonly="true"></div> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> James Wiegel <jfwiegel@yahoo.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> <br> <b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, May 18, 2012 12:21 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design<br> </font> </div> <wbr><div id="yiv1601293241"><table border="0" cellSpacing="0" cellPadding="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;" vAlign="top">This two sided conversation needs broadening. Consider, for instance, Butter Pecan -- home made, with fresh roasted pecans from the back yard . . .<br><br>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.<br><br>
<table border="0" cellSpacing="0" cellPadding="0" width="1211"><colgroup><col style="width: 744pt;" width="992">
<col style="width: 164pt;" width="219">
</colgroup><tbody><tr style="height: 25.5pt;" height="34">
<td style="width: 744pt; height: 25.5pt;" class="yiv1601293241xl68" height="34" width="992" align="left">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." -</td>
<td style="width: 164pt;" class="yiv1601293241xl67" width="219"><span> </span>John Dominic Crossan</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 63.75pt;" height="85">
<td style="width: 744pt; height: 63.75pt;" class="yiv1601293241xl68" height="85" width="992" align="left">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." -</td>
<td class="yiv1601293241xl66" align="left"><span> </span>Charles E.
Winquist</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><br><br>Jim Wiegel<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401<br>
+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel<br>
jfwiegel@yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com<br>
<br>
Upcoming public course opportunities:<br>
ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012<br>
ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012<br>
The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012<br>
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. <br>
AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses<br><br>--- On <b>Thu, 5/17/12, jlepps@pc.jaring.my <i><jlepps@pc.jaring.my></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid;"><br>From: jlepps@pc.jaring.my <jlepps@pc.jaring.my><br>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design<br>To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net><br>Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 7:52 PM<br><br><div id="yiv1601293241">
<div>
Just one more thought tonight, Jack.<wbr><wbr>
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.<wbr><wbr>
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. <wbr><wbr>
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.<wbr><wbr>
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.<wbr><wbr>
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 <u>Fabric of the
Cosmos </u> 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. <wbr><wbr>
Thanks again for your insights.<wbr><wbr>
John<wbr><wbr>
John<wbr><wbr>
<wbr>
At 06:24 PM 5/17/2012, you wrote:<wbr><wbr>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite">On May 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM,
<a rel="nofollow">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite">Who said the list serve can't be
a place for significant dialogue!!?!</blockquote><br>
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!<br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite"><br>
Thanks Jack, Jim, and Randy for your comments. Here are a couple of
additional thoughts mostly in response to Jack's latest (below).<br><br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.</blockquote><br>
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.
<br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite"><br>
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.</blockquote><br>
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!<br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite"><br>
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.</blockquote><br>
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? <br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite"><br>
<br>
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.</blockquote><br>
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? <br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite"><br>
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!</blockquote><br>
Amen to that!<br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite"><br><br>
Thanks again for your comments, and let's hear from others.<br><br>
Grace & Peace<br>
John<br><br>
At 11:49 AM 5/17/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite">John,<br><br>
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". <br><br>
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? <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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!!!<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Peace brother,<br><br>
Jack<br>
On May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM,
<a rel="nofollow">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite">Thanks Jack.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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!
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
Thanks again for your comments.<br><br>
John<br><br>
At 08:30 PM 5/16/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite">John,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
Thanks for the review!<br><br>
Jack<br>
On May 16, 2012, at 5:52 PM,
<a rel="nofollow">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote class="yiv1601293241cite" cite="" type="cite">Some thoughts you might
enjoy:<br><br>
<br>
<div align="center"><b><a name="_ftnref1" rel="nofollow"></a>Reflections on “The Grand
Design[1]</b><a name="_ftnref1" rel="nofollow"></a>”<wbr>
<wbr>
<i>May 2012<br><br>
</i></div>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
<a name="_ftnref2" rel="nofollow"></a>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.<br>
<br>
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<i> ex nihilo</i> (which, though we do not observe it,
seems to be the way things got started). <br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
<a name="_ftn1" rel="nofollow"></a>[1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, <b><u>The
Grand Design</u></b><a name="_ftn1" rel="nofollow"></a> (New York: Bantam Books,
2012)<br>
<a name="_ftn2" rel="nofollow"></a>[2] See his <b><u>The Elegant Universe</u></b> (New
York: Vintage Books, 2000), <b><u>The Fabric of the Cosmos</u></b> (New
York: Vintage Books, 2004), <b><u>The Hidden
Reality</u></b><a name="_ftn2" rel="nofollow"></a> (New York: Penguin, 2011). He also
has fascinating presentations on TV, the Discovery Channel. <br>
<br>
Your responses are more welcome.<br><br>
John<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
<a rel="nofollow">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net<br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote></div>
</div><br>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br><br><div class="yiv1601293241plainMail">_______________________________________________<wbr>Dialogue mailing list<wbr><a rel="nofollow">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><wbr><a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a><wbr></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></div><wbr>_______________________________________________<wbr>Dialogue mailing list<wbr><a href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net" ymailto="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><wbr><a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" target="_blank">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a><wbr><wbr><wbr> </div> </div> </div></body></html>