<html>
<body>
Indeed it does, Randy.<br><br>
Thanks for your story about the conflicting values.<br><br>
In fact, the dimension of meaning lies "beneath/within"
everything (since all that is, is good). The trick is accessing that
level, and this is what we've been doing as facilitators -- helping
people and groups to access the level of meaning (value) in ordinary
experiences. We've even developed a workshop in which we
demonstrate some methods of doing so -- we just did a run of it in
Halifax at the IAF. We call it "Facilitation from the Inside
Out" taken after my paper of the same name. Anyway one of my
favorite exercises is to invite people to list 5 ordinary, routine,
everyday experiences they have. Then select one and record all the
details you can recall about it. After a few minutes, we then invite them
to take that experience and create an art form from it. It can be a song,
story, poem, picture, dance, drama, or whatever -- the media is up to
them. The results have been outstanding, both in the art produced, but
even more in the transformation of perspective of the participant
"artists."<br><br>
My creation, for example, is a limerick: <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I take a
whole lot of pills<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>For real
and potential ills.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I need to
stay healthy<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>And try to
get wealthy<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Enough to
pay pharmacy bills!<br><br>
Now my daily pill-taking is no longer a meaningless routine to me. It has
meaning -- value of a sort, if just as a moment of humor.<br><br>
More seriously, we find the profession of facilitation to be really about
helping people and groups to access that level. We may ostensibly be
facilitating strategic planning, or customer service, or problem solving,
or team building, but that's only the surface; what we're really doing is
helping them in accessing value/meaning in work. Apparently increasing
numbers of facilitators are aware of this "profound function,"
and are eager to find ways of doing so more effectively.<br><br>
Thanks for bringing this up.<br><br>
John E.<br><br>
<br>
At 06:02 AM 5/18/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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!)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I hope this adds something to the conversation about value.<br>
<br>
Randy<br>
<br>
"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>
<b>From:</b> James Wiegel <jfwiegel@yahoo.com><br>
<b>To:</b> Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 18, 2012 12:21 AM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design<br>
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>
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 <br>
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 <br><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
<a href="http://www.partnersinparticipation.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.partnersinparticipation.com</a><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>
<dl><br>
<dd>From: jlepps@pc.jaring.my <jlepps@pc.jaring.my><br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design<br>
<dd>To: "Colleague Dialogue"
<dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net><br>
<dd>Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 7:52 PM<br><br>
<dd>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 </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. Thanks again for your insights.
John John At 06:24 PM 5/17/2012, you wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>On May 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM, <a href="??">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Who said the list serve can't be a place for significant
dialogue!!?!</blockquote><br>
<dd>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 type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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 type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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 type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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 type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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 type=cite class=cite cite=""><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>Amen to that!<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><br><br>
<dd>Thanks again for your comments, and let's hear from others.<br><br>
<dd>Grace & Peace<br>
<dd>John<br><br>
<dd>At 11:49 AM 5/17/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>John,<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Peace brother,<br><br>
<dd>Jack<br>
<dd>On May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM, <a href="??">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Thanks Jack.<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Thanks again for your comments.<br><br>
<dd>John<br><br>
<dd>At 08:30 PM 5/16/2012, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>John,<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Thanks for the review!<br><br>
<dd>Jack<br>
<dd>On May 16, 2012, at 5:52 PM, <a href="??">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Some thoughts you might enjoy:<br><br>
<br>
<div align="center">
<dd><a name="_ftnref1"></a>Reflections on “The Grand Design[1]</b>”
<a name="_ftnref1"></a>May 2012<br>
<br>
</i></div>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd><a name="_ftnref2"></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>
<dd>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</i> (which, though we do not
observe it, seems to be the way things got started). <br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd><a name="_ftn1"></a>[1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The
Grand Design</u></b><a name="_ftn1"></a> (New York: Bantam Books,
2012)<br>
<dd><a name="_ftn2"></a>[2] See his The Elegant Universe</u></b> (New
York: Vintage Books, 2000), The Fabric of the Cosmos</u></b> (New York:
Vintage Books, 2004), The Hidden Reality</u></b><a name="_ftn2"></a> (New
York: Penguin, 2011). He also has fascinating presentations on TV, the
Discovery Channel. <br>
<br>
<dd>Your responses are more welcome.<br><br>
<dd>John<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Dialogue mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="??">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Dialogue mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="??">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Dialogue mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="??">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Dialogue mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="??">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Dialogue mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="??">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Dialogue mailing list<br>
<dd>Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote><br>
<dd>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________Dialogue mailing
list<a href="??">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a><br>
<br>
</dl>_______________________________________________Dialogue mailing
list<a href="mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Dialogue mailing list<br>
Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net<br>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>