May 2012 - Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

What if . . .
by Lee Early 05 May '12

05 May '12

What if, as the law now states, that corporations are people? • would that mean that corporations could not "abort" a new merger proposal to bring forth a new "subsidiary" corporation - a deal struck in the middle of the night over a couple of cocktails? • would that mean that a corporation could not end an unwanted relationship with a heretofore partner? • would that mean the corporation could be drafted into the military? • would that mean real people could have as many "partners" as a corporation can? • would that mean real people could own other people and tell them what to make and where to live like a corporation can? • would that mean real people could cut off an appendage if it offended them like a corporation can? (Oops, that's in the BOOK somewhere, eh?) Maybe we should push for full citizenship of corporations so they can enjoy all the rights and freedoms real people enjoy and see how they like it. Lee

2 2

Gordon's Example of "The 1st Time I was assigned" stories
by steve har 04 May '12

04 May '12

Gordon, What a splendid memory you have! Thank-you for the generosity of sharing the story from that West Side RS-1 and your memories of learning with Slicker and Mathews. Wonder if anyone has a picture of an RS1 on the West Side from those days? Your story with a picture would make the beginning of some terrific story-making in the new 6th Floor Archives. Paul Noah has a fun story about going on a quest to find teh "rock" and a picture of the "Rock" as a backdrop of Joe Crocker giving a talk on the 2nd floor at 4750. He and some other people have been collecting pictures and stories. Hope the Archives Project adds your story too! The Gordon Harper Story: The 1st Time I... "The first time I was assigned to lead the conversation method in a live RS-1. It was with a large group in Room A, West Side, latter 60s, and I'd been given the Freedom Conversation: ("Who'd be willing to take George to the airport?"). Amazingly to me,it wasn't going nearly as well as I recalled it had in my own RS-1. As I was struggling to stay afloat, Slicker edged in to help redirect things so that the group could genuinely wrestle with the issues being raised. I felt like a flaming failure--then came to treasure it as one of my great learning moments. -- Steve PS I note you didn't say what your great learning was...exactly. Must be you're writing in the zen-journey short paragraphs style of Basho. Basho seems to give you the quest and the journey but you get to formulate your own answer. More like this please! See: http://www.dlstewart.com/haibun.htm

2 1

Cloud-Based Tools & Procedures from Stanford University Venture Class
by steve har 04 May '12

04 May '12

David, Judith & Doug Here are some interesting ideas from the Stanford University Venture Course that suggest some interesting cloud-based procedures for -The Archives Team -The ICA-A77 Intern Teams and onsite coaches -The Nepal Conference Basecamp Teams What's a Project Tema The project team is 22 self chosen members, 1 Team Leader, 1 Sponsor, 1 Coach-Mentor Startup is leaving the "not in the game" space and -the text-thread blizzard of ideas into 9 focus areas with 2 and 3 person task teams to develop focus. The main cloud-based tools so far are: -a webpage of names, bios, locations, emails & phone numbers -a product development template in 9 arenas -an unmanageable text-thread of some 60+ emails including introductions and product ideas -cloud-based sticky walls at https://trello.com/ -weekly live conference calls -there will be shared wikis to compile notes I'm finding the Trello workspace pretty elegant and easy, still learning Summarizing my Task Segment - -2 people with direction from the Team Leader - -we're replacing a text-thread blizzard of about 60 emails by organizing data into 9 product development arenas - - the team leader is assigning team members to 9 arenas like this one attached which identifies the voice of the customer; a guy in Estonia and I are developing customer focus, planning customer and customer segment interviews to listen to the voice of the customer - -we are going to play a "game of the week" where there is a front and back end skype or google+hangouts video conference working with the Trello boards - -our 1st skype meeting You can see the start-up Trello Boards at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N8F8jOsBAON6yEdeBFmmo5gpP86AKGxi5BP_imH… The 1st is the Customer Value Proposition The 2nd is the Start-up Board on Marketing that my Estonian partner and I are going to begin working this morning. -- Steve Harrington

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
by steve har 03 May '12

03 May '12

To my taste nurturing roots and growing new shoots is actually a timely task in the face of a 50 year vision. Nurturing roots and shoots for ways of leading in complex situations is a good thing. Debating the reliability of ORID with facilitators is like listening to a group of carpenters argue about whether hammers put nails in boards. Studying Brian's new version of Chapter 10 would be delightful, especially online with generous hearts and open inquiry What new shoots for 50 years? Building a house with only a carpenter and a hammer seems silly. Plumbers and Roofers would be good. Bending history with only a facilitator role and an ORID conversation seems daunting as well. I'm thinking more roles, conversations and tools are needed: Facilitators facilitate knowing Pedagogues and Story-Makers grant being Navigators, Coaches, Mentors cause action outcomes Mathews's NRM and Jenkins's 9D book don't only belong to facilitators. Might be a good point of departure for some new thinking. Did you read Kaze Gadway's post this morning? She's hard at work in the Being-Doing mode. She is mentoring those indian kids on behalf of the next generation. She's granting new being side by side with those kids. There is no facilitation in sight. Not everyone needs to think, be, do it al, all the time either. Seems like it is a time for more appreciative inquiry and more innovations not less. --re presuppositions-- The assertion that ORID is THE way the mind thinks doesn't pass the "no-smiling allowed" test in Buddhist circles. It would be a topic for generous respectful inquiry, maybe a testable hypothesis. Heidegger asserted that most people don't actually know much about hammering, especially carpenters, they are just being in the world hammering. Not too much reflection goes on until the hammer hits the thumb for most carpenters. Kind of sets those Cartesian abstractionist back a step or two. Carpenters have skillful means they don't need to do an ORID they just have the experience of hammering skillfully. Some people focus on knowing, some on doing, some on doing. I assert that the world needs more leadership roles, and facilitators have great skill set. It isn't the only leadership skill set. Mathews had a fine insight when he separated out the phenomena of knowing being and doing. What new leadership roles and conversations and skillful means? What happens when you take up a practice like facilitating, teaching, coaching, mentoring, story-making skill sets? You practice being skillful until you get it right and you get it automatic. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_model_of_skill_acquisition If you plot leadership roles on Mathews's NRM triangle as updated by the Jenkins it might look like this https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlNTut28MXqLnv-_Xd2yPoHONBHlOAJLC8AmwL_… Seems like some new skill sets might evolve too. What do you think? Steve

3 2

Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
by steve har 03 May '12

03 May '12

Regarding Wayne's assertion: "The basic phenomonology of the conversation method has not changed. It has always been oriented toward the ontological. If it isn't, it is some other method - put it that way." With respect, I'm afraid I disagree with Wayne's assertion that the basic conversation method has changed. What has changed is the the emphasis of the conversation. In the Art Form method the conversation is "for" being. It is ontological-existential and ethical. In the ORID format [as articulated in ToP] the focus is knowing and sharing something inside the context of a facilitator-client agreement with a particular group of participants. the conversation is "for" knowing i.e epistemological. Brian Stanfield's wonderful book of Focused Conversations really highlights this shift to the client-consultant workplace -which was a new field of engagement in which to practice conversation making. Reading Brian's workplace conversation models is like reading the music scores for Bach's Well-tempered Clavier. Publishing those models really did change the conversation focus in my view. Of course there is other music to score and play besides Bach's and there are other conversations to model besides conversations for knowing [epistemology]. JWM's NRM monastic distinctions are really powerful: Knowing | Being | Doing are actually phenomenological distinctions for sorting out the internal and social experiences that open up in conversations and dialogues. A conversation "for Being" [ontology] is an entirely different score and it creates an entirely different kind of conversational "music" that has a much wider and deeper expression - like the original Guernica Art From conversation did or like the Tombstone conversation did. In these conversations, you get to declare something, you get to take a stand and say what you value. The questions can reveal personal character, what was lost, what was gained, who you are being in this moment as a human being. The conversation can be profoundly existential i.e. ontological. It can also contain varieties of ontological language like mythological and religious expression. There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/ A conversation for Doing -using JWM's NRM phenomenology is Largely unexplored in my opinion. John Epps wrote some brilliant and new Other World in This World conversations in 1996 which I found in the 6th floor Archives last summer. last summer we tried some over skype. Bruce Hanson gave a wonderful talk using the other world charts and Hoksai's pictures to describe an Appreciative Inquiry assignment at Hitachi Company on the outskirts of Tokyo. He talked about himself as being a navigator on an otherworld trek. In my view the Jenkins's book on the 9 disciplines is a clearheaded translation of the old monastic categories. What remains is to see clearly the Knowing Being and Doing phenomenology in practice and in roles like the role of a facilitator and the new roles of pedagogue, story maker, coach, navigator So in sum, the point wasn't to jump on Wayne's good thoughts. The point is to make some new distinctions about conversations that freshen the wind and hear new music... Steve -- Steve Harrington

7 6

Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
by David Walters 03 May '12

03 May '12

>From 1970 to 1984 I spent a lot time sitting around tables with a unique group of people and rank a lot of coffee. The most significant things that happened during those years grew out of conversations: Artform, ORID, scripture/news, psalms. Everything else seem to flow out from those converstions. In the last 30 years I have stumbled on many other methods. None of them seemed to have the ability to move any group I have been involved with into the future or to make decisions that evoked positive change. In regard to your link to the Dreyfus model, I found a new verb - problematized. I wonder how or if it relates to the noun - problemat? -David Walters Steve wrote: To my taste nurturing roots and growing new shoots is actually a timely task in the face of a 50 year vision. Nurturing roots and shoots for ways of leading in complex situations is a good thing. Debating the reliability of ORID with facilitators is like listening to a group of carpenters argue about whether hammers put nails in boards. Studying Brian's new version of Chapter 10 would be delightful, especially online with generous hearts and open inquiry What new shoots for 50 years? Building a house with only a carpenter and a hammer seems silly. Plumbers and Roofers would be good. Bending history with only a facilitator role and an ORID conversation seems daunting as well. I'm thinking more roles, conversations and tools are needed: Facilitators facilitate knowing Pedagogues and Story-Makers grant being Navigators, Coaches, Mentors cause action outcomes Mathews's NRM and Jenkins's 9D book don't only belong to facilitators. Might be a good point of departure for some new thinking. Did you read Kaze Gadway's post this morning? She's hard at work in the Being-Doing mode. She is mentoring those indian kids on behalf of the next generation. She's granting new being side by side with those kids. There is no facilitation in sight. Not everyone needs to think, be, do it al, all the time either. Seems like it is a time for more appreciative inquiry and more innovations not less. --re presuppositions-- The assertion that ORID is THE way the mind thinks doesn't pass the "no-smiling allowed" test in Buddhist circles. It would be a topic for generous respectful inquiry, maybe a testable hypothesis. Heidegger asserted that most people don't actually know much about hammering, especially carpenters, they are just being in the world hammering. Not too much reflection goes on until the hammer hits the thumb for most carpenters. Kind of sets those Cartesian abstractionist back a step or two. Carpenters have skillful means they don't need to do an ORID they just have the experience of hammering skillfully. Some people focus on knowing, some on doing, some on doing. I assert that the world needs more leadership roles, and facilitators have great skill set. It isn't the only leadership skill set. Mathews had a fine insight when he separated out the phenomena of knowing being and doing. What new leadership roles and conversations and skillful means? What happens when you take up a practice like facilitating, teaching, coaching, mentoring, story-making skill sets? You practice being skillful until you get it right and you get it automatic. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_model_of_skill_acquisition If you plot leadership roles on Mathews's NRM triangle as updated by the Jenkins it might look like this https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlNTut28MXqLnv-_Xd2yPoHONBHlOAJLC8AmwL_… Seems like some new skill sets might evolve too. What do you think? Steve _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0

5/03/12, Spong: The Vatican vs. the Nuns
by Ellie Stock 03 May '12

03 May '12

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR The Vatican vs. the Nuns Perhaps it takes a political campaign to reveal the fault lines in both our nation and in institutional religion. At least that is what appears to be happening in current American politics. The political season has a way of loosening latent fears, exciting the extremists and bringing silliness to the political arena. We have watched that process for long, long months now. There have been moments when it was the theater of the absurd. Now a news story comes out of the Vatican announcing that, as a result of issues raised in this campaign, an American archbishop, J. Peter Sartain of Seattle has been appointed by the Vatican to deal with “serious doctrinal problems” that have appeared among American Catholic nuns. When the Catholic bishops criticized the Obama health care law’s requirement that contraceptives must be made available to female employees of Catholic institutions, President Obama immediately worked out a compromise. Churches had already been exempted and now it was agreed that contraceptives will be provided free of charge to those female employees of Catholic institutions by the health care companies themselves, so that the Church’s moral teaching on this issue was not compromised. It seemed a reasonable solution and was widely applauded. The largest body of Catholic nuns called “The Leadership Conference of Women Religious,” many of whom work in hospitals and health care facilities, agreed to the compromise immediately. The bishops, however, a few days later did not agree, thus pitting the sisters in a public dispute against the bishops, who are in the Catholic system proclaimed to be the church’s only “authentic teachers.” Dissent in an autocratic system strikes at the root of authority and threatens the imposed conformity. It now appears that the “independence” of these sisters had to be countered and the sisters brought into line, that is into conformity with the teaching of the bishops. So now a “visitation” has been ordered by the Vatican and, once again an all-male hierarchy in the name of a God named Father, has directed that women be disciplined and forced to conform to the patriarchal ordained leadership of the church if they want to remain in religious orders. Since no women can be ordained, there is no way that women in this church will ever be empowered to do anything, no court to which they can appeal this abuse of authority and the world gets to see how empty the idea still promulgated by this church really is: namely that treating women as second class citizens does not mean that women are regarded as “inferior” only that they are “different.” In this church all power flows through the hierarchy of the ordained and since no woman is in that flow chart, women are inevitably and finally powerless. “Separate but equal” was once nothing more than propagandistic perfume sprinkled over the stench of segregated America, now it is to be propagandistic perfume sprinkled over the stench of a patriarchal, sexist church. “Separate but equal” is always separate, but it is never equal! There were, of course, other issues. It was said that the nuns have also challenged the church’s teaching on homosexuality, a male-only priesthood and promoted a “radical feminist agenda incompatible with the Catholic faith.” Roman Catholic nuns have always been more open than the priests and the bishops, at least since the time of Pope John XXIII. With the death of this broad spiritual leader conformity to yesterday became the rule of this church. Hans Kung, probably the best read theologian of the 20th century, was removed from his position as a Catholic theologian at Tubingen because his mind could not be twisted into the medieval concepts required by his church. This action was carried out by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who at that time under Pope John Paul II held the office that in another time gave us the Inquisition. Matthew Fox, one of the most popular retreat and meditation leaders and an environmental activist, was then silenced by the same Cardinal Ratzinger. Professor Charles Curran, one of America’s best known ethicists, was removed from his tenured professorship at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., also by the same Cardinal Ratzinger. Father Leonardo Boff, the best known Latin American liberation theologian, was forced to renounce his ordination in order to continue his work for justice among the poor of Latin America by the same Cardinal Ratzinger. Next we learn that the Vatican, now headed by Cardinal Ratzinger under his new name Pope Benedict XVI, has ordered the removal of a book from all Catholic schools and universities written by a popular female theologian at Fordham University, Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson. Now the nuns are to be investigated. Conformity trumps truth in every direction. By entering into the American political process so blatantly and by forcing the issue of contraceptives into that debate so centrally, the Catholic bishops have blurred the lines between church and state rather considerably. In the candidacy of former Senator Rick Santorum, a very traditional Roman Catholic lay person, he not only stated his opposition to contraception, but he also dismissed President John Kennedy’s understanding of the separation of church and state, saying that it made him “want to throw up.” That candidacy gave us a clear vision of how the Catholic bishops will try to manipulate the American political process. The scene was not pretty. Without any fanfare, the nation now awakens to the fact that two thirds, that is, six of the nine sitting justices on the Supreme Court today are Roman Catholics and that three of them, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, identify themselves with the most hard line conservative wing of that church. Suddenly, the American dream of “Freedom of Religion” looks shakier that it has ever looked before. This ecclesiastical attack against health care for women, against contraception, against the nuns and against their leading theologians, presents us with a picture not of strength, but of a desperate power play, designed to recover influence that this religious system has so clearly lost. When abortion was the defining issue in church-state relationships, the polls continued to show that a majority of Roman Catholic lay people wanted abortion to be a legal option, a safe option, while being at the same time as much as possible, a rare option. Every study reveals that the availability of contraception cuts down the abortion rate dramatically. The Roman Church, however, also wants contraception to be curtailed. Once again, polls reveal that up to 98% of Catholic women in America avail themselves of contraception during some part of their lives. These women are clearly not following the teachings of the bishops. So the bishops have now decided on a plan to use the health care bill of the government of the United States to force its own members to do what their church is not capable of forcing them to do. Is this not a strange twist on the relationship between church and state? Next, they want to use male hierarchical power to silence any dissent within the largest body of nuns in America. If the lay people of this church are not buying what this church is selling and now if the nuns are not buying what this church is selling, perhaps the bishops might ask themselves whether they have truth on their side. No, truth is not determined by majority vote, but truth can be distorted by those who think they possess it just as quickly and just as surely as it can be by those who find its tenets no longer self-evidently true. During his unsuccessful run for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator Santorum also complained that 60% of those who enter a college or a university with a strong religious faith had that faith challenged, disturbed or destroyed by what the senator described as “liberal secular professors.” It did not seem to occur to the senator that maybe these students’ “strong faith” was based on concepts that are either dated, immature or simply wrong. Is knowledge in the future in our universities to be bent so as not to offend the naïve faith of some religious believers? Are we ready to put the Catholic Church in charge of discerning all truth? Was this Church not wrong about Galileo, about Darwin, about Hans Kung? Are they not wrong about women, about birth control, about celibacy, about homosexuality, about mental illness and about left-handedness? Has not the papacy itself owned slaves in its history? Have we not had enough inquisitions, crusades and religious wars to make us loath to return to the Middle Ages? Do we wish to cancel the Enlightenment in order to preserve the faith of the Catholic Church as it is interpreted by this Pope, rooted as he obviously is in a world that no longer exists? Where was this passion for truth and for the exercise of moral leadership when priests were abusing children and the hierarchy was covering it up? Why is Cardinal Bernard Law, the prelate guiltier than any other of covering up that scandal, in a senior Vatican position where he will never have to be called to testify under oath for his criminal behavior? The last thing I want to see is divisive, religious hostility present in our American body politic, nor do I want to see this nation get to a place where we decide that a person is not fit to serve in any public office because of his or her religion. If the Catholic bishops, however, keep trying to impose their agenda on this nation, that is what they will bring about. This nation will be a poorer nation if devout Catholics are excluded from public service. That would remove people like Speaker John Boehner, Senator John Kerry, Vice-President Joe Biden, Chief Justice John Roberts and a long list of other high ranking officials of both parties. We are not at this point yet, but if the Catholic bishops, spurred on by the Vatican, continue to walk the path on which they now seem to be embarking, they will inherit the wind and reap the whirlwind. Those vital nuns are now on the battle line facing this out-of-touch male hierarchy. I predict, however, that the nuns will ultimately prevail. The Vatican has never understood either feminine wiles or the fact that truth cannot be finally trampled in the service of institutional power. ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. John Shelby Spong Lectureship 2012: James Carroll at St. Peter's on May 17 Noted author, historian and journalist, James Carroll, will speak at St. Peter’s Morristown on Thursday May 17 at 7:30pm in the evening. Mr. Carroll, is the Scholar-in-Residence at Suffolk University, holder of the 2011 Alonzo L. McDonald Family Chair at Emory University, and a columnist for the Boston Globe. He is author of ten novels and six works of non-fiction, including “Jerusalem, Jerusalem: How the Ancient City Ignited Our Modern World” (2011). Born in Chicago in 1943, Carroll attended Georgetown University before entering the seminary to train for the Catholic priesthood. He received BA and MA degrees from St. Paul’s College, the Paulist Fathers’ seminary in Washington, and was ordained to the Catholic priesthood in 1969. Carroll served as Catholic Chaplain at Boston University from 1969 to 1974, then left the priesthood to become a writer. Carroll's works include the National Book Award winning "An American Requiem"; the New York Times bestselling "Constantine's Sword", now an acclaimed documentary; "House of War", which won the first PEN-Galbraith Award; and "Practicing Catholic". His most recent book is "Jerusalem, Jerusalem: How the Ancient City Ignited Our Modern World", which was named a 2011 Best Book by Publishers Weekly. Mr. Carroll lectures widely, both in the United States and abroad. Tickets are $25.00 and can be purchased in advance or at the door. Click here for tickets and registration. Question & Answer Kessy, via the Internet, writes: Question: This has been a most unusual day for me. I picked up Vincent Bugliosi’s new book, Divinity of Doubt, at the library. I agree with Bugliosi, whom I do not know. I defined myself before reading this book as a spiritual atheist, but now I think the term agnostic is more suitable. Until today, I always felt I had to know, but in reality I do not see how that is possible. I do not know if there is a God or there is not a God. I am much more comfortable with uncertainty than the certainty expressed in the Christian religion and creeds. I have been reading a book on Spiritual Literacy by Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat that gathers spiritual expressions from many different literary sources. It is quite refreshing. I do not need to know. I am at peace. I experience joy on the things I learn that resonate with my own spirit. Answer: Dear Kessy, Thanks for your letter. I think it is fair to say for all of us that there is no God who is exactly like the one we define and claim to know through any particular religious system. The question for me is whether the fragment of the holy that I believe I experience is in touch with some reality beyond my own imagination. The problem with all religion in its organized forms is that it believes, I think, that it knows who God is and, before long, it is making incredible claims in the name of this God such as “my religion is the true religion;” “my church is the true church;” “my Bible is the inerrant Word of God,” or “my pope is infallible.” The Jewish tradition tried to confront this tendency that is found in all religious systems by saying that Jewish worshippers must never speak the holy name of God out loud for fear that they might begin to think they actually understood God. The Jews also placed in their list of Ten Commandments, one that forbade anyone from trying to build an image of God. That commandment seems to me to prohibit the making of images of God out of human words which we do when we act as if the scriptures, the creeds and the various doctrines of the church can actually capture the truth of God in these human vessels. Scriptures, creeds and doctrines can at best point beyond the limits of human words to a reality those words could never contain, but that we are certain is real. The Christian life is really about a journey into the mystery of God. The trouble with most churches and I fear with most clergy is that they think they have already arrived, so no further journey is necessary. John’s gospel has Jesus tell his disciples that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth. The presumption of that text is that no one now possesses all truth. My advice to you is that you find a community, whether in a church or not, that will allow you to walk beyond the boundaries of religion into an exploration of the ultimate mystery of life that we call God and then enjoy the journey. ~John Shelby Spong Announcements Read what Bishop Spong has to say about A Joyful Path Progressive Christian Spiritual Curriculum for Young Hearts and Minds: "The great need in the Christian church is for a Sunday school curriculum for children that does not equate faith with having a pre-modern mind. The Center for Progressive Christianity has produced just that. Teachers can now teach children in Sunday school without crossing their fingers. I endorse it wholeheartedly." Subscribers, please remember that your subscription is automatically renewed. You can unsubscribe at any time. Simply login to access your profile page and cancel your account. Login to be able to comment directly on the website. Join in the discussion! Interested in staying informed of the latest updates to ProgressiveChristianity.org? Click here to sign up for our free monthly e-Bulletin, which has articles, reviews, books, events, and more. Look for Bishop Spong on Facebook and LIKE the Facebook page for ProgressiveChristianity.org! You can also follow Bishop Spong on Twitter. Thank you for taking this journey with us! Any questions or concerns, please contact us at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com or 503-236-3545. forward to a friend Copyright © 2012 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org 4916 Pt Fosdick Dr, NW #148 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Add us to your address book

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 03 May '12

03 May '12

Colleagues: Since this stream has involved a bit of ORID-bashing (or de-sanctifying if you prefer) Id like to say a little on its behalf. O-R-I-D is simply the sequence in which the mind works. We perceive something, we react to it, we make sense of it, and we act appropriately. When a facilitator sequences conversation questions in that order, the dialogue flows naturally. The depth to which it goes depends on the subject and the group and, to some extent, the facilitator. We recently presented this method to a group of judges in Singapore and invited them to try it with a scripted conversation at their 5 tables. The topic was mentors. The bottom dropped out; All five table conversations went deep, and awe filled the room. On reflection, the people gathered said the reason it worked was the sequence of the questions: they flowed naturally. Often that type conversation yields pious or abstract characteristics of mentors; this one was specific and based on experience of group members. As an outside observer during this conversation, I thought it became a spirit conversation under the category of meditation. ORID, though belonging to the ToP suite of methods, is not ours alone. I attended a workshop at an IAF meeting in Germany in which the workshop leader (from the UK) presented a conversation method entitled 4-F (facts, feelings, findings, future). The leader had never heard of ORID. When you see what passes for group conversations in most situations, having a sensible sequence that considers how the mind works is a major step forward. How deep we let it go depends on how well thought-through our questions are at the I and D levels and what is our aim in conducting the conversation in the first place. I look forward to your responses. John Epps At 05:06 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote: >Steve, > >I revere the "art form" methodology as much as >and appreciate its contribution over the years >to our "knowing." However, in more recent years >I've arrived at a slightly evolved understanding >of knowing, having not so much to do with >clarity, awareness, consciousness and all of >that as we used to define those words. For me >knowing now has more to do with "metanoia," what >the late Willis Harman called "mind change," >which I take to mean seeing the world >differently to the extent that one revises ones >stories of reality and as a result, lives life >differently. The NT translation of "metanoia" >is "born again," and it can occur again and again in the course of a lifetime. > >To allow this to happen, I'm finding >conversational approaches like Bohmian >(physicist David Bohm) dialogue to be more >effective. It is much less structured than >ORID, and therefore more open-ended and less >prescriptive about desired outcomes. It is more >of an art than an art form. The conclusions >arrived at by the individual participants are >less important than the communal bonds >established in the process, built not on the >basis of having arrived at a common mind (read >"consensus") regarding the subject at hand, but >on the foundation of discovered and acknowledged >interdependence and shared destiny, i.e., >community. ORID, which still has a valuable >role to play in our work, depends more on the >discipline of the facilitator. "Dialogue" seems >to me to depend more on the discipline of the >participants, with a skilled facilitator way over on the side. > >I think generally we ICA types need to loosen up >a bit, occasionally put away our work sheets >with prescribed outcomes, and acknowledge that >good things can happen, and are happening, >without our having to engineer them--in the >midst of which we can be participants with >meaningful contributions to make in our role as partners. > >Randy > >"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." >-Martin Buber (adapted) >From: steve har <stevehar11201(a)gmail.com> >To: dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net >Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:08 PM >Subject: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots > > >Regarding Wayne's assertion: "The basic >phenomonology of the conversation method has not >changed. It has always been oriented toward the >ontological. If it isn't, it is some other method - put it that way." > >With respect, I'm afraid I disagree with Wayne's >assertion that the basic conversation method has >changed. What has changed is the the emphasis of the conversation. > >In the Art Form method the conversation is "for" >being. It is ontological-existential and >ethical. In the ORID format [as articulated in >ToP] the focus is knowing and sharing something >inside the context of a facilitator-client >agreement with a particular group of >participants. the conversation is "for" knowing i.e epistemological. > >Brian Stanfield's wonderful book of Focused >Conversations really highlights this shift to >the client-consultant workplace -which was a new >field of engagement in which to practice conversation making. > >Reading Brian's workplace conversation models is >like reading the music scores for Bach's >Well-tempered Clavier. Publishing those models >really did change the conversation focus in my >view. Of course there is other music to score >and play besides Bach's and there are other >conversations to model besides conversations for knowing [epistemology]. > > JWM's NRM monastic distinctions are really > powerful: Knowing | Being | Doing are actually > phenomenological distinctions for sorting out > the internal and social experiences that open > up in conversations and dialogues. > >A conversation "for Being" [ontology] is an >entirely different score and it creates an >entirely different kind of conversational >"music" that has a much wider and deeper >expression - like the original Guernica Art From >conversation did or like the Tombstone >conversation did. In these conversations, you >get to declare something, you get to take a >stand and say what you value. The questions can >reveal personal character, what was lost, what >was gained, who you are being in this moment as >a human being. The conversation can be >profoundly existential i.e. ontological. It can >also contain varieties of ontological language >like mythological and religious expression. > >There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" >for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of ><http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297>http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 >and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality ><http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/>http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/ > >A conversation for Doing -using JWM's NRM >phenomenology is Largely unexplored in my >opinion. John Epps wrote some brilliant and new >Other World in This World conversations in 1996 >which I found in the 6th floor Archives last >summer. last summer we tried some over skype. >Bruce Hanson gave a wonderful talk using the >other world charts and Hoksai's pictures to >describe an Appreciative Inquiry assignment at >Hitachi Company on the outskirts of Tokyo. He >talked about himself as being a navigator on an otherworld trek. > >In my view the Jenkins's book on the 9 >disciplines is a clearheaded translation of the >old monastic categories. What remains is to see >clearly the Knowing Being and Doing >phenomenology in practice and in roles like the >role of a facilitator and the new roles of >pedagogue, story maker, coach, navigator > >So in sum, the point wasn't to jump on Wayne's >good thoughts. The point is to make some new >distinctions about conversations that freshen the wind and hear new music... > >Steve > > > > > >-- >Steve Harrington > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list ><mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list >Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

9 8

Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 03 May '12

03 May '12

Thanks, Randy: Yes, I've also seen so-called ORID conversations led in such a way that was stifling, mechanical, insensitive, offensive, and generally ineffective. A lot depends on the facilitator who as Larry says, needs to be a good listener and adapt the prepared questions to the group and to the responses that come. Loosening up is a good image. Fortunately ORID can be used loosely! :-) Now about teaching: I don't think that aptly describes the function of ORID, though it can certainly be used as a teaching tool. We certainly were not "teaching" with Guernica, unless you mean something different by "teaching." Say more about that, please. John At 09:44 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote: >John, > >Just for clarity, I think both ORID and Dialogue >have valid functions to play, and I've seen the >"art form" do the same as you describe, >recently. I would make the distinction this way >in a very over-simplified nutshell. ORID is >conversation for the sake of teaching, led by a >facilitator. Dialogue is conversation for the >sake of learning where everyone is a teacher >(translate "learning facilitator") and everyone >a learner, and in some of the better ones I've >participated in there was no facilitator present or needed. > >Nonetheless, I think we have to hear when some >our colleagues when they say they find the ORID >method "stifling." I believe we have to pay >closer attention to when we use ORID, the >workshop method and all the other of our >tools. A while back I was with a participant in >group trying to have a conversation for the sake >learning, i.e. a dialogue. Someone pulled out a >set of worksheets for us to fill out and the >conversation went south from there. My point, >good practical methods are only good when used >in the appropriate setting. Not every setting >is appropriate for ORID, or for dialogue for that matter. > >Again, I think we need to loosen up and not be >such purists about the methods, ours or anyone >elses. I'm probably preaching here to myself >more than anyone else. The real key, as I said >earlier, I don't believe we have to engineer outcomes. > >Randy > >"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." >-Martin Buber (adapted) >From: "jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my" <jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my> >To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> >Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:21 AM >Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots > > >Colleagues: > >Since this stream has involved a bit of >ORID-bashing (or de-sanctifying if you prefer) >Iâd like to say a little on its behalf. > >O-R-I-D is simply the sequence in which the mind >works. We perceive something, we react to it, we >make sense of it, and we act appropriately. When >a facilitator sequences conversation questions >in that order, the dialogue flows naturally. The >âdepthâ to which it goes depends on the >subject and the group and, to some extent, the facilitator. > >We recently presented this âmethodâ to a >group of judges in Singapore and invited them to >try it with a scripted conversation at their 5 >tables. The topic was âmentors.â The bottom >dropped out; All five table conversations went >deep, and awe filled the room. On reflection, >the people gathered said the reason it worked >was the sequence of the questions: they flowed >naturally. Often that type conversation yields >pious or abstract characteristics of mentors; >this one was specific and based on experience of >group members. As an outside observer during >this conversation, I thought it became a spirit >conversation under the category of meditation. > >ORID, though belonging to the ToP suite of >methods, is not âoursâ alone. I attended a >workshop at an IAF meeting in Germany in which >the workshop leader (from the UK) presented a >conversation method entitled 4-F (facts, >feelings, findings, future). The leader had never heard of ORID. > >When you see what passes for group conversations >in most situations, having a sensible sequence >that considers how the mind works is a major >step forward. How âdeepâ we let it go >depends on how well thought-through our >questions are at the âIâ and âDâ levels > and what is our aim in conducting the conversaation in the first place. > >I look forward to your responses. > >John Epps > > >At 05:06 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote: >>Steve, >> >>I revere the "art form" methodology as much as >>and appreciate its contribution over the years >>to our "knowing." However, in more recent >>years I've arrived at a slightly evolved >>understanding of knowing, having not so much to >>do with clarity, awareness, consciousness and >>all of that as we used to define those >>words. For me knowing now has more to do with >>"metanoia," what the late Willis Harman called >>"mind change," which I take to mean seeing the >>world differently to the extent that one >>revises ones stories of reality and as a >>result, lives life differently. The NT >>translation of "metanoia" is "born again," and >>it can occur again and again in the course of a lifetime. >> >>To allow this to happen, I'm finding >>conversational approaches like Bohmian >>(physicist David Bohm) dialogue to be more >>effective. It is much less structured than >>ORID, and therefore more open-ended and less >>prescriptive about desired outcomes. It is >>more of an art than an art form. The >>conclusions arrived at by the individual >>participants are less important than the >>communal bonds established in the process, >>built not on the basis of having arrived at a >>common mind (read "consensus") regarding the >>subject at hand, but on the foundation of >>discovered and acknowledged interdependence and >>shared destiny, i.e., community. ORID, which >>still has a valuable role to play in our work, >>depends more on the discipline of the >>facilitator. "Dialogue" seems to me to depend >>more on the discipline of the participants, >>with a skilled facilitator way over on the side. >> >>I think generally we ICA types need to loosen >>up a bit, occasionally put away our work sheets >>with prescribed outcomes, and acknowledge that >>good things can happen, and are happening, >>without our having to engineer them--in the >>midst of which we can be participants with >>meaningful contributions to make in our role as partners. >> >>Randy >> >>"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." >>-Martin Buber (adapted) >>From: steve har <stevehar11201(a)gmail.com> >>To: dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net >>Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:08 PM >>Subject: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots >> >> >>Regarding Wayne's assertion: "The basic >>phenomonology of the conversation method has >>not changed. It has always been oriented toward >>the ontological. If it isn't, it is some other method - put it that way." >> >>With respect, I'm afraid I disagree with >>Wayne's assertion that the basic conversation >>method has changed. What has changed is the the emphasis of the conversation. >> >>In the Art Form method the conversation is >>"for" being. It is ontological-existential and >>ethical. In the ORID format [as articulated in >>ToP] the focus is knowing and sharing something >>inside the context of a facilitator-client >>agreement with a particular group of >>participants. the conversation is "for" knowing i.e epistemological. >> >>Brian Stanfield's wonderful book of Focused >>Conversations really highlights this shift to >>the client-consultant workplace -which was a >>new field of engagement in which to practice conversation making. >> >>Reading Brian's workplace conversation models >>is like reading the music scores for Bach's >>Well-tempered Clavier. Publishing those models >>really did change the conversation focus in my >>view. Of course there is other music to score >>and play besides Bach's and there are other >>conversations to model besides conversations for knowing [epistemology]. >> >> JWM's NRM monastic distinctions are really >> powerful: Knowing | Being | Doing are >> actually phenomenological distinctions for >> sorting out the internal and social >> experiences that open up in conversations and dialogues. >> >>A conversation "for Being" [ontology] is an >>entirely different score and it creates an >>entirely different kind of conversational >>"music" that has a much wider and deeper >>expression - like the original Guernica Art >> From conversation did or like the Tombstone >>conversation did. In these conversations, you >>get to declare something, you get to take a >>stand and say what you value. The questions can >>reveal personal character, what was lost, what >>was gained, who you are being in this moment as >>a human being. The conversation can be >>profoundly existential i.e. ontological. It can >>also contain varieties of ontological language >>like mythological and religious expression. >> >>There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" >>for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of >><http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297>http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297 >>and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality >><http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/>http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/ >> >> >>A conversation for Doing -using JWM's NRM >>phenomenology is Largely unexplored in my >>opinion. John Epps wrote some brilliant and new >>Other World in This World conversations in 1996 >>which I found in the 6th floor Archives last >>summer. last summer we tried some over skype. >>Bruce Hanson gave a wonderful talk using the >>other world charts and Hoksai's pictures to >>describe an Appreciative Inquiry assignment at >>Hitachi Company on the outskirts of Tokyo. He >>talked about himself as being a navigator on an otherworld trek. >> >>In my view the Jenkins's book on the 9 >>disciplines is a clearheaded translation of the >>old monastic categories. What remains is to see >>clearly the Knowing Being and Doing >>phenomenology in practice and in roles like the >>role of a facilitator and the new roles of >>pedagogue, story maker, coach, navigator >> >>So in sum, the point wasn't to jump on Wayne's >>good thoughts. The point is to make some new >>distinctions about conversations that freshen the wind and hear new music... >> >>Steve >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Steve Harrington >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Dialogue mailing list >><mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Dialogue mailing list >>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >><http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >> > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list ><mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list >Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
by LAURELCG＠aol.com 03 May '12

03 May '12

Can no longer resist jumping into this stream. John's observation that this conversation method isn't "ours alone" is so right. My bilingual education mentor, Alma Flor Ada, whose mentor was Paulo Freire, called her version of the methodology Creative Education. Its four phases are Descriptive, Personal Interpretive, Critical and Creative. I shared this material with Jo Nelson when she was writing The Art of Focused Conversation. You can find more about it on page 24 of that book. Matthew Fox's description of the fourfold path of Creation Spirituality also takes one on a deepening journey: Via Positiva, Via Negativa, Via Creativa and Via Transformativa. I'm taking an online course, Integral Enlightenment, with Craig Hamilton. Quite intense. The response of the thousand-plus participants around the globe reminds me of how some of us responded to RS-1. The evolutionary spirituality movement, with its call to be "pioneers on the point of evolution," has a familiar feeling tone. On my third reading of Evolutionary Enlightenment by Andrew Cohen, I'm charting it, rather laboriously, as I tend to do things. I think it brings Kaz's Spiritual Exercises into the 21st century with a rather practical application. We're living in exciting times. Blessings, dear colleagues, Jann McGuire Illness as Initiation: An Unlikely Heroine's Journey at _http://booklocker.com/books/5100.html_ (http://booklocker.com/books/5100.html) _http://jannsjewels.blogspot.com_ (http://jannsjewels.blogspot.com) In a message dated 5/3/2012 8:22:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my writes: Colleagues: Since this stream has involved a bit of ORID-bashing (or de-sanctifying if you prefer) I’d like to say a little on its behalf. O-R-I-D is simply the sequence in which the mind works. We perceive something, we react to it, we make sense of it, and we act appropriately. When a facilitator sequences conversation questions in that order, the dialogue flows naturally. The “depth” to which it goes depends on the subject and the group and, to some extent, the facilitator. We recently presented this “method” to a group of judges in Singapore and invited them to try it with a scripted conversation at their 5 tables. The topic was “mentors.” The bottom dropped out; All five table conversations went deep, and awe filled the room. On reflection, the people gathered said the reason it worked was the sequence of the questions: they flowed naturally. Often that type conversation yields pious or abstract characteristics of mentors; this one was specific and based on experience of group members. As an outside observer during this conversation, I thought it became a spirit conversation under the category of meditation. ORID, though belonging to the ToP suite of methods, is not “ours” alone. I attended a workshop at an IAF meeting in Germany in which the workshop leader (from the UK) presented a conversation method entitled 4-F (facts, feelings, findings, future). The leader had never heard of ORID. When you see what passes for group conversations in most situations, having a sensible sequence that considers how the mind works is a major step forward. How “deep” we let it go depends on how well thought-through our questions are at the “I” and “D” levels – and what is our aim in conducting the conversation in the first place. I look forward to your responses. John Epps At 05:06 AM 5/3/2012, you wrote: Steve, I revere the "art form" methodology as much as and appreciate its contribution over the years to our "knowing." However, in more recent years I've arrived at a slightly evolved understanding of knowing, having not so much to do with clarity, awareness, consciousness and all of that as we used to define those words. For me knowing now has more to do with "metanoia," what the late Willis Harman called "mind change," which I take to mean seeing the world differently to the extent that one revises ones stories of reality and as a result, lives life differently. The NT translation of "metanoia" is "born again," and it can occur again and again in the course of a lifetime. To allow this to happen, I'm finding conversational approaches like Bohmian (physicist David Bohm) dialogue to be more effective. It is much less structured than ORID, and therefore more open-ended and less prescriptive about desired outcomes. It is more of an art than an art form. The conclusions arrived at by the individual participants are less important than the communal bonds established in the process, built not on the basis of having arrived at a common mind (read "consensus") regarding the subject at hand, but on the foundation of discovered and acknowledged interdependence and shared destiny, i.e., community. ORID, which still has a valuable role to play in our work, depends more on the discipline of the facilitator. "Dialogue" seems to me to depend more on the discipline of the participants, with a skilled facilitator way over on the side. I think generally we ICA types need to loosen up a bit, occasionally put away our work sheets with prescribed outcomes, and acknowledge that good things can happen, and are happening, without our having to engineer them--in the midst of which we can be participants with meaningful contributions to make in our role as partners. Randy "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." -Martin Buber (adapted) From: steve har <stevehar11201(a)gmail.com> To: dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:08 PM Subject: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots Regarding Wayne's assertion: "The basic phenomonology of the conversation method has not changed. It has always been oriented toward the ontological. If it isn't, it is some other method - put it that way." With respect, I'm afraid I disagree with Wayne's assertion that the basic conversation method has changed. What has changed is the the emphasis of the conversation. In the Art Form method the conversation is "for" being. It is ontological-existential and ethical. In the ORID format [as articulated in ToP] the focus is knowing and sharing something inside the context of a facilitator-client agreement with a particular group of participants. the conversation is "for" knowing i.e epistemological. Brian Stanfield's wonderful book of Focused Conversations really highlights this shift to the client-consultant workplace -which was a new field of engagement in which to practice conversation making. Reading Brian's workplace conversation models is like reading the music scores for Bach's Well-tempered Clavier. Publishing those models really did change the conversation focus in my view. Of course there is other music to score and play besides Bach's and there are other conversations to model besides conversations for knowing [epistemology]. JWM's NRM monastic distinctions are really powerful: Knowing | Being | Doing are actually phenomenological distinctions for sorting out the internal and social experiences that open up in conversations and dialogues. A conversation "for Being" [ontology] is an entirely different score and it creates an entirely different kind of conversational "music" that has a much wider and deeper expression - like the original Guernica Art From conversation did or like the Tombstone conversation did. In these conversations, you get to declare something, you get to take a stand and say what you value. The questions can reveal personal character, what was lost, what was gained, who you are being in this moment as a human being. The conversation can be profoundly existential i.e. ontological. It can also contain varieties of ontological language like mythological and religious expression. There are 2 wonderful "Tombstone Conversations" for being done recently by Charlie Rose in commemorating the death of _http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297_ (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12297) and Christa Tippitt Contemplating Mortality _http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/_ (http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/contemplating-mortality/) A conversation for Doing -using JWM's NRM phenomenology is Largely unexplored in my opinion. John Epps wrote some brilliant and new Other World in This World conversations in 1996 which I found in the 6th floor Archives last summer. last summer we tried some over skype. Bruce Hanson gave a wonderful talk using the other world charts and Hoksai's pictures to describe an Appreciative Inquiry assignment at Hitachi Company on the outskirts of Tokyo. He talked about himself as being a navigator on an otherworld trek. In my view the Jenkins's book on the 9 disciplines is a clearheaded translation of the old monastic categories. What remains is to see clearly the Knowing Being and Doing phenomenology in practice and in roles like the role of a facilitator and the new roles of pedagogue, story maker, coach, navigator So in sum, the point wasn't to jump on Wayne's good thoughts. The point is to make some new distinctions about conversations that freshen the wind and hear new music... Steve -- Steve Harrington _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list _Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net_ (mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net) _http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net_ (http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net) _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net _http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net_ (http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net) _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0