- Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

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

Re: [Dialogue] Reducing Junk Text in Posts?
by David Walters 02 May '12

02 May '12

I do not understand your comments. I did not attach anything to my last post. Did you receive anything other than the two paragraphs of plain text that I posted? -David Walters --- stevehar11201(a)gmail.com wrote: From: steve har <stevehar11201(a)gmail.com> To: dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net Subject: [Dialogue] Reducing Junk Text in Posts? Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:30:28 -0500 Looking at this post from David Walters below. What can be done to have real text with real information. Does everyone know that this is a text only list serve? Attachements of any kind to emails don't seem to attach and create "scrubs" dialogue + clicking return button also seems to create junk posts Do I have this right? Steve -- Message: 3 from David Walters Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:11:57 -0700 From: "David Walters" <walters(a)alaweb.com> To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots Message-ID: <20120501121157.CDDD8663(a)resin11.mta.everyone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/2…> -- Steve Harrington _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] ICA Austin Celebration Saturday, April 28, 4 to 8 pm
by Ann Shafer 02 May '12

02 May '12

Hi, Wanda, I hope you all had a great time. We would have loved to come but had another engagement that included getting together with a man who graduated from high school with Art. I hope you and George and your entire family are doing well. Ann -----Original Message----- From: dialogue-bounces(a)wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Wanda Holcombe Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 4:54 PM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: [Dialogue] ICA Austin Celebration Saturday, April 28, 4 to 8 pm Dear ICA Colleagues, Along with ICA Colleagues in Austin, we will host an ICA 50th Celebration in Austin on Saturday, April 28th from 4 to 8 pm....picnic/potluck style Guest rooms are available with Austin Colleagues if anybody wants to come and spend the night.

1 0

Reducing Junk Text in Posts?
by steve har 02 May '12

02 May '12

Looking at this post from David Walters below. What can be done to have real text with real information. Does everyone know that this is a text only list serve? Attachements of any kind to emails don't seem to attach and create "scrubs" dialogue + clicking return button also seems to create junk posts Do I have this right? Steve -- Message: 3 from David Walters Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:11:57 -0700 From: "David Walters" <walters(a)alaweb.com> To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots Message-ID: <20120501121157.CDDD8663(a)resin11.mta.everyone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/2…> -- Steve Harrington

1 0

Micro/Macro: Measuring things in the Universe
by Ellie Stock 02 May '12

02 May '12

Pretty cool animation. Just slide the bar AT THE BOTTOM to the left or right......... Be sure to go BOTH ways on the sliding scale. This is truly amazing. http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white

5 4

Book: "Abundance: the future is better than you think", by Diamandis & Kotler
by slottaglobalnews＠earthlink.net 01 May '12

01 May '12

Dear Colleague Dialogue, (These comments are from OliveAnn Slotta in Denver.) I just came across a new book called Abundance:The future is better than you think. As our ICA community is in the midst of celebrating a 50 year center-point, my curiosity to read some new futurist writing was peaked. The further I get into this book, the more relevant to our kairotic moment its data seems.

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Guernica & Conversation Roots & Shoots
by David Walters 01 May '12

01 May '12

1 0

Guernica Day and Conversation Roots
by steve har 25 Apr '12

25 Apr '12

Guernica - 75 years ago the the Basque city of Guernica was bombed April 25, 1937 at about 4pm. There is a mashup of old video clips and pictures at http://www.mashpedia.com/Bombing_of_Guernica Picasso- Later Picasso made a painting of it and raised the question of bombing civilian populations into an ethical question. Guernica Conversation - Still later Joe Mathews made the Guernica painting an opportunity to engage not only ethical public policy questions but where people in the conversation might stand in the ready-to-hand-matters of life and to engage freely and responsibly. Brian Stanfield in one of his books describes how Mathews used the Guernica painting to invent a conversation that let a class of students raise and express vividly both ethical and personal existential questions in a learning environment. ORID Conversation - Even still later someone took the original Guernica Art Form conversation and changed the focus from being [ontology] to knowing [epistemology] and then formalized the conversation it into a queston procedure for knowing something - an epistemological conversation. Something gained but also something lost. Wayne Nelson's interesting paper last year stressesd this shift in emphasis to ORID epistemology as the basis for facilitation but he also de-emphasized the ontology of guided conversations that began with Guernica and generated many many other conversations including tombstone, journey and song conversations that were well documented in the Summer 73 Spirit Methods Manual. Does anyone know the story of how the Art Form conversation was "de-commissioned" in favor of the ORID procedure for knowing something as set out in Brian's book on workplace conversations an ad detailed in ToP facilitator's tool kit? Seems like something was gained with the invention of ORID but also lost as well. For one thing, it seems a facilitator has no existential or ethical standing to speak or listen outside the deliverables & procedures of the specific facilitation event. Another interesting question might be what additional tools might enrich the facilitator's tool kit? Storytelling, 1 to 1 coaching? Coaching teams & communities to form and accomplish results? Maybe it is time to develop & deploy some new leadership roles for the future? Seems like there might be some questions here for 50th Anniversary dialogue. Any suggestions? -- Steve

1 0

CHANGE OF PHONE - - AGAIN
by Lee Early 25 Apr '12

25 Apr '12

Our phone provider didn't like our new phone number so they changed it. They just didn't tell us. Here are the new contact numbers: Lee and Leah Early 19230 Forest Park Drive Northeast #A102 Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 HOME PHONE: (206) 922-3182 LEAH'S MOBILE: (425) 922-4252 LEE'S MOBILE: (425) 212-7997 Lee's Email: lees.mail(a)comcast.net Leah's Email: leahearly(a)comcast.net

1 0