[MD] science wars
MarshaV
marshalz at charter.net
Tue May 5 10:27:13 PDT 2009
At 01:12 PM 5/5/2009, you wrote:
> > Joe,
> >
> > I think Ron and I were talking about the four
> > levels: Inorganic, Biological, Social and
> > Intellectual, and not having another level above
> > them. You may think differently. Actually you
> > do think differently because you suggest 7
> > levels. No matter how many levels, I still think
> > the nature of all patterns as being conceptually
> > constructed is most important.
> >
> > How are you Joe?
> >
> >
> > Marsha
>
>Hi Marsha,
>
>I agree ³conceptual construction² is necessary. Bo describes the Taliban as
>conceptualizing only at the social level. I wondered how they talk to each
>other. The image of someone with a stick beating the back of a woman
>spread-eagled on the ground is not conducive to communication. Mathematics
>is found at all levels. imho The temptation to conceptualize everything
>from a mathematical perspective negates evolution.
>
>I think I am doing fine. When, as kids, we parodied the song ³Going To
>Take a Sentimental Journey² as ³Going To Take a Seventy-Mental Journey² I
>was not thinking of a more mature outlook. Things change! Dan is a good
>writer, and his story was compelling. Thanks, for your concern.
>
>Joe
Joe,
I like best that I cannot conceptually construct your seven levels.
Absolutely, Dan is terrific!!!
A quick note as to the song. When my daughter
was very little the song 'Jesus Christ,
Superstar' was popular, my daughter sang it as
Cheez Kabob, superstar. I can still hear that
little voice singing it that way. I did try to
correct her, but she had the pattern already set in her head.
Ciao,
Marsha
>On 5/4/09 2:32 PM, "MarshaV" <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > I think Ron and I were talking about the four
> > levels: Inorganic, Biological, Social and
> > Intellectual, and not having another level above
> > them. You may think differently. Actually you
> > do think differently because you suggest 7
> > levels. No matter how many levels, I still think
> > the nature of all patterns as being conceptually
> > constructed is most important.
> >
> > How are you Joe?
> >
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 03:27 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
> >> On Monday 4 May 10:57 AM 2009 Ron writes to Marsha:
> >>
> >>> Marsha,
> >>> I'm still working on the "evidence", I have a
> >> rather half decent arguement for
> >>> this position in the works but I feel we are both onto something, the
> >>> realization that MoQ is an acultural conceptual pattern not so much a
> >> meta-intellectual
> >>> one which is my arguement with Bo.
> >>> thnx!!
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Ron, Marsha and all,
> >>
> >> ³Conceptual pattern² is an interesting
> formulation for communication between
> >> evolutionary levels.
> >>
> >> Shit, after a sentence like that who knows what will come next!
> >>
> >> The big rock and the little rock want to roll down the hill together.
> >> ³Gravity² is the meta-level for the fun between rocks.
> >>
> >> Organic one-cell! I feel mature so I¹m going to split. ³Reproduction² is
> >> the meta-level .
> >>
> >> Organic multi-cell! Hey get busy, I¹m lonely. ³Reproduction² by cell
> >> combination is the meta-level.
> >>
> >> Social entity! Hey! Can anyone hear me? ³Conceptualization² is the
> >> meta-level.
> >>
> >> Intellectual entity! E=mc2. ³Conceptualized individual awareness² is the
> >> meta-level.
> >>
> >> I am walking on water! ³Conceptualized
> public Good luck² is the meta-level!
> >>
> >> I can fly like superman! ³Conceptualized Good luck² is the meta-level!
> >>
> >> Lots of meta-levels in evolution.
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/4/09 10:57 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Marsha,
> >>> I'm still working on the "evidence", I have a
> >> rather half decent arguement for
> >>> this position in the works but I feel we are both onto something, the
> >>> realization
> >>> that MoQ is an acultural conceptual pattern
> not so much a meta-intellectual
> >>> one
> >>> which is my arguement with Bo.
> >>> thnx!!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> >>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >>> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 1:37:26 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
> >>>
> >>> At 01:12 PM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
> >>>> Marsha,
> >>>> Per our cultural criteria of the meaning of
> >> the term "intellectual" which is
> >>>> centered on the
> >>>> axioms of the method of analytic. I think
> >> s/o is an intellectual pattern, one
> >>>> that dominates
> >>>> our culture but I do not think it is very accurate to presume it is the
> >>>> intellectual level.
> >>>> I've tried to explain this in as many ways
> >> as I know how yet you still tend
> >>>> to use
> >>>> analytics s/o dialectical axiom as a standard criteriea to measure
> >>>> intellectual patterns
> >>>> which I feel is terribly inaccurate and culturally chauvanistic.
> >>>> -Ron
> >>>
> >>> Ron,
> >>>
> >>> So, you want to refuse to define Intellectual
> >> patterns as objectified based on
> >>> a presumed assumption and without any
> >> evidence? Of course, you are free to do
> >>> that. We're all culturally chauvinistic though, and why, again, I stress
> >>> understanding the nature of all patterns
> >> being conceptually constructed. It
> >>> neutralizes them all into interrelated, interconnected and ever-changing
> >>> processes. The MOQ is then seen as a great
> >> map of the conventional world, and
> >>> the problems of cultural chauvinism disappears.
> >>>
> >>> Or offer an other-culture meaning for the Intellectual Level category of
> >>> patterns...
> >>>
> >>> Marsha
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> >>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 12:55:43 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron,
> >>>>
> >>>> We agree on much.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think Mayan scholars are an exception
> >> to the MOQ? I do not, and that
> >>>> is why Quality (Dynamic/static) is so
> >> powerful. While you and I might argue
> >>>> over differences because we are each a
> >> unique collection of patterns with a
> >>>> unique perspective, the overall metaphysics
> >> holds together. And why I think
> >>>> that understanding the nature of all
> patterns is the key to shifting one's
> >>>> point-of-view beyond dualism.
> >>>>
> >>>> Speculating that Mayan scholars "might
> have" constructed a non-s/o set of
> >>>> Intellectual patterns, as I see it, is not
> much different than speculating
> >>>> there might be a Intelligent
> Designer. Unless there are some actual Mayan
> >>>> patterns that can be determined to be of the Intellectual category and
> >>>> determined to be not subject/object oriented
> >> what do we have? (I never said
> >>>> I did not think science was important. It's useful. :-P) Do you have
> >>>> evidence? Even when scientists are talking
> >> special and general relativity,
> >>>> it sounds like they've objectified it all, even the relationships.
> >>>>
> >>>> Leaving aside what we do not know, and
> understanding the all patterns are
> >>>> conceptually constructed, is the Intellectual Level a s/o level?
> >>>>
> >>>> Marsha
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> At 11:47 AM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
> >>>>> Marsha,
> >>>>> Agree, but we must keep in mind how non literate societies convey
> >>>>> information.
> >>>>> Ours is a literate codified static based
> >> society, non literate traditions of
> >>>>> inquirey
> >>>>> are oraly transmitted. You see, I feel it is more of a matter of social
> >>>>> convention,
> >>>>> our society has the traditions of axioms of
> >> static assumption to work within
> >>>>> and from,
> >>>>> the edifice of method is so complex, huge
> >> and rigid because our language is
> >>>>> complex huge and rigid. Non literate
> cultures enjoy a more dynamic method
> >>>>> mainly because they do not have that sort
> >> of rigidity and static permanence
> >>>>> in their language structure. That is not to say that they do not posses
> >>>>> static assumptions
> >>>>> themselves the diifference being one of
> not being tethered to megalithic
> >>>>> structures
> >>>>> of grammatic rules. A more accurate comparison would be one of Mayan
> >>>>> scholars
> >>>>> and scientists, through their conquest they established a universal
> >>>>> understanding
> >>>>> of symbols, empire creates universal,
> >> universals are static rigid systems of
> >>>>> meaning.
> >>>>> Empires write laws.
> >>>>> -Ron
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>> From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> >>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 10:40:08 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ron & Joe,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After listening again to the BBC InOurTimes program ('The Measurement
> >>>>> Problem In Physics) that discussed
> >> scientific ideas and reading the ideas of
> >>>>> John Michell as shamanistic, I can see some
> >> similarities. But the scientist
> >>>>> is still, I think, functioning within a
> >> fairly static scientific environment
> >>>>> from hypothesis to the end evaluation of
> test results, and all within the
> >>>>> watchful eye of the scientific
> >> community. Although, I confess, I know very
> >>>>> little about shamanism. Well, I did
> enjoy loud drumming and wild dancing
> >>>>> around a large fire shaking my sistrum,
> >> from dusk to dawn dressed in strange
> >>>>> garb, but I also thought jumping out of airplanes of mind-altering.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do not think there is much disagreement
> >> between us. Both scientists and
> >>>>> shaman seem to use intelligence, and both
> use abstract symbols. I still
> >>>>> think there is a difference between intelligence and the Intellectual
> >>>>> patterns, and I still think patterns within the Intellectual Level are
> >>>>> considered independent entities to be
> studied by a separate scientist (no
> >>>>> matter how objective he thinks he/she is).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It will be interesting to hear what Bo
> will say, and others if they have
> >>>>> additional thoughts and concerns. Or if
> >> you have more concerns, shoot away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Marsha
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 09:33 AM 5/4/2009, you wrote:
> >>>>>> Marsha, Joe,
> >>>>>> They both interpret the unknown, the
> >> shaman utilizes the abstraction of
> >>>>>> the spirits
> >>>>>> and intuits from them, the scientists utilizes the abstraction of
> >>>>>> mathematics and intuits from
> >>>>>> them, each using their sense of aestetic.
> >> Theories, logic and mathematics
> >>>>>> are just
> >>>>>> as conceptual as spirits, they both use abstract symbols to divine
> >>>>>> direction and meaning
> >>>>>> from dynamic experience to reduce
> >> uncertainty. They differ in their methods
> >>>>>> and rate of accurate
> >>>>>> prediction but the intent is the same.
> >>>>>> -Ron
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>> From: Joseph Maurer <jhmau at sbcglobal.net>
> >>>>>> To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2009 5:53:15 PM
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] science wars
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sunday 3 May 2009 5:09 AM Ron writes to Marsha:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Marsha,
> >>>>>>> I think the most difficult thing to do
> is leave the assumptions we have
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> scientists shamans and artists we commonly hold, also our assumptions
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>> what we
> >>>>>>> commonly refer to as intellectual
> >> patterns. It is difficult because it is
> >>>>>>> how
> >>>>>> our society
> >>>>>>> defines intellectual activity, via
> >> analytic. Now one may say that analytic
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>> the beginning
> >>>>>>> and end of intellectual patterns but I think they mistake an abstract
> >>>>>>> method
> >>>>>> or system
> >>>>>>> with an activity of the mind. Bo often
> says that there is a difference
> >>>>>>> between
> >>>>>> intelligence
> >>>>>>> and intellect, I posit that difference is
> >> one of intellect and analytic,
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>>>> in our culture
> >>>>>>> is considered to be one in the same.
> >> Making this common assumption is the
> >>>>>>> bane
> >>>>>> of SOM and why
> >>>>>>> it is so difficult for us to view the shaman and the scientist as the
> >>>>>>> same.
> >>>>>>> -Ron
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Ron, Marsha and all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ³The mind² is certainly an unknown
> >> obfuscation left over from SOM. For me
> >>>>>> it is difficult to conceptualize an
> >> activity of the mind. I do not see how
> >>>>>> the analytic can discriminate evolutionary
> >> levels, society notwithstanding.
> >>>>>> DQ, though undefined, can be
> >> conceptualized in evolution. If analytic has
> >>>>>> become synonymous with intellect, it is
> >> probably because of an unwarranted
> >>>>>> emphasis on a trust in the application of
> >> the logic of mathematics. imho a
> >>>>>> shaman can see when a scientist fears to tread.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Joe
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/3/09 5:09 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Marsha,
> >>>>>>> I think the most difficult thing to do
> is leave the assumptions we have
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> scientists
> >>>>>>> shamans and artists we commonly hold,
> >> also our assumptions about what we
> >>>>>>> commonly refer
> >>>>>>> to as intellectual patterns. It is
> >> difficult because it is how our society
> >>>>>>> defines intellectual
> >>>>>>> activity, via analytic. Now one may say
> >> that analytic is the beginning and
> >>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>> of intellectual patterns but I think
> they mistake an abstract method or
> >>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>> with an activity of the mind.
> >>>>>>> Bo often says that there is a difference between intellegence and
> >>>>>>> intellect, I
> >>>>>>> posit that
> >>>>>>> difference is one of intellect and analytic, which in our culture is
> >>>>>>> considered to be one
> >>>>>>> in the same. Making this common
> >> assumption is the bane of SOM and why it
> >>>>>>> is so
> >>>>>>> difficult for us to view the shaman and the scientist as the same.
> >>>>>>> -Ron
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>> From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> >>>>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2009 1:16:37 PM
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Science Wars
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At 12:11 PM 5/2/2009, you wrote:
> >>>>>>>> HI Ron,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> RMP has describes the Intellectual level:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In Lila, I never defined the intellectual level
> >>>>>>>> of the MOQ, since everyone who is up to reading Lila
> >>>>>>>> already knows what "intellectual" means. For purposes of
> >>>>>>>> MOQ precision, let's say that the intellectual level is the
> >>>>>>>> same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of
> >>>>>>>> symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of
> >>>>>>>> experience.
> >>>>>>>> (LILA's Child, Annotation 25)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I see the brujo and shaman living more from the mystical experience,
> >>>>>>>> that of insight and intuition. My interpretation is that the
> >>>>>>>> Intellectual Level is more Philosophy
> & Science's (experiment, math &
> >>>>>>>> logic) domain.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ron:
> >>>>>>>> And this is the problem. Pirsig reminds us that the both the mystic
> >>>>>>>> and the scientist
> >>>>>>>> derrive meaning from expereince. The difference between them is
> >>>>>>>> the system they use to do it
> >>>>>>>> and their assumptions created from that system.
> >>>>>>>> Pirsig says the intellectual level is the same as the mind, the
> >>>>>>>> collection
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stands for
> >>>>>>>> patterns of experience,
> >>>>>>>> per this explaination, how does the shaman differ from the scientist
> >>>>>>>> besides the system
> >>>>>>>> they use to do it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Somewhere RMP uses math, logic and rules of grammer as examples of
> >>>>>>> patterns of the Intellectual kind, patterns that are not
> >>>>>>> representative of something in an objective world. But this is my
> >>>>>>> point, the scientist takes these abstract concepts and turns them
> >>>>>>> into objects representing Absolute Truth. The patterns within the
> >>>>>>> Intellectual Level become objectified. It even seems that the
> >>>>>>> relationship between objects become an object to study, objects one
> >>>>>>> and all, severed from interdependency with other processes. There
> >>>>>>> that is a description of intellectual patterns. My there are those
> >>>>>>> in Science who believe that Reality can only be represented by
> >>>>>>> mathematics, others who say Reality can only be represented by logic
> >>>>>>> and still other who say Reality can only be represented by
> >>>>>>> experience. Whatever there approach they
> >> then reify the representation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So there are intellectual patterns, but there is also a type of
> >>>>>>> thinking (a native intelligence) as action/experience. I see the
> >>>>>>> shaman as dynamic thinker using a native intelligence
> >>>>>>> (action/experience) that is not so trapped within repeating patterns
> >>>>>>> (social or intellectual), more spontaneous, more dynamic, freer,
> >>>>>>> rational yet outside the box, etc. Of course a scientist could also
> >>>>>>> by a dynamic thinker, but doubt that many are. Now that sweet little
> >>>>>>> Einstein was a playful science-guy, a shaman don't you think? I'm
> >>>>>>> not belittling scientist, most are stuck in a system that does not
> >>>>>>> encourage spontaneous play.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The shaman is acting with a intelligence that is creative and
> >>>>>>> dynamic, and probably not using intellectual patterns. The scientist
> >>>>>>> is manipulating abstract patterns within
> >> some existing systemized theory.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is this making any sense?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>>>>>> Archives:
> >>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>>>>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>>>>> Archives:
> >>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>>>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>>>>> Archives:
> >>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>>>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> _____________
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss,
> >> you'll land among the stars.........
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>>>> Archives:
> >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>>>> Archives:
> >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>>>
> >>>> .
> >>>> _____________
> >>>>
> >>>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss,
> >> you'll land among the stars.........
> >>>> .
> >>>> .
> >>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>>> Archives:
> >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>>> Archives:
> >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>> _____________
> >>>
> >>> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss,
> you'll land among the stars.........
> >>> .
> >>> .
> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>> Archives:
> >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>> Archives:
> >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >>
> >>
> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> Archives:
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
> > .
> > _____________
> >
> > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
> > .
> > .
> >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list