[MD] Step One

Sat Oct 16 15:04:02 PDT 2010

Hello everyone

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Dan (previously):
>
> I think Mr. Pirsig tells Anthony McWatt that LILA was originally
> conceived as a case study of what is known as Joshu's koan: A monk
> asks: "Does a dog have Buddha nature, or not?" Chao-chou replied: "He
> does not." Yet according to Buddhist teachings, everything has Buddha
> nature. Over the centuries, many scholars have debated why, if all
> insentient and sentient beings have Buddha nature, a dog would not. It
> is the same with LILA. When confronted by Rigel on whether Lila
> Blewitt has quality, Phaedrus automatically says: Yes! So in a sense,
> he is contradicting the given answer to the koan.
>  If you say yes, you are damned. If you say no, then the Buddhist
> belief that everything has Buddha nature is wrong. So throughout LILA,
> Phaedrus argues one way and then another. Yes, Lila has quality. No,
> quality has Lila. And this is the great insight that Mr. Pirsig
> offers, which basically turns the koan on its head and shocks us into
> seeing quality in a different light.
>
> Mark (in humble response):
> I think you are mistaken.  Buddhist teachings do not say that everything has
> Buddha nature.  The accepted answer to the question above is "woof".  So if
> this is what Pirsig is basing his book on, it is misleading.  When Phaedrus
> says "yes", he is not contradicting anything, he is ascribing value.  Buddha
> himself would not say he has Buddha nature, since such a thing does not
> exist in and of itself.  Perhaps Phaedrus is assigning inherent existence,
> as Quality, to Lila, but I do not think so.  He is personifying Quality as
> it exists within and is displayed without.  This then leads to an
> understanding of Quality, as described through narrative, as something
> expressive not passive.

Hi Mark
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

>
> I find this superficial attachment of philosophies to ascribe validity to
> Quality to be insufficient.  Of course what you state is an opinion;
> however, interpreting the opinion of another as fact is not productive.  I
> understand the need for historical perspective to provide understanding, but
> what you provide is a broken chain.  The connections with Tao or Buddhism
> are tenuous and not well thought out.  Zen is an art just like motorcycle
> maintenance.  There are many similarities which help understand the basis of
> each.  Buddha nature is a Quality.  It is used as an adjective to describe,
> not to encompass.  It is quite possible (in my opinion) to express Quality
> without containing it.

Dan:

You are obviously much more intelligent than I. We have nothing to discuss.

Thank you

Dan

>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > ADRIE KINTZIGER aan moq_discuss
>> > details weergeven 10:22 (8 uren geleden)
>> >
>> > Thanks for sharing this one, Dan, so true,----"Dan:
>> >
>> > This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and
>> > share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that
>> > others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am
>> > not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may
>> > not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings
>> > may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset
>> > that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still
>> > married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat,
>> > and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You
>> > are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ.  You. Not the
>> > people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am
>> > explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject."
>> >
>> >
>> > What a pearl,what a force, "you are the story"
>> > Yes! perfect.
>> > thanks
>> >
>> > 2010/10/16 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>
>> > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijke bericht weergeven -
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Coming back for now, this moment , having some more spare time and needed
>> to
>> > read back the conversations, i came to
>> > think of it as this, ..
>> > "LILA" is a mirrorimage of ourselves, if we are reading LILA, we are
>> looking
>> > into the mirror, asking ourselves, do we have
>> > quality,? Do i have quality?, so the question is not ' does lila...etc,
>> 'no,
>> > the question is , do we have...etc.
>> > And in this optic, Pirsig and his LILA are teaching quality, dhyana,
>> dynamic
>> > quality,...by not teaching it at all, the teaching
>> > is the part in the mirror, look at yourself to find the answer on the
>> > projected question.
>> > The mirror is reflecting every one of us, every proces, every value, to
>> be
>> > examined by ourselves,about ourselves.
>> > So he is teaching quality after all, nothing else,by not teaching
>> quality,
>> > but Virtue, to examine ourselves,...making this our goal.
>>
>> Hi Adrie
>>
>> Yes that is a great way of looking at LILA. It is the more difficult
>> of Robert Pirsig's 2 books which is why I think this discussion group
>> is still going strong after some 13 years. There are so many levels
>> within the story and of course a metaphysics must contain everything
>> in order to do what it's meant.
>>
>> >
>> > The mirror is showing all our patterns, the value's, the preferences.So
>> we
>> > can answer the question, does LILA has quality,...
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> I think Mr. Pirsig tells Anthony McWatt that LILA was originally
>> conceived as a case study of what is known as Joshu's koan: A monk
>> asks: "Does a dog have Buddha nature, or not?" Chao-chou replied: "He
>> does not." Yet according to Buddhist teachings, everything has Buddha
>> nature. Over the centuries, many scholars have debated why, if all
>> insentient and sentient beings have Buddha nature, a dog would not. It
>> is the same with LILA. When confronted by Rigel on whether Lila
>> Blewitt has quality, Phaedrus automatically says: Yes! So in a sense,
>> he is contradicting the given answer to the koan.
>>  If you say yes, you are damned. If you say no, then the Buddhist
>> belief that everything has Buddha nature is wrong. So throughout LILA,
>> Phaedrus argues one way and then another. Yes, Lila has quality. No,
>> quality has Lila. And this is the great insight that Mr. Pirsig
>> offers, which basically turns the koan on its head and shocks us into
>> seeing quality in a different light.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The answer was always there, "we" have quality, "we" have patterns of
>> value,
>> > "we" are the patterns, the value's, the rocks
>> > the water, the ocean's ,the air, we are Dhyana, virtue and value, zen and
>> > science at the same time.
>>
>> Dan:
>> The answer is there, yes. We don't have value. Value has us!
>>
>> >
>> > So , in reflection of the letter you presented , Dan, I think my opinion
>> is
>> > about this.
>> > At least some aspects of quality can be teached, framed, captioned, by
>> > teaching people to ask the right questions,writinr> the secrets of the
>> words, unrevealing their quality, embedded within the
>> > question to project at ourselves.
>> > But of course, not all aspects of quality can be halted to study, or to
>> > study ourselves, its impossible to hold the ocean
>> > in the palm of your hand.....or the moon, or gravity, nor they , (the
>> > patterns) can be ignored, no matter how hard you ignore the ocean,
>> > gravity, or quality, it will not leave,it cannot leave. It can never
>> leave
>> > us.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Exactly! The Eastern way is to go inward. The Western way is to go
>> outward. By marrying the two, the MOQ expands on both the
>> irrationality of the East and the rationality of the West.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > To make some reflections on your considerations about LILA'S CHILD, and
>> the
>> > work you performed on the material that was avaliable
>> > -Have to say this, The work, the importance, the biggest importance for
>> me
>> > is that you did it without contaminating the material,
>> > without trailering along with it to induce a widget of your own, a niche,
>> a
>> > product or a remark, You left everything in its value's
>> > At the same time, you studied the availiable material so intensively,
>> that
>> > you became one with the value's, the projected and embedded virtue....,
>> yes
>> > , the light my literary friend, you became aware of the light, the light
>> of
>> > EL GRECO in the painting, he did not need to paint it after all.
>> > He expirienced it.
>> > He was one with it, as Pirsig is writing.---stunning beauty, framed
>> forever.
>> > It was there all the time.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Well, in a sense I couldn't do the work without contaminating it. I am
>> not sure that I understood that at the time. The founder of the Lila
>> Squad became quite furious with me at the time and refused permission
>> to use her work. Over the years, I see better now what she was saying
>> at the time, even though I still don't agree with her. I think
>> Marsha's objection to LILA'S CHILD has merit as well, though again, I
>> am not sure how to overcome such a quandary. It is what it is.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So yes , the letter you shared is of importance, at least some aspects of
>> > quality can be teached , by looking into the mirror.
>> > Thank for your appearances , Dan.
>>
>> Dan:
>> You are welcome, Adrie. And thank you too. It is always a pleasure to
>> read your posts.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> >
>> > greetzz, Adrie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2010/10/16 ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
>> >
>> >> Thanks for sharing this one, Dan, so true,----"Dan:
>> >>
>> >> This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and
>> >> share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that
>> >> others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am
>> >> not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may
>> >> not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings
>> >> may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset
>> >> that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still
>> >> married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat,
>> >> and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You
>> >> are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ.  You. Not the
>> >> people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am
>> >> explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What a pearl,what a force, "you are the story"
>> >> Yes! perfect.
>> >> thanks
>> >>
>> >> 2010/10/16 Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> Hello everyone
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hello Everyone,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Dan:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Quite possible. But if your style is being a clown, then we have
>> very
>> >>> >> little to discuss. I tend to suffer fools poorly... that's my style.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> > Understood.  I've been certainly told many times in my life, "we have
>> >>> very
>> >>> > little to discuss" and I've believed it every time.  Takes two to
>> tango
>> >>> and
>> >>> > some people aren't comfortable with my steps, rhythm or style.  No
>> >>> problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> I enjoy humor so don't get me wrong... but there's a difference
>> >>> between being humorous and being a clown. I enjoy our discussions very
>> >>> much. Yet there are times when we have to peel back the onion (so to
>> >>> speak) to get at a deeper meaning to the MOQ. And I tend to get the
>> >>> impression that you're not so much interested in doing that as you
>> >>> are... how do I put it... falling back to your own insights rather
>> >>> than focusing on the discussion at hand. And I know we've been over
>> >>> this before and it didn't go so well. I don't mean to say that I don't
>> >>> want your insights. But I would prefer that you presented  them in
>> >>> terms common to the MOQ. That way the discussion could move forward.
>> >>> Sometimes I get the impression that you are looking to one-up Robert
>> >>> Pirsig rather than understand what he is saying. And of course he can
>> >>> be wrong. But still, it seems better to develop an understanding of
>> >>> the MOQ first, which I cannot see that you have done.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Dan:
>> >>> >> No candles needed but a bit of reverence doesn't hurt.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> > I take everything seriously, nothing is sacred; I take nothing
>> >>> seriously,
>> >>> > everything is sacred.  Trite, but true.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> That's fine. But it's also only so much b.s.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>   Climbing the mountain is tough enough.
>> >>> >> >  Bearing great burdens will not help me climb.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Dan:
>> >>> >> I guess that is where we differ. If as you say you're taking a
>> serious
>> >>> >> risk, then it seems to me it might behoove you to take thngs a bit
>> >>> >> more seriously. Write like it's the last thing you will ever do, for
>> >>> >> it just might be. Anything less is just cheating yourself, in my
>> >>> >> opinion, of course.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I appreciate your sharing your opinion, Dan.  Always.  Although, if
>> as
>> >>> you
>> >>> > say, "we have little to discuss" because you don't like my style,
>> it's
>> >>> hard
>> >>> > to figure out how any constructive criticism about my style can
>> occur.
>> >>>  For
>> >>> > constructive criticism you need an open mind, right?
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> Well, you are the one who clowns around. I don't care for that. So
>> >>> yes, the discussion won't go far. I don't mean to criticize you one
>> >>> way or the other. I only offer a possible solution to the impasse that
>> >>> we seem to come to time and again.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > And I still don't quite get how anything like I've done, written,
>> >>> > communicated, expressed - could be construed as anything BUT serious
>> >>> when
>> >>> > I'm carving out part of my life, from a whole list of obligations and
>> >>> > committments, to empty myself of everything but devotion to this one
>> >>> task.
>> >>> > If that's not serious, then I have no idea what you mean by the term.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and
>> >>> share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that
>> >>> others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am
>> >>> not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may
>> >>> not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings
>> >>> may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset
>> >>> that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still
>> >>> married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat,
>> >>> and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You
>> >>> are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ.  You. Not the
>> >>> people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am
>> >>> explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On the other hand, if you mean by irreverential, and you're talking
>> >>> about my
>> >>> > attitude toward holy bob, or whatever, then... got an askance glance
>> at
>> >>> you
>> >>> > out of the corner of my eye, a sad shaking of the head and a slow
>> >>> saunter
>> >>> > away.  I got my standards too, and neither do I suffer fools or
>> >>> foolishness
>> >>> > without comment.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Well, sometimes I do.  When it seems like a good idea.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't believe in hero-worship. Still, I don't believe it is right to
>> >>> disrespect people either. But that's just me. It is how my father
>> >>> raised me.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >  Dan:
>> >>> >> Phaedrus cared enough to take a holy journey but he didn't care
>> enough
>> >>> >> to realize what it was he was undertaking. That is my point, for
>> what
>> >>> >> it's worth.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm not so sure I completely agree with you (and him).  I mean, I
>> know
>> >>> it
>> >>> > sounds silly to argue with the guy's own words on paper, but there
>> are
>> >>> > shortcut intellectualizations of deeper meanings that we can't or
>> don't
>> >>> have
>> >>> > time to express, in all we do.  And giving up on the mountain has
>> many,
>> >>> many
>> >>> > roots in the decision process.  For instance, some people spend their
>> >>> whole
>> >>> > lives dwelling in the alluvial plains and save up all their rupees
>> for
>> >>> just
>> >>> > once an opportunity to look down on their own existence.  they value
>> >>> > climbing the mountain in one way.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not sure what you mean by 'shortcut intellectualizations of
>> >>> deeper meanings.' But let me try and tell you where I am coming from
>> >>> and why I quoted that bit from ZMM on holiness. Take my work on LILA'S
>> >>> CHILD as an example. Despite Marsha's sarcasm, I don't think anyone
>> >>> who has not been through such an experience can appreciate the deeper
>> >>> meaning of setting a goal so high that it is impossible to acheive and
>> >>> then going ahead and acheiving it. Like Phaedrus and his holy quest...
>> >>> he looked at it as an opportunity for personal growth and experience.
>> >>> But that's not what it is about. The holy quest is about giving
>> >>> oneself up entirely to something you neither understand nor know the
>> >>> outcome. It is like Carlos Castenada jumping into the abyss so dark
>> >>> and deep, having to gather the totality of himself without even
>> >>> knowing what that is, and just letting go.
>> >>>
>> >>> There are no shortcuts to such an experience and one never knows when
>> >>> such an opportunity will arise. Thinking about it only takes one
>> >>> further away, not closer. So we seem to disagree on a very fundamental
>> >>> level when it comes it holiness, which a person find a bit surprising
>> >>> knowing you are the more religious of the two of us. But the holiness
>> >>> that I speak of has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps it is like
>> >>> reading about zen and practicing zen... something along those lines.
>> >>> It seems many contributors here are well-read when it comes to Eastern
>> >>> philosophy but few actually put that knowledge into practice. Zen
>> >>> isn't something a person can read about. It just isn't. I don't care
>> >>> how many books a person reads, they will never know about zen in an
>> >>> intellectual way.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > But to an old cowboy from the continental divide?  Maybe not so much.
>> >>> > Maybe, been there, done that, know what the view is from the top.  A
>> lot
>> >>> of
>> >>> > small ponderings go into any question of why we value or choose what
>> we
>> >>> do.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > And for Phaerus in that time, the feeling of dislocation, the
>> differing
>> >>> > social and cultural supports produce a depressive state - the
>> opposite
>> >>> of
>> >>> > "the home team advantage" and you sudden just don't care about
>> climbing
>> >>> > anymore.  Heck, happens to all of us.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> Now see, you don't get it. It wasn't that he didn't care. He did. He
>> >>> just didn't care in the right way. That kind of caring isn't something
>> >>> one thinks about. One feels it deep down, as if life itself depended
>> >>> on it.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > And some people stop climbing,  because the same value to be found at
>> >>> the
>> >>> > top of the mountain, can be found in the heart of the moment - no
>> effort
>> >>> > needed.  So why climb?
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> That I cannot answer for you. You have to answer that for yourself.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > What I'm saying is, there are lots of ways of "caring" that mattered
>> >>> more
>> >>> > than the many anonymous pilgrimages that have gone on for centuries
>> and
>> >>> made
>> >>> > it back to the bottom, and died, and never wrote anything.  Caring
>> >>> enough to
>> >>> > take a holy journey, means you don't always know in advance where
>> it's
>> >>> gonna
>> >>> > end, or what detours its gonna take.  That is my point, for what it
>> is
>> >>> > worth.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> Life is a holy journey. That is what the pilgrimages are all about. No
>> >>> one has to write about it or think about it or be told about it. And
>> >>> of course no one knows what is going to happen in advance. That is our
>> >>> Western way. The sun rises every day.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>  Dan:
>> >>> >> Maybe we are speaking past one another. In the quote above, there
>> are
>> >>> >> 4 'I's' and 2 'me's' so I suspect your hero is ego-climbing too. But
>> >>> >> who knows?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> > Hmmm... ego climbing.  There is a sense in which "ego-climbing" could
>> be
>> >>> > said to be whole enchilada.  The evolution of consciousness from and
>> >>> into
>> >>> > the cosmos, assimilating patterns infinitely - an expanding self, the
>> >>> ego-
>> >>> > climbing to allness of being.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> No. Ego-climbing is personal gain. It is me, me, me.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Yeah, I can see how that could be a good thing.  But what comes with
>> the
>> >>> > connotation is social competition - like I'm higher than you so
>> neener,
>> >>> > neener, neener.  I'm more selfless than you are.  Sometimes, what is
>> >>> there
>> >>> > to do but laugh?
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> Exactly. But one doesn't have to tell anyone anything when it comes to
>> >>> reverence. That is beyond social and intellectual values into Dynamic
>> >>> realms.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'd prefer to think of our endeavors as a good thing.  An evolving
>> >>> > understanding of ourselves and our world, where our ego-climb is also
>> >>> > boosting those around us.  Not stomping on heads or fingers, but just
>> >>> like
>> >>> > real serious mountain climbing - roping and pitons and belays and
>> >>> teamwork.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> As I said, there ain't no school and no one is giving out any grades.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > But hey, that's me, mr. idealist.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Dan:
>> >>> >> No. As he states, he is being logically foolish.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> > I think he's being logically rigorous about the way logic is a
>> >>> foolishness
>> >>> > that magically produces meaning, like a rabbit from a hat.  But
>> >>> admittedly,
>> >>> > my background is different, having read a great deal of him.  But it
>> >>> comes
>> >>> > in handy as a logical defense of foolishness, which I seriously
>> thought
>> >>> I
>> >>> > might need but it's hard to say where this is going.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> I would have to read more than just a few quotes, of course, and that
>> >>> type of reading doesn't interest me at all. I'd never get through it
>> >>> though. I am not a philosopher nor do I read it... unless I have
>> >>> trouble sleeping, then it helps lull me.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Of course I am not sure... it was merely an observation. No need to
>> >>> >> fall on your knife or anything.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> > Well I'm pretty sure its not going there!
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Dan:
>> >>> >> Coyote the trickster often ends up tricking only himself, or so I
>> >>> >> understand.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> > dude, you nailed it.  so many times and in oh so many different
>> ways...
>> >>>  but
>> >>> > as long as it makes a good story, it's all worth it.  Chuckle and you
>> >>> rhyme
>> >>> > with the cosmic joke.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, sure. In a certain context, I agree. But the story has to have
>> >>> some value, some meaning. Otherwise it is just so much clowning around
>> >>> and the joke is on you... in my opinion, of course,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you,
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > John
>> >>> > 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/md/archives.html
>> >>> >
>> >>> 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/md/archives.html
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> parser
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > parser
>> > 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/md/archives.html
>> >
>> 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/md/archives.html
>>
> 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/md/archives.html
>