[MD] The MOQ difference
MarshaV
valkyr at att.net
Sun Sep 26 10:16:59 PDT 2010
Adrie,
Thanks for the urls. I promise not to try to publish my paper
until I've read them.
Marsha
On Sep 26, 2010, at 10:43 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
> ADRIE KINTZIGER aan moq_discuss
> details weergeven 15:30 (1 uur geleden)
>
> Only in expiriencing art , Marsha, i love impressionism, pointillism,etc..
> unread diagonal impression-, ...i have some previous knowledge.
> I'm aware of the value of let's say, Bell's theoreme, and Pirsig's rejection
> of it , in the annotations on "LILA'S CHILD"
> There is a reason for this, Bell's theoreme is under controverse within the
> scientifical world, the value can be disputed.
> It contains distortions of reality towards non-local/local reality's.
> period, Only if you can master quantum physiks,
> the appearances of quantum states, and are in the possesion of proof to the
> contrary, Bell's theorem is to be avoided.
>
> Strange that Pirsig was clearly aware of this, Probably he reviewed the
> case's evidence with a physician.
> The book introduces distortions into quantumscience , by taking a very
> fundamental Copenhagen approach outside
> physiks, as where it is meant to reside only within physiks,.
> To explain it shortly, the book is clearly meant to ridiculise the effect of
> the observer on the observed.It apply's
> the Copenhagen interpretation on physiks, as were it only needs to be
> applied on quantum physiks.
> Nobody needs the interpretation in physiks.
>
> The book is distorting completely on the impression on the waveform collapse
> problem.
>
> The theory about producing reality, to prove your own points is completely
> wrong.
>
> I will give one example.
> Everybody knows the car-crash tests, with a crash test dummy, and the
> slowmo-impression it leaves on footage.
>
> the test is triggered to produce a result, but it is not the test itself
> making the results invalid , they are valid.
> The result is not the test itself , but all data derived from the crashtest
> dummy.
> the statement that the test is invalid, because it was provoked, has nothing
> to do with the result.
>
> I am no dokter, But i still get sick, get it?
> Okay , i throw in a goodie because it is sunday.The patterns of preference
> advokated by Bohm are showing up
> everywhere these days, i believe Pirsig calls them patterns of value? as in
> "patterns of value because they are supporting life"?
> I admit , i added that last one., But i based it upon the link
> dna/entanglement, as inserted
>
>
>
> Marsha's reply,
>
>
> Bell's theory is to be avoided? Nullius in verba! You might, though, direct
> me to the LC annotation where RMP disputes Bell's theory. I'd like to read
> what he has said on the subject.
>
>
>
>> Adrie
>> Strange that Pirsig was clearly aware of this, Probably he reviewed the
>> case's evidence with a physician.
>> The book introduces distortions into quantumscience , by taking a very
>> fundamental Copenhagen approach outside
>> physiks, as where it is meant to reside only within physiks,.
>> To explain it shortly, the book is clearly meant to ridiculise the effect
> of
>> the observer on the observed.It apply's
>> the Copenhagen interpretation on physiks, as were it only needs to be
>> applied on quantum physiks.
>> Nobody needs the interpretation in physiks.
>
> Stated by you as authority? No, Adrie, that won't do. I'll read your
> suggested
> articles when I finish this book and the next: 'Budddism and Science:
> Breaking
> New Ground' by Alan Wallace. It's a used copy that came all the way from
> India. It looks to be a very exciting book that's traveled a long way.
>
> I will keep in mind, though, that these books all contain static patterns of
> value, not Ultimate Truth.
>
>
> Comment Adrie
> i'm not an authority, but one has to read this material, before making
> statement , not after.
>
>
> Okay, i framed this out from LILA'S CHILD
>
>
> Antony quoting on Pirsig's correspondence(evidence).
>
>
> ANT;
> Yes i think it is? though I'm not sure about the illusion part;
> "appearance" might be a better word.Anyway(in context of the sodv
>
> paper)
> this is what Pirsig wrote to me about space.
>
> And now Ant quoting Pirsig literally
>
> "I have thought about Bell's theorem and what it might mean for the moq
> and so far have concluded that this theorem is just more of the same
> Subject/object mess.Local and non-local presume a physikal space.
>
> Physikal space is a subjective intellectual pattern which is presumed
>
> to correspond to an objective inorganic pattern.
> These patterns are so entrenched they are some of the last to dissapear
> during the enlightnment process, But before pure dynamic quality is
>
> understood they must go.
> The nothingness of Bhuddism has nothing to do with the nothingness of
>
> physikal space.That's one of the advantages in calling it 'quality'
> instead of nothingness, It reduces the confusion."(pirsig)
>
> Letter to Ant, June 1st 1996.
>
> I am very sure that this correspondence is still in Ant's possesion.
>
>
>
> Do you ever bother to read this material , Marsha? Nullius in verba? my
> latin is quit good, i think this is a case of res nolendere.
> you have no case , the case itself seized to exist.
>
>
> cheers , Adrie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/9/26 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2010, at 9:30 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>>
>>> Only in expiriencing art , Marsha, i love impressionism,
>> pointillism,etc..
>>> unread diagonal impression-, ...i have some previous knowledge.
>>> I'm aware of the value of let's say, Bell's theoreme, and Pirsig's
>> rejection
>>> of it , in the annotations on "LILA'S CHILD"
>>> There is a reason for this, Bell's theoreme is under controverse within
>> the
>>> scientifical world, the value can be disputed.
>>> It contains distortions of reality towards non-local/local reality's.
>>> period, Only if you can master quantum physiks,
>>> the appearances of quantum states, and are in the possesion of proof to
>> the
>>> contrary, Bell's theorem is to be avoided.
>>
>> Bell's theory is to be avoided? Nullius in verba! You might, though,
>> direct
>> me to the LC annotation where RMP disputes Bell's theory. I'd like to read
>> what he has said on the subject.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Strange that Pirsig was clearly aware of this, Probably he reviewed the
>>> case's evidence with a physician.
>>> The book introduces distortions into quantumscience , by taking a very
>>> fundamental Copenhagen approach outside
>>> physiks, as where it is meant to reside only within physiks,.
>>> To explain it shortly, the book is clearly meant to ridiculise the effect
>> of
>>> the observer on the observed.It apply's
>>> the Copenhagen interpretation on physiks, as were it only needs to be
>>> applied on quantum physiks.
>>> Nobody needs the interpretation in physiks.
>>
>> Stated by you as authority? No, Adrie, that won't do. I'll read your
>> suggested
>> articles when I finish this book and the next: 'Budddism and Science:
>> Breaking
>> New Ground' by Alan Wallace. It's a used copy that came all the way from
>> India. It looks to be a very exciting book that's traveled a long way.
>>
>> I will keep in mind, though, that these books all contain static patterns
>> of
>> value, not Ultimate Truth.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The book is distorting completely on the impression on the waveform
>> collapse
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> The theory about producing reality, to prove your own points is
>> completely
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> I will give one example.
>>> Everybody knows the car-crash tests, with a crash test dummy, and the
>>> slowmo-impression it leaves on footage.
>>>
>>> the test is triggered to produce a result, but it is not the test itself
>>> making the results invalid , they are valid.
>>> The result is not the test itself , but all data derived from the
>> crashtest
>>> dummy.
>>> the statement that the test is invalid, because it was provoked, has
>> nothing
>>> to do with the result.
>>>
>>> I am no dokter, But i still get sick, get it?
>>> Okay , i throw in a goodie because it is sunday.The patterns of
>> preference
>>> advokated by Bohm are showing up
>>> everywhere these days, i believe Pirsig calls them patterns of value? as
>> in
>>> "patterns of value because they are supporting life"?
>>> I admit , i added that last one., But i based it upon the link
>>> dna/entanglement, as inserted
>>>
>>> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25375/
>>>
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order_according_to_David_Bohm
>>>
>>> pay special attention to connection with other works, as mentioned in the
>>> article
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/9/26 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrie,
>>>>
>>>> I've read some of David Bohm's works. I've watch him on YouTube
>>>> also. He was an interesting man, and I'm sure many of his ideas are
>>>> equally interesting. I haven't gotten to the portion of the book that
>>>> references David Bohm, but when I do I will read it with great care
>>>> since you've mentioned him. I will also consider that your criticism
>>>> is built on an unread diagonal impression.
>>>>
>>>> So you're an impressionist?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 26, 2010, at 6:26 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marsha, , no , i did not read it , but took a diagonal very fast
>> reading
>>>>> impression,and i do not think the book has a right of existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strangely enough, i find it very encouraging that you are making
>> attempts
>>>> to
>>>>> develop yourself and evolute.
>>>>> My comment on the book is not to dis-encourage you.The book is a
>>>>> monstruosity, cheap infotainment probably funded
>>>>> by the American creationist-lobby.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to read something that is understandable, really good, and
>>>> still
>>>>> valuable,;
>>>>> "wholeness and the implicate order", David Bohm, this is still today
>> on
>>>>> the bookshelf of every modern scientist.
>>>>> but it is written to be read by normal people.It is of stunning
>> quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bohm does not create enigma's , he solves them.thats what experiments
>> and
>>>>> scientists do, and thats what James and Pirsig are doeiing.
>>>>>
>>>>> greetzz.
>>>>> Adrie
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/9/26 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adrie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The book is merely presenting the philosophical enigmas which
>>>>>> science so often chooses to ignore, preferring to get with the
>>>>>> experiments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you read the book?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2010, at 5:30 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally i think, Ham, that "causation by preference" is David
>> Bohm's
>>>>>>> work, and that Pirsig was enormously inspired by Bohm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interpreting Bohm's impressions on preferential states is not theft
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> science. It is you Ham, declaring that Pirsig's theory of
>> causuation
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> preference,...etc, is Pirsig's and wrong. But i think Pirsig is
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>> and Bohm is correct , the falsification to declare it as this
>>>>>> projection
>>>>>>> you made, is a Hammification. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further comment Adrie
>>>>>>> Observation creates reality (as we observe it), but the observer is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> reality (as the observer is part of reality).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Merely as an attachment to some issue's raised by Marsha,in the
>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>> of one of the books she is mentioning, i gave a physikal
>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> observations on reality(physikal) that is more accurate and more
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> the misconception about the role of the observer towards the
>>>>>> recognition
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> reality.
>>>>>>> Reality itself is not a simplification of the concept of
>>>>>>> reality,simplifications
>>>>>>> introduced by reading a book , that is clearly written to deny
>>>> quantum
>>>>>>> physiks
>>>>>>> and it achievements.
>>>>>>> The book is a lie from the first sentence's, some of the projected
>>>>>>> truth's
>>>>>>> date back to the first days that Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr were
>>>>>>> debating the
>>>>>>> possibilities/non possibilities of the emerging quantum physiks.
>>>>>>> Mostly the positions they took then, are left now as relicts from
>> the
>>>>>>> past ,
>>>>>>> endemic remnants of unhandy attempts made by E, H, B, to formulate
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> was new.
>>>>>>> The book sets of on these parameters , 50 years old , and forgotten
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a reason.
>>>>>>> Reality, Physikal reality, has more than 2 properties and more than
>> 2
>>>>>>> appearance's
>>>>>>> Probably, the event reality contains millions appearance's and
>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>> of properties.
>>>>>>> Bohm's work, preferences, preferential states,patterns of
>> preference,
>>>>>>> show's
>>>>>>> only some of the appearance's of reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In an earlier posting, i think it was towards Ian, i gave my
>> reason's
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> to why it
>>>>>>> is better to stay away from the field of causuality,i maintain my
>>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>> i will reconcider only if you can tell me something about causuality
>>>>>>> that i was
>>>>>>> not aware of previous to this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will give some examples, as to why Marsha's book is not in tune
>>>> with
>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> suppose the observer is observing the projected shadow of a tree in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> garden
>>>>>>> sitting on a bench, did the observer interfere with this reality or
>>>>>> did
>>>>>>> he not
>>>>>>> interfere merely by making the observation.?
>>>>>>> The only possible answer is that he did not interfere,ie, did not
>>>>>> create
>>>>>>> this reality
>>>>>>> by observing it,nor did he corrupt its appearance.
>>>>>>> (this is the physikal answer)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The answer from quantum science is not to be understood by 99.8 % of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>>> The properties of this approach are outside normal expirience,
>>>> however
>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>> this does not make them untrue.
>>>>>>> The book of Marsha is a badly corrupted approach on the
>>>>>>> copenhagen-convention.
>>>>>>> In the background scenery of quantum physiks, these approaches are
>>>>>>> refered to as the copenhagen drama.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (this was not the metaphysikal answer.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> end.Adrie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nb, i did not comment further on, because you are projecting
>>>> fictional
>>>>>>> reality
>>>>>>> in plain words , home-brew, moonshined philosophy, occult
>>>> science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually I've never read Bohm and know nothing of his philosophy.
>>>>>> "Causation
>>>>>>> by preference" is a phrase I made up to describe the process of
>>>> evolution
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> it has been explained by the MoQists. I'm not sure what is meant by
>>>> your
>>>>>>> last statement. If observation (i.e., experience) creates the
>> reality
>>>> of
>>>>>>> which the observer is a part, then what is the true Reality? It
>> would
>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>> that you've constructed a dilemma chasing its tail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Platt said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Marsha has excellent responses to your comments, Ham.
>>>>>>> I would just add that Idealism is absurd on its face. My cat UTOE's
>>>>>>> existence depends on many things, including his daily dose of
>>>> Friskies
>>>>>>> Tuna and Whitefish Medley, but someone looking at him is not
>>>>>>> among those things, and everyone knows this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I agree that Marsha has added more insight here than she
>> probably
>>>>>>> realizes, but what's with this UTOE principle? What I said (to
>> Marsha)
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> that "the CHOICE of value...is fundamental to HUMAN existence," which
>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> not include four-legged animals. This doesn't mean cats don't have
>>>>>>> "preferences" but, rather, that free choice, like intellect, is a
>>>>>>> fundamentally human attribute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marsha responded:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And isn't this CHOICE only available in a detached awareness?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly, Marsha! And it's why I maintain that individual
>>>> awareness--the
>>>>>>> conscious self-- is a "negation" of Essence. So why are you running
>>>> away
>>>>>>> with the concept that, since existence is relative, Reality is
>>>> "anything
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> want to make it" or "think it is"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Solipsism is a dangerous foundation for philosophy, as others have
>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>> out, and it doesn't hold up metaphysically. Such thinking overlooks
>>>> the
>>>>>>> fact that what we experience is based on our perception of Value,
>> which
>>>>>>> represents our relation to (i.e., affinity for) the essential Source.
>>>> It
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> Value that is absolute, not our Choice of its relational
>>>> manifestations.
>>>>>> All
>>>>>>> the principles and laws of an ordered universe are derived from
>>>> Essential
>>>>>>> Value. This is what gives the experiential world the coherence and
>>>>>>> intelligent design that satisfies our emotional and intellectual
>>>>>>> sensibilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Despite these conceptual faults, I'm generally pleased at the course
>>>> the
>>>>>> MD
>>>>>>> is now taking. I think it has opened some new vistas which will
>> round
>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> RMP's thesis with a more workable and comprehensible ontology.
>>>>>> Ultimately
>>>>>>> this could lead to a new kind of "pragmatism" that even William
>> James
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> have found commendable. (But this may be overly optimistic.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, thanks for all your "free thoughts".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Essentially yours,
>>>>>>> Ham
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2010/9/26 Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Adrie, also Platt and Marsha --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/25 at 11:04AM Adrie Kintziger wrote:.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally i think, Ham, that "causation by preference" is David
>>>> Bohm's
>>>>>>>>> work, and that Pirsig was enormously inspired by Bohm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interpreting Bohm's impressions on preferential states is not theft
>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> science. It is you Ham, declaring that Pirsig's theory of
>> causuation
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> preference,...etc, is Pirsig's and wrong. But i think Pirsig is
>>>>>> correct ,
>>>>>>>>> and Bohm is correct , the falsification to declare it as this
>>>>>> projection
>>>>>>>>> you made, is a Hammification. ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Observation creates reality (as we observe it), but the observer is
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> reality (as the observer is part of reality).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually I've never read Bohm and know nothing of his philosophy.
>>>>>>>> "Causation by preference" is a phrase I made up to describe the
>>>> process
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> evolution as it has been explained by the MoQists. I'm not sure
>> what
>>>> is
>>>>>>>> meant by your last statement. If observation (i.e., experience)
>>>> creates
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> reality of which the observer is a part, then what is the true
>>>> Reality?
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> would seem that you've constructed a dilemma chasing its tail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Platt said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Marsha has excellent responses to your comments, Ham.
>>>>>>>>> I would just add that Idealism is absurd on its face. My cat UTOE's
>>>>>>>>> existence depends on many things, including his daily dose of
>>>> Friskies
>>>>>>>>> Tuna and Whitefish Medley, but someone looking at him is not
>>>>>>>>> among those things, and everyone knows this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I agree that Marsha has added more insight here than she
>> probably
>>>>>>>> realizes, but what's with this UTOE principle? What I said (to
>>>> Marsha)
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> that "the CHOICE of value...is fundamental to HUMAN existence,"
>> which
>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> not include four-legged animals. This doesn't mean cats don't have
>>>>>>>> "preferences" but, rather, that free choice, like intellect, is a
>>>>>>>> fundamentally human attribute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marsha responded:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And isn't this CHOICE only available in a detached awareness?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly, Marsha! And it's why I maintain that individual
>>>> awareness--the
>>>>>>>> conscious self-- is a "negation" of Essence. So why are you running
>>>>>> away
>>>>>>>> with the concept that, since existence is relative, Reality is
>>>> "anything
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> want to make it" or "think it is"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Solipsism is a dangerous foundation for philosophy, as others have
>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>> out, and it doesn't hold up metaphysically. Such thinking overlooks
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> fact that what we experience is based on our perception of Value,
>>>> which
>>>>>>>> represents our relation to (i.e., affinity for) the essential
>> Source.
>>>>>> It is
>>>>>>>> Value that is absolute, not our Choice of its relational
>>>> manifestations.
>>>>>> All
>>>>>>>> the principles and laws of an ordered universe are derived from
>>>>>> Essential
>>>>>>>> Value. This is what gives the experiential world the coherence and
>>>>>>>> intelligent design that satisfies our emotional and intellectual
>>>>>>>> sensibilities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite these conceptual faults, I'm generally pleased at the course
>>>> the
>>>>>> MD
>>>>>>>> is now taking. I think it has opened some new vistas which will
>> round
>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> RMP's thesis with a more workable and comprehensible ontology.
>>>>>> Ultimately
>>>>>>>> this could lead to a new kind of "pragmatism" that even William
>> James
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> have found commendable. (But this may be overly optimistic.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, thanks for all your "free thoughts".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Essentially yours,
>>>>>>>> Ham
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>> 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
> 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
___
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list