Hi Steve, I think being on auto pilot about all this is a great way to be. And 
sometimes it's fun to actually think about some of Maharishi's concepts that I 
simply have taken for granted for so long. 
Another experience I've been having recently fascinates me because it seems to 
be self contradictory: I'm both more spontaneous but less expressive. I think 
I'm doing emotional processing more on the inside, so that when I speak, my 
speech is more lively, more full of life force. But I'm not really expressing 
emotions. Does that make sense? It's a very different experience for me, feels 
very good. A friend said that after she had dinner with me, she felt that all 
the anger towards her SO was gone! That also made me feel really good. 

      From: "steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 3:36 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
    Hi Share,
I think I have probably lost my interest in unpacking KISIC and its corollary 
too much.
I am willing to accept the premise of the "seven states of consciousness".

And as such, I will allow that from fourth thru seventh states, there are 
I would say the reason I am willing to do so, is that I have observed my 
experience change over the past 40 years as I have embarked on a spiritual path.
Now, the funny thing, is that I don't pay much, if any attention to any 
experiences I might have.
But neither do I deny them, or do I feel a need to berate others for describing 
their experiences.  Nay, I find them inspiring, just as I enjoyed hearing the 
experiences you related the last couple days.
I also have derived inspiration from the Vedic/Hindu texts to which I have had 
exposure, although I have not really looked at anything in decades.
As I understand it, the Buddhist texts, or Buddhist philosophy describe similar 
So, in a sense I have been on auto pilot.
To bottom line it, I believe that, as humans, the experience of realizing that 
the world around us, is just our self, is the ultimate reality.
And so this this covers both KISIC and KIDIDSOC.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

Curtis and Steve, I'm also just thinking out loud, sort of fumbling around with 
all this. Because KISIC and KIDIDSOC always resonated with me as being true. 
They felt right. But it's also fun to try and reason them out as well. But as I 
said, I'm just fumbling around, exploring, also sort of playing with words and 
our accepted meaning of them.
As I've said before, I don't really think in terms of higher and lower states 
of consciousness. I think of more developed brain states, meaning, more of the 
brain functioning in a very healthy way. Which I think would automatically be 
of benefit to the world. I'm assuming that if most of a person's brain was 
functioning in a very healthy way, then that is how they would behave. It seems 
like a reasonable assumption to me. 

More fumbling, but here's an example from my life and I'm not claiming any 
higher SOC. But I do know that when I'm rested, when my physiology is settled, 
I feel more in harmony with the people around me. And I treat them more 
positively. That's a major value for me, and I think for them too.  OTOH, if 
I'm upset or distracted, I can't even be with them as completely, so my 
knowledge of them at that moment, is incomplete and therefore not as valuable 
for either of us in terms of living a rich human life.    
  From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:09 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :

I agree that there is some conflating here of mental abilities and "knowledge".

C: You mean by Maharishi in his examples, right? He started the comparison 
which you are labeling conflation.

S: I think it is the typical apple/orange thing.
The way the concept was presented by Maharishi was the obvious difference 
between waking, sleeping, and dreaming states of consciousness which we note in 
every day experience.

C: That was another example he used. The clear and foggy, tired not tired 
example was also his. Of course saying that these are different mental states 
doesn't really make any practical case for how it might apply to our daily life 
which is why he needed to extend the example. Saying that our "knowledge" is 
different in deep sleep is a bit of a stretch because it is a state of zero 
consciousness. So it isn't that the knowledge is different as much as the 
knower is gone. In dreams we also have a very altered sense of self so there 
really isn't a parallel there either. It isn't that our knowledge, which is by 
his definition experience and understanding.The understanding part is missing 
because the experience is not organized as it is in waking state. So saying 
that these are different style experience does nothing to establish the 
principle he is attempting to establish, that "knowledge" is structured in 
"consciousness." The best he does is to point out that to know anything we must 
be aware and to know specific things we must be aware of those things and be in 
a state of mind capable of that. Not exactly an enlightened news flash.

C: But where it gets interesting is when you consider the fourth, fifth, sixth, 
and seventh states, and how knowledge is perceived or acquired, differently in 
those states.
But, if you don't buy into the reality of those states, then it is easy to 
dismiss the theory.

C: You can have had the experience of altered states without buying into them 
as higher states. If you have done heavy rounding you know that you can alter 
your mental functioning. What it means is the issue. And in all my own 
experience I can't find an example of my "knowledge" being different, just my 
experience of my own mental functioning. The understanding was being pumped in 
by hours of lectures of Maharishi trying to convince me how I should interpret 
the experience and its value and meaning. I had the same beliefs throughout the 
process of changing internal experience, there was not change in my knowledge. 
Then when my "knowledge" changed again and I rejected his teaching I could 
still experience the states I had when I was a believer, they are not connected.

S: After all, they are subjective by nature, so if someone says "prove it", you 
may be hard pressed to do so.

C: If this was the kind of state extolled by Maharishi, the highest state of 
human development, there would be plenty of proof. Maharishi gave lots of 
examples of how we would see results in activity, he was not poo pooing proof 
for his claims, he as boldly claiming it could be proven.

His confidence has not held up to scrutiny over time. Maharishi was using a 
philosophical proof system to make his case. I am showing that it is a flawed 
one. Proof by analogy isn't valid, analogies are a way to explain something you 
have proven in another way.

In the beginning he could claim that people just didn't have the experience so 
no noticeable results could be shown to prove his claim. Now we have people 
claiming to be in these higher states. So now it turns out that even if 
knowledge IS structured in consciousness, other than self satisfaction, nothing 
is changed in their "knowledge" that does anyone else any good at all. It is 
indistinguishable from someone saying, "now that Jesus has saved me and I have 
eternal life, everything in my life is unfolding in God's perfect plan." So the 
idea of the value of knowledge is reduced to: 
" I feel good about myself now." Did it really take years of practice to 
achieve that? And isn't the concept of the value of human knowledge much more 
than that?

This is a great topic no matter where you stand on it, thanks for pitching in 
Steve. I am just thinking out loud here, sorting out my own perspective by 
expressing it. 

On the other hand, you have someone like Barry owning up to having such 
experiences, but placing no particular importance to them.
You have someone like Michael, who has waxed on about traversing the whole 
field of those higher states of consciousness, but then deciding that doing so 
sort of invalidates his oft repeated assumption that the technique doesn't work.
So, I'm not sure what is going on with these guys. 
It sounds to me that at least those two have already implicated themselves as 
to verifying that "knowledge is different in different states of consciousness"
Barry said as much this morning.  
Now, the fact that this seems to put him at odds with what Curtis is saying, 
may require him to backtrack some.  Or more likely, he doesn't really care.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :

Curtis, from your first paragraph, it sounds like you're equating knowledge 
with mental abilities. But I don't think that's what Maharishi meant. I think 
what he meant by knowledge is conclusions drawn from perceptions.One of the 
classical examples is that of the blind men touching different parts of the 
elephant and then coming to different conclusions about the identity of the 
object being touched in different places.Another classic example is the snake 
and the string wherein the agitated person sees something threatening and the 
calm person sees something nonthreatening.Even in every day life, if 10 people 
witness an accident, there will be 10 different reports. And how about the 
party game of telephone? Why doesn't the message stay the same with each 
hearing and repeating?

  From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:59 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it on the table: UFOs
 --In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

Both the Turq's claim that he saw the Lenz-Rama-guy levitate many times and 
Curti's claim that "knowledge is not different in different states of 
consciousness" loom over these two guys forever. 

C: Nabbie with your attention to the details of what I write you could easily 
be mistaken for a fanboy.

Yes, this is one of my favorite topics and thanks for reminding me. Let's 
revisit it to see if my views have changed

I am denying that Maharishi has made a convincing case for his claim that:

Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.

The example he used was that when we are sleepy our "knowledge" is different. 
When I was a young man, and more easily swayed by my internal feelings when 
thinking, I agreed with him. But now I do not find this to be the case. As an 
adult professional I have learned how to functions at a certain level mentally 
no matter what my level of rest or fatigue. My "knowledge" is not significantly 
affected. Being more likely to forget something can happen. But this is a long 
way from the breadth of this claim. I would say that fatigue exerts no more 
than a 10% influence over my mental abilities. So the comparison falls flat in 
my experience. Are you really incapable of doing your job well if you are 
tired? Does it make that much of a difference in your functioning really? You 
might enjoy it less but that is a different claim.

And as far as extending this into the so called "higher states" as if this 
analogy would prove anything about them even if it were true, I call bullshit. 
I have seen nothing from any of the so called enlightened guys, Maharishi 
included, that couldn't be replicated from anyone familiar with their use of 
language and a Hinduism 101 course.

Light some incense:

"The mind is a shallow boat surrounded by the ocean of infinity. The mind 
experiences pleasure and pain, It associates with the objects of perception 
which sells out the infinite full potential of their inner nature for a 
localized, finite experience. When the mind expands into its limitless source, 
it becomes one with that infinite nature, and takes on the qualities of 
truth,consciousness and bliss awareness, beyond the limitations of space and 
time. This is what the ancient rishis called Sat Chit Ananda."

You guess who wrote that from the "knowledge" it contains. Is there anything in 
those words that would make it impossible for the writer to be in waking state? 
Is there something so different from what a person who was not experiencing 
that reality could write, if they knew the language form and structure of the 
claims in that philosophy? Can you really tell if that was real or Memorex?

So Nabbie, you defend your teachers assertion that he did not prove. He just 
asserted it. Now is your moment to show how your elevated consciousness has 
such a superior state of knowledge, that you can turn my objections to ashes 
before my eyes. Being scornful of my objections is not an argument. Show us why 
we should accept that knowledge is different in different states of 
consciousness without resorting to the proof by bogus analogy, blatant 
unsupported assertion, or appeal to the authority of Hindu holy books that 
Maharishi tried. Do your guru a solid and help him make his case for the 

But we both know that no one can because you just bought into a belief that 
doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  

Same 3 choices every time you take a swing at me. You can defend your belief 
with reasoned argument to convince me where what I wrote was wrong somehow or 
missing an important point, you can follow angry Jim and go ad hominem as he 
recently did AGAIN, or you can slink away to take another sucker punch another 
day, never defending your position or refuting mine with reason, like an 
internet troll. 

It's a good thing that Richard keep reminding every possible lurker here how 
far out of any possible self-insight these two guy's are.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :

On 11/15/2014 4:23 PM, nablusoss1008wrote:

  Sal is adjusting his speak every day now. Watch out, oneof these days he'll 
even retract his extremely sillyjudgements on the Crop Circles.

"Adjusting his speak" - that's a good one!Apparently he already believes in 
tall tales - he has yet to replyto Barry's levitation claims about Rama. Go 

"And I don't just meanexplaining things away, to be convincing you have to show 
thatsomething more realistic happened, more credible and usingexplanations we 
already understand and are known to happen incertain circumstances." - 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,<sharelong60@...> wrote :

Salyavin,I love your last paragraph: folklore in action;techno ghost stories 
for the nuclear age. As forme, I believe there is life somewhere else inthe 
vast universe. And I think they are morehighly advanced than us and maybe here 
with us.And I think it's great. 
Wecan believe what we like. I have no opinion onintelligent life elsewhere, we 
don't know thevariables that allow for it to develop. Wecould be unique or the 
universe could beteeming or maybe there's just one or two pergalaxy over it's 
entire history. But thechances of there being other humanoidsvisiting Earth at 
the just same time as we'veunderstood where we are cosmically? It 
beggarsbelief. Alien craft is the least likelyexplanation for UFO's. But I hope 
But atthat point, I'm more like turq. It doesn'treally impact my life one way 
or the other.Either way, what is the action step? (-:

Idon't know, just enjoy the ride, the evolvingmyth. We are apparently on the 
brink ofsomething called "disclosure". We've been herebefore a few times as I 
recall, it neveramounts to much but it's fun watching the TB'sget excited that 
their favourite daydream isto be officially confirmed. 
Butit won't be, the UFO's won't land and Maitreyawon't appear. It's the way of 
things. Theconnection between the two is that people wantthere to be more, want 
there to be a reasonand for there to be salvation from a higherpower, whether 
it's alien or spiritual. We'retalking deep human needs here.
Sent:Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:06 PM
Subject:[FairfieldLife] Re: Okay, let's put it onthe table: UFOs


---infairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com,<no_re...@yahoogroups.com>wrote :

Saldoesn't like UFO's becausethey aren't scientific :-)
It's an interestingpoint Nabs. The thing isone can only getscientific about 
somethingif it is available tostudy, UFO's are sofleeting and ephemeralthat 
there really isn'tanything to study otherthan hearsay orsuspiciously absent 
filmtaken by higher powers tokeep the whole thingsecret.
But a great manypeople have studied whatthey can about UFOsightings, and done 
itwith as much rigour as youcan with such a paucity ofhard evidence. I'm 
notsure there is an encounterthat hasn't got a betterexplanation that 
doesn'tinvolve us being visitedby beings from anotherworld. And I don't 
justmean explaining thingsaway, to be convincing youhave to show thatsomething 
more realistichappened, more credibleand using explanations wealready 
understand and areknown to happen in certaincircumstances. Eventesting soil 
damage andskin burns for alternativecauses. People are beingscientific about 
But here's the thingyou overlook in your quip,I've been interested inUFO's for 
as long as Iremember, I've a got ashelf full of the classicbooks on the 
subject. Eventhe true believer stufffrom "serious" researcherslike Timothy Good 
and theabductionists like BudHopkins. I bet I know allthe great encounters 
byheart - Cortile, Ramirez,Roswell, Pascagoula,Ilkley Moor, Rendlesham...
I love it but Idon't take it at facevalue. Tome, UFO's are folklore inaction. 
The evolving mythof abduction and what theyare supposedly doing hereare the 
legends of ourtime, a new religion,encapsulating our fearsabout technology 
andpromising us freedom fromour destructive ways, yetalways remainingremarkably 
evidence free.There's always a newvision to add to themythos but 
convenientlynever any hard evidence tohelp decide one way or theother. And the 
longer thatscenario goes on the moreconvinced any casualobserver should be that 
weare kidding ourselves,because deep down we likeghost stories and that'sreally 
what they are.Something scary alwaysjust out of reach. Technoghost stories for 
thenuclear age.

FormerAstronaut Explains The UFOCover-Up 2013 1080p HD
 |    | 
 | FormerAstronautExplains TheUFO Cover-Up2013 ...EdgarDean Mitchell,Sc.D. is 
anAmericanpilot, retiredCaptain in theUnited StatesNavy and NASAastronaut. 
Asthe lunarmodule pilotof Apollo 14,... | 
|  View on www.youtube.com    | Preview by Yahoo |

---infairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com,<steve.sundur@...>wrote :

I didn't reallyread what sal haswritten below, but Ithink the gist of it 
is,that he doesn't like theperson who coined theword "flying saucer"
Is that whathis dissertation isabout this time?

---infairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com,<no_re...@yahoogroups.com>wrote :

Thereis not oneastronaut whohas NOTreported seeingUFO's, sometimeshuge and in 
largenubers, back toNASA and/or theirfamilies.

---infairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com,<no_re...@yahoogroups.com>wrote :

---infairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com,<no_re...@yahoogroups.com>wrote :

IfGordon is notcrazy, thenthe Americangovernment 

If there arealiensvisiting usand we're notbeing told --it robs everyperson 


Neither you,nor I, noranyone evercould possiblybe who we arenow if we knewthat 
UFOs arereal.


And that's whyit might bekept a secret-- the concept"money" wouldbe bereft 

If you saythat it wouldNOT be "allthat much of abig deal, cuzeveryone's 
soinured alreadyby Hollywoodfilms," thenYOU DON'T KNOWJACK SHITABOUTPSYCHOLOGY.

Every personin every way: changed.
Agreed.Luckily Idon;t supposeit will cometo that. Whichis a shame asI'd be 
thehappiestperson onEarth if itturned outthat UFO'swere alienspacecraft,but the 
truthof sightingsalways turnsout to be moremundane.
Takethe name"flyingsaucers",everyone seessaucer shapedcraft but thename is 
amistake fromthe firstencounteranyone had.Kenneth Arnold(anexperiencedpilot) 
saw asquadron ofhighlyreflectivecrescentshapedaircraftflying atgreat speed ina 
V formationover the Rockymountains in1947. Hedescribed themas flying likea 
saucer wouldif skippedacross water. 
Ajournalistmade up thename flyingsaucer andafter thateveryone sawsaucer 
shapedcraft whenthey sawsomethingmysterious inthe sky. Thepower 
ofsuggestion.Sadly there'sno such thingas a reliablewitness andany one can 
befooled, Arnoldmost likelysaw a flock ofpelicans andmistook themfor 
unknownaircraft andmiscalculatedtheir distancefrom him. Weall makemistakes 
butthe influencehis mistakehad isimmeasurable. 
Becausewe people areso unreliable,if I had tobet I wouldsay thatCooper 
sawsomeatmosphericeffect fromflying atsupersonicspeed that noone hadnoticed 
beforeand mistook itfor real craftmoving abovehim. 
Andearly radarwas hopelesslyunreliable,the UK airdefence systemin the coldwar 
was alwaystelling usthat giantUFOs werecrossing thenorth sea butwhen planeswere 
scrambledto look itturned out tohave beentemperatureinversionsconfusing 
theequipment.When theseanomalies wereunderstood andironed out UFOreportsstopped 
comingin. It's theway it goes,people seestuff andimaginationplugs anygaps, 
popularculture isrife withimagery thatcame beforethe sightings.I can't 
trustmyself letalone anyoneelse!
Iwould like tosee this filmthey tookthough but, Idon't supposewe ever 
will.That's the way

(Message over 64 KB, truncated) 

  #yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228 -- #yiv7525880228ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-mkp #yiv7525880228hd 
0;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-mkp #yiv7525880228ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-mkp .yiv7525880228ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-mkp .yiv7525880228ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-mkp .yiv7525880228ad a 
{color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-sponsor #yiv7525880228ygrp-lc #yiv7525880228hd {margin:10px 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-sponsor #yiv7525880228ygrp-lc .yiv7525880228ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv7525880228 
 #yiv7525880228activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228activity span 
.yiv7525880228underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7525880228 
0;width:400px;}#yiv7525880228 .yiv7525880228attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 .yiv7525880228attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv7525880228 .yiv7525880228attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv7525880228 .yiv7525880228attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv7525880228 .yiv7525880228bold 
.yiv7525880228bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 dd.yiv7525880228last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7525880228 dd.yiv7525880228last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7525880228 
dd.yiv7525880228last p span.yiv7525880228yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv7525880228 div.yiv7525880228attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 div.yiv7525880228attach-table 
{width:400px;}#yiv7525880228 div.yiv7525880228file-title a, #yiv7525880228 
div.yiv7525880228file-title a:active, #yiv7525880228 
div.yiv7525880228file-title a:hover, #yiv7525880228 div.yiv7525880228file-title 
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 div.yiv7525880228photo-title a, 
#yiv7525880228 div.yiv7525880228photo-title a:active, #yiv7525880228 
div.yiv7525880228photo-title a:hover, #yiv7525880228 
div.yiv7525880228photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 
div#yiv7525880228ygrp-mlmsg #yiv7525880228ygrp-msg p a 
.yiv7525880228green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv7525880228 .yiv7525880228MsoNormal 
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv7525880228 o {font-size:0;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228photos div div {border:1px solid 
#yiv7525880228photos div label 
 #yiv7525880228reco-category {font-size:77%;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228reco-desc {font-size:77%;}#yiv7525880228 .yiv7525880228replbq 
{margin:4px;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-actbar div a:first-child 
{margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-mlmsg 
{font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-mlmsg select, #yiv7525880228 input, #yiv7525880228 textarea 
{font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv7525880228 code {font:115% 
monospace;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-mlmsg * 
{line-height:1.22em;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-mlmsg #yiv7525880228logo 
{padding-bottom:10px;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-msg p a 
{font-family:Verdana;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-msg 
p#yiv7525880228attach-count span {color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-reco #yiv7525880228reco-head 
{color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-reco 
{margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv7525880228ov li a {font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-sponsor #yiv7525880228ov li 
{font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-sponsor #yiv7525880228ov ul {margin:0;padding:0 0 0 
8px;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-text 
{font-family:Georgia;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-text p {margin:0 0 1em 
0;}#yiv7525880228 #yiv7525880228ygrp-text tt {font-size:120%;}#yiv7525880228 
#yiv7525880228ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {border-right:none 


Reply via email to