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 <[email protected]> > >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> >>>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 ___ 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
