Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7844Re: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there

Expand Messages
  • Bill Harris
    Jun 10, 2002
      Thanks, Daniel. I can`t keep up with my reading, the bike trail keeps calling and who cares if a wired ,old dentist understands singularities? Bill
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: daniel_needles
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 7:39 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there


      Bill,
      Haven't forgotten. Work had me incognito for a time. I'll follow up
      on this this week.

      Thanks,
      Daniel

      --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris" <valleywestdental@q...> wrote:
      > Daniel, Ya, definitely, bring it on. Bill
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: daniel_needles
      > To: existlist@y...
      > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:55 PM
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      >
      >
      > Bill,
      > I have a theory I'm working on regarding existence before the
      BB.
      > It matches observed data; however, it requires adjustments to
      current
      > cosmology and thus is a bit long winded. If you'd like I could
      > summarize under a separate cover. (I suspect it will be an
      itterative
      > process.)
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Daniel
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris" <valleywestdental@q...>
      wrote:
      > > Daniel, Thinking of the BB as a reaction, what reagents could
      > account for the observed products ? Bill
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Bill Harris
      > > To: existlist@y...
      > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:59 AM
      > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > >
      > >
      > > Daniel, It would seem we retrace the path of the Skeptics. AS
      > they said scientific inquiry, and reason itself break down at
      the
      > threshold of the atom, our modern absurdists draw the line at the
      > electron.
      > > Reason would have me think that some entity be it Quantum
      > gravity, quark- gluon plasma, or strings feed the big bang.
      > Hypernovi are fed by super heater gas clouds and they approach
      big
      > bang magnitude. I would like to know what theoretical entity
      could
      > exist on both sides of the Big bang? Bill
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: daniel_needles
      > > To: existlist@y...
      > > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:20 PM
      > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > >
      > >
      > > Bohr also held the belief that QM could only be described
      not
      > > explained. This kind of position has beeen held repetivily
      > throughout
      > > Western thought. Even the Greeks after discovering the
      concept
      > of an
      > > atom found themselves spinning thoughts of thoughts with no
      > more
      > > empiricle data to base it on. Eventually it led to the
      Skeptics
      > who
      > > also proposed reality could only be described not
      explained.
      > That is,
      > > basically like the mind science cannot turn itself off
      easily.
      > > Instead it goes into denial or shock until rescued by more
      data
      > via
      > > better tools. Things have changed a bit since Bohr. We
      still
      > > cannot "explain" QM but there are a number of theories
      being
      > > proposed. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn
      is a
      > good
      > > book on this topic.
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > > Daniel
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris"
      <valleywestdental@q...>
      > wrote:
      > > > Daniel, Niels Bohr, in his letters reported Heisenberg
      as
      > > misrepresenting his activities regarding a fission bomb.
      Bohr
      > did
      > > not wish to discredit his collegue and the letters were
      held
      > until
      > > after Bohr`s death. Bill
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: Bill Harris
      > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:30 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Daniel, I now understand what you are getting at. I
      will
      > have to
      > > find the study using soft electrons. Perhaps Eduard
      remembers.
      > They
      > > were working in 10 to the minus11 secounds time frame. In
      that
      > time
      > > frame they were finding position for an electron. To my
      > understanding
      > > we had never approached anything like that scrutany. Bill
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: daniel_needles
      > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:34 PM
      > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Bill,
      > > > IMHO I think you missed my point. This translates
      > quatum
      > > duality of
      > > > mommentum and location into a macro setting. Did it
      make
      > sense?
      > > >
      > > > Thanks,
      > > > Daniel
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris"
      > <valleywestdental@q...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > Daniel, the principle only extends to quantum level
      > entities,
      > > the
      > > > rest is covered in Special relativity , General
      > relativity or
      > > > Newtonian physics. From your example , what is the
      time
      > frame
      > > between
      > > > sequences? That would put us squarly in Newton`s
      world.
      > Bill
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: daniel_needles
      > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:48 PM
      > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out there
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Bill,
      > > > > I humbly disagree. I'll give you a macro
      experiment
      > that
      > > even
      > > > the
      > > > > Captian can appreciate. I give you two
      timestamped
      > > photographs
      > > > of a
      > > > > moving car. They are instant pictures sequential
      in
      > time.
      > > You
      > > > know
      > > > > everything there is about the car and location.
      You
      > just
      > > were not
      > > > > there to witness the pictures. Now...
      > > > >
      > > > > Given ONLY the pictures tell me the exact speed
      at an
      > exact
      > > > location
      > > > > of the car?
      > > > >
      > > > > Using one picture you can give me the exact
      location
      > > x,y,z,t.
      > > > However
      > > > > you can tell me nothing about the speed. Using
      two
      > pictures
      > > you
      > > > can
      > > > > tell me the speed by comparing the distance and
      time
      > > covered but
      > > > you
      > > > > cannot tell me the exact location since x, y, z,
      and
      > t are
      > > > smeered
      > > > > over the duration of the two shots.
      > > > >
      > > > > That is the basic of the principal in a nutt
      shell.
      > > > >
      > > > > Thanks,
      > > > > Daniel
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In existlist@y..., "Bill Harris"
      > > <valleywestdental@q...>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > > > Daniel, I have kept current on Heisenberg`s
      > uncertainty
      > > > principle.
      > > > > It is at least partially discredited. By using
      soft
      > ex-rays
      > > > > measurements of the position of a lepton have
      been
      > made at
      > > > extremely
      > > > > small time increments.The problem is now thought
      of
      > as more
      > > > technical
      > > > > than theoretical
      > > > > > On a strictly ad hominum level Heisenburg was
      less
      > than
      > > > forthcoming
      > > > > to his colleagues regarding his efforts to build
      a
      > nazi
      > > bomb. It
      > > > > appears he tried to cover his shortcomings by
      > claiming he
      > > > > intentionally was dragging his feet. In reality
      he
      > was
      > > working as
      > > > > hard as possible
      > > > > > The principle itself has been used to degrade
      > science as
      > > a
      > > > tool of
      > > > > discovery. If you look back in this script you
      would
      > find
      > > a long
      > > > > discussion relating to absurdism and the
      uncertainty
      > > principle.
      > > > In
      > > > > retrospect, challenging the validity of all
      science
      > because
      > > of
      > > > the
      > > > > appearance of one obscure theory was silly. Bill
      > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > > From: daniel_needles
      > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 4:20 PM
      > > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out
      there
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In existlist@y..., "Eduard Alf"
      <yeoman@v...>
      > wrote:
      > > > > > > Daniel,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Wow ... lots to talk about.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 1) Lets start with the "so what".
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I have done some reading on this "new age
      > physics"
      > > with all
      > > > > that
      > > > > > stuff about
      > > > > > > quantum physics and such. Perhaps not as
      much
      > as
      > > other may
      > > > > have.
      > > > > > Anyway
      > > > > > > there seems to be a lot of interest in
      Werner
      > > Heisenberg's
      > > > > > uncertainty
      > > > > > > principle and it is often put forward as
      the
      > basis of
      > > not
      > > > > knowing
      > > > > > all about
      > > > > > > reality. That as soon as we try to get in
      > there to
      > > do an
      > > > > > experiment of
      > > > > > > measurement, we ourselves affect the
      experiment
      > > results.
      > > > That
      > > > > you
      > > > > > cant
      > > > > > > determine speed and location at the same
      time.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > All this is good stuff. We need to know
      about
      > > quantum
      > > > > mechanics
      > > > > > and how the
      > > > > > > speed of light applies to the space-time
      > continuum.
      > > But
      > > > this
      > > > > is
      > > > > > not part of
      > > > > > > our personal world. We live in a Newtonian
      > world,
      > > not a
      > > > > Quantum
      > > > > > world.
      > > > > > > Philosophies are intended for ordinary
      humans.
      > What
      > > we
      > > > need is
      > > > > > some kind of
      > > > > > > guidance that tells us why we should get up
      in
      > the
      > > morning,
      > > > not
      > > > > > what happens
      > > > > > > to dark matter in a far corner of the
      galaxy.
      > When I
      > > hear
      > > > the
      > > > > words
      > > > > > > "quantum mechanics" in relation to
      philosophy,
      > my
      > > reaction
      > > > > is "so
      > > > > > what".
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 2) the idea of "enough for survival" runs
      in
      > the
      > > same
      > > > vein.
      > > > > How
      > > > > > many times
      > > > > > > in the day have you made a decision based
      upon
      > > quantum
      > > > > mechanics?
      > > > > > My point
      > > > > > > is that we may not know reality fully, but
      then
      > we
      > > don't
      > > > need
      > > > > to.
      > > > > > If I am
      > > > > > > about to walk on ice, then I only need to
      know
      > > whether I
      > > > can
      > > > > walk
      > > > > > on it. I
      > > > > > > don't need to know the bonding strength
      between
      > > hydrogen
      > > > and
      > > > > oxygen
      > > > > > atoms.
      > > > > > > I just need to know enough to walk on the
      ice.
      > I am
      > > not
      > > > > suggesting
      > > > > > that we
      > > > > > > should not investigate the physics of ice,
      but
      > it
      > > wont make
      > > > a
      > > > > > difference in
      > > > > > > my life.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 3) With respect to "relationship between
      > senses and
      > > the
      > > > > physical
      > > > > > world, as
      > > > > > > the relationship between classical
      [Newtonian]
      > and
      > > quantum
      > > > > > physics.", my
      > > > > > > point is that the two relationships are not
      of
      > the
      > > same
      > > > > quality, so
      > > > > > there is
      > > > > > > no similarity.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Ah, I understand your points but disagree
      with
      > your
      > > > conclusions,
      > > > > > which is fine. Thanks for sharing your ideas.
      I
      > enjoyed
      > > (and
      > > > will
      > > > > > continue to enjoy) learning about them.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > captain jack
      > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > > From: daniel_needles
      > [mailto:Daniel.Needles@C...]
      > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:45 PM
      > > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: the truth is out
      > there
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In existlist@y..., "Eduard Alf"
      > <yeoman@v...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > Daniel,
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > No. Although I would agree there is
      > sensory
      > > > limitations,
      > > > > my
      > > > > > point
      > > > > > > is that we still have to use our neurons
      to
      > > interpret the
      > > > > signals
      > > > > > > provided by our senses. Since it is an
      > > interpretation
      > > > and
      > > > > not the
      > > > > > > object itself that comes into our brains,
      and
      > since
      > > the
      > > > art of
      > > > > > > interpretation has to be learnt, then we
      cant
      > see
      > > reality
      > > > as
      > > > > it
      > > > > > > actually is. We create what we "think"
      is
      > the
      > > object.
      > > > For
      > > > > an
      > > > > > mature
      > > > > > > adult this gets a close as we need for
      > survival.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hm. I think I am missing your
      significance
      > here
      > > > somewhere.
      > > > > But I
      > > > > > > agree with your two statements.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 1. Our conscious mind through our senses
      > converts
      > > an
      > > > external
      > > > > > > structure of parts and internalize it as
      a
      > > structure of
      > > > > thought
      > > > > > where
      > > > > > > the relationships remain the same but the
      > parts are
      > > > switched
      > > > > from
      > > > > > > physical to thought (these thought parts
      are
      > > usually
      > > > > > words/concepts.)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 2. This process of copying structure is
      > limited in
      > > its
      > > > > ability
      > > > > > due to
      > > > > > > a number things.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > The consequence that "this gets as close
      as
      > we need
      > > for
      > > > > survival"
      > > > > > > seems trivial to me. But I suspect I am
      > missing
      > > your main
      > > > > point
      > > > > > here.
      > > > > > > (Sorry. 8~))
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > There is a is an old illusion that
      > demonstrates
      > > this.
      > > > Draw
      > > > > two
      > > > > > > parallel lines each exactly an inch
      long.
      > Put
      > > arrows at
      > > > the
      > > > > ends
      > > > > > of
      > > > > > > each line. Make the arrows point inwards
      for
      > one
      > > line
      > > > and
      > > > > > outwards
      > > > > > > for the other. The result is that the
      line
      > which
      > > has the
      > > > > arrows
      > > > > > > pointing outwards now appears longer.
      The
      > reality
      > > of the
      > > > > lines is
      > > > > > > that they are exactly the same length,
      but
      > because
      > > our
      > > > > neurons are
      > > > > > > making an interpretation, it appears that
      > they are
      > > > different.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Good example. This is #2 above correct?
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I'd make a minor modification. It is
      > possible to
      > > know
      > > > it
      > > > > all.
      > > > > > > However,there is no way I can know if I
      know
      > it
      > > all. I
      > > > have
      > > > > no
      > > > > > way to
      > > > > > > know that the ice will break.>>
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Not knowing if you know it all, is the
      same
      > thing
      > > as
      > > > not
      > > > > being
      > > > > > able
      > > > > > > to know it all.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I can accept that as an definition under
      your
      > > theory.
      > > > > However,
      > > > > > that
      > > > > > > means you cannot distinguish between
      > someone's
      > > awareness
      > > > and
      > > > > their
      > > > > > > potential awareness. That is, if they
      > actually do
      > > know it
      > > > all
      > > > > > > (potential awareness) but they cannot
      know it
      > all
      > > > (awareness)
      > > > > > there
      > > > > > > is no way to identify this using this
      > defintion. It
      > > gets
      > > > > blurred
      > > > > > with
      > > > > > > the case that they don't know it all and
      they
      > > cannot know
      > > > it
      > > > > all.
      > > > > > > Pretty minor concern of mine though.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Even millenniums from now you will not
      know
      > the
      > > full
      > > > > reality.
      > > > > > You
      > > > > > > may be know more ... but not it all. You
      > will
      > > still need
      > > > to
      > > > > > > interpret what you see.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > My comment of "so what" was not with
      > respect to
      > > whether
      > > > > there
      > > > > > will
      > > > > > > be new discoveries. I am saying "so
      what"
      > because
      > > they
      > > > do
      > > > > not
      > > > > > have
      > > > > > > an impact on my daily life. Magnetism
      and
      > > electricity is
      > > > a
      > > > > case
      > > > > > in
      > > > > > > point. If I have a magnet, I can pick up
      > pins and
      > > such.
      > > > But
      > > > > > > physicists say that this is due to an
      > exchange of
      > > > fundamental
      > > > > > > particles. That is nice to know, but
      what is
      > only
      > > > necessary
      > > > > for
      > > > > > me
      > > > > > > is that I can pick up a pin. If I am to
      > develop a
      > > > personal
      > > > > > > philosophy, fundamental particles do not
      have
      > a
      > > place
      > > > therein.
      > > > > > > Again ... I am not saying that such
      > knowledge is
      > > > something
      > > > > that
      > > > > > is
      > > > > > > of no value; it is just something that
      would
      > not
      > > help me
      > > > in my
      > > > > > > everyday life.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I'll have to think about this. You
      > acknowledge my
      > > point
      > > > but
      > > > > say
      > > > > > it is
      > > > > > > unimportnat. I am not following why under
      > your
      > > theory
      > > > this is
      > > > > > > unimportant in terms of determining
      reality.
      > (I
      > > think I
      > > > am
      > > > > missing
      > > > > > > something fundemental in your
      perspective.
      > Which
      > > expands
      > > > your
      > > > > > > statement that structures are not only
      hard
      > to
      > > convey
      > > > from
      > > > > > physical
      > > > > > > to the mind but between minds through the
      > physical
      > > (via
      > > > > emails) as
      > > > > > > well. 8~)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I do not agree that there is a
      relationship
      > > between
      > > > senses
      > > > > and
      > > > > > the
      > > > > > > physical world, as the relationship
      between
      > > classical
      > > > > [Newtonian]
      > > > > > and
      > > > > > > quantum physics. Physical reality may
      > determine
      > > > the "truth",
      > > > > but
      > > > > > > both of these are outside the
      individual. We
      > cant
      > > know
      > > > > physical
      > > > > > > reality and thus not know the truth.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hmm. Please expound. I don't follow.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > captain jack
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > > > From: daniel_needles
      > > [mailto:Daniel.Needles@C...]
      > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:23 AM
      > > > > > > > To: existlist@y...
      > > > > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re:
      > Existentialism...?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >>No, I am not saying that a "part"
      > > > > > > > >> defines reality. Reality [to
      maintain
      > the
      > > context
      > > > of
      > > > > the
      > > > > > > > >> discussion] is composed of many
      > parts. We
      > > may be
      > > > aware
      > > > > > > > >> of a part or perhaps even many
      parts,
      > but
      > > that
      > > > does
      > > > > mean
      > > > > > > > >> we can know all of the parts.
      That is
      > what
      > > I mean
      > > > > > > > >> by the comment that we cant know
      > > reality "fully".
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I think I got it. Yes I would agree
      with
      > that.
      > > Your
      > > > > concept is
      > > > > > > > that due to sensory limitations, etc
      some
      > > aspects of
      > > > > reality
      > > > > > > > cannot be yet known or maybe not
      known at
      > all.
      > > I'd
      > > > agree
      > > > > with
      > > > > > > that.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > (Did I read you right this time?)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >> I am not drawing a line as to what
      I
      > want to
      > > > > understand.
      > > > > > > > >> What I am saying is that
      regardless
      > of how
      > > much I
      > > > > want to
      > > > > > > > >> understand, I cant know it all.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I'd make a minor modification. It is
      > possible
      > > to know
      > > > it
      > > > > all.
      > > > > > > > However, there is no way I can know
      if I
      > know
      > > it all.
      > > > I
      > > > > have
      > > > > > no
      > > > > > > way
      > > > > > > > to know that the ice will break.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > This is a supportable hypothesis by a
      > simple
      > > example
      > > > of a
      > > > > case
      > > > > > > where
      > > > > > > > the universe has an alternate truth
      but
      > there
      > > is no
      > > > way I
      > > > > can
      > > > > > know
      > > > > > > > it.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Imagine, milleniums from now even if
      I am
      > able
      > > to
      > > > > determine
      > > > > > all
      > > > > > > that
      > > > > > > > can be measured and experienced.
      Imagine
      > also
      > > there
      > > > > exists an
      > > > > > > > underlying truth that has no
      fingerprint
      > in
      > > reality
      > > > or
      > > > > > experience
      > > > > > > > cannot be discovered by nature. Thus,
      if
      > such a
      > > > > fingerprint
      > > > > > > exists,
      > > > > > > > there is no way to "know" it.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > However, if the truth has a finger
      print
      > then
      > > it is
      > > > > knowable.
      > > > > > But
      > > > > > > if
      > > > > > > > we do find it we can never know that
      it
      > is the
      > > > ultimate
      > > > > truth,
      > > > > > > only
      > > > > > > > that it is the ultimate truth we can
      > measure
      > > (for
      > > > now.)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >>> I should comment on the Wheeler
      mind
      > > experiment.
      > > > > > > > >> My reaction is "so what".
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > A 100 years ago they said the same
      thing
      > about
      > > > magnetism
      > > > > and
      > > > > > > > electricity. Technology proliferation
      has
      > a way
      > > of
      > > > > effecting
      > > > > > > > everyones lives. Have you heard about
      > Quantum
      > > > computers?
      > > > > > Project
      > > > > > > > this technology into another 100
      years.
      > Things
      > > may be
      > > > > > different
      > > > > > > then.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I see the relationship between senses
      and
      > the
      > > > physical
      > > > > world
      > > > > > as
      > > > > > > being
      > > > > > > > very similar to the realationship
      between
      > > classical
      > > > and
      > > > > > quantum
      > > > > > > > physics. Usually our senses match
      > reality,
      > > however
      > > > there
      > > > > are
      > > > > > times
      > > > > > > > when it doesn't match. However, it is
      > physical
      > > > reality
      > > > > that
      > > > > > > > determines the "truth." The same
      thing
      > seems
      > > to
      > > > occur
      > > > > with
      > > > > > > Quantum
      > > > > > > > mechanics.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > You are quite a thinker. Always a
      > pleasure.
      > > > > > > > Daniel
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have
      > been
      > > removed]
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Our Home:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and
      > more.)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an
      email
      > to:
      > > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      the
      > Yahoo!
      > > Terms
      > > > of
      > > > > > Service.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have
      been
      > removed]
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Our Home:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and
      more.)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email
      to:
      > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      > Yahoo!
      > > Terms of
      > > > > Service.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
      > removed]
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > > >
      > > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      Yahoo!
      > Terms of
      > > > Service.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
      removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > > > ADVERTISEMENT
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > >
      > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      Terms
      > of
      > > Service.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > > >
      > > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      Terms of
      > > Service.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > >
      > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      > >
      > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@y...
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 72 messages in this topic