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

Re: [existlist] an ant colony in New York City

Expand Messages
  • George Walton
    In one rather significant respect there is an overlapping variable between an ant colony and New York City. This: in order for either to survive a means of
    Message 1 of 47 , May 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In one rather significant respect there is an overlapping variable between an ant colony and New York City. This: in order for either to survive a means of production is necessary and there will be different roles to play for different participants in sustaining it.

      Food, shelter, reproduction, defense. Same for the ants and same for the people.

      But the ants of course are not self-conscious of themselves doing this. An ant colony is largely a mechanism wound up biologically from within the vastness of evolution over millions and millions of years. None of characters [soldiers, workers, queens etc.] are "moral agents" and philosophy never comes up at all. Much less Internet discussion venues to debate it.

      The way I look at it, however, is this: in a hundred years what will it matter to any particular ant or any particular human being living in the here and now? In other words, when you have death and oblivion in common one species is indistinguishable from another.

      Think of it perhaps like this....

      The next time you see an ant, step on it. It dies. Now for 15,000,000,000 years the cosmos has been around [assuming it all "began" with the Big Bang] and here is this ant you've just stepped on. It had its infinitesimally brief moment on the stage afer fifteen thousand million years and you've just sent it on its way into a eternity more of nonexistence.

      Thinking about that?

      Okay, imagine next week an asteroid the size of Mount Everest slams into earth and wipes out the human species.

      How then in the end are we really any different from the ants in a cosmological scheme of things?


      george


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Herman B. Triplegood
      Nolan: Thing have been a bit crazy around here, dealing with two different families, one obviously stricken by grief, the other, apparently, more interested in
      Message 47 of 47 , Jun 15, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Nolan:

        Thing have been a bit crazy around here, dealing with two different
        families, one obviously stricken by grief, the other, apparently, more
        interested in pawning guns and jewelry. It is insane. Sarah got to spend
        some time with her dead child this morning. It was heart wrenching, but
        Sarah was courageous. She needed to touch her cold body, otherwise, it would
        not have seemed real. The funeral is on Sunday. She flies down to Chino,
        California, Friday, to attend her eighteen year old daughter's graduation
        from high school, then, back up here on Saturday to prepare for a funeral.
        The irony is, the funeral is on Father's day, and it was the father who
        murdered the child. But, you see, we are convinced he was a victim too. He
        suffered greatly from pain caused by an automobile accident two years ago.
        It was an undercover narcotics officer who sideswiped him at over a hundred
        miles an hour. That is another irony.

        In any event, if it were not for lists like this, I would probably go stir
        crazy. It gives me some respite from all of the chaos. I have a few comments
        to offer as rejoinders to your post. The arts are fascinating, especially
        theater, and music.

        Hb3g
        www.ekstasis.info


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "nolanhatley" <the_nolster@...>
        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:31 PM
        Subject: [existlist] Re: an ant colony in New York City


        >
        > Herman,
        >
        > I admire your dialouge and humility of presenttation in this forum.
        > Tbank you. I can't responnd, other to say that you speak truly in
        > aiming for a unity of mind among man in method and magic(the arts).
        > I do happen to be at a summer arts school at the moment, which I
        > explains my complete detatchment from the scientic mind at the
        > moment. With classes in theatre, rehearsals, responsibilites, as
        > well as attending evening performances of mime and ballet, I have
        > not had the compuation to process at the moment. I feel my brain is
        > fried, not so much by this dialouge but by the commotion of life
        > itself at the moment. Man's a bloody mess. I believe in there was a
        > existential solution involving the material, phyiscical and
        > historical, as well as the metaphysical, the spiritual, and the
        > imaginative.

        [Herman}
        I have two good friends, Jeffrey McBride, and Eugene Burger, who are well
        known stage magicians. Eugene does close-up work. Jeffrey's specialties are
        masking and flinging cards. Both are fascinating people, stage
        personalities, Jeffrey being full of energy and often surprising, Eugene,
        educated to the doctoral level in comparative religion, then, a civil
        servant, and finally a magician. His beard is awesome, full and white, and
        his voice, very deep, and hypnotic. The roads we take to get to where we are
        eh? Jeffrey and Eugene wrote a book, "Mystery School," in which they have
        asserted:

        "The birth of the audience is the death of the theater."

        What does this mean? Well, think about the Eleusis Rites. These were huge
        theatrical productions, actually, spanning nine days, in ancient Greek
        times, when the Mystai would journey from Athens to Eleusis, and undergo
        ordeals, purifications, and initiations. It was an experience that almost
        every Greek citizen would have, once in their lives, much like the Muslim
        pilgrimmage to Mecca.

        It was all ritualized theater, on a profoundly high, and deep level. During
        these rites, the audience was "inside " the play, not observing it,
        passively, unfolding upon a stage.

        > What do you think? Is there meaning beyond the education of the
        > mind? Is there education of the spirit?

        [Herman}
        The mind and the spirit are one. It is the fact that we dichotomize these
        two things, that points to the underlying malady of our time. We have lost
        our mythic imagination. Even when we witness it played out upon the stage,
        or on the big screen, it does not seem real to us, because we are not "in"
        it. We do not allow ourselves to experience it, "from the inside." We never
        truly "participate" in our myths. (But some do -- they are dismissed as the
        crackpot pagans and witches, occultists, new agers and esotericists, who do
        crazy things, like dance around huge fires, naked, all night long, making
        noise with drums and chants, or moving in complete silence, at times --
        meditations in motion, and in sound and silence. You see Marc? I do, in
        fact, somewhat "Grok" you.) We denigrate the mythic imagination and look
        upon it as a primitive form of explanation that has since been superceded by
        science. I say, myth is interpretation. It is a hermeneutic. Mythic
        imagination, a hermeneutic of the human spirit, has always been grounded
        upon the scientific understaning of its time, however primitive that
        understanding might be. It is the part that offers up the why, not the how,
        nor the what. This is what we have lost. We have banished our shamans. This
        is why we are sick, in mind, and also in spirit.

        One of my favorite sayings -- "I Greek, therefore I Grok." I Love that word.
        Heinlein was a genius, appropriately "rough around the edges," like a genius
        must be.

        >
        > Grace and Peace,
        >
        > Nolan
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@c...>
        > wrote:
        > > Perhaps, Nolan, we are not so far apart in our views, you and I, as
        > we might
        > > at first think. It seems that where my remarks about methodology
        > and the
        > > culture of method are restricted to the context of science, per se,
        > your
        > > remarks, being somewhat antithetical, or so they appear to me, are
        > operating
        > > within what I perceive to be a much wider, therefore vague,
        > context. Now
        > > consider my post, where I quoted Spinoza's own reasons for why he
        > chooses to
        > > admire reason above revelation. Is it not a personal choice on his
        > part? I
        > > simply pose this question: Are you intent, here, on pointing out the
        > > completely valid and necessary limitations of scientific method?
        > Or, are you
        > > not being, simply hostile to science? If so, I might ask if what you
        > > perceive to be so subjugative is indeed real science, or is it not a
        > > projection of your own inner sentiment?
        > >
        > > Some of us are just made to be scientists, even if we become
        > philosophers
        > > instead. Others are made to be, not scientists, but artists or
        > poets.
        > > Neither is better than the other. Life includes both, don't you
        > think? It is
        > > a rare breed that can capture multiple talents in multiple
        > disciplines. I
        > > submit that to compare one with the other, and I realize that I'm
        > putting
        > > this somewhat simplistically, and do not mean to insult at all, is
        > to
        > > compare apples and oranges.
        > >
        > > All I am saying is that we can better understand the method of
        > science if we
        > > try to let go of our hostility to the culture of science, and to
        > the culture
        > > of scientific method, in general, which serves as an important
        > context for
        > > getting a grasp on the "raison d'etre" for the various methods in
        > the first
        > > place. One cannot understand the culture of science, if one does
        > not at
        > > first appreciate it, without undue hostility, for what it really
        > is. It is
        > > an art, and a craft, in its own right, and ought to be accorded
        > that manner
        > > of respect. This, in no way, invalidates those "corners on truth"
        > that other
        > > disciplines have, and that science may never have.
        > >
        > > It is unfortunate that apologists for "scientific method" have made
        > it
        > > appear that science ought to claim the "only corner" on truth.
        > That, my
        > > friend, could not be any further from the truth of human living,
        > which, as
        > > you and I both know, and acknowledge, I think, is not
        > unidimensional, but
        > > multidimensional ("pluralistic," if I may say so). This kind of
        > reduction of
        > > all meaning to only the mechanistic, scientific one, which, by the
        > way, is
        > > not the only methodological approach to "things scientific," is
        > exactly what
        > > I mean to attack when I press the pejorative term "Cartesian
        > Fundamentalism"
        > > into rhetorical service here, and also use the term "totalism" as a
        > way to
        > > describe this kind of "across the board" reductionistic attitude.
        > >
        > > Hb3g
        > > www.ekstasis.info
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "nolanhatley" <the_nolster@h...>
        > > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 7:18 PM
        > > Subject: [existlist] Re: an ant colony in New York City
        > >
        > >
        > > > -
        > > > Herman,
        > > >
        > > > I see the point of your differentiation between the culture of the
        > > > method and the method itself. But then after all, it's just a
        > > > method. Still, then, it is not completley untruthful, and
        > simplistic
        > > > if you must to insist, that life itself, every human life, is
        > > > mysteriously beyond a methodology, beyond a method, beyond
        > > > calculation, and yet we still persist to subject the majority of
        > our
        > > > intellect to the subjagation of procedure and method in hopes of
        > > > becoming OMNIscient in our realizations of life as we see it.
        > > >
        > > > Now, the human can calcuate himself, and simulate experience as
        > to to
        > > > be in perpetual state of satisfaction, and have no contentment.
        > We
        > > > neglect our imaginative intellect, and in so doing, we neglect our
        > > > freedom.
        > > >
        > > > Grace and Peace,
        > > >
        > > > Nolan
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > -- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood"
        > <hb3g@c...>
        > > > wrote:
        > > > > Your comments, Nolan, are passionate, and to the point. How I
        > see
        > > > scientific
        > > > > method, however, is perhaps not the same way that certain
        > > > philosophers of
        > > > > science see it. Technology figures into this as well. If we
        > define
        > > > > scientific method, purely in terms of the technological
        > advantages
        > > > that it
        > > > > happens to give us, we miss the whole point of science, which, I
        > > > believe,
        > > > > precedes technology, by a long shot. It is a wonderful topic for
        > > > discussion,
        > > > > and should be laid bare, in all of its respects. If any
        > discipline,
        > > > taught
        > > > > at the University should be humane, humanistic, and an art that
        > is
        > > > liberal,
        > > > > it ought to be science. Einstein, for me, is one of the finest
        > > > examples of a
        > > > > scientist who consciously did his science, philosophically. He
        > was
        > > > humane,
        > > > > and a pacifist. He was not just into the business of building
        > > > better bombs
        > > > > for the government. I'll interject a few remarks in response to
        > > > your post,
        > > > > on my post, about the original post.
        > > > >
        > > > > Hb3g
        > > > > www.ekstasis.info
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > From: "nolanhatley" <the_nolster@h...>
        > > > > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 12:58 PM
        > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: an ant colony in New York City
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > ###Hb3g,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Is it untruthful to say that the scientific method has been
        > > > > > insufficient in a whole understanding of the human condition?
        > > > >
        > > > > No Nolan, it is not untruthful, but it is overly simplistic.
        > > > Science carries
        > > > > us now into those other domains of epistemological and
        > metaphysical
        > > > > interest. But this is the proper domain, I believe, of
        > philosophy,
        > > > per se.
        > > > > Too many of our scientists are philosophically naive, but not
        > all.
        > > > By the
        > > > > same token, too many of our philosophers have a view of
        > scientific
        > > > method
        > > > > that is overly simplistic, and that does not capture the true
        > > > spirit of
        > > > > scientific inquiry. I get excited when I read Galileo and
        > Newton.
        > > > There is
        > > > > something here supremely philosophical, as well as purely
        > > > scientific.
        > > > >
        > > > > > I personally find it seriously wanting as to anthropology, the
        > > > > > experience of spirit and emotion, and most of all, as an
        > impetus
        > > > of
        > > > > > meaning in the universe.
        > > > >
        > > > > It depends on what you mean, exactly, by the term "science."
        > There
        > > > can be
        > > > > scientific methods to apply to anthropology, but they may bear
        > > > little
        > > > > resemblance, at all, to the methods we see proscribed by
        > physical
        > > > sciences.
        > > > > I think we tend to associate everything "scientific" with
        > > > everything merely
        > > > > mechanical, or mechanistic. Thinkers like Rupert Sheldrake, a
        > > > scientific
        > > > > thinker, albeit, a rather controversial one among the more
        > > > conservative
        > > > > science minded folks, do not strike me as being, at all, merely
        > > > mechanistic.
        > > > > Neither does a thinker like Adolf Portmann, or Jung, or
        > Kerenyi, or
        > > > Joseph
        > > > > Campbell. To me, these men were "scientists" because they lived
        > up
        > > > to that
        > > > > true attitude of an honest and open search for knowledge and
        > truth,
        > > > > according to rational methods, even if such methods were not
        > > > mathematical,
        > > > > or analytical, in the sense we tend to associate
        > with "scientific
        > > > method."
        > > > >
        > > > > > It has reduced everyhting to points on a
        > > > > > matrix and the glue is still mysterios substance (contemporary
        > > > > > physics).
        > > > >
        > > > > It seems to me that reductionist tendencies in science have
        > borne
        > > > little
        > > > > edible fruit, and the good scientists, the ones who really know
        > > > what science
        > > > > is about, know this. Obviously, you cannot reduce everything to
        > > > science. Nor
        > > > > can you inflate science to include everything.
        > > > >
        > > > > >If there's always more than meets the eye, how is true
        > > > > > empirical truth even possible?
        > > > >
        > > > > I take the radically empirical stance here. I do not believe in
        > the
        > > > > "unknowable." This still leaves room for the sense of mystery,
        > > > which is so
        > > > > important to us. Yes, there is always more than meets the eye.
        > But
        > > > it is
        > > > > with the eye that our first glimmer of a notion that something
        > is
        > > > hidden
        > > > > from us becomes a reality. This is what is "unknown," not what
        > is
        > > > > "unknowable." All that we know must come from our experience.
        > This
        > > > includes
        > > > > what is not known, and must be inferred or "substructed." I am
        > with
        > > > thinkers
        > > > > like James, and the phenomenologists, on this. What appears to
        > us,
        > > > as
        > > > > phenomenon, even if only in part, even with parts hidden, is the
        > > > > thing-in-itself. The distinction between the phenomenon and the
        > > > noumenon, is
        > > > > a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as a "mere
        > appearance."
        > > > In a
        > > > > similar vein, there is no such thing as an "ultimate
        > constituent."
        > > > I am
        > > > > totally with Rand on this. Her arguments in her "Introduction to
        > > > Objectivist
        > > > > Epistemology" make sense to me on these very points. The
        > analytic-
        > > > synthetic
        > > > > dichotomy is a false dichotomy which, if closely examined,
        > leads to
        > > > the
        > > > > contradictory conclusion that consciousness cannot be objective.
        > > > How can
        > > > > this be, if consciousness, itself, is a natural phenomenon?
        > > > >
        > > > > > I'm sorry. I wasn't able to catch all of last century. If
        > there
        > > > > > must be an agenda in the last post, let me adopt William
        > Blake,
        > > > and
        > > > > > his sword in his strong right hand.
        > > > >
        > > > > Perhaps I was characteristically too pugnacious here. What I am
        > > > getting at
        > > > > is this. Most of what is tossed out there as the accepted
        > > > definition of what
        > > > > scientific method happens to be is years out of date. It is what
        > > > > philosophers, not very conversant with science, have offered up
        > as
        > > > their
        > > > > mere presumption of what doing science is. The method is not
        > just
        > > > one
        > > > > method, but a complexus of methods, with many subtleties
        > involved.
        > > > >
        > > > > > Let the subsequent post be an example of how "empircists"
        > don't
        > > > have
        > > > > > the monolpoly on skepticism.
        > > > >
        > > > > The dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism, too, is a
        > false
        > > > dichotomy.
        > > > > It comes from that analytic-syntheitc dichotomy, which, I
        > believe,
        > > > leads to
        > > > > contradiction. The solution, to me, seems to be this. If we
        > choose
        > > > to speak,
        > > > > still, within the linguistic framework of analysis and
        > synthesis,
        > > > then, I
        > > > > say, all propositions are ultimately synthetic. If we choose to
        > > > speak,
        > > > > still, within the framework of empiricism and rationalism,
        > then, I
        > > > say, all
        > > > > knowledge is radically empirical. The first statement is simply
        > the
        > > > > observation that all logic is constitutive. The second
        > statement is
        > > > simply
        > > > > the observation that all knowledge comes from that, of which,
        > the
        > > > knowledge
        > > > > is about. We are the active agents that make the constitution,
        > the
        > > > > understanding, the knowledge, happen. But, it is a mistake to
        > > > collapse this
        > > > > into solipsism by asserting one pole of the noetic-noematic
        > > > relationship
        > > > > without also asserting the other. This is intentionality.
        > > > Consciousness is
        > > > > consciousness of -- something, an entity, (or entities) that
        > exist.
        > > > It
        > > > > really comes down to the unity of these three fundamental
        > axiomatic
        > > > concepts
        > > > > (Rand's term): existence, identity, and intentionality (Rand
        > > > simplye calls
        > > > > this 'consciousness').
        > > > >
        > > > > > Down with the machines!!
        > > > >
        > > > > I cannot help but be sympathetic toward the sentiment expressed
        > > > here. It
        > > > > seems to me it began, and it ends, with Descartes. I had
        > mentioned,
        > > > on
        > > > > another list, or perhaps here, that he is one of those
        > philosophers
        > > > I most
        > > > > love to hate, which is why I keep going back to him. Descartes
        > is so
        > > > > extremely important, because the ultimate implications of his
        > > > proposed
        > > > > method are so dangerous. I have coined the term, "Cartesian
        > > > Fundamentalism"
        > > > > to try and put my finger on the idea, put forward by Descartes
        > > > himself, that
        > > > > the machine view of natural phenomena can be universally
        > applied. I
        > > > > vociferously deny this. To attempt to apply the machine model to
        > > > everything,
        > > > > is an act of methofological "totalism," an attempt to run the
        > same
        > > > exact
        > > > > method, a mechanistic method, all the way across the board, and
        > all
        > > > the way
        > > > > down the line. The reasons why I hate Descartes so much are the
        > > > reasons why
        > > > > I am so intolerant of behaviorism and positivism. The machine
        > view
        > > > has its
        > > > > place, just like the strict axiomatic method of reasoning has
        > its
        > > > place. It
        > > > > is when we try to apply the machine view universally that we
        > become
        > > > guilty
        > > > > of "totalism" in our methodological approach. This is when we
        > > > betray our
        > > > > true agenda, to be nothing more than a "Cartesian
        > Fundamentalist."
        > > > >
        > > > > Scientific method is not, I say NOT, Cartesian Fundamentalism,
        > nor
        > > > is it
        > > > > "totalism" or reductionism. This is where the misunderstanding
        > is.
        > > > > Unfortunately, many scientists, being epistemologically and
        > > > metaphysically
        > > > > naive, adopt these corroding agendas of positivism,
        > behaviorism, and
        > > > > reductionism, to the detriment of science itself, and thereby
        > give
        > > > authentic
        > > > > science, and authentic scientific method, a bad name.
        > > > >
        > > > > > Grace and Peace Nonetheless,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Nolan
        > > > > >
        > > > > > PS....for Louise.....there's truly something potent about
        > drama,
        > > > that
        > > > > > I'm sure FN would find moral
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood"
        > > > <hb3g@c...>
        > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > > > ....why has the scientific method, a methodology that has
        > time
        > > > > > and again
        > > > > > > revealed its insufficiences in several aspects in a
        > metaphysical
        > > > > > > understanding of the >universe, be[en] chosen as the "higher
        > > > > > intellect"?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Why does this question, contain within it, a statement of
        > fact,
        > > > > > that is so
        > > > > > > flat out false that I can hardly believe anybody would say
        > it,
        > > > much
        > > > > > less
        > > > > > > believe it? Do you not see, the evidence presented to you,
        > by
        > > > your
        > > > > > very own
        > > > > > > eyes? Where have you been for the past century?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > What is the agenda behind inserting such a bald-faced, and
        > > > wrong,
        > > > > > statement
        > > > > > > of fact, into such a question?
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > You are putting up a straw man here.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Keep the questions, the questions they should be, and keep
        > the
        > > > > > statements of
        > > > > > > fact, out of the questions.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Science isn't metaphysics, and it ought not to be.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > The real question could be, what are the
        > > > > > metaphysical/epistemological limits
        > > > > > > of scientific method? This is a piece of knowledge that
        > > > scientists
        > > > > > could
        > > > > > > use. But to say that the scientific method is insufficient
        > just
        > > > > > because the
        > > > > > > scientists themselves are metaphysically/epistemologically
        > > > naive is
        > > > > > to deny
        > > > > > > the facts.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > This question of metaphysical and epistemological
        > principles is
        > > > the
        > > > > > job for
        > > > > > > the philosophers (not the theologians: my bias; which I am
        > > > prepared
        > > > > > to
        > > > > > > defend vociferously, but with civility).
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > But, alas, it appears that the philosophers have, for the
        > most
        > > > part,
        > > > > > > defaulted on their contract, to be the
        > > > metaphysical/epistemological
        > > > > > thinkers
        > > > > > > for this.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Hb3g
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to
        > explaining
        > > > nothing!
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
        > ----
        > > > --------
        > > > > ------
        > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > > >
        > > > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
        > > > > >
        > > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > > > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > >
        > > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
        > Terms of
        > > > Service.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
        > nothing!
        > > >
        > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
        > --------
        > > ------
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
        > > >
        > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > >
        > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service.
        > > >
        > > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        >
        >
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ------
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/
        >
        > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.