Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno:
 could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms?
Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:

"*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "*

where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'? Is a 'regulating system a
power?
(I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the
Supremes'
"MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking.
It would
undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.
The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it in
EU.
And so on.

John Mikes



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary
> witness
> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what
> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.
>
>
> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can
> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that
> stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is not
> that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another
> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of
> lies).
>
>
>
>
> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority
> of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for
> less than what they may have produced.
>
>
> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
> defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We must avoid
> mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only a few minority
> makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering.
>
>
>
> Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond the
> effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership of the so
> called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition - making the
> advanced society an *economical inequality* of haves and have-nots, the
> latter being forced to work FOR the former for their mere survival.
>
>
> Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is everything
> but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the money of the less
> rich. It is not free-market, it is organized banditism.
>
>
>
>
> Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the have-nots
> into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the wealthy. It is
> called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured casualties of wars)
> of the system are called heros.
>
> Just to vent off
>
>
> I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is faulty,
> but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the founders of America
> were quite aware of the possibility.
>
> They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US
> Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is virtually
> dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).
>
> It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad people.
> The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives the lies.
>
> The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in principle) is
> still governed by the "the boss is right" principle. People are still
> discouraged to make the thinking and take the responsibility. Only in
> movies.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:
>>
>> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, it
>>> takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they need
>>> to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In some
>>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its
>>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the
>>> war on drugs. And that then can cause a lot of harm.
>>>
>>> But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when Gorbachov
>>> was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the West, it took us a
>>> very long time to engage with him. A point on which we never engaged with
>>> the Soviets in a constructive way was Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even before
>>> Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving behind a
>>> stable government. We never wanted to engage with the Soviets on that,
>>> because of pur mondset that the root of all evil was communism, and the
>>> Soviets were just talking bullshit about our allies there, the Jihadists.
>>>
>>> Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous. We
>>> knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out 

Re: Cryonics in the NYT

[John Mikes]

Irrespective from the hardship to decide when and who might have been the
'first' Mummy to tell tales and WHAT those tales might have been to develop
into later (religious?) tales, the 'Mummy' is an adult who was already
subject
to 'religious' stories of the powerful for subjecting folks to their own
rules.
This is an involved cultural history of political power development.

May I reverse your quetion:
Where did the first 'interpreter' get *his* story to tell - and I am not
asking about present religious stories. Fear and fantasy, greed, etc. etc.
the basic human and late animal amotions construed fairytales of the
'supernatural' to be told.

Nothing tangible and/or of proving power. Nothing of a 'Supernatural'
being's "communication" - yet believed to be understandable(?) by a
primitive human (-ignorant!) mind. Told as a story, later even written(?)
into the 'Holy Books'.
Then came the adjustments to the 'understandable' formats etc. etc.
All that I place in the several millennia before we talk about religion(s)
at all.

Anyway: I am not a religious student.

John Mikes


On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Where did the first Mummy get the tale from?
>
> On 18-Sep-2015, at 1:39 am, John Mikes  wrote:
>
> Samiya,* "forever"* is NOT a timespan, it is the *infinite* (maybe
> without an
> end, or without a beginning?) so your 'to live forever' may mean:
> IT IS OVER WITHIN THE INSTANT IT STARTED.
> (Or: it may indeed mean a duration without an end, as you suggest).
>
> THE 'HARD WIRED WITHIN' is natural in an environment of many many
> generations educated into a belief system from all around. The content
> may come from Mummy's eary fairy tales for the baby - and completed
> by studies later on from 'smart' books and 'smart' teachers galore.
> None has a reasonable evidencing base.
> JM
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Samiya Illias 
> wrote:
>
>> Is the 'belief in an afterlife' natural? Perhaps it's something hard
>> wired within, such that even atheists hope to live forever!
>>
>> Samiya
>>
>> On 13-Sep-2015, at 11:26 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
>>
>> Neuroscience as a new messiah. People's belief in an afterlife will never
>> go away. Especially in our enlightenment age.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
> defamation of products and misinformation of the public.


​I think it would be preferable for people to decide for themselves what is
a fact and what is not, b
ut to do what you say above you've got to have some organization get into
the truth determining business, and it must be far far more powerful than
any other organization. That might be OK if there was some way to guarantee
that such a organization was always led by a genius who was also a saint,
but unfortunately such paragons are a little hard to find.   ​



> ​> ​
> We must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears


​The reason that organized crime exists is that people want to do certain
things that the government doesn't want them to do, things like consume
alcohol and other drugs, watch pornography, gamble, get high interest rate
loans and visit prostitutes. The Mafia is providing services that people
want that government says they can't have, and the only reason they're so
violent is because  violence is the only way they have of dealing with
disagreement. I
f government made chocolate bars illegal then people would still demand
​them​
, and the underground Hershey candy company and the underground Mars candy
company would have no way to settle disputes except through baseball bats
and machine guns.

​  John K Clark​









> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary
> witness
> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what
> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.
>
>
> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can
> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that
> stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is not
> that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another
> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of
> lies).
>
>
>
>
> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority
> of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for
> less than what they may have produced.
>
>
> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
> defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We must avoid
> mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only a few minority
> makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering.
>
>
>
> Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond the
> effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership of the so
> called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition - making the
> advanced society an *economical inequality* of haves and have-nots, the
> latter being forced to work FOR the former for their mere survival.
>
>
> Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is everything
> but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the money of the less
> rich. It is not free-market, it is organized banditism.
>
>
>
>
> Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the have-nots
> into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the wealthy. It is
> called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured casualties of wars)
> of the system are called heros.
>
> Just to vent off
>
>
> I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is faulty,
> but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the founders of America
> were quite aware of the possibility.
>
> They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US
> Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is virtually
> dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).
>
> It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad people.
> The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives the lies.
>
> The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in principle) is
> still governed by the "the boss is right" principle. People are still
> discouraged to make the thinking and take the responsibility. Only in
> movies.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:
>>
>> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, it
>>> takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they need
>>> to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In some
>>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its
>>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the

Re: Cryonics in the NYT

[Samiya Illias]

Where did the first Mummy get the tale from? 

> On 18-Sep-2015, at 1:39 am, John Mikes  wrote:
> 
> Samiya, "forever" is NOT a timespan, it is the infinite (maybe without an 
> end, or without a beginning?) so your 'to live forever' may mean:
> IT IS OVER WITHIN THE INSTANT IT STARTED.
> (Or: it may indeed mean a duration without an end, as you suggest). 
> 
> THE 'HARD WIRED WITHIN' is natural in an environment of many many 
> generations educated into a belief system from all around. The content
> may come from Mummy's eary fairy tales for the baby - and completed 
> by studies later on from 'smart' books and 'smart' teachers galore. 
> None has a reasonable evidencing base. 
> JM
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Samiya Illias  
>> wrote:
>> Is the 'belief in an afterlife' natural? Perhaps it's something hard wired 
>> within, such that even atheists hope to live forever! 
>> 
>> Samiya 
>> 
>>> On 13-Sep-2015, at 11:26 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Neuroscience as a new messiah. People's belief in an afterlife will never 
>>> go away. Especially in our enlightenment age.
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:

Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary  
witness

during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit  
what does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.


I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing  
can progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It  
might be that stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a  
necessary step. It is not that difficult, as the lies exists only  
since 75 years. It is another matter about theology (1500 years of  
lies), and matter (billions years of lies).






I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming  
majority of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic  
system to work for less than what they may have produced.


Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free  
market, but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some  
laws, like defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We  
must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only  
a few minority makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering.




Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond  
the effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership  
of the so called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition -  
making the advanced society an economical inequality of haves and  
have-nots, the latter being forced to work FOR the former for their  
mere survival.


Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is  
everything but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the  
money of the less rich. It is not free-market, it is organized  
banditism.





Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the  
have-nots into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the  
wealthy. It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead,  
injured casualties of wars) of the system are called heros.


Just to vent off


I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is  
faulty, but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the  
founders of America were quite aware of the possibility.


They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US  
Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is  
virtually dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).


It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad  
people. The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives  
the lies.


The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in  
principle) is still governed by the "the boss is right" principle.  
People are still discouraged to make the thinking and take the  
responsibility. Only in movies.


Bruno





John Mikes

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:

The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big  
inertia, it takes them a long time to see that the World has changed  
and that they need to focus on other issues than they currently are  
engaged with. In some cases that can lead to escalation of a  
pointless conflict that has its roots in past issues that are no  
longer relevant, as is the case with the war on drugs. And that then  
can cause a lot of harm.


But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when  
Gorbachov was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the  
West, it took us a very long time to engage with him. A point on  
which we never engaged with the Soviets in a constructive way was  
Afghanistan.


The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even before  
Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving  
behind a stable government. We never wanted to engage with the  
Soviets on that, because of pur mondset that the root of all evil  
was communism, and the Soviets were just talking bullshit about our  
allies there, the Jihadists.


Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous.  
We knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan,  
their communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population  
would be able to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this  
that we never critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made  
here.


It later turned out that we were wrong and that the Soviets were  
right, not in their general approach but about seeing the threat of  
Jihadism that we helped to fuel. Also they were right about the  
dangers of having failed states. Our ideology at the time was that a  
failed state would quickly get itself organized into  a flourishing  
democracy if you could only keep the evil communists out.


Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was  
weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his  nationalist 

Re: Gödel's Philosophy

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Sep 2015, at 22:12, John Mikes wrote:

I do not intend to get involved in a discussion with Gődel about his  
phikosophy, I appreciate his talent and knowldge, just a remark on

the #1 of his list: "Nature is reasonable"

In my agnostic views I would not go for that: we have a mental image
about 'Nature' based on the little we THINK we know about Her based
on the portion we (think we) observed and formulated a "human" reason
upon it.


Itself based on an animal intuition, itself plausibly selected by many  
years of "evolution", a very long history, itself base on the  
prejudice of the universal machine itself.


The delusion path can be very long indeed.

I can argue that the first lies are in elementary arithmetic ...





According to such formulation the imagined 'Nature" (part) does fit
into such   human reason, what I would not translate into
  "Nature  I S  reasonable".


I think it was "the world is rational". Gôdel did not take nature and  
naturalism for granted.


He missed the non-materialism of the mechanist hypothesis, as he even  
missed Church's thesis and the universal machine, but he saw the  
miracle needed to have that Church's thesis. He missed it, but  
understood eventually it better than Church.


of course he knwe that his theorem apply to us (the local finite  
beings), but not necessarily us (the developping being). of course he  
missed also the FPI, which makes us being related both to the set of  
all computations, and to some random oracle (and perhaps others, but  
there are no evidence).


yet, Gödel tought that maybe evoloution could not have been done in  
the known times, and that this could be an empirical evidence for a  
god, which shows he missed the multiverse or many-world ideas too.  
Some said that Einstein did forbid Gödel to even think about QM, or  
something like that ...


The book on Gödel and Einstein is interesting to read to understand  
why both Gödel missed the digital mechanist hypothesis. They both  
missed the impact of the discovery of the universal machine in  
arithmetic. That is the real creative bomb I think.


Bruno



John Mikes



On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Brent Meeker   
wrote:



On 9/13/2015 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Sep 2015, at 23:48, Jason Resch wrote:




On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:



On 11 Sep 2015, at 04:08, Jason Resch wrote:




So aliens or beings on other worlds, or in other universes, need  
not be made of the same particles, or same elements/chemicals as  
we, if it is the functions/patterns/mathematical relations that  
determine consciousness.


Interesting but I am not sure if that was what Gödel thought about.

(But I confess I have not yet read the entire work of Gödel, I  
still miss probably some of the unpublished writings)




I am not certain either. It was conjecture on my part. Another  
possible interpretation: God-like intelligences may converge on  
the same set of beliefs/actions/personalities, etc. as with  
increasing intelligence becomes decreased probability of making  
mistakes.  Therefore matters of disagreement between any two  
entities converges toward zero as intelligence increases.


Then it looks like humans are less intelligent than animals. Should  
not the possibility of doing mistake grows with intelligence? Is  
not intelligence an opening to the change of mind? That is also the  
experience of having been mistaken or deluded or failed and of  
possibly still being mistaken and probably being mistaken in the  
(hopefully consistent and sound) extensions.


So the omniscient Gods of monotheism are even less intelligent.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more 

Re: Cryonics in the NYT

[John Clark]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015  Samiya Illias  wrote:

​> ​
> Is the 'belief in an afterlife' natural? Perhaps it's something hard wired
> within, such that even atheists hope to live forever!
>

​Well sure, a ​desire not to die must be hard wired in, every one of your
ancestors had such a desire, individuals who didn't have it
didn't pass any of their genes into the next generation. ​
Homo naledi
​, the human ancestor ​recently found in South Africa with a brain only
slightly larger than that of a chimpanzee, seems to have gone to
considerable trouble to bury it's dead in deep dangerous caves, and that
certainly sounds like they had some sort of belief in life after death. But
of course having a belief, even being absolutely positively 100% certain
about that belief, is not the same as being correct.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.