Reminder: the Zoom meeting will begin tomorrow shortly before 10:30am MDT
http://bit.ly/virtualfriam
Is the link
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity
Same for me, Frank. The bit.ly link itself points to the unsubscribe link.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:20 PM Frank Wimberly wrote:
> When I try to select the link for copying the "un/subscribe" comes with
> it. Does anyone else experience this?
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
>
When I try to select the link for copying the "un/subscribe" comes with
it. Does anyone else experience this?
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022, 11:47 AM glen wrote:
> Looks fine to me. There's a line feed + carriage
Looks fine to me. There's a line feed + carriage return between them.
On 6/1/22 10:43, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Can someone fix the signature file. The bitly link is concatenated with
"unsubscribe ".
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
-.
Can someone fix the signature file. The bitly link is concatenated with
"unsubscribe ".
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays
Right. Even though I agree with Jon that limits are evil (not so evil as
negation, but evil still), I can dissemble behind the idea well enough. So,
you're pointing to a horizon, an unreachable thing that may still at least
*bound* our discourse. Metaphysics. Fine.
But everything you say
-
>
>TechScape: They used my identity to flog a doomed cryptocurrency – and
>then things got weird
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/01/cryptocurrency-tsuka-alex-hern
"In the meantime, the Telegram channel was moving so fast that I could
>see history
So, like, exactly what you just said. That is a serious empirical question.
Let's say that you believe something to be real, or not-real. Are there *
*any** subsequent interactions in the world that would lead you to
re-evaluate that belief? If we could, ever, get at **all** the subsequent
OK. I can't tell if you're dissembling or actually don't grok my point. When you ask
"neither of us would think that was a good argument... right?", you're not
pulling in the context I set regarding slippery slope arguments. When *is* a slippery
slope argument a good argument? You just made
The MLM is only a problem if a) they make you put in a big investment of
capital or b) you actually think you will get rich off of it. If you don't
have to outlay cash, and you think you'll get some tupperware (or whatever)
and make a few $100 out of it, and then you actually get some tupperware
Ha! There's no such thing as coincidence, only pareidolia:
TechScape: They used my identity to flog a doomed cryptocurrency – and then
things got weird
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/01/cryptocurrency-tsuka-alex-hern
"In the meantime, the Telegram channel was moving so fast
Interesting take. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome and abusive
relationships. I've made disruptive runs at ad hominem, hume's guillotine,
appeal to authority, and petitio principii. I have yet to make a run at the
slippery slope. I had 2 recent opportunities to do so, 1) regarding consent
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/16/131551/wildfires-have-changed-its-time-the-science-did-too
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
bit.ly/virtualfriam
13 matches
Mail list logo
