Friam

The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

Classic

List

Threaded

13 messages Options

Tom Johnson

The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

Fascinating and well-written story. While I am dubious of the phrase "...phages such as M13 have only one purpose: to pass on their genes," I wish we had more biologists in FRIAM to explain how this would be likely/possible. Still, a good read.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/phage-alzheimers-cure/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=nova_next

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email] 505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

If Bruce Simon is back next week, perhaps he can comment.

Frank Wimberly
Phone
<a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918">(505) 670-9918

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/phage-alzheimers-cure/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=nova_next

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email] <a href="tel:505-473-9646" value="+15054739646" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

Nick Thompson

Re: The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

Tom, Frank,

Well, OK, but until Bruce Simon responds, I guess I am the best you got.

What puzzles me is how one could doubt such a statement. Is it the attribution of “purpose” to a hunk of D[R]NA? In that case, I agree, because viruses do not display the degree of variation to a common outcome that warrants the term “purpose”. Many small creatures do, but not, I imagine, viruses.

But usually, when people make such a statement, they are confounding “purpose” (that goal toward which an organism’s behavior is directed) with “function”, that outcome by which an organisms behavior (or structure) has been selected and/or for which it has been designed. Allowing this confounding as slip of the tongue turns the statement into a truism.

The only other possible objection to the statement I can imagine is one might suppose that a virus has other purposes or functions.

Does this help?

Affectionately

Your half-biologist,

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 7:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

If Bruce Simon is back next week, perhaps he can comment.

Frank Wimberly
Phone
<a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918">(505) 670-9918

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/phage-alzheimers-cure/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=nova_next

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email] <a href="tel:505-473-9646" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

Dean Gerber

Re: The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

This takes some time, but is well worth it. Try reading this first, then Toms's referenced article again. Or wait for Bruce?

http://phages.org/



				Phages \| Everything about Bacteriophage Phage Therapy Leave a reply What comes to mind when you hear the word “bacteria”?

				View on phages.org	Preview by Yahoo

On Friday, March 25, 2016 7:46 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

If Bruce Simon is back next week, perhaps he can comment.

Frank Wimberly
Phone
(505) 670-9918

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/phage-alzheimers-cure/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=nova_next

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email] 505-473-9646
===================================

Tom Johnson

Re: The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

In reply to this post by Tom Johnson

Yes, I do question and suppose "... that a virus has other purposes or functions."

Sent with MailTrack

============================================
Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   --     Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)               505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists   - Region 9 Director
Check out It's The People's Data

http://www.jtjohnson.com [hidden email]
============================================

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Steve Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:

Indeed.

As a Bostonian, I do note that being a science writer there is pure joy. Except maybe at the Christian Science Monitor.

Steve Ross
Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com)
<a href="tel:201-456-5933" value="+12014565933" target="_blank">201-456-5933 mobile, <a href="tel:781-284-8810" value="+17812848810" target="_blank">781-284-8810 landline
707-WOW-SSR3 <a href="tel:%28707-969-7773" value="+17079697773" target="_blank">(707-969-7773) Google Voice
editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn)
editorsteve1 (Twitter)
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fascinating and well-written story. While I am dubious of the phrase "...phages such as M13 have only one purpose: to pass on their genes," I wish we had more biologists in FRIAM to explain how this would be likely/possible. Still, a good read.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/phage-alzheimers-cure/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=nova_next

TJ

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email] <a href="tel:505-473-9646" value="+15054739646" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

Nick Thompson

Re: The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

Hi, Tom,

IN-teresting. By far the most interesting way to disagree. Could you say a bit more about that?

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:59 AM
To: Steve Ross <[hidden email]>
Cc: Sandra Blakeslee <[hidden email]>; Friam@redfish. com <[hidden email]>; George Johnson <[hidden email]>; Bryant Furlow <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

Yes, I do question and suppose "... that a virus has other purposes or functions."

Sent with MailTrack

http://www.jtjohnson.com [hidden email]
============================================

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Steve Ross <[hidden email]> wrote:

Indeed.

As a Bostonian, I do note that being a science writer there is pure joy. Except maybe at the Christian Science Monitor.

Steve Ross
Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com)
<a href="tel:201-456-5933" target="_blank">201-456-5933 mobile, <a href="tel:781-284-8810" target="_blank">781-284-8810 landline
707-WOW-SSR3 <a href="tel:%28707-969-7773" target="_blank">(707-969-7773) Google Voice
editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn)
editorsteve1 (Twitter)
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fascinating and well-written story. While I am dubious of the phrase "...phages such as M13 have only one purpose: to pass on their genes," I wish we had more biologists in FRIAM to explain how this would be likely/possible. Still, a good read.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/phage-alzheimers-cure/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=nova_next
TJ
===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email] <a href="tel:505-473-9646" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS

In reply to this post by Tom Johnson

Thought you guys would be interested in this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/28/mass-surveillance-silences-minority-opinions-according-to-study/

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:40 PM
Subject: [FRIAM] The virus that could cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and more — NOVA Next | PBS
To: "Friam@redfish. com" <[hidden email]>
Cc: Sandra Blakeslee <[hidden email]>, Steve Ross <[hidden email]>, George Johnson <[hidden email]>, Bryant Furlow <[hidden email]>

Fascinating and well-written story. While I am dubious of the phrase "...phages such as M13 have only one purpose: to pass on their genes," I wish we had more biologists in FRIAM to explain how this would be likely/possible. Still, a good read.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/phage-alzheimers-cure/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=nova_next

TJ

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email] <a href="tel:505-473-9646" value="+15054739646" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: <a href="tel:%28303%29%20859-5609" value="+13038595609" target="_blank">(303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

gepr

Re: mass surveillance

On 03/29/2016 11:05 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Thought you guys would be interested in this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/28/mass-surveillance-silences-minority-opinions-according-to-study/

Is it right to say that mass surveillance _causes_ the silencing? It seems to me that our tendency to conform is the cause. Then the cause[s] of that tendency [is|are] probably occult, where some will yap about things like group selection and others about ontogeny (education, demographics, etc). I assume that various generations vary in their tendency to conform. (We just watched Experimenter the other night: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3726704/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 , which suggests it's robust across lots of conditions.) So, perhaps the relationship between (recognition of) mass surveillance and self-censorship is simply a symptom of a deeper cause.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Prof David West

Re: mass surveillance

Awareness of being observed by peers and your social group absolutely
inhibits the expression of non-conforming behavior. Anyone who has lived
in a small town – where everybody knows everybody else and where
individual behavior is observed by so many others who can report that
behavior to parents or friends —knows the forces that inhibit
non-conforming behavior.

There are numerous anthropological case studies (e.g. the "sexual
revolution" in the US brought about by the automobile, the breakdown of
marriage patterns among the Sami due to the snowmobile) that show the
relationship between anonymity and freedom to express non-conforming
opinions and behaviors.

The real question is whether or not mass surveillance by the government
has the same effect. I would really doubt it - despite the Washington
Post report. I would expect to see similar kinds of self-censorship
among "friends" in social media, but not among "strangers" in that same
context. In fact I would expect that "strangers" would exhibit extreme
non-conforming, antisocial, behavior.

davew

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016, at 12:55 PM, glen wrote:

> On 03/29/2016 11:05 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> > Thought you guys would be interested in this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/28/mass-surveillance-silences-minority-opinions-according-to-study/
>
> Is it right to say that mass surveillance _causes_ the silencing? It
> seems to me that our tendency to conform is the cause. Then the cause[s]
> of that tendency [is|are] probably occult, where some will yap about
> things like group selection and others about ontogeny (education,
> demographics, etc). I assume that various generations vary in their
> tendency to conform. (We just watched Experimenter the other night:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3726704/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 , which suggests
> it's robust across lots of conditions.) So, perhaps the relationship
> between (recognition of) mass surveillance and self-censorship is simply
> a symptom of a deeper cause.
>
> --
> ⇔ glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: mass surveillance

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen -

As usual, I like the way you think, even if I might not agree with you!

I think that Mass Surveillance (caps or not) is crafted (among other
things) *to* silence many voices, but as you so aptly point out, it
depends on our ability to be intimidated (if not specifically to
"conform" as you suggest).

I have friends/colleagues in Ukraine who state boldly that "they"
collectively eliminated bribery by collectively refusing to give
bribes... that it took about a year of a mass uprising of people who
simply accepted that they could not get much if anything done in the
government bureaucracy for about a year while they starved out the
officials who were thriving on bribery.

On the original topic, I know of many very well educated, well informed
people (not unlike most of us on this list) who curb their speech in
very awkward and strange ways out of fear that they are being
"surveilled" and that one of their fairly benign yet counter-culture
opinions or ideas will be held against them.

I agree with the idea that our willingness to conform to the corruption
(of any kind) contributes to the problem quite directly. Too many
people respond to this idea as a form of "blame the victim" but I think
it is much more than that.

Carry on,
- Steve

> On 03/29/2016 11:05 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
>> Thought you guys would be interested in this:
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/28/mass-surveillance-silences-minority-opinions-according-to-study/
>
> Is it right to say that mass surveillance _causes_ the silencing? It
> seems to me that our tendency to conform is the cause. Then the
> cause[s] of that tendency [is|are] probably occult, where some will
> yap about things like group selection and others about ontogeny
> (education, demographics, etc). I assume that various generations
> vary in their tendency to conform. (We just watched Experimenter the
> other night: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3726704/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 ,
> which suggests it's robust across lots of conditions.) So, perhaps
> the relationship between (recognition of) mass surveillance and
> self-censorship is simply a symptom of a deeper cause.
>

Robert Wall

Re: mass surveillance

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Following on to Dave's thoughts on the relationship between anonymity and freedom to express non-conforming opinions or behaviors, we can liken those vehicles with totally blackened windows that allow some of their drivers to have their basic, innate rudeness travel with them with impunity and anonymity. [For anecdotal evidence of this psychological phenomenon see for example this study at http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/ptacc/anonymity-driving-behavior.pptx]

Back in February, the New York Times carried an article titled "Social Media: Destroyer or Creator." In the article, Wael Ghonim--the one who is credited with starting the Arab Spring by way of Facebook--characterizes the aspect of having the ability on the Internet to respond to thoughts with our baser instincts only a click away this way: "My online world became a battleground filled with trolls, lies, hate speech." [See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opinion/social-media-destroyer-or-creator.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0]

As Ghonim reveals in a subsequent TED Talk, once the revolution spilled onto the streets, it turned from hopeful to messy, then ugly and heartbreaking. And social media followed suit. What was once a place for crowdsourcing, engaging and sharing became a polarized battleground. Ghonim asks: What can we do about online behavior now? How can we use the Internet and social media to create civility and reasoned argument? [See TED Talk at https://www.ted.com/talks/wael_ghonim_let_s_design_social_media_that_drives_real_change#t-798505]

Like Dave, I doubt that having the Government watching--they already do a lot of this now--would have any effect on civil behavior anywhere because mass surveillance by a government doesn't really exert any peer, parent, or pal pressure. Just strangers watching strangers doing ... and just my $0.02.

Robert

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Awareness of being observed by peers and your social group absolutely
inhibits the expression of non-conforming behavior. Anyone who has lived
in a small town – where everybody knows everybody else and where
individual behavior is observed by so many others who can report that
behavior to parents or friends —knows the forces that inhibit
non-conforming behavior.

There are numerous anthropological case studies (e.g. the "sexual
revolution" in the US brought about by the automobile, the breakdown of
marriage patterns among the Sami due to the snowmobile) that show the
relationship between anonymity and freedom to express non-conforming
opinions and behaviors.

The real question is whether or not mass surveillance by the government
has the same effect. I would really doubt it - despite the Washington
Post report. I would expect to see similar kinds of self-censorship
among "friends" in social media, but not among "strangers" in that same
context. In fact I would expect that "strangers" would exhibit extreme
non-conforming, antisocial, behavior.

davew

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016, at 12:55 PM, glen wrote:
> On 03/29/2016 11:05 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> > Thought you guys would be interested in this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/28/mass-surveillance-silences-minority-opinions-according-to-study/
>
> Is it right to say that mass surveillance _causes_ the silencing? It
> seems to me that our tendency to conform is the cause. Then the cause[s]
> of that tendency [is|are] probably occult, where some will yap about
> things like group selection and others about ontogeny (education,
> demographics, etc). I assume that various generations vary in their
> tendency to conform. (We just watched Experimenter the other night:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3726704/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 , which suggests
> it's robust across lots of conditions.) So, perhaps the relationship
> between (recognition of) mass surveillance and self-censorship is simply
> a symptom of a deeper cause.
>
> --
> ⇔ glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: mass surveillance

In reply to this post by gepr

Interesting! The common thread in both your responses seems to lie in consideration of consequences. The contradiction between Dave's suggestion that pressure to conform might disappear when with strangers (which we see on the internet in spades) and Steve's (and the article's) idea that a particular _type_ of stranger might up regulate conformity can be resolved by considering the actor's estimate of the _consequences_ of their actions. Like this comment on the article's page:

bjdon99 commented:
> Freedom to speak also comes with the freedom to listen. If you write something outrageous, you should be prepared for the consequences when others read it.

As before, perhaps different people (or demographics, or generations) will exhibit differences in the way they understand the consequences of their actions. If it's arbitrary Facebook yahoos who are surveilling me, then I simply don't care about the consequences. But if it's prospective employers who are surveilling me, then I do care. Likewise, if it's someone who is likely to throw me in jail for my actions, then I do care.

So, it's not quite so clear to me that "mass surveillance" is in any way causative, in up or down regulation. The real question is "What does 'mass surveillance' mean to you?"

On 03/29/2016 02:25 PM, Prof David West wrote:

> Awareness of being observed by peers and your social group absolutely
> inhibits the expression of non-conforming behavior. Anyone who has lived
> in a small town – where everybody knows everybody else and where
> individual behavior is observed by so many others who can report that
> behavior to parents or friends —knows the forces that inhibit
> non-conforming behavior.
>
> [...]
>
> The real question is whether or not mass surveillance by the government
> has the same effect. I would really doubt it - despite the Washington
> Post report. I would expect to see similar kinds of self-censorship
> among "friends" in social media, but not among "strangers" in that same
> context. In fact I would expect that "strangers" would exhibit extreme
> non-conforming, antisocial, behavior.

On 03/29/2016 03:28 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I think that Mass Surveillance (caps or not) is crafted (among other things) *to* silence many voices, but as you so aptly point out, it depends on our ability to be intimidated (if not specifically to "conform" as you suggest).
>
> [...]
>
> On the original topic, I know of many very well educated, well informed people (not unlike most of us on this list) who curb their speech in very awkward and strange ways out of fear that they are being "surveilled" and that one of their fairly benign yet counter-culture opinions or ideas will be held against them.
>
> I agree with the idea that our willingness to conform to the corruption (of any kind) contributes to the problem quite directly. Too many people respond to this idea as a form of "blame the victim" but I think it is much more than that.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: mass surveillance

In reply to this post by Robert Wall

On 03/29/2016 04:16 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> Following on to Dave's thoughts on the relationship between anonymity and freedom to express non-conforming opinions or behaviors, we can liken those vehicles with totally blackened windows that allow some of their drivers to have their basic, innate rudeness travel with them with impunity and anonymity. [For anecdotal evidence of this psychological phenomenon see for example this study at http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/ptacc/anonymity-driving-behavior.pptx]

> According to Zhong & others (2010), "Even dimmed lighting or wearing sunglasses increases people’s perceived anonymity, and thus their willingness to cheat or behave selfishly."

I've always hated sunglasses and been suspicious of people who wear them. I've never really known why. Growing up in Texas meant lots and lots of my friends wore them almost any time they went outside. I always thought it had something to do with intimacy. I just had a sense that sunglass wearers were narcissistic somehow, like making eye contact was irritating to them. Of course, this is all conflated with the idea that some people are sensitive to light, some wore prescription sunglasses, some were too lazy to take them off when going inside or into the shade, those trying to hide blood-shot eyes, etc. Anyway, I had to look up the article:

Good lamps are the best police: darkness increases dishonesty and self-interested behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20424061
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301122344.htm

I had a similar (but milder, I think) sense for tea-totallers, people who _conspicuously_ refuse to drink alcohol. I feel like I got this from my dad's side of the family (Prussian descendants) ... and it may be related to the sunglasses thing, since, when they make a toast, it's imperative to make eye contact while drinking, as well as not putting the drink down without taking a drink after a toast. Either transgression was fairly serious. They simply didn't trust you if you put your drink down without drinking or if yo8u fail to make eye contact during a toast. If you made some polite excuse for not having an alcoholic drink (like your prescriptions or your spouse will get mad at you), it was (merely) adequate to toast with other liquids. But if you _asserted_ something like "I don't drink" or something anti-social like that, you were not (merely) untrustworthy. You became (and usually stayed) an outsider.

Again, though, it's all about the subjective estimate of consequences. People who don't care about or understand those consequences, don't feel any pressure to conform.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen