[Sorry for the formatting. I don't know what to do, gmail is becoming unusable]
On 22 April 2018 at 15:55, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi Telmo, > > > On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:59, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > > Hi Bruno, > > Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different > cultural constructs than the christian god. > > > Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will > influence a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second > God" (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches > which kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being > burned alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological > secret (a theorem from G* minus G) I guess!. > > The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of > 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of > Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we > found the second lost part!). > > Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted, > like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi > in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived > n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible > Enlightenment. > > The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to > steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma. > That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the > most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method > (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and > I would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning). > > So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created > the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will > steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid > “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking > Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of > research. > > > > > I believe the christian > tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything" > through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into > a cultural operating system for large-scale control. > > > That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of > total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive > functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that > class. No universal machine! > > > I agree, but it is sold as one. > > > > Yes. Indeed. That is why we should just consider them as con man. In my > country, christians, espcailhy the spiritual one, are aware of this. It is > weird that the atheists keep defending them all the time against those who > just want to do science, like it was done, for a millenium. > > > > > It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty. > > It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the > “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the > eyes on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic > and muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist > theology, and often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect > to burning at stake. > > It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent > event, and we can only hope coming back to reason. > > > > > Max Weber made a > better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are > interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon > characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions > and so on. > > > That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was > already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole > (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the > one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of > naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of > the notion of “Whole”. > > Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the > researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus > de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in > Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong > “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after > I see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed > by Moderatus of Gades. Moderatus extracted them from the five “affirmative > hypothesis” from the Parmenides. > > > Yes, I am aware. My point with the pagan gods is that even those > cannot be seen in the light of the culture created by the monotheistic > religions. > > > Mono-theism is monism: the idea that the reality is ONE, and thus points > toward universality. It is a good thing as long as dogma are not imposed. I know there are platonist influences in early christianity, and that there are people and groups in judaism, christianity and islam that see it as you describe. It is also true that many people throughout the ages have and do believe in an anthropomorphic and tyrannical god. This later version competes directly with the more laissez-faire attitude of polytheism. I believe romans would be ok with the christian god at some point, as long as the christian were ok with the other roman gods, and respected those traditions as well. It's as you say: all good as long as dogma is not imposed. > When there is a dogma, it is not science. Science is doubt, > theories/hypothesi, verification, (which can only refute, never prove). > > Stealing religion by a state is pure manipulation technic, but note that > this is exactly what happens in the domain of health, where health is steal > by the government, which imposed dogma to laws based on lies. Yes I know. > Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they > were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume. > > > I know that you don’t confuse the popular myth and the theories discussed in > Plato Academy, but careful as many do this confusion. To be a theologian at > that time, you need a diploma in Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry, > Arithmetic, Music. Hypatia was both mathematician and theologian, and that > was common. She was a great mathematician , but also a great and original > designer of astronomical measuring instruments (which is less common). > > Then, if your read the book by Daniel J. Cohen, you see that the birth of > Mathematical Logic comes from theological, or meta theological series of > discussions, like how could us, the Unitarians convince “logically” the > Trinitarians that they have gone awry? Peirce, De Morgan, Boole, and even > Lutwig Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) plays some key part in that story. They cut > their link with popular mathematics and theology in the will of academical > professionalisation during the 18th century, with the result that > materialism is still an unconscious dogma/metaphysical-assumption. > > > This one? > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1saLownCh434Xogtedn-C0AJ2J4pur58HguQhGPLOECB30-9RsiZtEwuiktUZrXPgBfJYfzc0wHK72MgQP1I0DFWcUtKDHjH-DNxGGVfTBk_dLAfb_YwVC1SUzQs-ZIPywYeKSCRavyN31i1WkRLTXDfCRlsuSksLCBMgWpXmmuaSUllvA46HYHDshGl9kfv4DZ8Yk9S6OhHnVd432zRoXa8FuA0LLG51Sk7AtTqOi3yrhltfeWglBvjcrQzjI4exGevPrzmn-A0-X7QUnR5T8g/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.de%2FEquations-God-Mathematics-Victorian-Hopkins-ebook%2Fdp%2FB001SN8GB8%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1524299661%26sr%3D8-1%26keywords%3DEquations%2Bfrom%2BGod%253A%2BPure%2BMathematics%2Band%2BVictorian%2BFaith%2B%2528Johns%2BHopkins%2BStudies%2Bin%2Bthe%2BHistory%2Bof%2BMathematics%2529 > > > I got the message “dangerous page”. > > The reference is: > > Cohen J. Daniel, 2007. Equations from God, Pure Mathematics and Victorian > Faith, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. > > Not to confuse with > > Cohen E. Daniel, 1987, Computability and Logic, Ellis Horwood, Chichester. > > Which is one of the best book to introduce mathematical logic to > mathematicians or scientists. (For non-mathematicians, or scientists who > have problem in math, Martin Davis’ book is probably easier). > > Don’t hesitate to download both of them. Excellent, thanks! > I don’t think you have problem in math, other than the one due to Turing > “pedagogical” mistake which makes many to believe that a universal machine > is something infinite! (I know that you have got that right, as you know > that digital machine are the programs, implemented or not in direct finite > piece of hardware). All programs, including universal one are finite piece > of code, that is what I try emphasise by using “number" instead of > “machine”. I understand that. In recent discussions I was alluding to the infinite tape, to point out to John that Turing did theory on something that cannot be realized in the physical world. A "computation that never stops" cannot be realized in the physical world. I know that you avoid this type of argument because you do not assume a physical world for the start. I was playing the game using John's rules, because he seems to insist that computer science is ultimately about physical gadgets. I felt the beauty of finite programs in my bones, when I got my first computer as a kid. The tape on that one only had space for 48K bytes, and you could not even change 16K of them. > A > good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication > that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and > the renaissance. > > > Yes, if we take the greek sense of theology/religion, it is the period were > only one religion was imposed (Aristotle Materialism), and all other were > forbidden. > > Renaissance will comes from the (religious, but close to neoplatonism) > translators of the greek mathematics and theology. Fermat will write his > famous margin problem in his exemplary of Diophantus. > > But theology, for obvious historical reason, has not come back to science, > and even has become an object of mockery. > > > > Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what > people like John Clark seem to believe… > > > > Progress are natural, but after some progress the temptation of the lies > grows also bigger, as it provides short term high benefits, and well, we are > always in sort of “prisoner dilemma”, and it is made complex by the very > lies themselves. > > The solution is simple: investing in education, research, leisure, harm > reduction, etc. Yes, even at a very local level when nothing else is still possible. > I wish our culture would realize quickly that there is no real > education without leisure. > > > Me too. It is like day and night. Education with leisure cannot work. Even > good courses become brainwashing if the brain and the body do not take some > rest. > > All creative mathematicians, and probably the others, know that when they > work on an hard problem, the solution only arrives through stopping of > thinking, consciously or unconsciously. > > > > "Top schools" are forcing the best students > to constantly study but to never think. > > > A part of education is like institutionalised religion. It tries hard to > make you unable to think. > > Eventually they will forbids Turing Universal machines, or send them to the > Goulag. The universal machine is well hidden by the many “apps”. Yes. When I turned on my first computer, it would just ask you to write a program for it to execute. No apps, just pure possibility. > In the US they take hard > stimulants, in Asian countries they are becoming suicidal. This is a > sick perversion of the idea progress. > > > OK. > > > So is the acritical obsession > with "productivity" for its own sake, both in academia and industry. > > > Which is the opposite of economy. And it destroys us. Th fault is neither in > money, nor in democracies, and the only thing we need to do is to re-intsall > the free market. > > But with prohibition laws, there is no more free-market, which entails > quickly no more freedom of thought, and the stealing of the majority by a > minority above laws. > > We should not ask for the legalisation of cannabis. We must ask for the > penalisation of prohibition, and invest massively in education so that > people get more easily the contradictions contained in those lies. Sometimes I am pessimistic. I think a lot of people internalized their submission and cannot even see it. > These are the people that know the price of everything but the value > of nothing. > > > They even confuse the price and the things, sometimes! > > Note that I suspect them to encourage the common “critics of the system”, > because this hides t the responsibility of those who pervert the system. Yes, this is obvious in the current cultural wars. This was already predicted by writers in the past: that criticism would be encouraged, but within boundaries that become increasingly invisible. > But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs. > > > 1500 years! > > > > > > He is pretty upfront about that. > > > > Sure! Especially when you realise that there are still “scientist” who > invoke their god to invalidate an hypothetico- deduction. > Their god is the primary material substance postulated by Aristotle. > > If you read the Metaphysics of Aristotle, you see 25% of mockery of Plato > (sic), then 50% of attempt to solve Plato’s problem, and 25% of change of > mind without saying and taking back Plato theory of mind. Aristotle saw the > necessity of logic, he has been the first logician in Occident, but the > oldest logician were Chinese, or perhaps Indians, as far as I can see. > > I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you > understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion. > > > I believe in consciousness. > > > Me too, but like the appearance of matter, I consider that it is part of > what need to be explained. And with mechanism, incompleteness enforces the > nuances needed on self-reference, so that if people can agree (by > introspection) that “I am conscious” is > > - true > - non provable > - knowable (non doubtable) > - non definable > - minimal (for the “cosmic consciousness” or the consciousness of the > universal person). > - immediate (that you get with the “<>t & p” nuance(s). I agree with all. It took me some time and effort to realize that it is "minimal". I think the education systems trains one to not see that. > Then basically the Cartesian fixed point of the doubt (the p such that p <-> > ~ [] p) is almost a solution, and to get the solution, it is enough to use > the intensional variants. This I don't understand. > If he's > just doing metaphysics he should call it metaphysics. But he likes to take > subtle pokes at atheists. > > > We are all atheists here in the sense of "not believing in silly > stories", but it is disingenuous to pretend that this is all modern > atheism is. I hesitate to debate this further, because frankly I have > no patience for all the canned answers that are certain to ensue. > > > > You are quite wise. The problem is that “atheists” are divided into those > who use the term for ~Bg (not believe in god). But ~Bg can be just agnostic, > in the mundane sense: (~Bg & ~B~g), and those for who atheism means B~g, > they believe that god does not exist, which is unnerving at the start for a > greek theologian, as god means not much than “my hopefully true conception > of reality that I can’t be sure upon as I guess it is a bit beyond me”. > > Hirchberger sums the theology of Plato, by saying that God is a name for > Ultimate Truth that we search, and are confronted to. > > > Alright, this is how I see it. > > > Yes, we might say that God is really the term used by those who doubt the > visible, and think that the fundamental explanation should not rely on what > we see, given that what we see is not permanent, depends on the mood, and > the quantity of alcohol in blood, etc. The ultimate being should rely on > personal understanding, and math is helpful to illustrate the possibility of > such an understanding (then with mechanism, arithmetic is more than that, > but that is not part of platonism). > > > > > > > Obviously, when you do metaphysics/theology with the scientific method, you > have no other choice to be agnostic, both of god or any metaphysical > hypothesis, which is what you will theorise about. > > > > > Notice how he criticizes "faith" in materialism, > but belief that every integer has a successor is just common sense...even > though it entials and infinity of beliefs. > > > I agree with you that Bruno puts too much faith in numbers, > > > You think the numbers could fail me? > > > Maybe. > > > You re very wise. Perhaps for a second... > Actually, some of my favorite numbers did fail me, as I thought my best > friends, the number 2, but also 5 and many other does not really deserve to > be qualified as prime numbers! (You can easily verify by yourself that (1 + > i)(1- i) = 2, and (2 + i)(2 - i) = 5). > > > I'm not sure I'm ok with inviting i to this party :) > > > Gaussian integers, and even Gaussian Reals (the complex numbers), provide > Turing complete theory. The usual reals are not, unless mix with > trigonometry or set theory. > > So, it is OK to not invite I, as it is OK to invite i. > > Better to not invite I in the fundamental theory, because if we get the > usual complex amplitude for physics, we will be suspected to have put that I > at the start. Ok, my knowledge of this topics is too amateurish for me to complain. > You make me worry! > > There are conspiratorial numbers, no doubt. That is why I interview only > *very* simple machine, as Löbianity appears very quickly. > > Of course I assume Church-Turing thesis, and I assume “Yes-doctor” to help > the intuition (and not hide too long the shocking self-duplication, > especially to a public not aware of Everett …). The "practionners of comp”, > like Clark and the trans humanist are those who commit the “act of faith” of > mechanism. Not the logicians deriving beliefs from beliefs. > > I don’t claim any truth, and I do not assume more on the number than most > scientist. I assume much more when I teach calculus. Just considering the > real interval (0 1) and I am in the analytical hierarchy, quite above the > arithmetical hierarchy (sigma_0, sigma_1, sigma_2, …). > > Keep in mind that I use the numbers, because if I ask "do you agree that ((K > K) K) = K independently of you", people say “huh?”. (Even if I am just > saying de facto "do you agree that the first component of the couple (K K) > is K? Independently of you?” ! > > > All good, but there's always an act of faith. Maybe I'm being deceived > at a very fundamental level by believing the 0 != 1. Maybe I'm batshit > crazy, how would I know? > > > > Nobody can know that. Nobody can prove that 0 is "really" different from 1, > or “really” different from 2, ...and that is why we take the axiom 0 ≠ s(x) > in : > > 0 ≠ s(x) > s(x) = s(y) -> x = y > x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y)) > x+0 = x > x+s(y) = s(x+y) > x*0=0 > x*s(y)=(x*y)+x > > Then we can only pray this makes sense (= this is consistent, there is a > reality satisfying those beliefs/assumption). Ok. > and I > agree with Bruno that atheists put too much faith in matter. > > > As long as they don’t use that to lie, there is no problem. The problem is > when people invoke their own ontological commitment to invalidate a > deduction. It is equivalent to a lie. That is about the same that the Roman > Inquisition, which at least do this in public, but today, and don’t hide the > dogmatic character of their beliefs. > > > I suspect that the Romans regarded the early Christians as we regard > ISIS now. They were not willing to compromise, and were only happy if > they managed to totally impose their culture and way of life on > everybody. And so they did. Christians were extremely intolerant and I > think that the Romans realized this. Of course, I am not defending > that they should have thrown people at lions. > > > I have no clue when started the “radical christianism”. I am not sure the > Romans at that period were not worst, and that they give the christians to > lions, only for the entertainment, considering only that they belong to some > sect threatening the divine authority of the emperor. > > The only clear thing to me is that there were a lot of intellectual > christians which were very platonic. They were among the best students in > math and in theology of Hypatia, and it seems that early Christianity was > neoplatonist. The radical took power only in +500, and the persecution of > the platonists, (pursued in different ways by the non-agnostic atheists > today) begun at that time, I *would* say. > > > > > > > > More importantly, Bruno has interesting and original things to say, > unlike his bullies here, who are only capable of parroting what other > people with original things to say said. To be clear, I do not think > you are one of the bullies. > > > Brent is not, but sometimes some comment can be close to disingenuous, it > seems to me. And to you, as I realise that you cautiously explain him that > you don’t allude to him. > > > Yup. But well, "a man convinced against his will is of the same > opinion still" :) > > > :) > > All the best, > > Bruno > > > > Bruno > > PS I might be out the next days. Apology in advance for possible delays. > > > > > Telmo. > > > 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 > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1OT5iveKpXzcs-GuuSfYfKcZuxDpa05gT6H90jnbuMvOiV48v6ZXyLDXu-ADDoKtJM70nhwwJRVtpUIWxGbTV2m27kZ2wrF4UBcIb_LSR7Z4iVlUK1PwpyhrF4K10mkfTyhuTd9PhXqkJaEe9AHPsh___VASc31HY_XyCpS2-uK03u3A8_P5WJ069fa_wm3h9rC1HhDXKRyxrBuJ6UhsfqBrNhdNmZoAInDEtYtNQ-2um7nWbfx4zlNXIxFkQe-8h8OPTSFEUWJ3L_8sp-kBriGXpMJYKk3KcdfKkBOkaR8oMn75Xkaata-bukY2JDR6_/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Feverything-list. > For more options, visit > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fNgj1-yHRKULFMtR9uywFkzhT9cfsMgQHLork9NyNuhSgMGUlo_liL_v_kMTl_IRP67ahhipIxBPBFcZ3tIDfiWvWPR7bLIWbpTAg2zuUh-r-yi63ACe3jEGkqxvm8-CgiPpxQDaZjvqiH2t-PjZYOP2bqdhbG75B9zefybsMzX53cizOgFXjg3E4btKR5T-YqXJTT1CL1SH5jVILT7CJov2y2N6WlWMxA7Pm4mGw_2frpoSnRquKSa09jUiu3-zSlP3QIwzquP-PauocI8Dz4RZQlIBUgl1WhHE2q3TJ-o/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout. > > > -- > 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 > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1OT5iveKpXzcs-GuuSfYfKcZuxDpa05gT6H90jnbuMvOiV48v6ZXyLDXu-ADDoKtJM70nhwwJRVtpUIWxGbTV2m27kZ2wrF4UBcIb_LSR7Z4iVlUK1PwpyhrF4K10mkfTyhuTd9PhXqkJaEe9AHPsh___VASc31HY_XyCpS2-uK03u3A8_P5WJ069fa_wm3h9rC1HhDXKRyxrBuJ6UhsfqBrNhdNmZoAInDEtYtNQ-2um7nWbfx4zlNXIxFkQe-8h8OPTSFEUWJ3L_8sp-kBriGXpMJYKk3KcdfKkBOkaR8oMn75Xkaata-bukY2JDR6_/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Feverything-list. > For more options, visit > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fNgj1-yHRKULFMtR9uywFkzhT9cfsMgQHLork9NyNuhSgMGUlo_liL_v_kMTl_IRP67ahhipIxBPBFcZ3tIDfiWvWPR7bLIWbpTAg2zuUh-r-yi63ACe3jEGkqxvm8-CgiPpxQDaZjvqiH2t-PjZYOP2bqdhbG75B9zefybsMzX53cizOgFXjg3E4btKR5T-YqXJTT1CL1SH5jVILT7CJov2y2N6WlWMxA7Pm4mGw_2frpoSnRquKSa09jUiu3-zSlP3QIwzquP-PauocI8Dz4RZQlIBUgl1WhHE2q3TJ-o/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout. > > > -- > 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 > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1OT5iveKpXzcs-GuuSfYfKcZuxDpa05gT6H90jnbuMvOiV48v6ZXyLDXu-ADDoKtJM70nhwwJRVtpUIWxGbTV2m27kZ2wrF4UBcIb_LSR7Z4iVlUK1PwpyhrF4K10mkfTyhuTd9PhXqkJaEe9AHPsh___VASc31HY_XyCpS2-uK03u3A8_P5WJ069fa_wm3h9rC1HhDXKRyxrBuJ6UhsfqBrNhdNmZoAInDEtYtNQ-2um7nWbfx4zlNXIxFkQe-8h8OPTSFEUWJ3L_8sp-kBriGXpMJYKk3KcdfKkBOkaR8oMn75Xkaata-bukY2JDR6_/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Feverything-list. > For more options, visit > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fNgj1-yHRKULFMtR9uywFkzhT9cfsMgQHLork9NyNuhSgMGUlo_liL_v_kMTl_IRP67ahhipIxBPBFcZ3tIDfiWvWPR7bLIWbpTAg2zuUh-r-yi63ACe3jEGkqxvm8-CgiPpxQDaZjvqiH2t-PjZYOP2bqdhbG75B9zefybsMzX53cizOgFXjg3E4btKR5T-YqXJTT1CL1SH5jVILT7CJov2y2N6WlWMxA7Pm4mGw_2frpoSnRquKSa09jUiu3-zSlP3QIwzquP-PauocI8Dz4RZQlIBUgl1WhHE2q3TJ-o/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout. > > > -- > 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 > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1OT5iveKpXzcs-GuuSfYfKcZuxDpa05gT6H90jnbuMvOiV48v6ZXyLDXu-ADDoKtJM70nhwwJRVtpUIWxGbTV2m27kZ2wrF4UBcIb_LSR7Z4iVlUK1PwpyhrF4K10mkfTyhuTd9PhXqkJaEe9AHPsh___VASc31HY_XyCpS2-uK03u3A8_P5WJ069fa_wm3h9rC1HhDXKRyxrBuJ6UhsfqBrNhdNmZoAInDEtYtNQ-2um7nWbfx4zlNXIxFkQe-8h8OPTSFEUWJ3L_8sp-kBriGXpMJYKk3KcdfKkBOkaR8oMn75Xkaata-bukY2JDR6_/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Feverything-list. > For more options, visit > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fNgj1-yHRKULFMtR9uywFkzhT9cfsMgQHLork9NyNuhSgMGUlo_liL_v_kMTl_IRP67ahhipIxBPBFcZ3tIDfiWvWPR7bLIWbpTAg2zuUh-r-yi63ACe3jEGkqxvm8-CgiPpxQDaZjvqiH2t-PjZYOP2bqdhbG75B9zefybsMzX53cizOgFXjg3E4btKR5T-YqXJTT1CL1SH5jVILT7CJov2y2N6WlWMxA7Pm4mGw_2frpoSnRquKSa09jUiu3-zSlP3QIwzquP-PauocI8Dz4RZQlIBUgl1WhHE2q3TJ-o/https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout. > > > -- > 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
