@Cosmin you're the typical troll... I know it's a disservice to answer your post as it will incentive you to continue to do so, but could you please end your selfish game or play it elsewhere. Also this message doesn't exists Alan deleted it 🤔🤣 so you can't answer it *it's fool proof*
Le mer. 23 oct. 2024, 09:03, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < [email protected]> a écrit : > @Quentin&all. You make the classical confusion between ontology and > epistemology. > > On Wednesday 23 October 2024 at 09:57:43 UTC+3 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> Le mer. 23 oct. 2024, 08:43, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> @Jesse, yes, it is a rational argument that you never touched a woman. >>> How do you expect to know how women are if you never touched one ? >> >> >> Women don't exist, you're speaking from your fantasy not from reality. 🤔 >> >> >> >> > You're speaking from your fantasy, not from reality. >> >>> >>> On Wednesday 23 October 2024 at 00:31:09 UTC+3 Terren Suydam wrote: >>> >>>> Jesse, that was about as perfect of a reply to anyone as I've seen in a >>>> long time. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 3:11 PM Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Undermining your own point a bit by responding to criticism with >>>>> emotional lashing-out as opposed to reasoned argument >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 2:27 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> @Jesse. Probably you are still living in your parents basement and >>>>>> never touched a woman if you say that men are not more logical than >>>>>> women. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday 22 October 2024 at 21:15:43 UTC+3 Jesse Mazer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the connection between female hero stories and genocide of >>>>>>> men? Would you analogously say that having more stories of non-white >>>>>>> male >>>>>>> heroes can only be due to wokies who want to genocide white people, or >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> you think there is something fundamentally different about the former? >>>>>>> Either way I don't see any consistent pattern of female hero stories >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> rejected by the public, it seems to me to mostly depend on the quality >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the writing (or gaming or action depending on genre). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Biology does mean women are statistically less physically strong and >>>>>>> less prone to certain kinds of aggression, but in the animal kingdom we >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> see plenty of female violence even if not as associated with mating >>>>>>> contests as it is with males (for example females of predator species >>>>>>> sometimes do more hunting than males as with lions, many female animals >>>>>>> engage in plenty of territorial violence against others of their >>>>>>> species, >>>>>>> and in one of our closest relatives the Bonobos, females form >>>>>>> coalitions to >>>>>>> fight back against males who might otherwise use their greater strength >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> dominate females: https://archive.ph/GEv46 ). My rule of thumb is >>>>>>> that only those claimed differences between men and women that would >>>>>>> make >>>>>>> just as much sense when applied to other animals are plausibly strongly >>>>>>> influenced by biology, those that would seem implausible if applied to >>>>>>> say >>>>>>> lions or bonobos (like the claim that men are more decisive or more >>>>>>> logical >>>>>>> than women) are more likely a result of culture, unless there is good >>>>>>> evidence that goes beyond just observations of statistical differences >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> behavior in the modern world. Good article here on the sex differences >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> tend to be seen in other primates: >>>>>>> https://sites.pitt.edu/~bertsch/Lonsdorf-2016-Journal_of_Neuroscience_Research.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 1:31 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Jesse. The woke regime only increased its power in the last couple >>>>>>>> of years. I don't know if it will continue, I cannot predict the >>>>>>>> future. >>>>>>>> Maybe it will loose the war on the games and movies front and they it >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> slowly go away. Or maybe in spite of companies getting bankrupt, it >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> keep getting funded no matter the financial cost and then it will just >>>>>>>> go >>>>>>>> straight to extermination as the last measure to make sure they win the >>>>>>>> war. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be. One thing is >>>>>>>> clear, >>>>>>>> despite the regressive speech of PGC, people don't want woke. If they >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> have wanted, games and movies would have thrived. Instead, they keep >>>>>>>> failing. The "female hero story" is not just "another cultural thing", >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> it goes against biology. If you go against biology you only create >>>>>>>> repulsion in people. Sure, some desperate incels and simps will agree >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> anything in the hope that they will finally lose their virginity at 40 >>>>>>>> years old. But for normal people, "strong and independent woman" just >>>>>>>> creates a sense of disgust and repulsion because it goes against >>>>>>>> biology. >>>>>>>> As the saying goes: You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the >>>>>>>> effects of ignoring reality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday 22 October 2024 at 20:18:13 UTC+3 Jesse Mazer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Who do you think are the prominent players in "the woke regime"? >>>>>>>>> Do you think Obama and Biden were *not* part of the woke regime, and >>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>> they are, what's your explanation for why they didn't try to >>>>>>>>> exterminate >>>>>>>>> their political enemies? If they're not part of it, do you think >>>>>>>>> Kamala >>>>>>>>> Harris is any more likely to be, and if so why? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 1:03 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @PGC. "By invoking extreme language like "exterminate," the >>>>>>>>>> original poster distorts reality" >>>>>>>>>> So you never opened a history book in your life to see how >>>>>>>>>> totalitarian regimes exterminated millions of people ? Do you think >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> when the woke regime will take the power you will be spared ? You >>>>>>>>>> are right >>>>>>>>>> there in their list. Together with Alan Grayson and other white >>>>>>>>>> knights >>>>>>>>>> that believe they will get cookie points for being good dogies for >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> regime. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 22 October 2024 at 18:56:01 UTC+3 Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2024 at 8:53:12 AM UTC-6 PGC wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Before proceeding with an informal analysis of "Why do the >>>>>>>>>>> wokies want to exterminate the normal white men ? Their parents >>>>>>>>>>> neglected >>>>>>>>>>> them when they were kids ? Where does their hatred towards humanity >>>>>>>>>>> come >>>>>>>>>>> from ?", I want to preface this response by clarifying that by >>>>>>>>>>> appearing to >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the original post, *I am not engaging in what I >>>>>>>>>>> believe to be a good faith discussion*. The original poster's >>>>>>>>>>> intentions are unclear when resorting to discursive strategies like >>>>>>>>>>> the one >>>>>>>>>>> I just cited. Their motivations could stem from a variety of >>>>>>>>>>> factors: a cry >>>>>>>>>>> for help, escapist behavior, a lack of validation, lack of >>>>>>>>>>> education, lack >>>>>>>>>>> of exposure to rigorous arguments, or other unfortunate >>>>>>>>>>> circumstances. >>>>>>>>>>> Rather than engage in a debate about the specifics of the >>>>>>>>>>> statement, which >>>>>>>>>>> I have no interest in, I will instead offer a bit of analysis to >>>>>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>>>>> why such an attempt may be fruitless. This is not merely a response >>>>>>>>>>> to an >>>>>>>>>>> isolated comment but a reflection on a broader issue in online >>>>>>>>>>> discourse, >>>>>>>>>>> of which the cited statement is merely one example. I believe this >>>>>>>>>>> dynamic >>>>>>>>>>> is worth bringing to the list's attention, as it represents a >>>>>>>>>>> significant >>>>>>>>>>> problem in how discussions unfold online. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The statement, "Why do the wokies want to exterminate the normal >>>>>>>>>>> white men? Their parents neglected them when they were kids? Where >>>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>>> their hatred towards humanity come from?" is emblematic of >>>>>>>>>>> reactionary >>>>>>>>>>> rhetoric that simplifies complex issues and creates a false binary >>>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>>> victimized "normal white men" and the so-called "wokies." This >>>>>>>>>>> phrasing >>>>>>>>>>> dehumanizes (inconsistent for someone who keeps mentioning "the god >>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> everyone") and mischaracterizes those who advocate for progressive >>>>>>>>>>> causes, >>>>>>>>>>> while amplifying an exaggerated sense of victimhood for the >>>>>>>>>>> speaker's own >>>>>>>>>>> demographic. By invoking extreme language like "exterminate," the >>>>>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>>>>> poster distorts reality, casting themselves as a target of >>>>>>>>>>> nonexistent >>>>>>>>>>> aggression because the streaming they consume, does not align with >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>> "values". Deep stuff that feeds the original poster's research, one >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> inclined to guess. Such tactics are designed to stoke fear and >>>>>>>>>>> deflect >>>>>>>>>>> attention from more substantive, nuanced discussions about race, >>>>>>>>>>> gender, >>>>>>>>>>> social justice, and theories of everything. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, the insinuation that progressives suffer from >>>>>>>>>>> childhood neglect ("Their parents neglected them when they were >>>>>>>>>>> kids?") >>>>>>>>>>> introduces an ad hominem attack that serves no purpose other than to >>>>>>>>>>> invalidate the proponents of these causes. This rhetorical move >>>>>>>>>>> deflects >>>>>>>>>>> from any genuine engagement with the issues at hand and instead >>>>>>>>>>> reduces the >>>>>>>>>>> debate to personal insult, a common technique in bad-faith >>>>>>>>>>> argumentation. >>>>>>>>>>> The emotional charge of this statement, combined with its lack of >>>>>>>>>>> intellectual substance, makes it clear that this is not an >>>>>>>>>>> invitation to >>>>>>>>>>> dialogue but rather an attempt to provoke and polarize. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The original poster’s framing of this issue also reflects a >>>>>>>>>>> broader phenomenon in modern discourse, where progressive movements >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> demonized as harboring a deep-seated "hatred towards humanity." This >>>>>>>>>>> reflects an inversion of reality, where efforts to expand rights and >>>>>>>>>>> address inequality are recast as hostile, destructive forces. In >>>>>>>>>>> this way, >>>>>>>>>>> the speaker avoids confronting the merits of progressive arguments >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> instead presents a distorted caricature, which provides a shield >>>>>>>>>>> against >>>>>>>>>>> critical engagement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The original poster's belief that media (such as "The Acolyte" >>>>>>>>>>> or Marvel) is part of a woke conspiracy to undermine traditional >>>>>>>>>>> values >>>>>>>>>>> further illustrates a paranoid response to cultural change. The >>>>>>>>>>> presence of >>>>>>>>>>> female heroes is not evidence of a conspiracy, but rather part of a >>>>>>>>>>> broader >>>>>>>>>>> and overdue shift towards diversity in storytelling. This paranoia >>>>>>>>>>> reflects >>>>>>>>>>> a discomfort with modern cultural dynamics and a desire to retreat >>>>>>>>>>> to an >>>>>>>>>>> imagined past where certain identities and roles were dominant. In >>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>> way, the statement serves to entrench a worldview that resists >>>>>>>>>>> change and >>>>>>>>>>> views any challenge to established norms as part of a sinister >>>>>>>>>>> agenda. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, the original poster's *view of academia as >>>>>>>>>>> indoctrinated churches* while simultaneously attempting to >>>>>>>>>>> publish unverified research without citations highlights a profound >>>>>>>>>>> cognitive dissonance. This reflects a common pattern in >>>>>>>>>>> anti-intellectual >>>>>>>>>>> populist rhetoric: a desire to gain recognition from academic >>>>>>>>>>> institutions >>>>>>>>>>> while rejecting their methods and standards. The speaker's disdain >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> citations—seeing them as unnecessary for someone who believes they >>>>>>>>>>> hold >>>>>>>>>>> original insights—indicates a *lack of engagement with >>>>>>>>>>> intellectual rigor*. This is particularly telling given that >>>>>>>>>>> many of the ideas they hold may in fact originate from others, and >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>> refusal to cite these sources points to both intellectual >>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty and >>>>>>>>>>> insecurity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The original poster's *immaterialist beliefs*, viewed as >>>>>>>>>>> literally proven fact rather than as one metaphysical framework >>>>>>>>>>> among many, >>>>>>>>>>> reflect the rigid, absolutist thinking typical of ideologues. By >>>>>>>>>>> treating >>>>>>>>>>> metaphysical assumptions as incontrovertible, the speaker avoids >>>>>>>>>>> engaging >>>>>>>>>>> with the diversity of thought in philosophy and science, preferring >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> present their ideas as beyond reproach. This kind of *epistemic >>>>>>>>>>> closure*—where one’s worldview is sealed off from >>>>>>>>>>> criticism—makes productive discourse nearly impossible, as any >>>>>>>>>>> challenge is >>>>>>>>>>> dismissed as ignorance or error. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The tendency to *insult dissenters as sexually frustrated >>>>>>>>>>> virgins* adds another layer of psychological projection. This >>>>>>>>>>> ad hominem attack aims to belittle opponents by reducing their >>>>>>>>>>> intellectual >>>>>>>>>>> positions to personal failings, specifically around sexuality, >>>>>>>>>>> which the >>>>>>>>>>> speaker likely views as a central axis of human worth!? This insult >>>>>>>>>>> betrays >>>>>>>>>>> a *deep-seated insecurity*, where the speaker’s own identity is >>>>>>>>>>> bolstered by denigrating the supposed sexual inadequacies of >>>>>>>>>>> others. It’s a >>>>>>>>>>> form of argumentation that sidesteps real discussion and instead >>>>>>>>>>> turns to *personal >>>>>>>>>>> degradation* as a distracting attack mechanism. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In examining this pattern of discourse, it is important to >>>>>>>>>>> *recognize >>>>>>>>>>> that the continual engagement with such bad-faith statements often >>>>>>>>>>> leads >>>>>>>>>>> nowhere*. The poster’s reliance on goalpost-shifting—changing >>>>>>>>>>> the terms of the debate when confronted with criticism—*is a >>>>>>>>>>> known tactic designed to exhaust interlocutors and avoid genuine >>>>>>>>>>> resolution*. >>>>>>>>>>> Well-meaning individuals who attempt to reason with the original >>>>>>>>>>> poster >>>>>>>>>>> often fall into this trap, giving the poster more opportunities to >>>>>>>>>>> provoke >>>>>>>>>>> further with each response. This cycle underscores the difficulty of >>>>>>>>>>> addressing misinformation and ideological manipulation in online >>>>>>>>>>> spaces, >>>>>>>>>>> where time is scarce, and the production of misinformation is both >>>>>>>>>>> quick >>>>>>>>>>> and easy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In conclusion, the aim of this analysis is not to engage with >>>>>>>>>>> the original statement as if it were a genuine attempt at dialogue, >>>>>>>>>>> nor to >>>>>>>>>>> legitimize the assumptions embedded in it. Rather, it is to >>>>>>>>>>> illustrate a >>>>>>>>>>> broader issue with online discourse, where misinformation, >>>>>>>>>>> distortion, and >>>>>>>>>>> bad-faith arguments proliferate. The time required to unpack flawed >>>>>>>>>>> assumptions and correct biases is far greater than the time it >>>>>>>>>>> takes to >>>>>>>>>>> produce these provocations. *Even this analysis, in its attempt >>>>>>>>>>> to dissect the issue, risks legitimizing the original poster’s >>>>>>>>>>> intent >>>>>>>>>>> simply by acknowledging it*. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Instead, I encourage people to be cautious in how we engage with >>>>>>>>>>> such statements and recognize when the effort to respond is >>>>>>>>>>> counterproductive. The science of misinformation is still young, >>>>>>>>>>> and while >>>>>>>>>>> there are no easy solutions, it is crucial to remain aware of the >>>>>>>>>>> dynamics >>>>>>>>>>> at play. Loaded questions and provocations are easy to produce, but >>>>>>>>>>> contextualizing and correcting them is cumbersome—a reality that >>>>>>>>>>> highlights >>>>>>>>>>> the challenges of meaningful discourse in the digital age. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully, as more people are exposed to rigorous, >>>>>>>>>>> evidence-based discussions, they will become more adept at >>>>>>>>>>> identifying >>>>>>>>>>> these tactics and will focus on fostering genuine dialogue rather >>>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>>> being drawn into fruitless exchanges. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This imbalance creates the known dilemma for anyone attempting >>>>>>>>>>> to engage with bad-faith arguments. It's also an oversight in >>>>>>>>>>> education, >>>>>>>>>>> that nowadays overemphasizes competence acquisition over critical >>>>>>>>>>> thought >>>>>>>>>>> (as this is hard to measure and the testing industry relies on >>>>>>>>>>> quantitative >>>>>>>>>>> results because economic ideology with performance orientation >>>>>>>>>>> dominates >>>>>>>>>>> developing critical thought ability) as the many fruitless online >>>>>>>>>>> discussions that everybody has experienced can indicate: it is a >>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial problem as "do not feed the troll" can also be abused to >>>>>>>>>>> marginalize speakers etc. as well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Predictably, the type of approach of the original poster will >>>>>>>>>>> continue to flood the list with similar statements and continue to >>>>>>>>>>> misdirect attention with provocations etc. I will neither reply to >>>>>>>>>>> bad >>>>>>>>>>> faith replies of the original poster, nor will I concern myself >>>>>>>>>>> with them >>>>>>>>>>> for more than a few seconds. But I can console the original poster: >>>>>>>>>>> I do >>>>>>>>>>> want my 30 minutes back, and in this sense, the original poster is >>>>>>>>>>> "victorious". He managed to make me regret this waste of time. >>>>>>>>>>> Apologies >>>>>>>>>>> for having perhaps wasted any reader's time in so doing but I do >>>>>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>>>> that the problem of misinformation in the online world is >>>>>>>>>>> larger/deeper >>>>>>>>>>> than we give it credit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Excellently written and exactly correct on the substance. Thank >>>>>>>>>>> you, AG* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2024 at 2:49:32 PM UTC+2 Cosmin Visan >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You want to exterminate the normal white men ? They were the >>>>>>>>>>> oppressors and you were the oppressed and now you want to take >>>>>>>>>>> revenge in >>>>>>>>>>> the classical marxist style ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 22 October 2024 at 15:03:34 UTC+3 John Clark wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:03 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything >>>>>>>>>>> List <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *> Why do the wokies want to exterminate the normal white men ?* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Normal white men don't exist. * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *> Their parents neglected them* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Parents don't exist. * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * > when they were kids ? * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Kids don't exist. * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *> Where does their hatred towards humanity come from ?* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Humanity doesn't exist. But unfortunately you do seem to >>>>>>>>>>> exist. * >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* >>>>>>>>>>> ude >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/959af6d9-8767-4d14-b539-a2c41d167d75n%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/959af6d9-8767-4d14-b539-a2c41d167d75n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a50901c6-e98d-4d98-9718-b5ca960fd719n%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a50901c6-e98d-4d98-9718-b5ca960fd719n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4475dfcf-969b-4dd7-96c0-c3b077f93028n%40googlegroups.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4475dfcf-969b-4dd7-96c0-c3b077f93028n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3L3DCJRU%3DfTP9HeYRO8eCiqbvmV5PE%3DUMb_kzdpNWj3jg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3L3DCJRU%3DfTP9HeYRO8eCiqbvmV5PE%3DUMb_kzdpNWj3jg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> -- >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685ac346-28f2-4684-b576-b17119d2502en%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/685ac346-28f2-4684-b576-b17119d2502en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee6e1790-2fc7-4eeb-91c5-49a151b2a00dn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee6e1790-2fc7-4eeb-91c5-49a151b2a00dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAq%3DVein89WeCwm%2B6xjA%3DKWU%3DTgiMNxa1G4ZzQaKoQfWKQ%40mail.gmail.com.
