[FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

It seems relatively clear that there's some fuzz between persuasion and coercion. My favorite is "Bless your heart": https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/bless-your-heart. 

As for [D|R]e[con|]struction and destruction, I explicitly separated them when I brought it up. ... Of course, whether I actually know what any of those words mean is another issue.

On 3/23/21 12:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I think the note about Arnold self-contained.  I can't think more to say about that.    I was perfectly happy to bend the thread again, if only on principle. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:10 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Friam Norms of Thread Bending
> 
> Three comments: 
> 
> While I accept (and enact) the general rule that threads will be bent and we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist about it, I don't think that precludes a request from one of us not to bend a particular thread. 
> On what planet is "please" coercive? 
> You-guys aren't, by any chance, confusing Deconstruction, Reconstruction, and Destruction?

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ