<div dir="auto">When I was in highschool I read a book about the Great Books by Mortimer J Adler. He said that it's easy to define truth but hard to decide what's true. According to him a proposition is true if it asserts what is the case. An analytic statement.<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">---<br>Frank C. Wimberly<br>140 Calle Ojo Feliz, <br>Santa Fe, NM 87505<br><br>505 670-9918<br>Santa Fe, NM</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, May 16, 2020, 9:30 PM <<a href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_5972391401607496071WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Hmmm. I am afraid I may have underemphasized something in my discussions of “truth”. The Pragmatic Maxim (which is what Jon refers to), is<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="m_5972391401607496071quotation"><em>Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object</em><span style="font-style:normal">. (CP 5.402; emphasis added)as cribbed from <a href="http://www.asatheory.org/current-newsletter-online/the-pragmatic-maxim" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.asatheory.org/current-newsletter-online/the-pragmatic-maxim</a></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-style:normal"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Please note that, as applied to the word, “truth”, the maxim is a thesis, not about what truth IS, but what we mean when we say something is a truth. The consequences for scientific practice – what I call the practicial consequences – of looking for the truth of the matter is to send every scientist looking for that answer upon which science will rest in the very long run. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">This is an interesting example of intensionality. Nothing in the pragmatic maxim implies that there is a truth of any matter. It implies only that when you say anything is true, you are implying that, in the very long run opinion, will come to agree with you. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Nick <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Nicholas Thompson<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Clark University<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:#0563c1">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="color:#0563c1">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Friam <<a href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Frank Wimberly<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 16, 2020 7:47 PM<br><b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">friam@redfish.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Jon-<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">While reading your essay I had several associations. I recently read the assertion that in developing axiomatic systems and proving the entailed theorems mathematicians are writing for God as the authority. So mathematics, from that point of view is a conversation with God.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">At the other extreme (?) I thought Reuben Hersh held a view similar to the one you attribute to Nick: that mathematics is the set of theorems that mathematicians agree to by consensus.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I agree that Newtonian physics and differential calculus are the correct model for objects moving in a vacuum. I was given an $85 ticket by a rookie police officer for rolling through a stop sign. She said my wheels never completely stopped turning I don't think any experienced officer would have given me a citation. I had fantasies of writing to the judge explaining that an object moving along a continuous path can stop for zero seconds (unit of time irrelevant). This happens when you throw an object straight up (directly away from the center of the earth). I don't know about whether space and time have the Hausdorff property but for traffic purposes it doesn't matter.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">In the Woody Allen film "Sleeper", Allen's character wakes up 200 years in the future. He's getting in to know a stranger and he tells him that he owned a health food store in Greenwich Village. The stranger looked puzzled and then said, "Oh, those were the days before scientists realized that the ideal diet consists of steak and chocolate milkshakes".<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I feel, without evidence, that mankind will not last long enough to see all science as settled. There is hope for pure math.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Is any of this responsive to your email?<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Frank<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">---<br>Frank C. Wimberly<br>140 Calle Ojo Feliz, <br>Santa Fe, NM 87505<br><br>505 670-9918<br>Santa Fe, NM<u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, May 16, 2020, 7:07 PM Jon Zingale <<a href="mailto:jonzingale@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jonzingale@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Disclaimers:<br>1. TLDR Warning<br>2. These opinions will be poorly founded and are subject to change.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Dave,<br><br>You write: `</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333">Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards science and</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333">could get no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">`</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333"><br>Questions like the one Nick posed fill me with a sense of <i>aporia</i>.<br>I am left without an immediate response. Personally, I find it useful<br>to factor science into a number of modes or senses. The ultimate goal<br>for me is to sketch out the kind of space where I can investigate the <i>shape</i><br>of my own conception of science. Ultimately, whatever science is to me<br>cannot be a single consistent entity, but rather a kind of <i>eidetic variation</i>.<br><br>* Science as institution. Science can be identified with its institutions:<br>STEM outreach after-school programs, publishing companies, research centers,<br>and the like. Here science is sometimes portrayed as a career with clear<br>delineations regarding who is <i>good</i> or <i>bad</i> at science. Its goals are set by<br>commitees and participation is all but automated through bureaucratic policy.<br>The authority we assert when we reference expertise, degrees and associations<br>is one of institutional authority. While there is probably a lot for me to pick<br>apart here, I will stick to two or three contrary beliefs I hold. For me, the<br>notion of STEM is awkward exactly because mathematics is a liberal art and<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">not necessarily a science. Mathematics exists to describe relationships and to<br>facilitate thought. It's home is not far from painting, drawing or the<br>activities of thespians. Another belief I hold is that any institution is<br>susceptible to <i>legitimation crisis</i>. It is very possible, as is often argued of<br>our news outlets, for scientific institutions to fail in their duty to produce<br>science.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">For anyone who is interested in these potential short-comings I recommend<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">reading the history of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Belousov-</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Zhabotinsky reaction</a>. While the story ends<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">well, it leaves the critical reader wondering what <i>good science</i> has been left to die.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Here, I hold the belief that there is very likely science, as legitimated by other<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">scientific senses, which have been de-legitimated by science as institution.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Science as institution is not itself consistently decided. It is prone<br>to as-well-as open to inter-institutional disagreement. Putting aside for the<br>moment that agreement will one day be reached (an ontological claim that<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">may itself not be amenable to scientific inquiry) any <i>active</i> area of research</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">is riddled with competing theories. Extreme cases include cosmology and</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">string theory. A weaker example is the </span><span style="color:#333333"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Feynman-Wheeler electron</span></a></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">.</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">* Science as abstract authority. It is a personal pet peeve of mine when</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">someone forms a sentence like, "Well, science </span><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">says</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333"> X". It is a strange side-</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">effect of our culture that the notion of science can be lifted to the status</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">of abstract authority. The function of such a statement is to end discussion,</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">to leave ideas stillborn. To the degree that I find this behavior appalling,</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">I hold beliefs contrary to science in this sense.</span><span style="color:#333333"><br><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">* Science as methodology. Science as the product of scientific methodology</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">has a great number of sub-topics whose surface I will barely ever get to know.</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Scientific method, peer-review publishing, description production, explanation</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">production, Occam's Razor and the constructivists. Many scientific results</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">have at the core of their methodology useful but known-to-be troublesome</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">assumptions. The scientific method itself is a co-recursive algorithm and</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">therefore subject to limitations like NP-completeness and decidability.</span><span style="color:#333333"><br></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">At the root of our most trusted tools, like differentiation, hide the uncertainties</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">of second-order logic. In an attempt to remedy perceived failings in the tools of</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">formal logic, the constructivists (under the impetus of Brouwer, Heyting and others)</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">proceeded to develop new logics which in turn were used to create new forms of</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">analysis, non-standard analysis and synthetic differential geometry to name two.</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">This proliferation of new tools, however, introduce new complexities.</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Theorems which were abhorrent in one logical frame (Banach-Tarski) became</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">non-issues in another, but now in the new frame live other <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/con-math/#SH3a" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">abhorrent theorems</a></span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">which didn't exist in the first (Specker's Theorem). I suspect it will not be</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">possible for science as methodology to decide which logical frame is somehow</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">the <i>most correct</i>. As it stands I do value the predictions afforded by a classically</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">founded differential calculus, even if its foundations are unresolvable. Perhaps</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">less controversially, I hold space for the existence of Chaitin random numbers.</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">In a </span><span style="color:#333333"><a href="http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~km9/Randomness%20and%20Mathematical.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif">Scientific American article</span></a> </span><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Chaitin writes:</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333">'Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured,<br>a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a<br>limit to what is possible in mathematics'</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">.<br><br>Lastly on this point and just to bait Nick...<br>Nick often attributes to Peirce that, "Truth is what we will ultimately<br>come to agree upon". This idea is perhaps non-scientific in that it<br>may be a form of Ramsey statement (thanks Glen!) which falls on the side<br>of metaphysics. A truth-principle like this with Ramsey meta-physicality would<br>suggest that truth is <i>here</i>, but we cannot <i>know</i> it, despite Nick's deepest wishes.<br>Further, if we could <i>know</i> a thing in this way, we would only be able to <i>verify</i><br>it once <i>all of the ballots were in</i>.<br><br>* Science as metaphor. In a <i>very</i> <i>narrow</i> context, science can be construed as<br>metaphor between mathematical model and physical observation. Nick often</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">points out that while <i>instantaneous velocity</i> is mathematical, we should be leery</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">of calling it physical. When we apply the notion of an arc to the path of a ball,<br>we are importing and projecting onto physical space the properties of a model.<br>These properties almost invariably entail the continuity and smoothness of<br>time and of space. Arguably, even time and space are imported. I do believe<br>that time and space are <i>worth the import</i>, but I do not think of the metaphor<br>as establishing truth.<br><br>* Science as culture. A biologist friend of mine asked me to validate his<br>claim that our universe is four dimensional. I took the opportunity to elaborate<br>on the concept of dimension as I think of it, namely as an assertion about<br>linear independence. I attempted to move the conversation to a discussion<br>about models and what we intend to describe. I am ok with a four dimensional<br>time-space if we are discussing Einstein's relativity theory. Clearly, in other<br>physical contexts I may wish to talk meaningfully about infinite dimensional<br>Hilbert spaces or six dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. He left the conversation<br>miffed. Science has a cultural component, we argue and push and struggle to<br>define scientific contexts with each other. Imre Lakotos wrote a wonderful<br>book about this called "Conjectures and Refutations". It playfully covers,<br>in dialogue form, the development of modern topology from the perspective<br>of mathematics culture.<br><br>* Temporality in Science. Because Newton and Einstein held different beliefs,<br>we cannot rely (nor should we) on science to be consistent in time. We can hope,<br>along with Nick, that some scientific acquisition will meet the ultimate gold-<br>standard, jump the limit of our methodologies and finally and gloriously be<br>classified as <i>known true</i>. While it would likely be the case that if Newton<br>were here today he would agree that Einstein's theory is better, there are other<br>examples which exhibit oscillatory behavior. Is coffee good for you? Should<br>you avoid red meat? It is hard for me to keep up with the temporality of<br>science, and I suspect that we are capable of believing things which are not-<br>now-but-will-one-day-satisfy the scientific criteria of one or many of the</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">senses above.<br><br>In many ways I feel that I am taking a bold risk in rambling here, so I hope<br>that it meets your (Dave) satisfaction. I also hope that it inspires others<br>to take a chance and spill some <i>e-ink</i>.</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Full of it,</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#333333">Jon</span><span style="color:#333333"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> <u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div></div></div>-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> <br>
</blockquote></div>