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 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:10 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[email protected]> > 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 - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
