Who knows anything about AT - Assembly Theory - and evolution. I know the web/LLM provided stuff. Want more depth if anyone can provide such.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2025, at 5:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Thanks Stephen, > > I hoped for some sort of answer like that. > > If Eisenhower was the president for the Age of Collective Reasonableness, and > Reagan wa the president for the Age of Noble Selfishness, and Trump is the > president for the Age of Anarchy, what is next? How does a complexity > theorist plan his way out of this one, baby? Inquiring geezers want to know. > What do the ants have to say? I want to say that we ants should all get > together and think this through, but that is, of course, exactly what a > geezer from the ACR would say. I do despair. > > Nick > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin > *Sent:* Saturday, August 9, 2025 8:36 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. > > Nick writes: > > > I moved to Santa Fe 20 years ago to confront The Enemy – Complexity, > > which made nonsense of the idea making a best guess for the future and > > planning for it collectively , calmly, and rationally. > > Nick — you came to Santa Fe to “confront The Enemy – Complexity,” but I’ve > always admired how that move was also a reach to extend the individual into > the group. Your framing of evolution beyond the lone actor fits naturally > into complexity’s home territory: the study of collective dynamics. > > Complexity challenged the civic ideal you grew up with — that we could make > our best guess about the future, then plan together calmly and rationally > around stable facts — by showing: > > • The world is nonlinear — small perturbations can cascade. > • Prediction decays fast — best guesses expire before guiding long-horizon > plans. > • Feedback loops are short — conditions shift before consensus can form. > From the Victorian lens of the forward-propagating individual — the gene, the > photon, the solitary actor — the unit of selection is the forward-propagator > itself, competing with only a once-in-a-lifetime reproduction as feedback, > with everything else treated as downstream consequence. > > But complexity might instead be the handshake of duals — like the mutual > adjustment of fireflies flashing in unison or pendulums entraining to a > common rhythm — where coherence emerges from continuous exchange, not > solitary advance. This shift is much like physics’ move from solid state > (crystal order, replication) to condensed matter (emergent phenomena, > reproduction) — the very distinction Eric Smith draws between systems that > merely repeat and systems that generate novel, coherent forms. > > This spirit runs through the science: > > • Stuart Kauffman’s autocatalytic sets — molecules persist as part of > collectively closed webs of reactions. > • Harold Morowitz & Eric Smith — life’s core metabolic cycles may emerge as > planetary-scale solutions to channel geochemical energy flows; selection > might happen at the network level, not molecule-by-molecule. > • Afred's Hübler’s ball bearings — conductive spheres collectively grow to > dissipate massive charge gradients more effectively. > • Per Bak’s self-organized criticality — critical states are properties of > the network, not any single grain or fault. > • Ilya Prigogine’s dissipative structures — ordered patterns like Bénard > cells exist only through system-wide throughput of energy/matter. > Physics offers a parallel in Feynman–Wheeler absorber theory, where > interactions are bidirectional handshakes between advanced and retarded > waves, settling into a self-consistent exchange. Carver Mead’s Collective > Electrodynamics carries this into the macroscopic: electrons act as part of a > global configuration, not as isolated particles. > > It’s the same dynamic in my favorite ant foraging model: food-seekers diffuse > “nest” pheromone outward, nest-seekers carrying food diffuse “food” pheromone > outward; each biases its walk along the other’s field. The shortest-time path > emerges from the handshake between complementary propagations, not from any > one ant “deciding” the route. > > Seen this way, complexity might not be the death of rational planning — it > could be pointing us toward a different design target: the coherent > configuration. We're still on the lookout for our “Carnot” to formalize these > principles. > > And for me, that search has been shaped by the voices in this group — > especially yours. Your probes have been part of the collective dynamic here, > and I’ve been heavily informed by them. For that, I’m grateful. > > -Stephen > > > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2025 at 4:55 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ok, but I am not done with my infernal questions. The way you pose your >> question, I cant help thinking that you know the answer. You and I could >> recite fo one another the thousand ways in which we know that humans are >> groupish. We know that people can make sacrifices for the good of groups of >> all sorts, some of which are incorrigibly abstract. We know that humans >> identify with the fate of other humans to the extent that they will put >> aside their own good fortune for that of an iconic figure. We know the >> people are capable of appalling group nastiness. There is no savagery like >> the modern army, sitting around in an anonymous office bloc in New Jersey >> lobbing missiles at wedding parties in Iraq. >> >> So what is the question concerning human groupishness . What is it beyond >> these facts that you need to know and what will change when you come to know >> it. One question you might be asking yourself is “Am I justified in keeping >> any money I earn beyond the median income of my fellow citizens. The answer >> is almost certainly, “No”. Knowing that and knowing that I am damned well >> not going to give it away, what next?” >> >> One of the hardest projects to take on is the discovery of one’s own >> hankerings. Glen, Jon, and DaveW have been very good at exposing mine. >> Make American Rational Again. Return to the genteel rationalism of the >> Deweyan 1950’s where every town had a town meeting and every discussion was >> “informed” by the “facts.” (And we were all cheerful racists instead of the >> guilty racists that we are now.) That I have grown up and helped to create a >> world in which nobody knows anymore what a fact has been like living my >> worst childhood nightmare. I was head of our planning board for three years >> in the early 70’s where I learned that small towns are the scariest, least >> rational places on the face of the earth. When we moved in from California, >> marginal hippies, the town could not rest before it was decided whether we >> were Catholics or Protestants. What???!@!! Sorry, I am ranting. I moved >> to Santa Fe 20 years ago to confront The Enemy – Complexity, which made >> nonsense of the idea making a best guess for the future and planning for it >> collectively , calmly, and rationally. The idea that people should build >> businesses models on destabilizing the present and then swooping in and >> pillaging until one has established an irrevocable monopoly on the future >> just seems WRONG to me. I loved the idea of American exceptionalism. But >> lo and behold, we were exceptional in only one respect. WE had discovered >> destabilization as a business model. Drop by, plant a lethal virus, wait a >> few years and then return (with your slaves) to a “virgin” land populated >> only by a few desperate savages. Let the rape of the virgin begin. Calm >> down, Nick. >> >> These are my commitments, and I cannot escape them. What are yours? >> >> Nick >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp >> *Sent:* Friday, August 8, 2025 4:21 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >> >> Nick, >> >> Too good to miss — I’m in. Lead me into the jungle of group selection, >> especially the human variety. >> >> What I’m after: a clear, simple (but not dumbed-down) take on what group >> selection in humans is, and why it might explain our behaviour better than >> individual selection alone. >> >> Happy to start at the very beginning — dawn of the argument, cave paintings, >> whatever you think works. >> >> And yes, send me that Famous Great Amateur reading list. I promise to read >> it with respect… and just enough suspicion to keep it fun. >> >> >> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:05, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi, Pieter, >>> >>> Let me be a George to you as you explore this topic. I will try to respond >>> off hand, quickly, and unself-consciously as you think along. I think this >>> whole topic is fascinating both substantively, and historically. The >>> literature seems to track (or lead?) the Zeitgeist so precisely from post >>> war peace-nikery (Wynne-Edwards), to the revanchist academic Reaganism >>> (Williams-Dawkins), to chaos (evodevo). It's really hard to take the whole >>> argument seriously once one begins to understand how complex and multi >>> layered are the mechanisms by which parents do and dont resemble their >>> children. One of the tools to thinking straight is to own up to one's >>> hankerings before one dives into the literature. What are you hoping to >>> find? Post war peace-nikery was covertly deistic, hoping to find that >>> there was some sort of over arching regulatory agency that would keep the >>> species and the planet safe. Academic Reaganism said good luck with that! >>> Success is virtue. And then evodevo, the bull in the china shop of that >>> whole argument. I recommend reading the biologist, Sean B. Carroll, (not >>> the physicist), Endless forms most beautiful, and The making of the >>> fittest. It's really hard to take the whole argument seriously once one >>> begins to understand how complex and multi layered are the mechanisms by >>> which parents do and dont resemble their children. That there is any >>> resemblance at all begins to seem like some sort of miracle. Or perhaps >>> just momentum. One hankering that misleads us is naturalism, the idea that >>> we can find some sort of MORAL guidance in the way things are. Is the >>> opposite hankering, existentialism? The belief that what makes humans >>> special is their power to CHOOSE. You should remember that I am not a >>> philosopher and am, in fact, an amateur in all things. >>> >>> "Any time you want to explore this issue, I am here ready to help. Would >>> you like suggestions of articles to read by that Famous Amateur, Nick >>> Thompson? " >>> >>> signed, >>> >>> ChatNST >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:19 AM Pieter Steenekamp >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Thanks, Nick. Just like you struggled to get your head around entropy, I’m >>>> battling to wrap my mind around how the basic but very powerful mechanism >>>> of evolution works in human groups. I can easily understand individual >>>> human selection, or even group selection in swarming insects where only >>>> the queen has babies. >>>> >>>> I think I’ll take a page from your book and work with George to help guide >>>> me through this learning journey. Every now and then, I might check in >>>> with you and others here for a chat or to ask a question. >>>> >>>> The only catch is that I’ve just started a really exciting AI project, so >>>> I might not have much time for my group-level evolution journey — but I’ll >>>> try to keep it going. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 03:40, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Thanks Pieter, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. If FRIAM ever started a >>>>> journal, it should be called “the emperors new clothes”. We are not >>>>> committed to anything if not to the validity of an “amateur’s” >>>>> perspective. As people will be quick to tell you, mine has always been >>>>> of that sort. >>>>> >>>>> If I read you carefully, the position you take is that laid out in >>>>> Dawkins The Extended Phenotype – that the genes are the basic unit of >>>>> selection. But as Dave Wilson has been pointing out for years, Who made >>>>> that decision? For one thing, as epigenic studies have made clear, when >>>>> one looks in detail, it is really hard to find a thing that is exactly >>>>> the gene. For another, that decision runs the risk of confusing the the >>>>> thing that is selected with the forces that are selecting it. Whatever >>>>> level you care to calculate the impact of selection, it is differential >>>>> group success that is driving selection or it is not group selection. >>>>> And if it is differential group success that is driving selection, then >>>>> it is group selection. I think you might quite enjoy The Extended >>>>> Phenotype. For a whild ride, have a look at Elliott Sober and D. S. >>>>> Wilson’s Reintroducing Group Selection to the human behavioral sciences. >>>>> There is a wonderful metaphor in there about two riders riding three >>>>> horses. It was the article that broke the tide for me. I had been >>>>> totally up Dawkins ass for the preceding 20 years. >>>>> >>>>> Here is the citation, courtesy og George Patrick Tremblay IV >>>>> >>>>> Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). *Reintroducing group selection to the >>>>> human behavioral sciences*. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17*(4), >>>>> 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036104 >>>>> en.wikipedia.org+15philpapers.org+15 >>>>> <https://philpapers.org/rec/WILRGS?utm_source=chatgpt.com>…. >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:55 AM >>>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >>>>> >>>>> Nick, I'm genuinely impressed. Honestly, I feel a bit out of my depth >>>>> trying to respond meaningfully on this topic. >>>>> >>>>> So please take my reply in the same spirit I’d expect a response from my >>>>> 10-year-old grandchild when debating computer programming with me. The >>>>> gap between your understanding of evolution and mine feels about that >>>>> wide. >>>>> >>>>> That said, I’d still like to offer a response to your group selection >>>>> argument—fully aware that it may come across as amateurish, and I'm okay >>>>> with that. >>>>> >>>>> Here's the question I’m grappling with: >>>>> >>>>> Is the following valid? >>>>> Genes as the Unit of Selection: >>>>> Modern evolutionary theory generally views genes as the primary unit of >>>>> selection. Natural selection acts on individuals, and the success of an >>>>> individual is ultimately determined by the genes they carry. >>>>> Group Selection as a Modifier: >>>>> Group selection can be seen as a process that influences the expression >>>>> of genes. For example, if a group-level trait (like cooperative behavior) >>>>> is advantageous, then genes that promote that behavior will be favored, >>>>> even if those genes also have individual-level costs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 00:12, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Nick, >>>>>> >>>>>> I wish to embody the fear of being dragged away from what you think you >>>>>> are supposed to be doing, to be engaged in the topic you raise in your >>>>>> paper. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have read the paper before and, as then, I find it meritorious, well >>>>>> written, and reasonable in argument. I am, basically, convinced. >>>>>> >>>>>> However; two points: >>>>>> >>>>>> First, your use of the concept, "metaphor," is the way that I use the >>>>>> term, in a manner that glen pointed out is inconsistent with the literal >>>>>> definition of the term. I speak of metaphor when there is some thing of >>>>>> which I think I know something and I have a suspicion that some other >>>>>> thing might be of the same ilk. I use what I think I know to craft a >>>>>> 'model', one that suggests particular points and particular relations >>>>>> that, if my suspicion is correct, will have direct analogs in the >>>>>> unknown thing. I check them out individually and in combinations and, if >>>>>> substantiated, confirm my suspicion. If unconfirmed, the metaphor is >>>>>> refuted. >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems to me to be what you are doing in the paper, albeit it more >>>>>> abstractly and academically. Please correct me if wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, and here is the real time sink, would it be possible to make >>>>>> your ideas concrete, real groups with actual history and demonstrated >>>>>> differential "success." If you were amenable to such a conversation, I >>>>>> would propose the Mormons as a test case. >>>>>> >>>>>> One of 20 or so "religions"/"societies" to emerge from the "Burnt Over >>>>>> District" of western New York. The only one still extant. >>>>>> >>>>>> Disproportionately successful, (in material and social terms), to their >>>>>> neighbors. Smith was living in a two-story New England style home while >>>>>> down the road, Abe Lincoln, was living in a log cabin with mud floor. >>>>>> >>>>>> A schism immediately after Smith's death, with the Reformed LDS barely >>>>>> evident while the main group flourished. (Last time I checked, Mormonism >>>>>> and Sokka Gokai, in Japan, were the two fastest growing religions.) >>>>>> >>>>>> In Utah there was a concerted effort to spawn multiple small groups by >>>>>> sending out colonies. Because each group was originally "seeded" with >>>>>> four or five families, you get a strong genetic/heritance component as >>>>>> well as "traits." (It is still possible to identify what part of Utah >>>>>> someone is from (especially females) by their physical appearance.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Some interesting "adaptations" at the trait level, e.g., when Smith was >>>>>> alive blacks were included in the community and held the >>>>>> priesthood—something that Missourians, at the time, could not abide. >>>>>> Brigham Young 'suspended' (restored in 1978 with the admission that the >>>>>> suspension was not for theological, but merely political reasons) black >>>>>> priesthood membership and gave up polygamy (de jure only) to appease the >>>>>> Federal Government and avoid a second martyrdom. >>>>>> >>>>>> davew >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Colleagues in FRIAM, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sometimes, if I am going to get anything done, I just have to ignore >>>>>>> Friam, and keep my head down, and work at the thing I am working at. >>>>>>> It always seems, on that occasion, that you-guys dangle in front of me >>>>>>> some enticing topic so I must scream and put my fingers in my ears to >>>>>>> keep focus on my work. So it was that when I decided I must fish or >>>>>>> cut bait on entropy or it would take me to my grave, that almost >>>>>>> immediately you-guys started not one but two conversations close to my >>>>>>> heart: on the centrality of metaphor to science and on the group >>>>>>> selection controversy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A couple of decades ago I brought those two interests together in a >>>>>>> paper called “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group >>>>>>> Level. There are two things about this paper that make it salient for >>>>>>> me. The first is that I think it is the best paper I ever wrote. The >>>>>>> second is that for each of the two people whom I most hoped to reach >>>>>>> when I wrote it, D. S. Wilson and Elliott Sober, it is a piece of >>>>>>> crap. In it, I try to show that the problem with metaphors is not with >>>>>>> their use in scientific thinking: on the contrary, it is with their >>>>>>> ill-disciplined use. Metaphors need to be worked in a systematic way, >>>>>>> not simply flung out in a gust of poetic exuberance. This lesson I >>>>>>> try to teach by working the natural selection metaphor in a systematic >>>>>>> way to show that if it had been treated seriously in the first place, >>>>>>> the whole dispute about group selection might have been avoided. Thus >>>>>>> the paper is not only arrogant, but meta-arrogant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing is more pitiable than the retired academic who would do >>>>>>> anything to have anybody read his moribund essays. But, alas, I simply >>>>>>> am such a person. So, I am attaching a copy of the paper in the hope >>>>>>> that it will have some value to you within the context of your two >>>>>>> discussions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mumble, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>>>>>> Clark University >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>>>>>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Attachments:* >>>>>>> • Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >>>>>>> • Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>>>>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>>> >>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>>>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>> >>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>> Clark University >>> [email protected] >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
