Thanks Jason. I fully agree with you. I long ago parted ways ideologically with the brothers, so that's nothing new. In the extreme, imagine what it must be like if you're Ted Kaczynski's (Unabomber) brother trying to determine if you should contact the police because of your suspicions. It is indeed difficult, but I've long recognized that I do find some of what the brothers represent (their unfettered pursuit of the dollar, right-wing extremism, and even clear hints at racism) deeply disturbing. And, agreed: "it will probably never change." In fact, it's only gotten worse, as they've become even more recalcitrant in their views and emboldened by the election of Trump and the millions of people who no longer feel it's necessary to hide their racism, etc.
But, as a social scientist, I'm actually driven more by the quest to understand why that should be the case. There are plenty of enlightened multi-millionaires out there too and thus people who apparently do things "against" their vested interests. More generally, I'm interested in trying to understand the conditions under which "facts, data, and logic" no longer factor into the equation for some people, or, perhaps, why they should work so hard to recalibrate their metrics in regard to the nature of "facts, data, and logic." And I think that's critical to our broader mission in higher education. Take care, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
eið + 1 = 0
________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of nysa71 <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 10:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Are We All Nutcases?
Joseph writes, "This comes from my two brothers, who are multi-millionaire realtors..."
And there you go, Joseph. You've answered your own question. All the facts, data, and logic in the world aren't going to change anything with your brothers, because they each have a personal vested interest in ignoring facts, data, and logic, along with "the other side", even if it comes from their own brother. Of course, no one wants to believe something like that about people they love, but it is what it is. And it will probably never change.
~ Jason
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018, 8:29:07 AM EDT, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks John and Chance. First, I fully agree with John's argument about the symptoms and the notion of "going for the intellectual jugular." That's often the nature of the discourse in science & the power dynamics involved, especially when you offer some rather unconventional views or challenge the standard orthodoxy (as John has done in his work).
Chance, I think your Simpsons clip captures perfectly the essence of the underlying dynamic we're discussing. And note how he walks away with an entirely different narrative, despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to his own imminent physical demise. I didn't share that in my response to my brothers, I offered at least five credible, evidence-based responses to their critique of higher education. They responded to NONE of these arguments, but simply ignored them. Instead, the focus was on one sentence where I mentioned that Peterson's political argument about universities appealed to his base (a la Trump), and, indeed, that he had become rather popular amongst the alt-right accordingly. The one brother seized on that comment to argue, "You see? There's your typical left-wing bias. You talk about his appeal to the alt-right and therefore associate his arguments with white nationalism (I said nothing about white nationalism and wasn't even thinking about that!) to discredit his ideas. Peterson's not wrong. He's spot on."
I'm left speechless. Literally, what can one say? This comes from my two brothers, who are multi-millionaire realtors and ardent Trump supporters. I get that. My point is to try to "reason" with the "other". I figure that they know me, they know I'll listen to all sides, and that I'll think seriously about the arguments. Yet nothing I argued had any credibility or traction, whether based on: 1) scientific evidence I presented about confirmation bias and groupthink; 2) national polling data on people's attitudes and the links to their political orientations and authoritarianism; 3) actual data on the numbers of incidents in contrast to the mundane, day-to-day operations of universities; 4) possible reasons as to why some people argue such extreme and hostile positions about academia based on their own limited experiences, as per Peterson's personal experiences (the problem of rampant over-generalization); or 5) the selective use of specific cases that only buttress one's argument and the complete ignorance or discounting of any examples that undermine or contradict one's positions (the problems of selection bias/confirmation bias).
I'm reminded of an argument I had with a radical ideologue many years ago about why the U.S. intervened in Iraq under George H Bush and the justifications used on both sides of the political debate at the time. After about 45 minutes, I stopped and said something like: "You know, we've been going back and forth on this for a long time. Along the way, I've acknowledged points where I thought you made some convincing arguments and points where I felt you had better information that I needed to consider. Yet not once have you said anything about the merits of my own positions or the evidence I've used to make my arguments." His response? "I'm not interested in the terms of your arguments." Literally. I realized at that moment that I would always be at a disadvantage in intellectual discourse by trying to be open-minded and respectful as compared with those who simply believe what they believe, no matter what. And that's kinda what got be interested in studying human conflict, reconnecting with Gregg years later around his work, the justification hypothesis, etc.
All that said, I find the whole thing a bit deflating. I'm someone who doesn't "know" the "truth," with any kind of capital "T". I look, listen, and learn. And then I try to fashion arguments, develop theories, propose ways to test those ideas, and then actually do the research. I then find out that I can be wrong. But all of this thinking and research takes time - and lots of "words." Like my emails! And the only light-hearted response I'll get - before being attacked for being part of the left-wing liberal re-education camps supported by American (or Canadian) tax dollars - is that "Joe, you write too many words." And I'm reminded of Mozart's interaction with the King and his complaint about Mozart's latest masterpiece. There's no critique of the substance of the music; there are simply "too many notes". And you've probably read too many notes or letters of mind already, but I welcome constructive suggestions for how we can move forward with people who like to reduce complex issues and well-reasoned arguments to a matter of "too many notes"!
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DdCud8H7z7vU&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XB4PaCAl2ANerDYWu1hPM0N89nee6WzmHxLc7NZtROU&s=9Q5fZhI4K5UAb7OLSgK2GNttKV8EnCI4azxZwEqEOGo&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DdCud8H7z7vU&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fklNA-BMxfZL6YIlBXpP5zf-E6VB5KQ1emRU-qGlHo8&s=a5UfRIYsAob9N6Nxn2fWNx28NTXFvsOeiW5C6a9vZIo&e=>
[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bing.com_th-3Fid-3DOVP.hAT10Py2F2ZoRReHbj7OFwHgFo-26pid-3DApi&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XB4PaCAl2ANerDYWu1hPM0N89nee6WzmHxLc7NZtROU&s=cvZsmIKiVAf10a6thefBi55VfeRxmeQrIJBnxx2ztGU&e=]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DdCud8H7z7vU&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fklNA-BMxfZL6YIlBXpP5zf-E6VB5KQ1emRU-qGlHo8&s=a5UfRIYsAob9N6Nxn2fWNx28NTXFvsOeiW5C6a9vZIo&e=>
Amadeus - "There are simply too many notes."<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DdCud8H7z7vU&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fklNA-BMxfZL6YIlBXpP5zf-E6VB5KQ1emRU-qGlHo8&s=a5UfRIYsAob9N6Nxn2fWNx28NTXFvsOeiW5C6a9vZIo&e=>
www.youtube.com
"Just cut a few and it'll be perfect." "Which few did you have in mind?" A scene from my favorite movie of all time.
My best to one and all, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
eið + 1 = 0
________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Are We All Nutcases?
Joe, that was an awesome piece to read!
Below is a visualization of how I experience what you wrote about, only replace the physical diseases with individual and group justifications, and Mr. Burns himself is the world situation.
"Are you saying I'm indestructible?"
"No, no! And even a slight breeze could..."
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3F&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XB4PaCAl2ANerDYWu1hPM0N89nee6WzmHxLc7NZtROU&s=XF-AF4M6K0LutMCTeiOlqwsti6XNcnlWUSl1a0x7HVU&e= v=gmBj8r1-fDo<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DgmBj8r1-2DfDo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=G_N7oydzTqNuHPDZSiCHq7l9xHk0iMFD7Zu6e9zGvgE&s=8USe0boP2q06WWzuotDlvPsLkzXwzRlhcaXpi2bRLPM&e=>
I echo John's insightful post regarding the commodification of the University system.
-Chance
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:04 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Joe and TOKers, As a working scientist over the course of the last half century I can attest to the wheels falling off in the wake of the Bayh-Dole Act, which not only leveled the playing field between Academic Research and Industry, but leveled the pursuit of knowledge in biomedical research. Allowing for the patenting of discoveries in institutions of higher learning monetized the thought process in our nation's academic laboratories, undermining the mission of discovery. That was just one of many efforts to hold institutions to a 'bottom-line' standard fostered by the Republican Party, literally slicing and dicing free thought. So I am no social scientist, but I am asking openly whether this is the cause of what is going on on college and University campuses? Because if we can identify the root causes, we may be able to put the evil genie back in the bottle, or at least address the problem and provide opposition, as Joe is asking for, and re-embrace thinking over action, mutual respect over destructive behavior.
The mere fact that the 'wars' that are going on on campuses are about symptoms, not causes, is very troubling. We no longer seem interested in analysis as the first step, going right for the intellectual 'jugular' instead.
I have been participating in the TOK because of my own insights to the evolution of physiology and consciousness, which derive from a novel way of approaching the question of evolution (see attached). I must admit that deviating from the 'belief' in Darwinism has been challenging, but it is, IMHO, emblematic of what Joe is addressing.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues:
I'm the youngest of six children, from a rather conservative family in Virginia. Full disclosure: all 5 of my older siblings and my almost 90-year-old mother voted for Trump. I'll come back to this.
In thinking about Gregg's paper on groupthink and the example of the dynamics of his own university, I can't help but think about similar dynamics on the right. The psychologists on this list know better than I, but the fundamental processes that are operating almost certainly apply equally that produce extreme choices as a result of the group members interacting with each other in their own echo chamber. The sound reverberates and only grows louder (metaphorically, if not literally). It shouldn't matter in the least what the underlying ideology or even general idea might be that's being disputed. I'm thinking of the scene from the old movie West Side Story when we see the Jets meeting to decide what they think the rules should be for the proposed rumble - and how quickly the issue escalates to an evermore violent proposal.
Interestingly, two of my older brothers (educated at UVA and JMU) are far to the right on the political spectrum and highly critical of higher education. They gleefully sent me the following Jordan Peterson video to support their argument that universities these days are essentially "liberal reeducation camps":
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.prageru.com_videos&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XB4PaCAl2ANerDYWu1hPM0N89nee6WzmHxLc7NZtROU&s=qk1NAZvcTq6v1ktJnM12a-HM9Z6EFfcpGd4Av2oRHkM&e= /dangerous-people-are-teaching -your-kids<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.prageru.com_videos_dangerous-2Dpeople-2Dare-2Dteaching-2Dyour-2Dkids&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fn6v73F4DPo9zMbccmGMrPzJqANE605L3n__V4l5orM&s=KY4SVt0LTtrCqNDi3K1IblxXlMhwX9edD64gjFrRNl0&e=>
[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.prageru.com_sites_default_files_courses_image_peterson-5Fpostmodernists-5Fthumbnail-5F1280x720.png&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XB4PaCAl2ANerDYWu1hPM0N89nee6WzmHxLc7NZtROU&s=VsBuMq-LnliDKl6H8HU2NL0OwALsJvbaDjbyWRKJeqk&e=]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.prageru.com_videos_dangerous-2Dpeople-2Dare-2Dteaching-2Dyour-2Dkids&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fn6v73F4DPo9zMbccmGMrPzJqANE605L3n__V4l5orM&s=KY4SVt0LTtrCqNDi3K1IblxXlMhwX9edD64gjFrRNl0&e=>
Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.prageru.com_videos_dangerous-2Dpeople-2Dare-2Dteaching-2Dyour-2Dkids&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=fn6v73F4DPo9zMbccmGMrPzJqANE605L3n__V4l5orM&s=KY4SVt0LTtrCqNDi3K1IblxXlMhwX9edD64gjFrRNl0&e=>
www.prageru.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.prageru.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=e2CVMjon_2Tp6DNDL5UZU835I9LFs5hsF8JOgsX6CvU&s=jBbWkfV6pJk-SHKjarMP1sCx8KeKgyNHtaAVDW_6WIY&e=>
Dangerous people are filling the heads of young people with dangerous nonsense. Who are these people? They are what Jordan Peterson calls “the post-modernists:” neo-Marxist professors who dominate our colleges and universities. And here’s the worst part: we are financing these nihilists with tax dollars, alumni gifts and tuition payments. Time to wise up.
In response, I tried a conciliatory approach. I acknowledged that there are indeed post-modernists and radical Marxists in the university - and some of them are certainly activists & certainly fit Peterson's characterization. I mentioned something about normal distributions and how within any organization or institution (universities, businesses, sports clubs, politics, etc.), you're bound to find extremists in terms of certain characteristics, traits, or beliefs at the tail ends of the distributions. But most of the area under the curve falls in between.
I then pointed out that what tends to make the news are the most extreme examples of behavior, such as the 2017 Berkeley protest or the Middlebury response to Charles Murray. What's NOT newsworthy, however, are the countless thousands of speeches, public lectures, sponsored debates, etc. that occur regularly across universities that go off without incident (yes, more leftist, but certainly many right-wing sponsored events too). But the critique is that the dominant narrative is one of left-wing extremism and that we are all complicit as members of the academy of undermining Western civilization, etc., etc.
So, to combat that thinking, I then drew an analogy with my own work on terrorism. I pointed out that by any reasonable definition, there have been various terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. This is something, like homicide, for which we have pretty good data. To be sure, there's some debate about what constitutes "terrorism," but let's just focus on politically-motivated, indiscriminate mass killings of civilians or non-combatants. Does that happen in the U.S.? Absolutely. Is it horrific every time it happens? Of course. But, most people do not seem to know that the last 10 years have seen the lowest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. for a 10-year period than in any other decade previously dating back to 1970 (that's the earliest year for which we have reasonably reliable, comprehensive data). Even fewer know that there were fewer deaths to U.S. citizens on American soil due to terrorism between 2006-2015 than there were deaths due to lightning strikes over that same period. And yet a 2016 national poll by Pew found that fears about terrorism were two of the top four fears that Americans cited.
My point was simply that there are indeed extreme examples of intolerance and violence - and these certainly should be reported. On the other hand, we need to be careful to understand that these are the extremes and not the norms. Yet for staunch believers, like my brothers, they only look for confirmatory evidence and absolutely refuse to entertain any notion that they might be misinformed about what's really happening on college campuses. They know, because they've seen the news reports on Fox and, even more powerfully, from watching Prager U videos like the one I've included. Can you spell "groupthink"?
Anyway, my point to this group is that I'm a pretty open-minded, understanding, and forgiving individual who happens to love science. I listen to my brothers and try to understand their perspective, but then, as with any issue like higher education, I share some different perspectives and evidence intended to show them that the issues are more nuanced and there's a lot of basically routine, institutionalized and, quite frankly, corporatist stuff that we do on an everyday basis. Heck, I've spent at least 100 times more time in committee meetings dealing with enrollment issues, state (provincial) funding, tuition fees, budgets, capital fundraising campaigns, and student disciplinary issues (e.g., plagiarism) than I have responding to unruly, disruptive, radical protest movements on campus. But that's all they see. And when I try to point all this out, they merely characterize me as a left-wing liberal defending our radical universities. So, if I cannot make any inroads with my brothers (I always try to acknowledge where I agree with them), my question is how can we possibly create long-term change, engage in constructive dialogue, and salvage the notion of a "liberal education" in the best sense of that term - where both liberals and conservatives could agree on the core values? I mean, sheesh, I never thought of myself as a "dangerous person" or my colleagues as "dangerous people" teaching our kids. But a great many people, including my brothers, think that's exactly the way things are in universities, i.e., we're all a bunch of nutcases espousing "dangerous nonsense."
Yours kindly, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=e2CVMjon_2Tp6DNDL5UZU835I9LFs5hsF8JOgsX6CvU&s=ebPZfP1hkgO0Bj__pUdZI_doRHa2CZWDgP5amSgSSBQ&e=>
London, Ontario, Canada <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=e2CVMjon_2Tp6DNDL5UZU835I9LFs5hsF8JOgsX6CvU&s=ebPZfP1hkgO0Bj__pUdZI_doRHa2CZWDgP5amSgSSBQ&e=> N6A 2M3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=e2CVMjon_2Tp6DNDL5UZU835I9LFs5hsF8JOgsX6CvU&s=ebPZfP1hkgO0Bj__pUdZI_doRHa2CZWDgP5amSgSSBQ&e=>
Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
Fax: (519) 433-0353
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
______________________
eið + 1 = 0
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-R [log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1<http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF- [log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi- bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A= 1<http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
