>
> Kindly see some easy/fun/killerjoy/nerdy comments embed in trail...
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 03:43 Waldemar Schmidt, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Joe:
>
> You are being reflective, eh?
> It seems to me that you have enunciated what Socrates opined so long ago:
>
>
>    - “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” ...
>    - “The unexamined life is not worth living.” ...
>
> DL: "Cursed are those who late in life examine and realise what were they
> actually made for, blessed are those who realize this early on or never
> ever.".... Excerpt from my book Transformers.
>
>
>
>    - “I cannot teach anybody anything. ...
>    - “There is only one good, *knowledge*, and one evil, ignorance.” ...
>
> DL: Disagree. There is situational and contextual dependence. Ignorance of
> good is evil, but ignorance of evil is good. Secondly, what effects life
> the most is not true and permanent knowledge or absolute truth, but that
> which is ephemeral or sometimes plain vanilla - false (not true really)
> knowledge. The other day we (with a Muslim friend) were joking that
> ignorance saves India from wrath of fundamentalism. Hindu scriptures were
> written in Sanskrit which is a dead language, while Muslims scriptures are
> written in Arabic which no Indian Muslim understands.... Another case of
> ignorance is bliss :-)
>
>
>    - “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” ...
>
> DL: Wasn't said by Socrates.
>
>
> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)*
>
> On Nov 13, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Jo don't be so hard on Dr. Michalski. Take it easy :-)
>
> In your detailed note. One thing that starkly stands out to me is your
> question: "what if everything and every institution and all parties are
> discredited?"
>
> Kindly know any such circumstance(s), where everyone and everything is
> discredited is gainful to incumbant.
>
> Regds
> DL
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 23:27 Joseph Michalski, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
> Hi folks. The discussions over the last two days have prompted me to
> share, from my view, not only why I'm not confident in my own work going
> forward, but why I have some doubts too about the prospects of the TOK. If
> interested, the following will take slow readers like myself at least 15-20
> minutes. Plus there's an embedded 3.5 minute video link, an article
> attached, and a few photos attached as well. Might as well try to do
> *something *with whatever time left I may or may not be promised!
>
> *The Death(s) of a Social Scientist by Joseph H. Michalski*
>
> When I first considered pursuing a PhD in the social sciences, I was
> excoriated by certain family members for even having any aspirations to
> join “the liberals” in academia. I wasn’t entirely sure why my extremely
> right-wing family members (parents and siblings alike) held such negative
> or even hostile views of academia in general and sociology in particular.
> Yet from my perspective, I loved learning and every subject - and had been
> especially strong at math since a young age. I considered pursuing a
> graduate degree in math or physics (definitely would be a physicist if I
> were afforded a second chance!), but then decided I was even more intrigued
> by the human condition. I genuinely didn’t understand why people wouldn’t
> be excited for me since I wanted to use science to study the human
> condition. I thought there was tremendous value in science and hoped to be
> able to apply a rigorous scientific perspective to try describe and explain
> things like factors affecting child development or domestic violence or why
> people end up being poor. As a result, by the mid-90s I had obtained a PhD
> in sociology in 1993, had already moved to Canada, and after being a
> “stay-at-home” dad, eventually secured a tenure-track position at King’s
> University College in 2003. By 2008, I’d published several “groundbreaking”
> articles in my field – or so I *thought* – and excitedly penned the
> attached article that I published in 2008 about what “scientific sociology”
> could be in the 21st century. But, after studying the field more closely,
> I learned in time (and published on the issue) that I’m *very much* in
> the minority within my own field and that I’m, well, a bit of a statistical
> outlier in my orientation. Don’t tell my family members, but they were
> right to a degree! I just always personally thought of myself as a
> “scientist” and not an “ideologue.” Who knew?
>
> Over time, I’ve continued to pursue “scientific sociology” and realized
> that we have as much and arguably even *more* of a problem than Gregg
> identified in terms of “the problem of psychology.” In reconnecting with
> Gregg in the early 2010s and after reading his original 2003 ToK article &
> then his 2011 book, I realized that I had been both “right” and “wrong”
> about sociology. I’m “right” in the sense that sociology can offer
> something useful and helpful in an explanatory sense “as a science,” but
> that we are often too constrained or limited in our thinking. I realized
> there’s always something missing in our modeling, despite the important
> contributions we might offer in terms of explaining large-scale social
> trends or broad patterns such as the (obvious) linkages between education
> and earnings. We’d conduct national studies – myself included – and
> demonstrate that our models often “explained” only 10-20% of the variation
> in the outcomes of interest. In some cases, we could do a better job, but
> we usually did not. Things only got better once we started to think more
> *relationally* and in a more sophisticated and integrated fashion. The
> missing ingredient in much sociological analysis? The human *person*! And
> how human *persons* were embedded in social networks of relationships,
> constrained by pre-existing socio-ecological conditions. Sure, we all
> *knew* that this stuff was important, but as a discipline we’ve been
> “trained out” of psychology (most of us) and of thinking about how we might
> connect the “social” and “cultural” with the “psychological.” We focused on
> the general trends and structures, but often ignored the “mechanisms”
> involved. Hence we were constrained by our own disciplinary straightjacket.
> There are good reasons that most people in the media don’t think, “Hey,
> what does sociology have to say about this or that?” We have largely
> failed. Oh, and I’ve been part of the “problem” for most of my career by
> thinking too narrowly. So, in the second half of my career, I decided to
> kill off “Joe, the pure sociologist.” That term will not mean much to most
> of you, but pure sociology essentially means sociology without reference to
> psychology or any other scientific discipline.
>
> In time, I read most of Gregg’s work and much more stuff across the
> various disciplines, hoping to understand the “bigger picture” and work
> toward more integrative framings of the human condition. I’d also done a
> second PhD (ABD) at the University of Toronto, which stimulated my thinking
> about all kinds of paradigms outside of what I learned in my first PhD and
> primed me to be ready for the ToK. I just didn’t know that at the time, but
> I guess I somehow “knew” that we could only do so much purely confined to
> sociology. I had taught in a graduate program in Mexico too in Spanish
> (statistics and research methods) and came to learn that my students there
> literally communicated in a different linguistic style, rooted in the
> evolution of their own culture and language. Where I was used to more
> “linear” thinking (thesis, evidence, conclusion), I was having trouble
> following some of the class discussions, which seemed to ramble across all
> kinds of different and seemingly unrelated issues.  I learned later,
> though, that that was their style of communication. We’d start with an
> idea, but then travel off the beaten path to consider all kinds of
> different issues, before eventually rejoining each other to try to fashion
> conclusions. Linguists have  studied these issues and have formulated
> well-known explanations as to how and why we actually communicate
> *differently *in English in the U.S. & Canada than they do in Spanish in
> Mexico *beyond* simply language. The language, as many of you probably
> know, embedded in the *culture* helps structure reality and how we
> communicate.
>
> That challenged me further to consider the importance of language and how
> I communicate, or how to “bridge the gaps” when using different languages
> (literally) or across different communities where people might communicate
> in different ways, from scientists to Indigenous peoples. And that includes
> the use of numbers. I long ago realized that we never “let the facts speak
> for themselves.” We certainly “construct” or at least “gather” the facts,
> and then we have to “speak” ourselves. We have to share our “facts.” And we
> have to “interpret” the facts too. As Gregg has outlined with his
> tripartite modeling of Mind, that can be quite a challenge. Yet what choice
> do we have as human persons? So, I take the challenge seriously and do the
> best that I can, especially in my role as a “scientist” trying to
> communicate to diverse peoples from different backgrounds and different
> life experiences. But, as mentioned, I had to kill off “Joe, the pure
> sociologist,” in the process.
>
> *Polarization and “Facts”*
>
> Well, Deepak raised yesterday some interesting concerns about what might
> happen in the U.S. As mentioned, I figured most people on the ToK list
> probably had thought about these issues and I didn’t want to be flippant or
> dismissive or unhelpful. I tried to point out and share a bit of
> information about how seriously folks have been considering these matters.
> My main point was to confirm that the evidence does indeed suggest a fair
> degree of polarization, with many reasons being discussed. I wrote, in
> part, “A great many commentators and analysts from different fields are &
> have been writing thoughtful pieces on the degree of polarization in the
> U.S. The issues are too many to list (I then list 8 issues that I’ve seen
> address by various commentators, without discussing or evaluating the
> merits of any arguments, or favoring either candidate)… The undeniable
> facts are that, at this point, more than 77 million voted for Biden and
> more than 72 million voted for Trump. For those who are interested in the
> demography of the election results, here's an interesting article from the
> Financial Times that breaks down voting % by a number of interesting
> characteristics. I'd imagine most informed people here could easily predict
> who was more likely to vote Trump or Biden, based on their demographic
> characteristics and based on the logic of JUST.”
>
> The point of my comments and the identification of the vote totals was
> precisely to indicate that a high degree of polarization exists in the U.S.
> The notable issue is *not* that Biden had more votes by everyone’s
> tabulations (yes, literally, every tally I could find), but that well over
> 70 million voted for BOTH candidates. One may be ahead by 5 million or more
> votes – or one may not believe that to be the case – but the fact is that a
> HUGE chunk of the U.S. electorate has supported both Biden *and* Trump.
> The value of the UTOK/ToK lies in our ability to map and explain why things
> are unfolding as they are, as well as the more controversial issue of how
> the information and knowledge can be translated into “wisdom.” JUST allows
> us to offer salient hypotheses and predictions (in combination with other
> TOK aspects, such as Behavioral Investment Theory and the social “vorces”
> that align with the Influence Matrix) as to what demographic or background
> characteristics will be more likely to support which candidate. Hence my
> contributions at this point almost exclusively focus on the scientific
> underpinnings of our models, as I’m more concerned at this point (see
> below) about the current dynamics that are affecting our epistemic
> approaches to generating credible, reliable knowledge.
>
> *"Misunderstanding All You See" -- John Lennon*
>
> Bradley: “I appreciate your missive. My point is that the justification
> systems (to keep this discourse within the frame of TOK, and away from
> straw-man argumentation) at odds with one another existing in the political
> sphere MUST be rectified within an overarching justification system. This
> justification system is NOT AP, the mainstream media, Fox News, or Alex
> Jones, for that matter.  The Justification System that reigns supreme in
> the United States is the Constitution, (apparently) as decided within the
> Courts, Congress and the Executive. I think we would agree on this.”
>
> Unfortunately, this completely misunderstands the point of our (Gregg and
> myself, as well as perhaps others on the list and beyond) theoretical
> framing of justification systems theory. One key argument is that there are *several
> different* justification systems, which is part of what we track and try
> to explain in sociology and what Gregg’s system accommodates as well. We
> are not advocating or supporting one “Justification System” (that) reigns
> supreme in the United States.” Yes, the Supreme Court sits atop the *legal
> hierarchy*, i.e., it’s the highest court in the land. If there are *legal* issues
> to be resolved, then, yes, people can use the courts and, at times, cases
> rise to the level of the Supreme Court, where issues are provisionally
> resolved. In terms of the 2020 presidential election, there are several
> court challenges as to potentially fraudulent voting practices across
> various *states *that have been or currently are being adjudicated. And,
> if the evidence proves compelling, there may be changes to some of the vote
> count totals. Georgia already plans a recount in any event.
>
> If cases do end up in the SC, then eventually rulings are rendered,
> precedents are set, and the SC may or may not tweak the law on such matters
> in the future. No one disputes any of that. What the Supreme Court does
> *not* do, however, is operate as a substitute for science. Indeed,
> science is a separate Justification System with different evidentiary
> standards. I pursue science, as that’s my expertise, and attempt to make
> accurate factual claims based on the available data, as well as offer
> *theories* in my efforts to try to explain observed patterns. In all of
> these efforts, I can be “wrong” or misguided – and forever am looking at
> new evidence and possible sources of error in my reasoning. It’s a
> never-ending process, at least for me, since I’m not omniscient and claim
> no privileged view of reality.
>
> And here’s where Bradley’s statement completely misunderstands my efforts:
> “I felt obligated to reject your assertion, as it was *based upon faulty
> authority, not by the numeric values presented.*  It appeared to be a
> partisan statement, and outside the bounds of the intellectual pursuit
> here, in some manner.” This is the meta-problem of much current thinking in
> the U.S., IMHO. In my effort to buttress my argument that the U.S. is
> extremely polarized, I stated that “The undeniable facts are that, at this
> point, more than 77 million voted for Biden and more than 72 million voted
> for Trump.” I’m attempting to make a *scientific statement of fact*,
> based on the best available evidence. I explained my methodology yesterday
> for how I arrived at that claim, focusing especially on the importance of
> triangulating sources to try to offer the most reasonable summary claim
> possible. I’ve now actually examined 10 different sources to evaluate their
> “numbers” – not in terms of their “politics” or political leanings, but in
> terms of reporting what the current tabulations are off the presidential
> vote tallies for Biden and Trump. These include the Associated Press, The
> Economist, CBC, BBC, The Guardian, CNN, Bloomberg, NBC News, Fox, and The
> Independent. The absolute *lowest* figures I could find anywhere were
> 77,492,385 for Biden and 72,309,171 for Trump. Hence I offered my statement
> as “factual” in describing the minimum votes totals for both candidates. If
> simply reporting the best information available is now “partisan,” then
> perhaps you can see why that might be a problem.
>
> Thus Bradley appears to reject any and all sources of the current vote
> totals because these are, in his view, “based on faulty authority.” That’s
> an increasingly widespread practice in the U.S., as I explain below. I
> certainly understand that people may not “trust” the media, or view the
> media as *slanted *politically one way or the other in favor of a
> particular bias. In fact, those of us (myself included) who study these
> issues can and have documented entrenched patterns of “confirmation bias”
> and the tendency of people to watch news outlets that align with their
> perspective or their own “echo chambers.” And that’s why I am always
> careful with my statements of “fact” and the sources & methodologies
> involved. I only “report” that at least 77 million voted for Biden and at
> least 72 million voted for Trump NOT because I have my own political views
> or biases, but because as a social scientist I looked at all the evidence
> I’ve been gathering over several weeks and from every possible credible,
> well-established source I could find. When even the most
> “conservative”-leaning sites (e.g., Fox News) report figures in excess of
> 77 million for Biden and 72 million for Trump, I think I am offering a
> responsible, factual claim.
> But, as I conceded, *nothing*is “undeniably” true, depending on the
> underlying philosophical assumptions that one makes to defend one’s truth
> claims. And *that’s the larger problem* we confront in terms of the
> public discourse or if we try to make any truth claims in the public arena.
> There’s now a pronounced tendency among ever-growing segments (the opinion
> polling data confirm this) to doubt the veracity of even what would seem to
> be the most straightforward evidence or “facts” that we used to
> overwhelmingly agree on in the past. Several important trends can be
> observed here.
>
> For example, even before becoming president, Trump was alleging election
> fraud without producing evidence. During his 2016 campaign he claimed the
> election was “rigged” in favor of Clinton, predicted widespread voter fraud
> and announced he would accept the results of the election only if he won.
> The Democrats instead lost the election and, in some cases, pursued
> recounts and/or questioned the legitimacy and integrity. But their numbers,
> percentage-wise, were *far* less than what we see now among Republicans
> in the immediate aftermath of 2020 (see below). But why? Here I’ll quote at
> length from an article “Americans Were Primed To Believe The Current
> Onslaught Of Disinformation.” I’m not saying everything below is perfectly
> correct or the “Truth,” but the arguments presented bear directly on the
> current state of affair, i.e., why I can’t even make what I thought would
> be an innocuous claim that at least 77 million people voted for Biden and
> at least 72 million voted for Trump without being told I'm wrong:
>
> *Over the past year, Trump has reiterated many of the same baseless
> assertions, seizing in particular on mail-in voting, which he maintained
> (again without evidence) would lead to fraud. **Whether Trump realized it
> or not, he was engaging in something academics call priming. *
>
> *“Priming is where an external source, a sender of information, is trying
> to prime people to think a certain way,” said Mark Whitmore, a professor of
> management and information systems at Kent State University who has studied
> misinformation and cognitive bias. “One of the ways in which priming occurs
> is through partisanship. When that happens, people have a greater tendency
> to think along the lines of whatever party they feel they belong to.” *
>
> *When people are already primed to think about a topic in a certain way,
> it can lead them to seek out information that confirms their existing
> beliefs. A study published in 2016, for example, primed participants to
> consider either their political views or personal views on health care
> before evaluating factual statements about the Affordable Care Act, or
> “Obamacare.” The researchers found that when participants were primed to
> think about their partisan leanings, Democrats were more likely to evaluate
> positive outcomes of the ACA as based on strong evidence, and Republicans
> were more likely to evaluate those same outcomes as based on weak evidence.
> But when primed to consider their personal views on health care, the gulf
> between the two groups narrowed. *
>
> *There’s also the illusory truth effect: a phenomenon in which the more
> times people are exposed to an idea, the more likely they are to perceive
> it as true, regardless of political leanings. Gordon Pennycook, a
> behavioral scientist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, has found
> the illusory truth effect can lead people to be more likely to believe
> disinformation. That said, this is probably not the only thing influencing
> so many people to seek out disinformation around the election, according to
> Pennycook. *
>
> *“I don’t think you need to know about illusory truth to be able to
> explain that the things Trump has said made people ready to accept that
> fraud was going to happen in the election,” Pennycook said. “Illusory truth
> is one aspect of that, but for some people, if they only heard Trump say it
> once, that would probably be enough.” *
>
> So, what has happened? According to a Morning Consult poll of 1,987
> registered voters, 7 in 10 Republicans say the 2020 election was *not* free
> and fair: 48% of Republicans say it “definitely” was not free and fair, and
> another 22% say it “probably” was not. That’s twice the share of
> Republicans who said the race would not be free and fair just before the
> election. Yet even for states like Texas and Florida, where Trump is
> projected to safely win, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say
> the results are reliable. Overall trust in elections plummets among
> Republicans: Prior to the election, 68% of GOP voters said they had at
> least some trust in the U.S. election system. Post-election, that dropped
> to 34%. Democratic trust, meanwhile, jumped from 66% to 78%.
>
> Among Republicans who believed that the election wasn’t free and fair, 78%
> believed that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud and 72% believed
> that ballots were tampered with — both claims that have made a constant
> appearance on the president’s Twitter thread. Like President Donald Trump,
> a majority of the people that thought the election was unfair, 84%, said it
> benefited Biden. The lack of trust in the election system has led to
> Republicans being more skeptical about the election results. Although only
> 18% of Republicans had said the results would be unreliable prior to
> Election Day, now 64% feel the same way following Biden’s victory. By
> contrast, 86% of Democrats say they trust the results.
>
> Since Trump and the Republican leadership are making claims about voter
> fraud and since a clear majority of Republican voters agree, then we should
> not be surprised that so many lawsuits have been filed. What’s also
> “factually true,” though, is that there appears to be an extremely narrow
> range of states being targeted:  the legal challenges are occurring only in
> states where Trump appears to have lost the popular vote. The arguments
> focus on why late-arriving ballots shouldn’t be counted, or that any state
> offering mail-in voting and in-person voting was acting unconstitutionally.
> At the same time, note that Trump and his allies have *not* filed any
> post-election lawsuits in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, and Montana.
> All these “battleground states” saw a surge in mail-in voting. The U.S.
> Elections Project confirms Florida alone had 4.7 million mail-in ballots.
> Yet Trump & allies have not challenged late-arriving ballots or the entire
> election system itself in a single county or state where the president is
> the projected winner, even though down-ballot Republicans in those states
> lost races or are on track to lose as the dragged-out vote count rolls on.
>
>
> Apparently the same alleged “voter fraud” practices were not extended to
> the Senate and House races, but seemingly just focused on the presidency.
> Consider North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Before the election, Republicans
> sought to nullify decisions that allowed both states to extend the window
> of time post-election to accept mail-in ballots. Republicans a week after
> the election are challenging the validity of those late-arriving ballots
> only in Pennsylvania. But with Trump and Republican Senator Thom Tillis
> projected to win in North Carolina, the GOP appears to have dropped its
> legal effort to block the counting of those same kinds of properly
> postmarked ballots that arrive after election day.
>
> *A Second Death*
>
> What happens if there are no reliable “facts” any longer or if anyone and
> everyone’s discredited because they cannot be trusted? And what if the
> system cannot be trusted? In addition to the problem of getting everyone to
> agree on whether or not a certain person won the presidency, under what
> circumstances will people believe anything about an alleged pandemic (for
> example)? Who’s going to trust an Anthony Fauci, for example? Some may, but
> many do not. And he has even received death threats for simply *trying to
> present the case for the pandemic, the “numbers,” and possible integrated
> responses*.
>
> Whether you agree with Fauci or not, or whether he’s “right” or not, my
> point is that the many in the U.S. now are divided even on the science
> behind COVID-19 and “best practices.” While one can certainly dispute the
> metrics being used for international comparisons, almost everyone agrees
> that the U.S. in general continues to suffer far more disastrous effects
> from COVID-19 than most other countries. I’m not saying what the U.S.
> “should do” about COVID-19. I’m simply saying that I wouldn’t even dare try
> to say what the “testing rate” or the “death rate” might be, or try to
> explain why there are more nuanced issues involved, even if I were the
> world’s most renowned expert in the field. I would not be confident that I
> could have a reasonable discussion in the U.S., because no matter how I
> framed the issue, I’d be attached for my “political biases” and my
> “scientific knowledge” would be questioned, or assumed to lack credibility,
> etc.
>
> And that’s my second death. I died first as a “pure sociologist,” and died
> again thinking I could ever contribute something useful academically or
> intellectually in an environment where so people no longer value science,
> much less any of my “theories” or “explanations” of human behavior. As
> mentioned, I think at this point I’d rather just “shut up and sing”
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D3B-5F2c-5FELmgI-26feature-3Dyoutu.be&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nWWjkLmkn9YcIdgPBH8mju5gPVOP9MH8Ixr8xwLRq_w&s=gwlD1CtgKHKPQ4CicKWPPK9qIH6hlJMrHdtLaGss1Rc&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D3B-5F2c-5FELmgI-26feature-3Dyoutu.be&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lZhLxVLbAMO8DSXwTXR784r_rS7brthJzDiOOtzBY8E&s=QJewAywqZeggwVsfTvjPcqMISoOEa7eaT9WpHH3lfzI&e=>)
> or build people decks & stuff like I did this past summer (see 2 attached
> examples). They seem to like this stuff a lot more than me trying to share
> anything “scientific”. Everyone apparently already knows the truth anyway.
> How ironic, eh? Because I certainly don’t know “the truth,” and I’ve spent
> the last 30 years trying to learn the truth and share what I know as best I
> can. C’est la vie. C'est la mort.
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
> Professor
> King’s University College at Western University
> 266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>  mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <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] 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