[Fis] FW: On disinformation. Why disinformation survives
Loet Leydesdorff
loet at leydesdorff.net
Wed Dec 9 14:34:57 CET 2020
Dear Joseph and colleagues,
I am not sure that I correctly understand you, but I agree that one
should not stay with binary distinctions. Dichotomous variables provide
a low scale for the measurement. Both Luhmann and Spencer-Brown
emphasize binary distinctions. Binary distinctions may have a function
at the epistemological level in order to discuss and hypothesize
relevant dimensions. In most cases, however, one can move forward, for
example to probabilities (0 < p < 1)
For example, in empirical studies it is not so fruitful to distinguish
in a binary mode between true and false, or payment/non-payment.
Grey-shades are important. Some statements are more true than others.
One may have paid 10% of a bill.
In addition to these methodological advantages of moving to more precise
measurement scales, the relation between probability and Shannon's
information theory is straightforward. Zeros and ones do not provide
information. p = 0.5 and 1 - p = 0.5 leads precisely to 1 bit of
information (H = - 0.5 log(0.5) - (l - 0.5) log(1 - 0.5) = 1/2 + 1/2 =
1. This is the definition of the bit. 50/50 contains a maximum of
information.
The issue is the specification of uncertainty. However, 0 log (0) and 1
log(1) are both zero. A binary approach does therefore tend to distract
from an empirical and numerical approach.
Best,
Loet
Loet Leydesdorff
________________________________
Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>;
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;
"The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge" at
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030599508
------ Original Message ------
From: "Joseph Brenner" <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
To: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com>; "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
Cc: loet en leydesdorff.net
Sent: 12/9/2020 10:10:38 AM
Subject: RE: [Fis] FW: On disinformation. Why disinformation survives
>Dear Mark J. and Loet,
>
>
>
>Your last two notes state very clearly the key properties of the
>complex system of people and their capacities, interactions and
>communications. It is a good place from which to continue the
>discussion. I would just like to suggest that the latter can be made
>more fruitful if explicit or implicit binary distinctions can be
>excluded from our common ‘language’:
>
>
>
>The conceptions of Spencer-Brown and Luhmann are formal (diagrammatic)
>and epistemic. They do not describe the properties of real systems and
>the interactions that prevail in them. They follow nothing but their
>own semantic rules and incorporate pre-relativistic ideas of time and
>space.
>It should not be assumed that systems must provide complete
>descriptions of themselves. Nothing real can be ‘completely’ described
>anyway, so why suggest it as a criticism? Systems are characterized by
>both indeterminacy and determinacy, and to call the former
>‘unresolvable’ begs the question.
>When Loet writes: it is difficult to tell someone else that s/he is
>misinformed I think there is a possible categorial confusion: it may
>indeed be difficult to say some things to other people, but these
>things may be correct and it may be necessary to say them, literally,
>for the common good. Please do not imagine that I am somehow insulated
>from the probability (hopefully low) of error. If I did not accept this
>probability, then I could be criticized for being inconsistent, even
>prima facie misinformed. I do not think this, and only ask that my
>approach be given no less attention than what is paid to more familiar
>ones.
>We are not, at least I am not, experts in psychology who can define the
>pathology of mental phenomena scientifically. (To call some
>two-dimensional curves ‘pathological’ is pure metaphor.) Nevertheless,
>I think Mark’s point 3 about a decline in variety, echoing Ashby, is an
>excellent perspective since it describes things in terms of change.
>Just following the line of my first sentence, it might be useful to
>point out the necessity of limiting variety if it, too, grows out of
>proportion.
>
>
>As I look at what I have just written, the task of distinguishing
>information and disinformation as types is no different from that of
>identifying how they, and other binary pairs, are also similar and
>overlap. The alternative is to make the kind of error ridiculed by
>Ionesco in a play (I have forgotten which) in which several actors
>shout at once: “It’s not this but that; it’s not this but that!”
>
>
>
>Best,
>
>Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark
>Johnson
>Sent: mardi, 8 décembre 2020 22:42
>To: fis
>Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: On disinformation. Why disinformation survives
>
>
>
>Dear Loet, all,
>
>
>
>Yes it is complex - but fascinating, and throws up some fascinating
>points about the meaningfulness of categorising "disinformation".
>
>I can't see that it is necessary to distinguish disinformation from
>information: this distinction seems at the wrong level of analysis.
>Echoing Joe's point that there is a difference between systemic
>viability (altruism) and pathology, rather than specific messages being
>disinformative or not, can I suggest the following:
>
>
>
>1. Disinformation is a meta-systemic categorisation of a systemic
>pathology;
>
>2. To recognise its own pathology is to recognise a systemic loss of
>variety and a reduced capacity to self-organise the communication
>system in comparison to the past; This is the "meaningfulness" the
>metasystem establishes in its own systemic behaviour;
>
>3. The meaning of disinformation, like all meaning, results from the
>construction of a selection mechanism which determines "this is
>disinformation". That selection mechanism must be anticipatory, must it
>not? And for it to be anticipatory (for it to foresee the pathological
>consequences of a pattern of decline in variety), the pattern of its
>own historical development (or decline) must enter into the process of
>constructing the anticipatory system.
>
>
>
>The problem of disinformation then highlights the fact that the
>evolutionary history of communication and historical meaning-making is
>entailed by all our meaning-making processes: it is not just that
>meaning arises from anticipating future events, but anticipating future
>events in the light of anticipating the system's capacity to
>anticipate. I must say (with apologies to Joe who is no fan of
>Luhmann!), that Luhmann's late turn to Spencer-Brown and the embedding
>of time in distinction-making (see here: The control of intransparency
>- Luhmann - 1997 - Systems Research and Behavioral Science - Wiley
>Online Library
><https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1743%28199711/12%2914%3A6%3C359%3A%3AAID-SRES160%3E3.0.CO%3B2-R>)
>makes more sense when we appreciate the meaningfulness of
>disinformation:
>
>
>
>"General systems theory shows that the combination of self‐referential
>operations and operational closure (or the re‐entry of output as input)
>generates a surplus of possible operations and therefore intransparency
>of the system for its own operation. The system cannot produce a
>complete description of itself. It has to cope with its own
>unresolvable indeterminacy. To be able to operate under such conditions
>the system has to introduce time. It has to distinguish between its
>past and its future. It has to use a memory function that includes both
>remembering and forgetting. And it needs an oscillator function to
>represent its future. This means, for example, that the future has to
>be imagined as achieving or not achieving the goals of the system."
>
>
>
>Best wishes
>
>
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 19:05, Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Dear Mark, Joe, Terry, and other colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>>It seems to me that this is complex. The complexity comes to the fore
>>if we realize that one needs criteria about what is disinformation and
>>what can be considered as information. For example, the criteria will
>>be different for Democrats or Republicans in the US.
>>
>>
>>
>>If we assume with Niklas Luhmann that society is differentiated and
>>also differentiating into functional subsystems with different codes
>>in the communication, one can expect the different logics to operate
>>upon one another and also to confuse, have unintended effects, and
>>irritate one another. It is relatively simple as long as "Roma dixit'
>>what is communication and what is disinformation. Traditionally, the
>>role hasbeen taken over by the law system. But we cannot go to court
>>for each miscommunication/dis-information.
>>
>>
>>
>>Who authorized the social media (Facebook) to take the policing role.
>>Which codes are developed and used? Empirical questions. One expects
>>self-organization of the communication leading to differentiation to
>>prevail, and organization in forms of operational coupling and thus
>>irritation.
>>
>>
>>
>>Things become complex as soon as it is no longer obvious what is
>>mis-information and as soon as one is aware that there are no
>>standards given. Perhaps, moral standards but these no longer work in
>>a pluriform society. "Cuius regio, eius religio" was the principle in
>>1658 at the Peace of Westfalia. But it assumed sovereignty. Nowadays,
>>we have freedom of religion and it is difficult to tell someone else
>>that s/he is misinformed.
>>
>>
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Loet
>>
>>
>>
>><https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030599508>Loet Leydesdorff
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
>>Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>>
>>loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>;
>>http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>>
>>
>>http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>>
>>ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;
>>
>>
>>
>>"The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge" at
>>
>>https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030599508
>>
>>
>>
>>------ Original Message ------
>>
>>From: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com>
>>
>>To: "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>
>>Sent: 12/8/2020 5:14:32 PM
>>
>>Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: On disinformation. Why disinformation survives
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Joe,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regarding your "objective altruistic criteria" (I quite agree), is
>>>this in Bob Ulanowicz's and Loet's territory, do you think? Bob - are
>>>you there?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this a trade-off between autocatalysis and mutual information in
>>>communication ecosystems? That would provide some kind of metric -
>>>particularly in the light of Loet's work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Personally, I would expect distortions in anticipatory systems which
>>>might be analysable through communication processes. Trump's tweets,
>>>and the chilling dynamics unfolding around what is obviously a
>>>stand-off in electoral trust are an excellent test-ground for some
>>>practical work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 08:37, Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Disinformation survives and flourishes in part because supported by
>>>>statements such as those of Bloom. They are strictly equivalent in
>>>>form to Trump’s saying that “there are good people on both
>>>>
>>>>sides”, when one of those sides is composed of people who kill
>>>>peaceful protesters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In the United States, despite their uniformly good reaction to the
>>>>current attacks on the electoral process, the courts will not be
>>>>able to help in a catastrophically large number of cases in the
>>>>future. Apart from the ideologue majority in the Supreme Court, the
>>>>lower courts have been stuffed with young right wing reactionaries
>>>>who will poison decisions for at least a generation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A new process is required, one that explicitly recognizes the
>>>>existence of objective altruistic criteria in behavior, where
>>>>economic or social self-interest can be shown to be absent. I order
>>>>not to drown in pessimism, I repeat to myself the statement of the
>>>>biologist E. O. Wilson: “Selfishness beats altruism within groups.
>>>>Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is
>>>>commentary.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I like to think that this discussion, in a small way, is part of
>>>>such a process, since the trans-categorial role of information is
>>>>crucial.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Joseph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Howard
>>>>Bloom
>>>>Sent: mardi, 8 décembre 2020 02:39
>>>>To:dai.griffiths.1 en gmail.com; fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] On disinformation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>thanks, dai.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>one man's truth is another man's lie. each subculture has its own
>>>>truth and its own devil spilling disinformation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>to trumpers, joe biden is part of a coup to take the white house
>>>>fraudulently. to trumpers, the democrats are the liars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>to anti-trumpers, trump is trying to pull off a coup to upend the
>>>>election. trump and his "army" are the liars. the disinformation
>>>>spewers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>which group is right? which truth is right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>how do we judge? especially if freedom of speech is one of our most
>>>>basic values?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>so far, we are relying on the courts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>with warmth and oomph--howard
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Dai Griffiths <dai.griffiths.1 en gmail.com>
>>>>To: fis en listas.unizar.es <fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>>>Sent: Mon, Dec 7, 2020 9:05 am
>>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] On disinformation
>>>>
>>>>That's all true, Howard.
>>>>
>>>>I think it is important to distinguish between compliance and
>>>>consensus. Throwing dissidents to the lions does the trick for
>>>>compliance, and preventing challenges to power (as per the shocking
>>>>first chapter of Foucault's Discipline and Punish).
>>>>
>>>>As to consensus, the creation of a canon is partly a practical
>>>>matter: given it takes so long to copy a book, which ones do we
>>>>think are worth copying and sharing. Printing, and now information
>>>>technology, have completely changed these decisions. But on top of
>>>>these features of the medium, there is a political process. For
>>>>example, it seems likely that leaders in early China saw how
>>>>consensus through control of the canon could provide an alternative
>>>>(or a useful addition) to lion feeding as a method for achieving
>>>>authority, by promoting Confucian ideas. Both strategies are at work
>>>>in Hong Kong today, it seems.
>>>>
>>>>The two strategies continue side by side in differing combinations.
>>>>Some absolute rulers don't worry too much about consensus outside
>>>>the group of those standing in line to assassinate them. Others
>>>>focus more on control of the development of consensus through
>>>>control of the communications ecology, and perhaps Russia has taken
>>>>the lead in this. Neither of these two extremes is attractive, but
>>>>both are widespread. Most of us on this list have been fortunate to
>>>>live in a democratic space carved out between the rock of forced
>>>>compliance, and the hard place of manipulated consensus. The
>>>>configuration and maintenance of that space always involves hard
>>>>work, compromise, and trade-offs that are never ideal for everybody
>>>>(and maybe for nobody), but I am certainly grateful for it.
>>>>
>>>>If we want to say something sensible about all this, and if we want
>>>>to make any practical step which might preserve both our discourses
>>>>and democracy, then I think we need to address two quite different
>>>>kinds of questions:
>>>>
>>>>1) What is the impact of information technology, its accompanying
>>>>regulatory framework and established patterns of use, on the ecology
>>>>of communications? How might the patterns change if we altered this
>>>>or that part of the system? These are cybernetic questions.
>>>>
>>>>2) Who is benefiting from the emerging communications ecology, what
>>>>are they doing to shape it's future, and why? What (if any) changes
>>>>would we like to persuade legislators and organisations to make in
>>>>response and how can this be achieved? These are political
>>>>questions.
>>>>
>>>>Dai
>>>>
>>>>On 06/12/2020 02:16, Howard Bloom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>dai,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>as an indication that your idea that disinformation is the norm and
>>>>consensus the exception,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>look how hard previous ages have worked to impose consensus.
>>>>spreading roman culture amongst tribal peoples in the days of the
>>>>roman empire. throwing dissidents to the lions. making sure that
>>>>everyone's education was the same with the same roughly five books
>>>>studied and the same alphabet used from roughly 200 bc onward in
>>>>china. hunting heretics once rome turned christian. the
>>>>inquisition. the absolute rule of the tsar in russia, with all
>>>>printing presses used for just one thing: printing the tsar's
>>>>ukases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>howard
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Dai Griffiths <dai.griffiths.1 en gmail.com>
>>>><mailto:dai.griffiths.1 en gmail.com>
>>>>To: fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>Sent: Sat, Dec 5, 2020 9:41 am
>>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] On disinformation
>>>>
>>>>Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>We tend to think of 'surveillance capitalism' and other related
>>>>trends as being a disruption of normality. But seen from a longer
>>>>perspective, perhaps we are living in an unusual period (or the
>>>>possibly the end of it) in which there has been relatively
>>>>widespread social agreement about the nature of the world that we
>>>>are living in. "Ask the priest" used to be the answer to questions
>>>>of eschatology or social propriety (and often still is) but that
>>>>doesn't help much in establishing who is giving the orders or why,
>>>>and what is going on in the town over the hill. We have relied on
>>>>newspapers for that, and, in the UK, the BBC. As a result, flat
>>>>earthers haven't much traction recently compared with the conflict
>>>>between Galileo and the church, and even McCarthyism was primarily
>>>>about economic power and control, not as unhinged as the witchcraft
>>>>hysteria that Miller (rightly) compared it to. If it is true that we
>>>>have been living in an oasis of relative consensus, where did that
>>>>consensus come from?
>>>>
>>>>I would argue that it emerged from the inherent limitations in
>>>>access to printing technology, and the editorial, commercial,
>>>>political and social processes that developed to cope with that
>>>>limited access. It is these processes that generated the authority
>>>>of some ideas over others, the generalised trust in some media
>>>>rather than others, and the ability to identify consistent biases in
>>>>those that were trusted.
>>>>
>>>>I suggest that we should recognise that disinformation, fake news,
>>>>and plain old gossip, are the default state for human social
>>>>interactions. It is evolved and designed social structures and
>>>>institutions that overcome this. Our challenge is then to
>>>>disentangle the way that that informational authority was generated
>>>>in the past, and the (perhaps disfunctional) way that it is
>>>>generated at present. My suspicion is that we won't get far in
>>>>improving the situation unless we question the central role of the
>>>>recommender algorithms that have taken over much of the work of
>>>>human editors in determining what is seen heard and read, and by
>>>>whom. To have any chance of achieving political traction in the face
>>>>of commercial interests and personal preferences, proposals for
>>>>change in that area will have to tell and extremely clear story
>>>>about how we got to where we are, where we should try to go next,
>>>>and how we could get there.
>>>>
>>>>Best
>>>>
>>>>Dai
>>>>
>>>>On 04/12/2020 14:06, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Dear Terry and FIS colleagues,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the reflections--I will try to continue with rather
>>>>disconnected ideas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The term 'surveillance capitalism' introduced by Shoshana Zuboff
>>>>(indeed complemented with a parallel 'surveillance
>>>>authoritarianism') is addressed to cover the new negative aspects
>>>>of current technological developments. However, my opinion is that
>>>>these phenomena are inherent in all human societies in all epochs,
>>>>for there is always a tension, say, between the individual "fitness"
>>>>and the whole social "commons", which can be set in quite many
>>>>different dynamic equilibrium points, basically maintained via
>>>>circulating or communicating info flows. It is easy to see that
>>>>information, disinformation, surveillance, persuasion, and coercion
>>>>travel together in the socialization-communication pack.
>>>>Historically, every new means of communication (then we land on
>>>>McLuhan) alters those social equilibria and somehow demands a social
>>>>or cultural reaction to re-establish an acceptable collective
>>>>situation. The problem now, you mentioned in the previous post, is
>>>>the enormous concentration of power, of brute info flows, around
>>>>these new media--without appropriate social curation at the time
>>>>being. I doubt that these technologies can bring the solution by
>>>>themselves . Institutional, social intervention would be needed...
>>>>Scholarly analysis might be important, providing cues on the the
>>>>influence on individual and collective moods/personalities, on the
>>>>possible counteracting institutional alternatives and on the needed
>>>>new cultural norms to abide along these new forms of communication
>>>>(sort of 'traffic regulations'), even a personal hygiene of
>>>>communication...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problems are far more serious, complex, and faster than in
>>>>McLuhan's time. We have to reinvent his views... But how can we
>>>>organize a collective, cumulative discussion? I was thinking that a
>>>>feasible first step, apart of what we can do directly in the list,
>>>>could be calling for a Special Issue in some interesting,
>>>>multidisciplinary Journal. Well, at the time being, Terry, Joseph,
>>>>and myself are promoting a sort of ad hoc group to move
>>>>things--anyone else would join??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Best regards
>>>>
>>>>--Pedro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>El 01/12/2020 a las 22:54, Terrence W. DEACON escribió:
>>>>
>>>>Dear Pedro,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Great suggestions. I like the idea of an ongoing separate thread
>>>>addressing disinformation.
>>>>
>>>>Of course I only addressed Western disinformation and didn't even
>>>>touch on highly massaged information that is often disseminated with
>>>>centralized governmental control.
>>>>
>>>>This disinforms by selective censorship and redundancy and is
>>>>increasingly taking advantage of the myriad new forms of
>>>>surveillance that can be used to shape the information made
>>>>available to different targeted audiences.
>>>>
>>>>And Yes McLuhan is definitely relevant.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder how he would think about the effects of these new media.
>>>>
>>>>How do they reshape the nature of content?
>>>>
>>>>How they can be understood using his notions of hot and cool?
>>>>
>>>>What is now in the rear view mirror within the new media that once
>>>>was in the foreground?
>>>>
>>>>On these matters Bob Logan might want to weigh in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>>>>University of California, Berkeley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Fis mailing list
>>>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>----------
>>>>INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>
>>>>Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>-------------------------------------------------
>>>>Pedro C. Marijuán
>>>>Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>>>
>>>>pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
>>>>http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>>>-------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>
>>>>Libre de virus. www.avast.com
>>>><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>
>>>><https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list
>>>>Fis en listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>---------- INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER
>>>>PERSONAL Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>>>>gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza. Puede encontrar toda la
>>>>información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:
>>>>https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>
>>>>----------
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>-----------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
>>>>
>>>>SKYPE: daigriffiths
>>>>
>>>>Phones (please don't leave voice mail)
>>>> UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559
>>>> Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
>>>>
>>>>email
>>>> dai.griffiths.1 en gmail.com
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Fis mailing list
>>>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>----------
>>>>INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>
>>>>Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>>>>gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>el siguiente enlace:
>>>>https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>----------
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>-----------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
>>>>
>>>>SKYPE: daigriffiths
>>>>
>>>>Phones (please don't leave voice mail)
>>>> UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559
>>>> Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
>>>>
>>>>email
>>>> dai.griffiths.1 en gmail.com
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Fis mailing list
>>>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>----------
>>>>INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>
>>>>Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>>>>gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>el siguiente enlace:
>>>>https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>>>>----------
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Fis mailing list
>>>>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>----------
>>>>INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>
>>>>Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>>>>gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>el siguiente enlace:
>>>>https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>http://listas.unizar.es
>>>>----------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Dr. Mark William Johnson
>>>Institute of Learning and Teaching
>>>Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
>>>University of Liverpool
>>>
>>>Phone: 07786 064505
>>>Email: johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com
>>>Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
>>>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Dr. Mark William Johnson
>Institute of Learning and Teaching
>Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
>University of Liverpool
>
>Phone: 07786 064505
>Email: johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com
>Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20201209/20ffb474/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list