Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA06002 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:31:36 +0100 Message-Id: <200007240029.UAA19944@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:34:12 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Gender bias for memes In-reply-to: <001201bff4bb$eb007280$0500bed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Gender bias for memes
Date sent: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:36:18 +0200
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Come on boys, let 's stick together,
>
> Joe Chris
>
> male (order) female (change)
> consensus, opportunistic
>
> (any perceived weakness in the other (likes the feedback)
> party is jumped-upon, like the claim
> Joe makes that Chris violates his own
> propounded rules)
>
His gender, combined with his verbosity and imprecision, does
indeed provide a counterexample to his gender-bigoted contentions.
>
> action, language,
>
All we have are words here: it's ALL language.
>
> ( 'attacks ' with words_reacts without (is likely to explain things,
> thought of consequence ) is more context aware,
> ' knows ' his stuff )
>
I question his knowledge of (as opposed to belief in) his "stuff" as
you call it. And what consequence? Either he can back up his
assertions, or he can't; either way, something useful is learned.
> sameness,
>
> " trying to make logical sense out of your
> (Chris) screeds... " is IMHO (Kenneth) a
> statement likely close to what is by the
> ' general ' understood for logic. The defi-
> nition of the term which Joe apllies is
> violated by Chris, so joe strikes back.
>
> Joe, you have to admit, ' accusing ' Chris that his politeness dropped like a
> rock and challenging his concepten in that way (without any attempt to dis-
> cuss the matter) is IMHO_ even fundamentalistic. And expecting as much,
> betrays a prejudice.
>
He has discussed in too many words, while saying little if anything,
for quite some time now. The cascading concatenation of fuzz
inundating this list has caused the more serious among us to say
little, and none of them address Chris. They recognize a memetic
infection when they see it. Only the blissfully oblivious newbies are
embracing his word salad.
>
> But anyone on this list who has gotten the idea re left/right; sameness/ diffe-
> rence must be excited_you and Chris are proovin ' ' live ' that there is a gen-
> der bias for memes.
> Look at your posts, they stand full of male/ female formulas, responses, ex-
> pressions...
>
But we are both (purportedly) male, which DISproves such
contentions. Try smelling coffee; sometimes it can help.
>
> We better argue what is the useful truth of such arguments...in the context
> of the subject please...
>
Is racial memetic bias next?
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
> (I am, because we are) disappointed
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 01:32:28 BST