Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA25098 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:31:41 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BFF@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:30:24 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<hmmm... try the ***** list archives for 95/96, they are all
semiotics
> biased, list is more into Peirce in particular. Some 'saw' what was
> developing, others still live in the 19th century, you and Joe would like
> them :-)>
>
Sorry, the list name you refer to didn't come out.
Read Pierce's 'A Guess at the Riddle' on trichotomies, in Hartshorne et al
(eds) (1931) 'Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Pierce', Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Uni Press (this is also available in Cobley, P (ed) (1996) The
Communication Theory Reader, London: Routledge). Whether Pierce or de
Saussure is the root, and they undoubtedly remain the root of semiotics as
it is taught, you find triads not dyads.
> <snip rubbish>
>
Typical. Ignore what you can't answer and don't understand. You're like
that the fictional creature (from Douglas Adams' 'hitch-hikers' books)
that's so stupid that it thinks if it can't see you then you can't see it.
In your case, you think that if you delete all the problematic bits that you
can't answer, those who posted them will forget what they sent.
<I have presented refs repeatedly on this list over a long time;
obviously
> you have found it all to difficult to deal with. Even now, as you
> 'rave-on'
> Derick asks reasonable questions and I have supplied him with reference
> material and have offered more if he wants it.>
>
References to authored work is not original evidence, which is what
I asked for. I've also asked for concurring published work- i.e. work that
supports your ideas explicitly, that cites you.
Derek, who genuinely knows something about neuroscience, challenged
your interpretation of that zebrafish article when he looked at the
abstract. You replied, not with a quote from the article itself, but from a
review of it, clearly not knowing the difference between the two.
<I keep supplying links etc to data that supports me but do you read
it, do
> you think about it -- No, it is all to hard for you since it means you
> have
> to work and you dont want to. OK, Dont but that does not give you the
> right
> to come up with the crap you have lately.>
>
A) You haven't presented original data, but mis-interpreted
reference material none of which references your work in turn (incidentally,
supportive comments on an e-mail listserv hardly stand as on the record
support for or substantiation of your ideas).
B) What you always call 'crap' are perfectly straightforward
indications of basic flaws in your ideas. I apologise if the tone has
been too aggressive, but exasperation is a state you induce in many of us.
Let's face it Chris you're trying to pass yourself off as an
all-seeing expert in fields as diverse as semiotics, quantum mechanics,
cognitive psychology, and neuroscience, and you have no basis for claiming
expertise in any of these fields, let alone in them collectively.
Moreover, you bring your ideas to a memetics listserv, and I believe
you've mentioned memes about 3 or 4 times in the hundreds of posts you
submitted. Unless you intend to engage with explicit issues in memetics
(i.e. issues in cultural evolution) which I doubt since you're
monomaniacally obsessed with people's BEHINDS (and pointless
capitalization), I don't see any reason to engage any further at this point
in time.
No doubt you will see this as some kind of victory, but it's not. I
have a life and a job, both of which are not worth wasting trying to get you
to see sense.
Vincent
===============================================================
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 : Wed Jan 24 2001 - 11:33:37 GMT