Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA12449 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:02:49 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:06:22 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Labels for memes Message-ID: <3A87EDDE.30394.332D97@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010212094941.A1226@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A86EBDD.18566.1DC3C8@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 07:45:33PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 12 Feb 2001, at 9:49, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 07:45:33PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > BTW, Robin, I found it very > inconsistent of you (to say the least)
> that you slagged what you > insinuated was a book on the list that I
> posted per your request, > and then when I went to the book and showed
> that it was > misrepresented, you said "But NOOooo, it wasn't that
> book at all,
>
> I found I had just one book by any of your approved authors on my
> shelves. I posted some comments on it, COMPLETE with author, title
> and page numbers. You then came back with a hysterical accusation of
> misrepresentation, in response to which I pointed out that you were
> referring to a different book. You need to curb your tendency to
> rewrite history.
>
It wasn't the same book, nimrod, and all you had to do was look at
the title to tell. The book I listed was Ornstein's THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSCIOUSNESS and the one you replied
concerning (and which I received today) was THE EVOLUTION OF
CONSCIOUSNESS. They are not the same book; the latter is a
general-audience popular work, while the former is a more
academic one. You falsely implied that the book you slagged was
the one on my list, and everyone here saw the insinuation. It is a
matter of list record. I guess you would not give Daniel Dennett
any memetic credit if you found no memetic refs in CONTENT AND
CONSCIOUSNESS, and wouldn't bother reading DARWIN'S
DANGEROUS IDEA, ayy?
It just goes to show that you are not above concealment and
duplicity in your attempt to propagate your own set of religiously
based memes, even if the scientific evidence points otherwise, and
it clearly does, and has, for the last quarter century. Your
buddhism/behaviorism zen-doctrine-of-no-mind nothing-in-the-
blackbox-between-input-and-output-except-what-has-been-inputted-
and-stuck no-container-just-contained faith/belief was scientifically
discredited long ago. If your blissfully nonattached nonself is
emotionally attached to that obsolete and erroneous religious
dogma and has a hard time letting it go, just as christian fundy
creationists do with so-called 'intelligent design theory" another
religious wolf poorly dressed in a pseudoscientific fleece, that's
your problem.
> --
> Robin Faichney
> robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 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 Feb 12 2001 - 20:05:06 GMT