Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA21750 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:10:47 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:14:25 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Labels for memes Message-ID: <3A8A84B1.8000.30CA1F5@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010214095936.B11391@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A87EDDE.30394.332D97@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:06:22PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 14 Feb 2001, at 9:59, Robin Faichney wrote:
> I don't know whether anyone is interested in this besides Joe and
> myself. We're rehashing an exchange between us from last week. What
> I'm doing in this message is proving Joe wrong by quoting directly
> from his own message of a few days ago (though the first quote below
> is from yesterday).
>
> The story continues...
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:06:22PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > 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...
>
> No, Joe, *I* had to tell *you* they're not the same book. When I
> cited The Evolution, I was replying to a message which listed only
> authors, not titles. Your list of titles was in your next message --
> the same one in which *you* confused the two books. And just to prove
> it, here are the relevant parts of that very message <my comments in
> angle brackets, thus>:
>
> <JOE'S OLD MESSAGE BEGINS>
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:17:39 -0600
> Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
> Message-ID: <3A7FDD53.21676.31A231A@localhost>
> In-reply-to: <20010206154157.A984@reborntechnology.co.uk>
>
> <snip irrelevant stuff and most of list of authors and titles
> -- in THIS message, not the previous one>
>
> OF CONSCIOUSNESS), Popper & Eccles (THE SELF AND ITS
> BRAIN), Changeau (NEURONAL MAN), Ornstein (THE PSYCHOLOGY
> OF CONSCIOUSNESS), Kinsbourne (ASYMMETRICAL
>
> <small snip, what follows is me, Robin, quoted from the message
> that Joe's replying to>
>
> > The one title by one of these writers that I have immediately to
> > hand is Ornstein's The Evolution of Consciousness. Well, that
> > certainly seems relevant.
>
> <snip, then Joe:>
>
> Hokay, I'll quote Ornstein out of that book just to show everyone what
> you should already know if you indeed have the book. On page 52 it
> states:
>
> <snip remainder>
> <JOE'S OLD MESSAGE ENDS>
>
> Do you get it now? You list some authors, without titles, I respond
> citing a particular title by one of them, you come back with a
> hysterical accusation of misrepresentation, but you're looking at a
> different book, one whose title you first mention in the same message
> in which you make the accusation. Your mistake, not mine.
>
Are you SURE it was the same message, Robin, and not a
subsequent one? Speak VERY carefully here. Your first
denunciation was that I had simply supplied a list of authors, minus
titles, and i inserted the titles within THAT VERY MESSAGE the
moment I received it, and resent it - long before receiving your
confused screed concerning another book entirely.
>
> > 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.
>
> We can now see exactly what's on the "list record", Joe, and it
> doesn't make you look good!
>
> > 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...
>
> Get a grip, Joe.
>
If you answered before you received the second message, it still
does not explain your not immediately referencing the passages I
quoted and replying that they were not to be found in your book -
which you did not. There are indeed two references to Roger
Sperry in both books, but the references occur on different pages
for each book, and are not identical. I still think you wanted people
to believe that you had the same book that I did and that I was
misrepresenting its content, which my quotes from it demonstrated
was clearly not the case.
You're still like a fanatical creationist denouncing evolutionary
theory. Your modus operandus was precisely identical to theirs.
Firat it is claim that there is no scientific support for the opposing
view; when voluminous scientific support is provided, it is
illegitimately denounced as either erroneous or misrepresented or
mutually contradictory, and when the illegitimacies within the
objections are pointed out, the denunciator claims that willful
misunderstanding has occurred due to the biases of the other
(major psychological projection, that), and that anyone with the
eyes (of faith/belief) to see would readily accept as gospel all their
quasireligious pronouncements.
You need to get a grip on what is religion and what is science, and
begin to make the necessary distinctions between them (hint: it's
known as the presence or absence of evidence).
>
> --
> 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 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 19:12:56 GMT