RE: CRASH CONTAGION

From: Philip Jonkers (philipjonkers@prodigy.net)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 04:46:05 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "RE: CRASH CONTAGION"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA01701 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 8 Jan 2002 04:50:08 GMT
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Message-Id: <AA-0ACA62CE4F745BA7A48593A32DD0F927-ZZ@homebase1.prodigy.net>
    Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:46:05 -0500
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <philipjonkers@prodigy.net>
    Subject: RE: CRASH CONTAGION
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    --- Original Message ---
    From: "Wade T. Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: CRASH CONTAGION

    >Hi salice@gmx.net -
    >
    >>Ask all outsiders whether they plan to crash
    >>a plane in the near future?
    >
    >It's a nice little hindsight fact that, if we had
    been aware of certain
    >signs, we would have not only singled out the
    hijackers, but, indeed,
    >apprehended them months earlier.
    >
    >What indeed shall we do?
    >
    >It's a nice little hindsight fact that, if someone
    had actually gone into
    >the bedroom of one of the Columbine kids, that
    tragedy would have been
    >prevented.
    >
    >And it's a nice little hindsight that, if someone had
    actually taken a
    >good look at the kid in Florida (a nice quiet kid no-
    one paid any
    >attention to), that might have been prevented, too.
    >
    >I don't have any answers here, but, yes, this
    hindsight sucks. There were
    >way too many red flags up.
    >
    >So, what's the response to red flags these days? Is
    it really that no-one
    >gives a shit?
    >
    >Looks that way.
    >
    >Maybe we're too busy these days making our own little
    corners tidy. Or
    >maybe it don't really matter whom we're stepping over
    all the time.
    >
    >And yet, we also have the little case of the shoe-
    bomb dupe, incompetent
    >and clumsy, who made himself all too obvious, and in
    his case, there was
    >a response to the red flags, although he was waving
    them with both hands.
    >Nice little case of hindsight, but he should have
    remained in France.
    >
    >But, yeah, just how far is a deviation needed to be
    before the general
    >alarm is out?
    >
    >Why is it while we're burying the dead that we
    realize what we've been
    >ignoring?

    Hi Wade, well you might say we're handicapped in
    spotting pending disaster if the potential perpetrators
    are covertly planning such devastating operations.
    How on earth are people to recognize possible threats
    if they don't receive any clues or signs?
    The kid was shy and introverted as you say (this
    reminds me also of your typical serial killer), there
    was no way to detect his devious plans.
    Also most people mostly need really strong
    alarming signals to trigger them to undertake
    preventive action. You think twice before you make a
    possible fool of yourself, right?

    Philip.

    >- Wade
    >
    >======================================================
    =========
    >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 : Tue Jan 08 2002 - 04:56:37 GMT