Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA23270 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:00:04 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:54:03 -0400 Subject: Re: Subliminal advertising Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAAEKCCOAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <BDDBA1B2-52D3-11D6-A1A2-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 08:26 , Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
> Oh, all right, I do mean to quibble.
Well, I suppose we can all quibble, we're good at quibbling, until an
actual study shows _any_ evidence of subliminal influence, but, as
you've seen, none has, and there have been several.
The single fact that the _only_ _supporting_ reference is a _fraud_....
Well. What is there to quibble about?
Unless you have some agenda to promote some charlatanry, there is
nothing to quibble about.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 15:32:27 BST