Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA26027 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:03:05 +0100 From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Subject: RE: memetics-digest V1 #1023 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:57:57 -0400 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAAELFCOAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: <B8E4D8B4.email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> Steve Drew:
> I think [advertisers] have learned the 'cruder' techniques such as the
> example you mentioned. I don't think it is because they are that good, but
> that they stick to ones that have been useful in the past. The
> problem they
> face is that everyone's responses are different, and IMO they have not
> developed enough ideas on how to overcome this yet, but if they do then I
> agree that things could get rough.
And that is one of the reasons we should be wary of turning memetics into a
technology and releasing it publicly. I consider this list a public forum.
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 : Fri Apr 19 2002 - 15:15:15 BST