RE: The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Tue 17 Dec 2002 - 16:33:39 GMT

  • Next message: Wade Smith: "pet peeves"

    What the people engaging in this game of verbal sparring seem to overlook is that the bandwidth being wasted is not computer or internet bandwidth but the mental bandwidth of the other members of the list.

    You guys were playing on somebody else's chess board and now the people who feel like the board belongs to them want it back.

    If anyone wants to engage in a game that's not part of the reason for this board, they can set up their own board and play on it. It's not reasonable to make the people on this board wade through 50 to 100 messages concerned with whether Joe or Lawry believe the propaganda of one side of a war or the other.

    I, for one, don't care. I don't care who likes or hates the Jews or the Muslims. I don't care who believes them or doesn't. There are, as both sides have amply demonstrated, hundreds of sites devoted to that very argument. Why waste yours and everyone else's time and spam this site with personal attacks on each other than to feed your own egos? It doesn't do a thing for mine.

    Furthermore, it causes people who come here to discuss memetics to miss interesting messages because they don't want to wade through the spam to get to them. In other words, the noise is fogging up the information.

    Cheers, Grant

    >Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:47:38 -0000
    >Sorry, wasting a bit of further bandwidth to apologise for the terse tone
    >here, which was a heat of the moment thing not a real reflection of mood.
    > >
    > > <It doesn't 'waste' much bandwidth (we're talking one k per here),
    > > and
    > > > many people have enjoyed perusing them. Could your objection be
    > > > more because you would prefer the essays not be referenceable from
    > > > onlist? The 'bit' of wasted bandwidth would appear to be truly
    > > > insignificant (this exchange took more than two such referrals).>
    > > >
    > > I don't understand this comment Joe. I could give a shit if you
    > > want to put references to pieces that link to discussions about memetics
    > > in
    > > your posts, regardless of their content. My comment was directed at
    > > that consist of nothing more than references relating to your political
    > > comments, which I felt might be better utilised by those want to read
    > > articles from the Daily Telegraph and the like, as a weblog where the
    > > totality of the arguments are apparent. Given the abundance of posts
    > > lately, particularly from yourself, I thought it might allow those of
    > > with,
    > > y'know jobs and lives, to still participate in the list now and again on
    > > things of direct relevance to memetics without having to wade through
    > > war talk.
    > >
    > > Vincent

    _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 17 Dec 2002 - 16:40:37 GMT