Re: transmission

From: Van oost Kenneth (
Date: Sat 24 May 2003 - 15:34:01 GMT

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: urge to strangle II"

    ----- Original Message ----- From: <>
    > I got it; I just don't agree with it, for a plethora of good solid
    > which I have been giving here over and over and over again...will
    > nothing penetrate your self-constructed filters?
    > A bad definition is just that - a bad definition. Defining something adds
    > nothing to its credibility if the definition is bad; it simply highlights
    > lack of same. You're trying to tell people that the mail service is the
    > letter. It just doesn't wash. The letter is necessary for there to be
    > something TO mail, and before it's mailed, it's still a letter.

    Joe, I think Wade is trying to say that by writing a letter the idea of having a service to mail it is included_ the one can 't exclude the other. And yes, before a letter is mailed it is still a letter by definition but not by ' meaning ', it isn 't mailed ! There is a tic and tac about this kind of stuff.

    What's the point of having a mail service if noone ever writes letters that were to be mailed !? Within the concept of writing a letter and having the intention to mail it, the idea of a mail service is part of the equation.



    =============================================================== 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 : Sat 24 May 2003 - 15:40:40 GMT