Re: Memetic Parasitism

From: Chris Taylor (
Date: Thu 21 Jul 2005 - 16:16:03 GMT

  • Next message: Kate Distin: "Re: Memetic Parasitism"

    ? No that is a general summary.

    Thank you Captain Ad Hominem. Try _reading into_ what was said, as a whole. I can provide you with a lower wattage version if required..?

    What gets memetics a bad name is the lack of true analysis or predictive power. And unhelpful nonsense like yours.

    Robin Faichney wrote:
    > Thursday, July 21, 2005, 3:53:26 PM, Chris wrote:
    > <snip>
    >>Grow up non-white in Leeds (or one of many oter places), feel
    >>put upon, have internal memes (or whatever) that exclude lots,
    >>but favour others. There's nothing 'bad' about the weeds that
    >>grow where there is not climax forest; they are just as valid.
    >>There is nothing 'wrong' with wanting to kill maim and destroy;
    >>this is not a malfunction, it is just another set of behaviours.
    >>I abhor this murderous idiocy (before anyone jumps down my
    >>throat) but it is not tricky to explain. At least that's how it
    >>feels to me.
    > You call that an explanation? This is the kind of thing that gets
    > memetics a bad name.

    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 2.1.5 : Thu 21 Jul 2005 - 16:32:35 GMT