From: Chris Taylor (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 21 Jul 2005 - 16:16:03 GMT
? 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
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:
>>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.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ firstname.lastname@example.org http://psidev.sf.net/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 21 Jul 2005 - 16:32:35 GMT