Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA07619 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:07:00 GMT From: <AaronLynch@aol.com> Message-ID: <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:01:06 EST Subject: Re: necessity of mental memes To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
In a message dated 1/31/2002 11:58:40 AM Central Standard Time,
> In a message dated 1/31/2002 7:42:06 AM Central Standard Time, Wade T.
> <email@example.com> writes:
> > Hi firstname.lastname@example.org -
> > >"Dr Tony Baloney".
> > I'm the one who questioned the identity of what I thought was an
> > joke, and from all evidence now received (that is, no follow up), it is
> > blatant pseudonym.
> > And I'm sorry, but, when I see something like 'Tony Baloney'- that's
> > precisely what I think it is- baloney.
> > In this case, I appear to be right, but, I'll certainly declare my
> > questioning the validity of a name like that is not only correct, but
> > just and ethical.
> > - Wade
> Hi Wade.
> Because Dr. Baloney was essentially inviting us to consider the name
> you were able to question his identity without making an allegation and
> without provoking an angry, ugly argument. But if the same person had been
> acting more deceptively, he would have chosen some name other than
> In that case, there would have been a real problem to you calling his name
> and identity into question. If you knew who was really making the posts,
> also could not make an allegation against the person posting under their
> legal name without causing major problems. In a sense, deception has a
> hand while authenticity has its hands tied.
> Now all of this is not to say that pseudonyms, pen names, and screen names
> do not have their legitimate uses. Consider "Mark Twain," for instance.
> Baloney, for instance, was probably using that pseudonym to call honest
> attention to things he considered phony. The reasons that people use
> pseudonyms range from benign exposition to extreme treachery.
> --Aaron Lynch
The above paragraphs do not refer to any journal articles, or to the author
names given in journal articles. If it's not clear from the above two
paragraphs, then it is also indicated by my earlier statement that "I don't,
however, know of cases where papers were published by non-existent authors."
(By which I meant that I was unaware of pseudonymously published papers in
peer-reviewed journals.) In regard to my own papers, I have long ago
admonished readers to check what it is that I have really said in my
published articles by reading those articles directly. And while the point
may bear repeating, the above two paragraphs were not an attempt to repeat
that previously stated message.
There are many scientific communications that do not take place in the form
of published articles. When billions of dollars, personal reputations,
careers, endowments, etc. are at stake, one can expect some weird things to
happen. I do not wish to have the kind of angry, pointless argument that this
list's policies are designed to prevent. I do, however, recommend that people
keep their eyes open.
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 Feb 01 2002 - 19:15:42 GMT