Re: The information theoretic view Was: JOM

t (
Sat, 4 Sep 1999 16:59:09 EDT

From: <>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 16:59:09 EDT
Subject: Re: The information theoretic view Was: JOM

In a message dated 9/4/1999 9:16:05 AM !!!First Boot!!!, writes:

>> Bill, I consider intellectual dishonesty to be a foul, and a very
serious one. I get particularly annoyed when I feel my valuable time is
being wasted by it.<<

If this is really happening, then the better approach would be to ignore it.

>> If Richard wants to convince me that he is
interested in understanding any other view than his own, he is welcome
to try, but the impression I've been getting for a long time now is that
he participates here for no other reason than to defend his own
position, and that he uses intellectually dishonest tactics to do so.<<

If you you think that your position is right, what is wrong with defending
it? How exactly was he being dishonest. I can't imagine that Richard's
comments here alone could succeed in obstructing a science of memetics.
Unless of course those interested in developing such a thing allowed it to.

>> He may not be fully aware that he is doing so -- some self-deception may
be involved -- but I don't get the impression he's the sort of person
who often doesn't know what he's doing.
Robin Faichney <<

Robin, I appreciate your efforts here, and I hope you continue. I do think
that you are making a mistake here however. Taking yourself to seriously.
And I do think that this has lead you to some unecessary exasperation toward
Richard. By taking this to a personal level on a public list like this, you
forget a principle that can easily translate into memetics -- bad publicity
is better than no publicity. If Richard is really being obstructionist, it
would be wiser to either discuss it privately with him or not at all.


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)