Re: implied or inferred memes

Wade T.Smith (
Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:21:53 -0400

Subject: Re: implied or inferred memes
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:21:53 -0400
From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
To: "Memetics Discussion List" <>

On 09/18/99 10:51 the inimitable made this comment =8B

>So I don't think that it is necessary to provide any proof for NLP, to mak=
>the dynamics that I am suggesting any more plausible.

It is precisely this sort of casualness that props up the psuedosciences
and that their proponents take mighty advantage of. There is no reason,
if the authors you cited had no reference to this particular
pseudoscience in the source you cite (Philosophy in the Flesh) for you to
drag it into the field of view, unless, IMHO, you were in some way a
proponent of this and wanted to lend it some quick and dirty legitimacy.

And it is for this reason that I feel it is quite necessary to provide
proof. Quite necessary indeed.

- Wade

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)