Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 01:09:47 EDT
Subject: Re: implied or inferred memes
In a message dated 9/18/1999 3:29:25 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
> 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
Whatever. Give it a rest . . . the sound . . . the fury . . . signifying . .
I really don't care about NLP one way or the other. I only thought it a good
example for those familiar with it. I do care about the idea that I was
actually presenting. Apparantly you don't. So I have nothing more to say.
I decline to find anything necessary here.
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)