RE: Scholarly credibility

Aaron Lynch (
Mon, 04 Oct 1999 20:28:15 -0500

Message-Id: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 20:28:15 -0500
From: Aaron Lynch <>
Subject: RE: Scholarly credibility
In-Reply-To: <001f01bf0e9d$72dfff00$>

At 03:19 PM 10/4/99 -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: []On Behalf
>> Of Aaron Lynch
>> Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 2:56 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: RE: Scholarly credibility
>> At 01:00 PM 10/4/99 -0400, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>> >Okay, to my relief, I definitely am not the Aaron in question.
>> Indeed, you are not.
>> Perhaps the Paul in question could further repair his scholarly
>> credibility
>> by looking up the word "argumeny" while he is in the library. I
>> do not find
>> it in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, or in any other
>> dictionary I have tried. Under the circumstances, a definition
>> and a source
>> for the word should be given when saying that my book contains
>> "argumeny."
>Perhaps a fusion of 'argument' and 'agony'?

If there's agony, it would be on the part of Marsden's readers, many whom
may be mislead to think that "argumeny" is so esoteric a word that they
have never encountered it before. An intended effect? A fake word for a
fake "review"? I don't know. I think we should just let Marsden go to the
library and look it up for us, then report back with a definition and a
source for that definition. Especially since the "review" claims that it is
I who fail to define terms. (More about the last point in my upcoming
rebuttal--these points about "argumeny" and the references section are just
some of the items for which I given insufficient space to reply in my

For scholarly credibility to hold, the definition and source must pre-date
the "review," so there is no point putting definitions or derivations in
his mouth.

--Aaron Lynch

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)