Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA19539 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:07:58 GMT Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:59:36 +0000 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Labels for memes Message-ID: <20010214095936.B11391@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A86EBDD.18566.1DC3C8@localhost>; <20010212094941.A1226@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3A87EDDE.30394.332D97@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <3A87EDDE.30394.332D97@localhost>; from email@example.com on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:06:22PM -0600 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't know whether anyone is interested in this besides Joe and myself.
We're rehashing an exchange between us from last week. What I'm doing in
this message is proving Joe wrong by quoting directly from his own message
of a few days ago (though the first quote below is from yesterday).
The story continues...
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:06:22PM -0600, email@example.com wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2001, at 9:49, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 07:45:33PM -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > BTW, Robin, I found it very > inconsistent of you (to say the least)
> > that you slagged what you > insinuated was a book on the list that I
> > posted per your request, > and then when I went to the book and showed
> > that it was > misrepresented, you said "But NOOooo, it wasn't that
> > book at all,
> > I found I had just one book by any of your approved authors on my
> > shelves. I posted some comments on it, COMPLETE with author, title
> > and page numbers. You then came back with a hysterical accusation of
> > misrepresentation, in response to which I pointed out that you were
> > referring to a different book. You need to curb your tendency to
> > rewrite history.
> It wasn't the same book, nimrod, and all you had to do was look at
> the title to tell. The book I listed was Ornstein's THE
> PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSCIOUSNESS and the one you replied
> concerning (and which I received today) was THE EVOLUTION OF
> CONSCIOUSNESS. They are not the same book...
No, Joe, *I* had to tell *you* they're not the same book. When I cited
The Evolution, I was replying to a message which listed only authors,
not titles. Your list of titles was in your next message -- the same one
in which *you* confused the two books. And just to prove it, here are the
relevant parts of that very message <my comments in angle brackets, thus>:
<JOE'S OLD MESSAGE BEGINS>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:17:39 -0600
Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
<snip irrelevant stuff and most of list of authors and titles
-- in THIS message, not the previous one>
OF CONSCIOUSNESS), Popper & Eccles (THE SELF AND ITS
BRAIN), Changeau (NEURONAL MAN), Ornstein (THE PSYCHOLOGY
OF CONSCIOUSNESS), Kinsbourne (ASYMMETRICAL
<small snip, what follows is me, Robin, quoted from the message
that Joe's replying to>
> The one title by one of these writers that I have immediately to hand
> is Ornstein's The Evolution of Consciousness. Well, that certainly
> seems relevant.
<snip, then Joe:>
Hokay, I'll quote Ornstein out of that book just to show everyone
what you should already know if you indeed have the book. On
page 52 it states:
<JOE'S OLD MESSAGE ENDS>
Do you get it now? You list some authors, without titles, I respond
citing a particular title by one of them, you come back with a hysterical
accusation of misrepresentation, but you're looking at a different book,
one whose title you first mention in the same message in which you make
the accusation. Your mistake, not mine.
> You falsely implied that the book you slagged was
> the one on my list, and everyone here saw the insinuation. It is a
> matter of list record.
We can now see exactly what's on the "list record", Joe, and it doesn't
make you look good!
> It just goes to show that you are not above concealment and
> duplicity in your attempt to propagate your own set of religiously
> based memes...
Get a grip, Joe.
-- Robin Faichney email@example.com
=============================================================== 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) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 10:10:07 GMT