Re: virus: Dawkins is an idiot

David McFadzean (
Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:53:20 -0700

At 09:04 AM 28/08/70 +0000, David Leeper wrote:

>Yea, right. You're just mad 'cause you got sucked in, Mr.
>"Memetic Engineer". :-p

I'm not sure how you interpret memetic engineer, but I don't
claim to be immune to memes.

>Don't try to pretend your upset just because of my personal
>attack on Dawkins. I called Tad a "dumb-ass" on a posting you
>responded to and you didn't raise a peep of an objection. Had

You're right. I should have objected when you called Tad
a dumb-ass.

>we gone the "logical discourse" route, your personal predjudice
>would have colored your thinking just like it did when you were
>upset. The only difference would be that this predjudice would
>be hidden behind a mask of rationality, instead of out in the
>open for all to see.

Obviously you have no clue why I was upset.

>An expert who's arguments are self-contradicting and who's
>description of evolution is sadly out of date. On the other
>hand, he does have nice hair.

Well that's debatable but we're both tired of that discussion.

>> I regret getting sucked into that waste of time and effort (and believe
>> me it did take a lot of time and effort). If your goal was to lose a great
>> deal of credibility on this list you have succeeded admirably.
>Darn. Does this mean you won't loan me money?

No, you still have credit.

>I've lost no respect for you David, despite the fact that
>your arguments were illogical, unconvincing and off-topic.

Gee thanks. Why don't you ask some other people if my
arguments are illogical, unconvincing or off-topic. The
feedback I've had so far as been positive.

>I especially liked when, upon finding out that your
>encyclopedia reference actually worked against you, you said
>that the reference carried no weight. How many times in a

It's very frustrating how you rewrite history for your own
purposes. Luckily the archives show that I did no such thing.
No matter which definition of neo-Darwinism is used (the
encyclopedia's or Dawkins') it isn't discredited.

>debate does one's opponent admit his arguments carry no
>weight! Thanks for the laugh.

And even if I did withdraw the argument I don't know why
you would find that funny. Obviously your idea of a debate
is different than mine (where people do back off of arguments
when they are shown to be untenable).

>What shows is that, even though I let you have the last
>word, you still want to debate.

This isn't a debate. I'm trying to tell you why I'll be
reluctant to debate anything with you again in the near
future. You don't have to listen, but you will find that
the number of people willing to reply to your messages will
eventually dwindle to people new to the list or who have
a lot of time to waste.

In the meantime a lot of people are unsubscribing. This
was accidently sent to me today:

I just did this [unsubscribe] myself. I had hoped to see some
discussion of memetics but there's an awful lot of solipsistic
noise. I was pointed here from "The Lucifer Principle" book page
links, sorry to say...

I've put a lot of effort into building this list. Up until recently
it was seen as an informative and fun place to hold a *rational*
discussion. Now it is as seen a waste of time. Does anyone else
feel sick about this?

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus