Re: virus: Rationality

David McFadzean (
Sat, 1 Mar 1997 12:02:56 -0700

> From: Alex Williams <>
> Date: Saturday, March 01, 1997 9:47 AM

> > Good. Now I'm willing to bet there is no /significant/ difference
> > between what you were trying to communicate in the above paragraph
> > and my understanding of it. Would you agree?
> I don't know. I'm not sure that its even a knowable question, in
> fact. It goes beyond just the raw informational content of the intent
> that led to the above words, to how they're spawning memes that are
> engaged differently in your memesphere than mine.

I didn't ask if you know with certainty. I'm asking if it is a reasonable
assumption. Hint: the fact that you are responding coherently implies
that you do whether you admit it or not.

> I refer you to Eva's previous reply on this thread that mentioned that
> when the protocol is effective, when the memes interpreted are close
> to the ones intended, the protocol is easily overlooked, its when

I'm not saying we should ignore the protocol. I'm objecting to how
you bring the discussion to a halt every time the protocol is
assumed to be working reasonably well. It is very frustrating to
try to have a discussion when one of the participants asserts that
we might not be communicating after every statement.

Gotta go, I'll reply to the rest later.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus