Re: virus: Tabacco mind virus.

Eric Boyd (
Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:11:44 -0500

Tony Hindle wrote:

> >You've missed the point again.
> >I only care when I have to share the costs of the risks that you take.
> >Climb all the mountains you want as long as my tax dollars don't
> >get spent on your inevitable rescue.
> You also reap the benefits of risks that I take.

interesting... gotta take the good with the bad, eh?

> >... which is
> >more than I can say for getting the American Govt. to adopt a rational drug
> >policy. My point is that advertising memes all have a built in feedback
> >mechanism ... consumption.
> Explain this more please.

What he means is that advertising, and the companies who do it, have a
*continual* test to see if they are being effective: consumption.
Governments, on the other hand, only get to test once every four years.
And then they almost always loose out. With no direct feedback into how
the population feels about what they are doing, the government officials
have no way of knowing how well they are doing.

> Its not the perpetrators of tabacco memes that I hate, its the
> memes themselves, I cant think of a better way of reducing them than by
> murder.

Actually, I think killing them is a damn fine way to *enhanse* the
memetic spread. Jesus's meme provide a good example. Hitlers memes as
well. *everybody* knows the he hated Jews.

Meme's actually spread better as soon as you link them with *danger*
because danger is one of our primary buttons. Killing someone is a very
good way to get into the news. And the news is definatly going to
mention that he was a tabacco spokeperson, and possibly spread his
"best" meme's (and he was most famous for his slogan "A taste you can
call your own")

So I don't really think killing someone is the way to suppress their