Re: virus: META: a rule for the list

David McFadzean (
Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:48:20 -0600

At 09:21 AM 10/15/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:

>I am more than willing to submit to #3. The referees should be the rest
>of the list.

Maybe we just need to make up a conventional notation to communicate
the purpose of parts of our messages. How about an opening tag which
says what types of criticism are welcome like:

blah, blah, joke, taunt, whatever
<argument truth,grammar,consistency,spelling>
Xtianity is empowering because of blah, blah
If God does not exist then blah, blah


Here the author is inviting criticism of the argument based on truth,
grammar, consistency and spelling, but not, say, eloquence or humor.
I'm also assuming that the author is only inviting criticisms that
purport to be true, consistent, etc.

I have no idea if this would work in practice, but is it at least
worth a shot? Who would participate?

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus