Re: virus: META: a rule for the list

Paul Prestopnik (
Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:44:36 -0400

> <argument truth,grammar,consistency,spelling>
> Xtianity is empowering because of blah, blah
> If God does not exist then blah, blah
> </argument>
> --.sig
> 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?

sure, if you are serious. Should we have a definitive listing of possible
critical responses, along with some sort of definition?
It seems much of the lists postings have gone away from memetics and
towards philosophy. A declaration at the beginning of your post stating
that you do not want to argue the philosophical aspects, but are trying to
discuss memetics may be a step towards keeping posts on track. I do not
think that this was previously needed, but recently the volume of this list
has grown enormously.