Re: virus: _____ of Virus

David McFadzean (
Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:06:02 -0700

At 04:35 PM 11/24/97 +0000, Ken Kittlitz wrote:
>At 03:30 PM 11/24/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>If you have that much latitude, why do you choose to interpret my
>>remarks such that you disagree with them?
>What criteria should I have used to interpret them?

I've found it useful and rewarding to interpret messages such that
I would agree with them. Sometimes it takes more effort, and sometimes
it leads to misinterpretation, but generally it is a good strategy.

>Really, it wasn't a conscious choice as much as a reaction to how they
>first struck me. I suppose I could have mulled them over, trying to figure
>out what you really meant, or simply asked for clarification. But neither
>action would have been necessary had you fleshed out your point more in the
>first place.

What criteria do *you* use to decide when enough is enough :)

>>My point is that it is not necessarily stupid to advocate something that
>>goes against some part of "human nature" (whatever that is).
>Ah, now this I both understand and agree with. But I also agree with what
>(I think) Tim P. was saying: that some parts of human nature are difficult
>enough to fight against that your agenda might be better served by
>leveraging off of or subverting them in some way than in opposing them

Agreed, but not in this case. Consider:
"Stop the violence or I'll kill you!"
"Trust me when I say trust no-one."
"God told me to tell you to question authority."

It is of little use (other than maybe for humor and zen koans) to send a
message that undermines itself.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus