Re: virus: _____ of Virus

Ken Kittlitz (
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:10:34 +0000

At 11:28 AM 11/26/97 -0700, you wrote:
>More popular maybe, but that isn't the only criterion for success.

True. On the other hand, a *religion's* success is generally measured by
the number of its adherents; I think most religions are inherently populist

Virus's agenda might be better served by enlisted a small number of
powerful people, the Bill Gateses, Paul Allens and George Soroses of the
world. Yet I doubt religion is the best way of reaching them, considering
that religious devotion is generally inversely correlated with education
and wealth. Not to mention Virus's name and that its small size makes it
easily mistaken for a cult ;->

Given all that, a Virus Institute (club?) might be a better vector.

>One of the purposes of the CoV experiment is to falsify the hypothesis that
>it is necessary to use dishonest methods to propagate a religion. I concede
>that the spread of Virus is going slower than initial estimations but I'm
>not ready to give up yet. :)

The slow growth might be due to a lack of proselytizers. Perhaps CoV should
hire a marketer ;->

>If you and Tom Parsons would like to pursue the same agenda along another
>vector (The Church of Perpetual Revelation, for instance) then I will gladly
>set up a mailing list and website for you.

Sounds good -- I'll start organizing the Jihad!

I don't think it's schism time just yet; I'm still hoping to convince you
that some hypocrisy might not be necessarily bad. Assuming a religious
vector is still the best way of spreading Virus's ideas, that is: I'm no
longer so sure of this.
Ken Kittlitz
Kumo Software Corp.