Richard Brodie wrote:
>
> For years, now, I've looked to this list as a refuge from the irrationality
> and mysticism of the memes pervading world society; as a place where people
> could go to meet others with the discernment and commitment to reality to
> choose to live life uninfected by cultural viruses. We've even made a few
> steps in the direction of creating a new designer virus, one that has the
> potential to spread this life-freeing philosophy to the rest of the world.
>
> I can't tell you how disappointed I am with all of you.
>
> I have been running an experiment for the last several months. Under an
> assumed name (because like it or not, there is too much attention and
> credibility paid to my own name to make this possible), I have been sending
> the most irrational, nonsensical posts I could muster, shrouding them in the
> Trojan horse of coherent-sounding jargon.
Your method may be invalid insofar as what you consider to be irrational
may be, for some, a new way of looking at a problem, or even a
falsifiable hypothesis worthy of consideration. Furthermore, as I've
seen in my time lurking on this list, most here abide by netiquette
rules. This may offer some insight into the "Trojan Horse" you posit.
Who knows what *real* evil lurked in the hearts of list members?
> I've pushed the envelope farther
> and farther, posting off-topic gibberish, responding to and quoting
> nonexistent contributions from others, deliberately misunderstanding in the
> most extreme way the simplest writings of fellow memebers. I have been
> writing this under the assumed name of Brett Lane Robertson.
>
> Now what did I expect would be the results of this experiment? Naturally, I
> expected to be caught right away! I never thought I would go on indefinitely
> and, like Hitler, seem to GROW in popularity the more extreme I became and
> the more times I repeated the nonsense. Silly me. I forgot a basic tenet of
> memetics.
I think one tentative conclusion you may be able to support with your
data is that netiquette is quite possibly an impediment to open and
honest communication. To really have gotten a decent data set, from
which one might draw some good conclusions, you ought to have designed a
polling process after your time as Brett, and before you revealed your
true identity. It would be neat to know what people really thought of
Brett, or at very least the level of discussion he was involved in.
Unfortunately, now, I don't think a poll will be reliable since everyone
knows you were using Brett to test their ability to discern a wacko.
>
> But wasn't there ANYONE on the list with the discernment to see my posts for
> what they were? It's almost as if the truth were so unimportant (contrasted
> with blithely letting your buttons be pushed by my messages) that no one
> here was conscious enough to poke through the curtains and find the man
> behind the wizard. I almost think that, even after revealing myself, I could
> continue posting as Brett, making myself even more irrational and
> nonsensical and, even though you all now know the truth, it wouldn't make a
> bit of difference.
Personally, I did make one post in reply to Brett. It was of a
relatively technical nature and occurred after reading Brett's analysis
of some else's post. Truthfully, I took him seriously, though I did
disagree on one or two of the major points. In all, I had no opinion as
to his rationality.
> In fact, I think it might make a good second experiment. Very well then.
> I'll keep on posting as Brett for awhile. You all know the score now.
>
> Even in this group of enlightened minds, will it make a difference?
I don't know anything about enlightenment, but I do think that to
remain, as you put it "credible", among your friends and peers in this
forum, some explanation of your research design ought to be offered.
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
> Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
> http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
> Visit Meme Central! http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
-- ______________________________________________________________________ Hagbard Celine >87 mailto:hagbard@ix.netcom.com PGP Public Key at http://pw1.netcom.com/~hagbard/Homepage.htm PGP 5.5 Fingerprint EAE3 DD4A 8A64 0099 DAC0 0A8B 472E 69DF 54A8 F34B