Re: virus: Is the term "meme" necessary?

Reed Konsler (
Tue, 14 May 1996 13:28:09 -0400

*****Tom Loeber(May14,2:44am)
What? Huh? Doesn't weight have a "scientific model" interpretation also? In
fact, weight's scientific model includes multiple masses and gravity, a good
deal more encompassing than just mass. "Mass" is a singular phenomenon.
"Weight" is a relationship.

Are you being deliberately dense? This is not an argument for the sake of
arguement. Try a debating club.

The concept of mass is more useful than weight exactly because mass is
independent of context. It doesn't matter where in space you are, mass is
conserved. This leads to such elegant solutions as:

E=mc2 (That 2 should be superscript)

Trying to define this same relationship between matter and energy, using
weight, leads to a very complicated equation requiring more constants.

Remember from physics? Mass is an intrinsic property, and thus it is a more
versitile concept. Sure, everthing could be done with weight; you could also
avoid ever reducing fractions: 57/114ths. But 1/2 is so much more elegant.

You, yourself have been insisting on clarity. That is what "mass" and "memes"
provide: clarity of thought.