Re: virus: Possible Though Paranoid Theory <PiTy PiTy>
Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:51:50 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, ken sartor wrote:

> At 07:23 PM 12/19/96 -0800, Lior Golgher wrote:
> >David McFadzean, David Leeper, KMO, Wade T. Smith, Richard Brodie, all
> >those ceased their activity on the list.
> >At the same period, new handles such as 'XYZ Tech Support', 'Autumn' and
> >new people such as Daniel M.J. Adams, CraigSimon and Dave Pape occupied
> >a considerable share of all posts.
> >
> >Now, we may assume that some of those shifts were natural. But clearly
> >some of them weren't.
> >Daniel M.J. Adams - I believe you're real!-)
> >XYZ - You're fake. Dave Pape - I have doubts about you too.
> >Of course it's paranoid, and no one can prove he's right and the other's
> >wrong. But it's also a great memetic experiment - "Let's watch their
> >reaction to someone who denies free will" "Let's watch their reaction to
> >someone who denies memetics" "Let's watch their reaction to rudeness and
> >irrationality" "Let's watch their reaction to such and such provocative
> >claims, such and such requests to explain formerly agreed theories". In
> >fact, I might have preformed a similar experiment if I were in their
> >places.
> >
> >What do you think?
> Agreed - XYZ can not be real.
> ken


Perhaps off the list--but I would find a description of the heuristics
for the above claim interesting. In particular, how do these heuristics
fail when applied to *my* postings???

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd