In regards to your assertion that the text misrepresents the central idea
of this post as "progress where there is none", are you saying you are aware
of existing work that mirrors this? If so, please provide a reference. I
would very much like to see it.
"Use old, short words"? "Memetics" is neither old, nor short, and that
may be the crux of the problem here. Please understand that this list deals
with a subject at the forefront of scientific inquiry and, while I do my
utmost to keep my posts as clear and concise as possible, and use common
example and analogy whenever practical, much of the text on this list is
inevitably going to seem, well, scientific.
If you would point to a specific example and specify exactly what it is
you object to, I'd be happy to explain exactly why I wrote it that way,
and why it was necessary.
Dan
At 08:07 PM 7/5/98 +0200, Davorin Mestric wrote:
>
>>that arises from the balanced interaction of three distinct, irreducible,
>>fundamental components:
>>
>> motivator
>> accumulator
>> facilitator
>>
>> These three fundamental components are commonly referred to as
>>(respectively):
>>
>> emotion
>> memory
>> intelligence
>
>
> yes, using different (and always more complicated) terms, you made it
>look like there is some progress, where there is none.
>
>please, keep things simple. use short words. even better, use old short
>words.