Re: virus: Manipulation Lesson 12

Dave Pape (davepape@dial.pipex.com)
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 00:46:11 GMT

At 21:43 24/02/97 +0000, Martz wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Feb 1997, David McFadzean <morpheus@lucifer.com> wrote:
>
>>Wouldn't it make more sense to call memes that spread well 'successful' and
>>ones
>>that didn't 'unsuccesful'? That way we could talk about successful bad
>>memes
>>to describe ones we don't agree with that happen to have proliferated
>>(e.g. neocheating :) and unsuccessful good memes that we are working to
>>spread (e.g. critical thinking).
>
>Sounds sensible, but how do we stop people using 'good' and 'bad' and
>confusing us all?

How about

Successful 0.0001 to 10 (how well memes spread)?

And

Agree 0.0001 to 10 swapped in for Good v Bad?

So I reckon

CocaCola memes are S9/A0.7
Objectivism memes are S3/A0.002
Memetics memes are S0.4/A8.7

Sheesh, where'd all the romance go?

Dave Pape
============================================================================
Limit the Fun. Prescribe the Fun. DESTROY THE FUN!
-(Southport & Formby Round Table Association slogan, 1994-1995)

Phonecalls: 01494 461648 Phights: 10 Riverswood Gardens
High Wycombe
HP11 1HN