>Tony Hindle wrote:>
> So far there has been a load of "you cant do that" but very
>> little reasoning.
>
>(sigh...)
Ha Ha Ha, I knew I could draw you in again, it is beyond your
power. I have you under my spell, you will not be able to break free
until you are infected with the meme. I thought you had had your last
word in this thread?
>
>I thought we had brought up some very good points, Tony
>
>1) we don't want to spread "death can be a force for good" idea
This doesnt convince me (it was one of mine so I have had it all
along and it hasnt helped.)
The tobacco co.s spread this anyway (more subtly than the
present meme).
>2) some of us couldn't bring ourselves to do it, anyway
only a tiny minority need be infected.
>3) death is actually a memetic *advantage*. That is, the
> death of t. co. spokepersons might actually lead
> to increased sales.
> (just remember the "Death Lights" cigs. in England)
> -- associating cigs. with death actually "turns on"
> people of my age, who are *looking* for ways to
> rebel, to risk themselves.
Dodgey premise. Are you suggesting kids will become keen to
become tobacco plc spokespeople.
>4) The place to work is not at the source, as you intend, but
> at the *destintation*. That is, rather than killing the
> t. spokepersons, thus hoping to curb the t. meme, why
> not just design a memetic campaign to make their
> meme's ineffective? That is, make an antibody.
> (something like Eva mentioned, a while back)
Because I dont know how.
>5) other's I have forgotten
Still, even if you dont agree with the killing meme surely you
must admit that its not really so black and white that this is a bad
idea.
Tony