> > Good. Now I'm willing to bet there is no /significant/ difference
> > between what you were trying to communicate in the above paragraph
> > and my understanding of it. Would you agree?
>
> I don't know. I'm not sure that its even a knowable question, in
> fact. It goes beyond just the raw informational content of the intent
> that led to the above words, to how they're spawning memes that are
> engaged differently in your memesphere than mine.
I didn't ask if you know with certainty. I'm asking if it is a reasonable
assumption. Hint: the fact that you are responding coherently implies
that you do whether you admit it or not.
> I refer you to Eva's previous reply on this thread that mentioned that
> when the protocol is effective, when the memes interpreted are close
> to the ones intended, the protocol is easily overlooked, its when
I'm not saying we should ignore the protocol. I'm objecting to how
you bring the discussion to a halt every time the protocol is
assumed to be working reasonably well. It is very frustrating to
try to have a discussion when one of the participants asserts that
we might not be communicating after every statement.
Gotta go, I'll reply to the rest later.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/