Hm. Well, what is the goal of communication? Is it the activity
   of communication itself? A purpose behind the communication?
   What purpose? === I personally don't find quotes or memes
   generally persuasive when someone is making a point, nor do I
   find them seductive. I give value to novelty, or at least a
   sense of novelty. Memes and quoting others have the sense of
   plagiarism to me when in a discussion, lifting someone else's
   words or ideas for one's own purposes which may (and often is)
   unrelated to the intent of the original author. Even if it
   *does* fall in line with original intent, since the person I'm
   writing with is presumably there, and the one being quoted
   (and/or the creator of the original meme) ISN'T, it feels as if
   I'm talking to no one. Yet eloquence, original formulations,
   persuasiveness customized to the situation at hand - those
   things impress me. = Of course - and there is validity at times
   for source material - I enjoy source material for further
   research at times. Yet, when conversing, I find hearing the
   paraphrase - or even the original quotes *through the lens* of
   the person I'm speaking to, quite valuable. I find it
   persuasive. I find it effective. When one goes "straight to the
   source" constantly, it feels as if they are saying, "Well, you
   don't believe me? Listen to my dad! He'll tell you when he gets
   home from work!" - in short, appealing to authority figures
   rather than at least attempting to stand alone. == Compare: "It
   is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
   thought without accepting it." - Aristotle vs When Aristotle
   says, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
   entertain a thought without accepting it.", it relates to our
   conversation as follows: point 1) point 2) point 3) and then
   continuing from there with persuasive techniques that may or may
   not be related to the quote. When the quote stands alone, naked,
   it's akin to someone who speaks in Bible verses without context,
   presuming the listener will interpret precisely as intended.
   Perhaps this is effective for some, but I've never found it to
   be so. == Oh memes are very effective at their 'viral-ness' and
   popularity value - ; I love memes. I've even engaged in a number
   of conversations that were solely memes exchanged. A meme can
   contain a concept very compactly. But like all things, there's a
   time and place. == Oh you're right of course. I've sometimes
   left a meme to stand alone and see what happens. But I'm
   thinking in terms of back-and-forth conversation. At times, it's
   good for its own sake - yet haven't you ever been in a
   copy/paste conversation? A conversation where somebody is
   repeating the same phrases and points like a hammer over and
   over, expecting different results upon teh repetition? == Well,
   consider: a) these are conversations. b) conversations are among
   humans (presumably) c) communication involves the same
   skillsets: thinking, formulating something to say/show,
   filtering, sending, transmitting, receiving, filtering,
   formulating something to respond with, and so forth. d) a virus
   is an life-like creature that injects bacteria with its RNA e)
   something that is viral in memes is not a life-like creature
   that injects bacteria with its RNA. f) meme viralness is a
   metaphor, an analogy to physical systems. g) analogies are
   rhetorical devices, designed to convince. They are so effective
   at times, they can be nearly instantly understood and yet, can
   remain entirely wrong or partially so, without any realization
   of the receiver OR the transmitter. h) Yet, despite their
   similarities to biological virii, they remain in the realm of
   communication and conversation. I don't have a final point
   really. Sorry smile emoticon == Oh! Here it is: All
   analogies/metaphors fall under viral. Our very memories are
   FORMED via analogizing and comparing/contrasting with novel
   input. Therefore: the only distinction between a meme or a
   repeated quote versus producing one's "own words" - is this:
   Novelty. == Standard definition of novelty work fine here: "the
   quality of being new, original, or unusual." Unusual. When
   someone is "speaking for themselves" or quoting someone while
   placing it in a conversational context, they are providing
   something unusual, even if it is not new, even if it is not
   original. This greatly improves its rhetorical weight. At least
   for me. == That sounds utterly ridiculous, James. If you spend
   10 years studying others, you've been formed by their thoughts
   and likely then less CAPABLE of formulating your own original
   thoughts. == How broad are you using "studying" though? We study
   people from the time we're born. We analyze, critique, digest,
   contradict, argue and agree with the people and culture around
   us, including our entertainment, friends, family, school,
   academics, work... ... these are all forms of study. But I sense
   you're speaking of something more formal, yes? ==