In article <413dd047.33246015 at netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:33:44 +0100, David Longley
><David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>[. . .]
>>>As I recently remarked in reference to Zick's similar nonsense, this is
>>an illustration of "intensional opacity" par excellence, and it's why
>>I've made so much of it here in c.a.p. (and at times actively
>>cross-posted to bionet.neuroscience and sci.cognitive to draw further
>>attention to the matter).
>>Actually, David, all you and Glen have done is behave like a pair of
>braying jackasses uttering astonishment that others treat you with
>contempt. It's no wonder it took you thirty years to realize that the
>only talent you offered behavioral science was as beasts of burden.
>>Regards - Lester
This is getting very tiresome.
It's very difficult not to assess your posts as evidence of pathology,
as for some considerable time now, Glen, I and others have patiently
corrected many of your obvious falsehoods and misunderstandings. We've
explained how terms are used, some of what's actually done in
behavioural science and neuroscience, and how such research may bear on
the philosophy of "AI". To this end we have provided extracts and web
links so that you and others can find independent corroborative evidence
for what's been said, ie so that you *don't* have to rely exclusively on
our authority. We've also explained what we think is wrong with
alternative, popular views - again supported by links and references -
often to empirical studies.
In response, you've ignored what's been provided, carried on posting
inane diatribes and ignorant abuse, and treated all efforts to
educate/correct you as just personal attacks, rather than as healthy,
constructive criticism from people better informed than yourself. The
fact is that you have no background knowledge in any of the relevant
matters, and like Michaels and several others here, you don't appear to
know how to (or want to) rectify that. Instead, you behave as if it's OK
just to fabricate (by both commission and omission) whatever, hold it as
"true" and do so with impunity. This appears to be largely a
Your (odd) behaviour) is, in my view, worth drawing public attention to
if only for vicarious purposes given what I've said in the past about
how intensional opacity blights our folk psychology.
You and other incorrigibles like you should consider migrating over to
talk.bizarre where it doesn't seem to matter *what* anyone writes about,
or whether any it makes sense to themselves or anyone else. What you
appear to want isn't educated or informed discussion but social contact
with other similarly disposed "lexical-flappers".