On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:57:54 +0100, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>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.
Yes, yes, I quite understand. What I don't quite understand is why you
continue and yet continue to complain.
>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.
Good. Please continue. It's about time someone shed some light on the
mind. Behaviorism has only shrouded the subject in darkness.
>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".
Why else would I be talking to you and Glen?
Regards - Lester