"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2ZlWZOGrrwOBFwoP at longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8d8494cf.0409041707.284e5c40 at posting.google.com>, dan
> michaels <feedbackdroids at yahoo.com> writes
> >> How people align themselves in their public responses to the above
> >> assertion can, I suggest, be taken as a fair, pragmatic & extensional
> >> indicator of their scientific acumen.
> >
> >
> >Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the
> >pig. Have you learned nothing. If 10,000 repetitions of the same
> >matter doesn't do it, will 100,000? Oscillate on.
>> At this point (and given the original post), the cognoscenti
Which excludes you of course...
>may ask why
> Michaels (and others like him) invariably "thinks that" what's posted
> here is ever written for his specific benefit or enlightenment.
What we also ask is whether you have availed yourself of the countless
opportunities to learn something about cog. neurosci. or AI over the months
that direction has been provided you?
> --
> David Longley
>http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Sm-97apr.pdf>http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Workj97.pdf
