| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:15 pm Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
 |
|
On 11 Nov 2003 19:29:47 -0800, dan@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
[quote]David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<sSAkFvM2JRs$EwQ8@longley.demon.co.uk>...
His obsessive behavior certainly amounts to harassment, by any
definition. If you check the listings on google, you>ll see he
responds dozens of times a day to what seems like every other post
made by someone else. His name-calling is becoming his trademark. It>s
truly an interminable bore. How do you deal with such obsessive
behavior? Court order? ICBM? One way ticket to Brighton?
Excuse me - are you referring to my critical responses to your obnoxious
and egregious lies and distortions? Initially, it was Glen Sizemore who
was your bete noir -
Prior to 1 Sept 2003, GS was by far the most verbally-abusive person I
have ever seen on the internet - esp regards anyone using their true
name. Go back and look at his many 100s of previous posts, prior to
that time. However, his conduct has been much more professional since
then. And good for him. [I assume he is still holding course - but I
don>t read his posts].
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:gmsizemore2%40yahoo.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&start=40&sa=N
Longley has constantly engaged in nasty attacks on literally 100s of
other people over many years - including much name-calling. Longley is
a serial harasser.
Longley Citation Statistics [8 years and counting]
--------------------------------------------------
folk psychology [derogatorily] over 1400 times
Quine [glowingly] in over 1800 posts
silly [regarding others' ideas] over 400 times
Skinner [in awe] in over 800 posts
behaviorism [as accepted dogma] in over 500 posts
[pernicious] mentalism over 100 times
[pernicious] cognitivism over 250 times
intensional [as wrongish] over 1600 times
extensional [as correctish] over 1850 times
truth [as in "behaviorists know what it is"] over 1400 times
truth functional [pedagogically] over 400 times
nonsense [as in accusing others of] over 500 times
[calling others] ignorant over 250 times
[calling others] arrogant over 100 times
[calling others an] idiot over 120 times
frag.html [self-promotion] over 300 times
lying [regards others' behavior] over 100 times
[forms of] misrepresent... [regards others words] only 50 times so far
[/quote]
I>m just curious but how did you come up with these statistics?
[quote]
Just try to find anyone else I have had a real argument with. You will
not. Try to understand cause and effect on c.a.p.
[/quote]
Regards - Lester |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
David Longley
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
In article <3fb25cab.72998532@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
[quote]On 11 Nov 2003 19:29:47 -0800, dan@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<sSAkFvM2JRs$EwQ8@longley.demon.co.uk>...
His obsessive behavior certainly amounts to harassment, by any
definition. If you check the listings on google, you>ll see he
responds dozens of times a day to what seems like every other post
made by someone else. His name-calling is becoming his trademark. It>s
truly an interminable bore. How do you deal with such obsessive
behavior? Court order? ICBM? One way ticket to Brighton?
Excuse me - are you referring to my critical responses to your obnoxious
and egregious lies and distortions? Initially, it was Glen Sizemore who
was your bete noir -
Prior to 1 Sept 2003, GS was by far the most verbally-abusive person I
have ever seen on the internet - esp regards anyone using their true
name. Go back and look at his many 100s of previous posts, prior to
that time. However, his conduct has been much more professional since
then. And good for him. [I assume he is still holding course - but I
don>t read his posts].
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:gmsizemore2%40yahoo.com&hl=en&
lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&start=40&sa=N
Longley has constantly engaged in nasty attacks on literally 100s of
other people over many years - including much name-calling. Longley is
a serial harasser.
Longley Citation Statistics [8 years and counting]
--------------------------------------------------
folk psychology [derogatorily] over 1400 times
Quine [glowingly] in over 1800 posts
silly [regarding others' ideas] over 400 times
Skinner [in awe] in over 800 posts
behaviorism [as accepted dogma] in over 500 posts
[pernicious] mentalism over 100 times
[pernicious] cognitivism over 250 times
intensional [as wrongish] over 1600 times
extensional [as correctish] over 1850 times
truth [as in "behaviorists know what it is"] over 1400 times
truth functional [pedagogically] over 400 times
nonsense [as in accusing others of] over 500 times
[calling others] ignorant over 250 times
[calling others] arrogant over 100 times
[calling others an] idiot over 120 times
frag.html [self-promotion] over 300 times
lying [regards others' behavior] over 100 times
[forms of] misrepresent... [regards others words] only 50 times so far
I>m just curious but how did you come up with these statistics?
[/quote]
Odd isn>t it - he seems a bit obsessive to me.
[quote]
Just try to find anyone else I have had a real argument with. You will
not. Try to understand cause and effect on c.a.p.
Regards - Lester
[/quote]
--
David Longley |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Longley
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:17 am Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
In article <3fb28005_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, JGCasey
<kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> writes
[quote]
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3u2iqaEtffs$Ewxz@longley.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
After initially treating their sources as having just misunderstood or
mis-quoted by accident, I have then become very critical after having
provided the correct information verbatim and yet seen the same lies
and distortions perpetuated nevertheless.
I don>t think that your "correct information" was assimilated
as such by the recipient. I suspect that it really is a case of
not understanding (or agreeing) with your world view.
[snip]
David Longley
[/quote]
If I said that Skinner published an influential book called "Beyond
Freedom and Dignity" in 1971, and in response someone said "no he
didn>t, he wrote a load of old horseshit and he was a fascist", I
wouldn>t call that a difference in "World View".
If I said that the Operant technology produced by Radical Behaviorists
is used all over the world in both academia and industry and is the most
reliable and useful contribution made by psychologists in the last 100
years, and someone said "no it isn>t it>s just a bunch of rats and
pigeons doing tricks on in cages", I wouldn>t call that a difference in
"World View".
I>d initially say those people were "incorrect" or "misinformed" and
should do some remedial reading before making those statements again -
because what they said was FALSE. In unguarded, less urbane moments I
might tell them that they>re "arrogant idiots" whilst encouraging them
to look up the word "idiot" and I>d explain that whilst they were
entitled to have their own opinions and world views, they weren>t
entitled to say those views were TRUE.
Call it care in the community.
--
David Longley |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
OmegaZero2003
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:23 am Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BYdPXIDBdos$EwFN@longley.demon.co.uk...
[quote]In article <3fb28005_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, JGCasey
kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> writes
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3u2iqaEtffs$Ewxz@longley.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
After initially treating their sources as having just misunderstood or
mis-quoted by accident, I have then become very critical after having
provided the correct information verbatim and yet seen the same lies
and distortions perpetuated nevertheless.
I don>t think that your "correct information" was assimilated
as such by the recipient. I suspect that it really is a case of
not understanding (or agreeing) with your world view.
[snip]
David Longley
If I said that Skinner published an influential book called "Beyond
Freedom and Dignity" in 1971, and in response someone said "no he
didn>t, he wrote a load of old horseshit and he was a fascist", I
wouldn>t call that a difference in "World View".
If I said that the Operant technology produced by Radical Behaviorists
is used all over the world in both academia and industry and is the most
reliable and useful contribution made by psychologists in the last 100
years, and someone said "no it isn>t it>s just a bunch of rats and
pigeons doing tricks on in cages", I wouldn>t call that a difference in
"World View".
I>d initially say those people were "incorrect" or "misinformed" and
should do some remedial reading before making those statements again -
because what they said was FALSE. In unguarded, less urbane moments I
might tell them that they>re "arrogant idiots" whilst encouraging them
to look up the word "idiot" and I>d explain that whilst they were
entitled to have their own opinions and world views, they weren>t
entitled to say those views were TRUE.
Call it care in the community.
[/quote]
Your community of two:
Glen and David singing in a tree - p i s s i n g
One says Love
the other says Behavior
Now there>s nonsense in their cranial matter.
[quote]--
David Longley[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Longley
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:36 am Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
In message <3fb28005_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, JGCasey
<kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> writes
[quote]
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3u2iqaEtffs$Ewxz@longley.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
After initially treating their sources as having just misunderstood or
mis-quoted by accident, I have then become very critical after having
provided the correct information verbatim and yet seen the same lies
and distortions perpetuated nevertheless.
I don>t think that your "correct information" was assimilated
as such by the recipient. I suspect that it really is a case of
not understanding (or agreeing) with your world view.
[snip]
David Longley
[/quote]
One of the main themes approached form a number of perspectives over the
course of many months has been the centrality of language in the
philosophy of AI, and within that the treacherous nature of intensional
contexts.
If I said that Skinner published an influential book called "Beyond
Freedom and Dignity" in 1971, and in response someone said "no he
didn>t, he wrote a load of old horse shit and he was a fascist", I
wouldn>t call that a difference in "World View".
If I said that the Operant technology produced by Radical Behaviorists
is used all over the world in both academia and industry and is the most
reliable and useful contribution made by psychologists in the last 100
years, and someone said "no it isn>t it>s just a bunch of rats and
pigeons doing tricks in cages", I wouldn>t call that a difference in
"World View".
having explained in detail the nature of the problem, and then
demonstrating the problem, I>d initially still be just inclined to tell
those people they were "incorrect" or "misinformed" and should do some
remedial reading before making those statements again - because what
they said was FALSE. I>d also remind them of the centrality of language
in the philosophy of AI and point again to the nature of the intensional
idioms of propositional attitude.
In unguarded, less urbane moments I might tell them that they>re
"arrogant idiots" whilst encouraging them to look up the word "idiot"
and I>d explain that whilst they were entitled to have their own
opinions and "world views", they weren>t entitled to say those views
were TRUE.
Call it care in the community.
--
David Longley
--
David Longley |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
OmegaZero2003
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:43 am Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Lp8dLoEGvos$EwG9@longley.demon.co.uk...
[quote]In message <3fb28005_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, JGCasey
kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> writes
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3u2iqaEtffs$Ewxz@longley.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
After initially treating their sources as having just misunderstood or
mis-quoted by accident, I have then become very critical after having
provided the correct information verbatim and yet seen the same lies
and distortions perpetuated nevertheless.
I don>t think that your "correct information" was assimilated
as such by the recipient. I suspect that it really is a case of
not understanding (or agreeing) with your world view.
[snip]
David Longley
One of the main themes approached form a number of perspectives over the
course of many months has been the centrality of language in the
philosophy of AI, and within that the treacherous nature of intensional
contexts.
[/quote]
Perspectives of no one but you are your sockpuppet. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
OmegaZero2003
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:31 am Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
"JGCasey" <kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:3fb28005_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
[quote]
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3u2iqaEtffs$Ewxz@longley.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
After initially treating their sources as having just misunderstood or
mis-quoted by accident, I have then become very critical after having
provided the correct information verbatim and yet seen the same lies
and distortions perpetuated nevertheless.
I don>t think that your "correct information" was assimilated
as such by the recipient. I suspect that it really is a case of
not understanding (or agreeing) with your world view.
[/quote]
It is a case of understanding and not agreeing entirely with:
1) its important to CAP issues
2) its application to practical progress in the neurosciences; it is
certainly ythe case that progress on all fronst in the neurosciences
(including the cognitive neurosciences) has been made without attending to
the difference between intentional and extensional language idioms.
[quote]
[snip]
David Longley
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
David Longley
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:49 am Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
In message <3fb28005_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, JGCasey
<kjcasey@hotkey.net.au> writes
[quote]
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3u2iqaEtffs$Ewxz@longley.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
After initially treating their sources as having just misunderstood or
mis-quoted by accident, I have then become very critical after having
provided the correct information verbatim and yet seen the same lies
and distortions perpetuated nevertheless.
I don>t think that your "correct information" was assimilated
as such by the recipient. I suspect that it really is a case of
not understanding (or agreeing) with your world view.
[snip]
David Longley
One of the main themes approached from a number of perspectives over the[/quote]
course of many months has been the centrality of language in the
philosophy of AI, and within that, the treacherous nature of intensional
contexts.
If I said that Skinner published an influential book called "Beyond
Freedom and Dignity" in 1971, and in response, someone said "no he
didn>t, he wrote a load of old horse shit and he was a fascist", I
wouldn>t call that a difference in "World View".
If I said that the Operant technology produced by Radical Behaviorists
is used all over the world in both academia and industry and is the most
reliable and useful contribution made by psychologists in the last 100
years, and someone said "no it isn>t it>s just a bunch of rats and
pigeons doing tricks in cages", I wouldn>t call that a difference in
"World View".
Having explained in detail the nature of the problem, and then having
demonstrated the problem by reference to several individuals' specific
newsgroup behaviour, I>d initially still just be inclined to tell those
people that they were "incorrect" or "misinformed", and that they should
do some remedial reading before making those statements again. I>d say
that because what they said was FALSE. I>d also remind them of the
centrality of language in the philosophy of AI and point again to the
nature of the intensional idioms of propositional attitude.
In unguarded, less urbane moments, I might tell them that they>re
"arrogant idiots" whilst encouraging them to look up the word "idiot".
I>d also explain that whilst they were entitled to have their own
opinions and "world views", they weren>t entitled to say that those
views were TRUE.
Call it care in the community.
--
David Longley |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Neil W Rickert
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:22 am Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
[quote]One of the main themes approached from a number of perspectives over the
course of many months has been the centrality of language in the
philosophy of AI, and within that, the treacherous nature of intensional
contexts.
[/quote]
Some foolish philosophers started with the a priori notion that
natural language language works on the basis of logic. This notion
didn>t fit the facts very well. So, in order to protect their theory
of language, they invented the notions of "intension" and
"extension".
It still didn>t fit very well.
Now if these people were scientists, they would have said to
themselves "back to the old drawing board." But because they were
philosophers, and because they had appointed themselves expert in the
field, they instead threw their hands in the air and cried out
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
And Chicken Little Longley has been repeating this silly refrain for
several years. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lester Zick
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:43 am Post subject: Re: On Crackpots and David Longley |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:48:35 +0000, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
[quote]In article <3fb25cab.72998532@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
On 11 Nov 2003 19:29:47 -0800, dan@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) in
sci.cognitive wrote:
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<sSAkFvM2JRs$EwQ8@longley.demon.co.uk>...
His obsessive behavior certainly amounts to harassment, by any
definition. If you check the listings on google, you>ll see he
responds dozens of times a day to what seems like every other post
made by someone else. His name-calling is becoming his trademark. It>s
truly an interminable bore. How do you deal with such obsessive
behavior? Court order? ICBM? One way ticket to Brighton?
Excuse me - are you referring to my critical responses to your obnoxious
and egregious lies and distortions? Initially, it was Glen Sizemore who
was your bete noir -
Prior to 1 Sept 2003, GS was by far the most verbally-abusive person I
have ever seen on the internet - esp regards anyone using their true
name. Go back and look at his many 100s of previous posts, prior to
that time. However, his conduct has been much more professional since
then. And good for him. [I assume he is still holding course - but I
don>t read his posts].
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:gmsizemore2%40yahoo.com&hl=en&
lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&start=40&sa=N
Longley has constantly engaged in nasty attacks on literally 100s of
other people over many years - including much name-calling. Longley is
a serial harasser.
Longley Citation Statistics [8 years and counting]
--------------------------------------------------
folk psychology [derogatorily] over 1400 times
Quine [glowingly] in over 1800 posts
silly [regarding others' ideas] over 400 times
Skinner [in awe] in over 800 posts
behaviorism [as accepted dogma] in over 500 posts
[pernicious] mentalism over 100 times
[pernicious] cognitivism over 250 times
intensional [as wrongish] over 1600 times
extensional [as correctish] over 1850 times
truth [as in "behaviorists know what it is"] over 1400 times
truth functional [pedagogically] over 400 times
nonsense [as in accusing others of] over 500 times
[calling others] ignorant over 250 times
[calling others] arrogant over 100 times
[calling others an] idiot over 120 times
frag.html [self-promotion] over 300 times
lying [regards others' behavior] over 100 times
[forms of] misrepresent... [regards others words] only 50 times so far
I>m just curious but how did you come up with these statistics?
Odd isn>t it - he seems a bit obsessive to me.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. I>m really just curious about the mechanics - whether
Google or other software has parsing and counting capabilities for
phrases. The parenthetical comments are rather droll as well
[quote]
[/quote]
Regards - Lester |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
