On 9 Nov 2003 13:38:02 -0800, dan@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) in
sci.cognitive wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fad5e68.14864720@netnews.att.net>...


I usually find myself much too busy trying to iron out my own ideas to
spend much time worrying about what other crackpots are up to. If
theories are wrong or short sighted I don't see much point to
debugging them for others who can't see what the problem is. But when
the hue and cry of crackpot and kook are raised there would seem to be
some definite attempt at hysterical intimidation. And I don't see
anyone as qualified to do that apart from religious authorities and
teenage girls in Salem.


Actually, Lester, it's not so much the theory, which is easy to
bypass, as the obsessiveness in ramming it down everyone else's
throats. That's what the 8,000 posts are really about. It's really a
bore - and worse, it's used as a technique to disrupt interesting
discussions. Lord, there are so many other interesting things to talk
about.

What I haven't been able to figure out is why he isn't over posting
8,000 times on sci.cognitive pushing his anti-cognitive stance. I
always figured it was because you guys won't even take the time to
listen to him - being mainly non-behaviorist psychologists [I
presume]. On c.a.p., he's just harassing mainly non-psychologists
needlessly.

Well this is a very interesting and reasonable post. It seems rather
incongruous mostly because DL occasionally but not often enters
discussions here and has always conducted himself quite reasonably
albeit from a very doctrinaire behaviorist perspective. Who knows?

Personally I've encountered my share of flame throwers even on
interesting threads but I don't find it matters very much. However
since I'm not a regular poster to cap I'm not going to take further
issue with the problem. I still think that terms like crackpot and
kook don't become serious posters, but that's up to you guys. He's a
big boy so I'm sure DL can look after himself.

I have no idea why he conducts himself differently on different
groups. The fact is that despite the name, sci.cognitive has its own
not inconsiderable community of behaviorists. I'm not one of them and
for that matter I'm not a cogsci either from what little I can tell of
their perspective on scientific approaches to cognition. I mainly try
to concentrate on explanations and leave the doctrines to others.

But I appreciate the information which I take at face value subject to
correction. Personally I only have a peripheral interest in most
conventional approaches to ai. However for what it's worth I would
like to re emphasize that I've never had occasion to resort to name
calling. I have had occasion to become hyperbolic and even hyperbolic
but by and large character assassination is not my style. (Yes, I'm
sure this will bring on paroxysisms of derisive laughter.)



Regards - Lester

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
news:<3faebd61.27040755@netnews.att.net>...
On 9 Nov 2003 13:38:02 -0800, dan@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) in
sci.cognitive wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
news:<3fad5e68.14864720@netnews.att.net>...


I usually find myself much too busy trying to iron out my own ideas
to
spend much time worrying about what other crackpots are up to. If
theories are wrong or short sighted I don't see much point to
debugging them for others who can't see what the problem is. But when
the hue and cry of crackpot and kook are raised there would seem to
be
some definite attempt at hysterical intimidation. And I don't see
anyone as qualified to do that apart from religious authorities and
teenage girls in Salem.


Actually, Lester, it's not so much the theory, which is easy to
bypass, as the obsessiveness in ramming it down everyone else's
throats. That's what the 8,000 posts are really about. It's really a
bore - and worse, it's used as a technique to disrupt interesting
discussions. Lord, there are so many other interesting things to talk
about.

What I haven't been able to figure out is why he isn't over posting
8,000 times on sci.cognitive pushing his anti-cognitive stance. I
always figured it was because you guys won't even take the time to
listen to him - being mainly non-behaviorist psychologists [I
presume]. On c.a.p., he's just harassing mainly non-psychologists
needlessly.

Well this is a very interesting and reasonable post. It seems rather
incongruous mostly because DL occasionally but not often enters
discussions here and has always conducted himself quite reasonably
albeit from a very doctrinaire behaviorist perspective. Who knows?

Personally I've encountered my share of flame throwers even on
interesting threads but I don't find it matters very much. However
since I'm not a regular poster to cap I'm not going to take further
issue with the problem. I still think that terms like crackpot and
kook don't become serious posters, but that's up to you guys. He's a
big boy so I'm sure DL can look after himself.

I have no idea why he conducts himself differently on different
groups. The fact is that despite the name, sci.cognitive has its own
not inconsiderable community of behaviorists. I'm not one of them and
for that matter I'm not a cogsci either from what little I can tell of
their perspective on scientific approaches to cognition. I mainly try
to concentrate on explanations and leave the doctrines to others.

But I appreciate the information which I take at face value subject to
correction. Personally I only have a peripheral interest in most
conventional approaches to ai. However for what it's worth I would
like to re emphasize that I've never had occasion to resort to name
calling. I have had occasion to become hyperbolic and even hyperbolic

but by and large character assassination is not my style. (Yes, I'm
sure this will bring on paroxysisms of derisive laughter.)



Regards - Lester


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?

DM: 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?

GS: Please note that Dan criticizes only Longley for this. Many of those
that heap the abuse on David are embraced as cohorts. This is
part-and-parcel of Michaels' dishonest, sycophantic way.

"dan michaels" <dan@oricomtech.com> wrote in message

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
news:<3faebd61.27040755@netnews.att.net>...
On 9 Nov 2003 13:38:02 -0800, dan@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) in
sci.cognitive wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
news:<3fad5e68.14864720@netnews.att.net>...


I usually find myself much too busy trying to iron out my own ideas to
spend much time worrying about what other crackpots are up to. If
theories are wrong or short sighted I don't see much point to
debugging them for others who can't see what the problem is. But when
the hue and cry of crackpot and kook are raised there would seem to be
some definite attempt at hysterical intimidation. And I don't see
anyone as qualified to do that apart from religious authorities and
teenage girls in Salem.


Actually, Lester, it's not so much the theory, which is easy to
bypass, as the obsessiveness in ramming it down everyone else's
throats. That's what the 8,000 posts are really about. It's really a
bore - and worse, it's used as a technique to disrupt interesting
discussions. Lord, there are so many other interesting things to talk
about.

What I haven't been able to figure out is why he isn't over posting
8,000 times on sci.cognitive pushing his anti-cognitive stance. I
always figured it was because you guys won't even take the time to
listen to him - being mainly non-behaviorist psychologists [I
presume]. On c.a.p., he's just harassing mainly non-psychologists
needlessly.

Well this is a very interesting and reasonable post. It seems rather
incongruous mostly because DL occasionally but not often enters
discussions here and has always conducted himself quite reasonably
albeit from a very doctrinaire behaviorist perspective. Who knows?

Personally I've encountered my share of flame throwers even on
interesting threads but I don't find it matters very much. However
since I'm not a regular poster to cap I'm not going to take further
issue with the problem. I still think that terms like crackpot and
kook don't become serious posters, but that's up to you guys. He's a
big boy so I'm sure DL can look after himself.

I have no idea why he conducts himself differently on different
groups. The fact is that despite the name, sci.cognitive has its own
not inconsiderable community of behaviorists. I'm not one of them and
for that matter I'm not a cogsci either from what little I can tell of
their perspective on scientific approaches to cognition. I mainly try
to concentrate on explanations and leave the doctrines to others.

But I appreciate the information which I take at face value subject to
correction. Personally I only have a peripheral interest in most
conventional approaches to ai. However for what it's worth I would
like to re emphasize that I've never had occasion to resort to name
calling. I have had occasion to become hyperbolic and even hyperbolic
but by and large character assassination is not my style. (Yes, I'm
sure this will bring on paroxysisms of derisive laughter.)



Regards - Lester


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?

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6db40c52c9dbdc90a5586babdd291222@news.teranews.com...
DM: 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?

GS: Please note that Dan criticizes only Longley for this. Many of those
that heap the abuse on David are embraced as cohorts. This is
part-and-parcel of Michaels' dishonest, sycophantic way.

Name another that posts thousands of posts on the same subject, trying to
convince the usenet world that neuroscientits are idiots and full of
nonsense, while telling all that his way is *the* way to observe/explain
the
world.


"dan michaels" <dan@oricomtech.com> wrote in message

Me. Your point?
"OmegaZero2003" <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e44ccdefe8c146c2cf0d1499d3bfde23@news.teranews.com...

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6db40c52c9dbdc90a5586babdd291222@news.teranews.com...
DM: 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?

GS: Please note that Dan criticizes only Longley for this. Many of
those
that heap the abuse on David are embraced as cohorts. This is
part-and-parcel of Michaels' dishonest, sycophantic way.

Name another that posts thousands of posts on the same subject, trying
to
convince the usenet world that neuroscientits are idiots and full of
nonsense, while telling all that his way is *the* way to observe/explain
the
world.


"dan michaels" <dan@oricomtech.com> wrote in message

"dan michaels" <dan@oricomtech.com> wrote in message
news:4b4b6093.0311110813.2c23b49@posting.google.com...
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
news:<3faebd61.27040755@netnews.att.net>...
On 9 Nov 2003 13:38:02 -0800, dan@oricomtech.com (dan michaels) in
sci.cognitive wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message
news:<3fad5e68.14864720@netnews.att.net>...


I usually find myself much too busy trying to iron out my own ideas
to
spend much time worrying about what other crackpots are up to. If
theories are wrong or short sighted I don't see much point to
debugging them for others who can't see what the problem is. But when
the hue and cry of crackpot and kook are raised there would seem to
be
some definite attempt at hysterical intimidation. And I don't see
anyone as qualified to do that apart from religious authorities and
teenage girls in Salem.


Actually, Lester, it's not so much the theory, which is easy to
bypass, as the obsessiveness in ramming it down everyone else's
throats. That's what the 8,000 posts are really about. It's really a
bore - and worse, it's used as a technique to disrupt interesting
discussions. Lord, there are so many other interesting things to talk
about.

What I haven't been able to figure out is why he isn't over posting
8,000 times on sci.cognitive pushing his anti-cognitive stance. I
always figured it was because you guys won't even take the time to
listen to him - being mainly non-behaviorist psychologists [I
presume]. On c.a.p., he's just harassing mainly non-psychologists
needlessly.

Well this is a very interesting and reasonable post. It seems rather
incongruous mostly because DL occasionally but not often enters
discussions here and has always conducted himself quite reasonably
albeit from a very doctrinaire behaviorist perspective. Who knows?

Personally I've encountered my share of flame throwers even on
interesting threads but I don't find it matters very much. However
since I'm not a regular poster to cap I'm not going to take further
issue with the problem. I still think that terms like crackpot and
kook don't become serious posters, but that's up to you guys. He's a
big boy so I'm sure DL can look after himself.

I have no idea why he conducts himself differently on different
groups. The fact is that despite the name, sci.cognitive has its own
not inconsiderable community of behaviorists. I'm not one of them and
for that matter I'm not a cogsci either from what little I can tell of
their perspective on scientific approaches to cognition. I mainly try
to concentrate on explanations and leave the doctrines to others.

But I appreciate the information which I take at face value subject to
correction. Personally I only have a peripheral interest in most
conventional approaches to ai. However for what it's worth I would
like to re emphasize that I've never had occasion to resort to name
calling. I have had occasion to become hyperbolic and even hyperbolic

As long as it isn't hyperbaric!

The pressure would be too great!

;^)


but by and large character assassination is not my style. (Yes, I'm
sure this will bring on paroxysisms of derisive laughter.)



Regards - Lester


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?

Send him to a psychologist that speaks neuroscience-ease!

;^)

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6db40c52c9dbdc90a5586babdd291222@news.teranews.com...
DM: 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?

GS: Please note that Dan criticizes only Longley for this. Many of those
that heap the abuse on David are embraced as cohorts. This is
part-and-parcel of Michaels' dishonest, sycophantic way.

Name another that posts thousands of posts on the same subject, trying to
convince the usenet world that neuroscientits are idiots and full of
nonsense, while telling all that his way is *the* way to observe/explain the
world.

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 -

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.

"OmegaZero2003" <OmegaZero2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<e44ccdefe8c146c2cf0d1499d3bfde23@news.teranews.com>...
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6db40c52c9dbdc90a5586babdd291222@news.teranews.com...
DM: 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?

GS: Please note that Dan criticizes only Longley for this. Many of those
that heap the abuse on David are embraced as cohorts. This is
part-and-parcel of Michaels' dishonest, sycophantic way.

Name another that posts thousands of posts on the same subject, trying to
convince the usenet world that neuroscientits are idiots and full of
nonsense, while telling all that his way is *the* way to observe/explain the
world.


GS has a definite trouble discriminating cause and effect.

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&l
r=&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


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.

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

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.

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?

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