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.

--
David Longley

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.

"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

"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

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.

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.