f



Why I'm here, why I'm leaving

I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
to friendly argue with people that think differently. I like
exchanging ideas with people that propose new things, even
"noisy" things. I have been frequently stimulated precisely
by some unortodox ideas, coming from people that think things
that my mind would not spontaneously think. Friendly disagreement
is enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, and often leads
both arguers to an understanding of the subject that no one
had before. It is an opportunity of growth, for both arguers
and most readers.

Friendly disagreement is also an important reminder that
*no one* has the "definitive answers" about anything, that we
all have learning moments, no matter if one is a "specialist",
an "amateur" or just a "novice". Everybody can learn something.

However, the pleasant exchanges and intellectual excitement
of friendly discussions is something that I'm not finding here
in this newsgroup.

Since I've returned to c.a.p., some weeks ago, I have been
surprised by the level of harsh responses and false accusations
directed toward me. In the beginning, I was successful at
ignoring the gratuitous insults, snipping off irrelevant and
unnecessarily sarcastic comments, even if they deserved a
response. My polite education led me to read these messages
trying to filter out their personal aspects. I had tried
several times to redirect discussions toward the relevant
points. Unfortunately, this has been proven unsuccessful and
things got unbearable for me.

Some members of this forum (two or three, and, from these
three, one person above all others) are acting like if they
had something personal against me. That's quite odd,
for no one of them know me personally. In fact, in my personal
relationship environment, I'm known to be an unusually sociable
and affable person. I don't remember of any situation where
I've been insulted like here (and I have participated in quite
a lot of intense debates). I'm not sure what it is, but I guess
it is related to something that I represent.

Nobody likes to be seen as an "idiot", "arrogant", "idjit",
"stupid" and other such "qualifications". Nobody likes to be
accused of having "commercial interests", or "jornalistic
understanding" or "sophomoric ideas". Who can enjoy being
called a "charlatan", "con-man", "plagiarist", and other
false and hurtful innuendoes?

But that's the way I have been treated here.

Instead of arguing, they prefer to attack the person. As I
said, I had tried hard to ignore these attacks, but to no
avail: the more I tried to stick to the point, the more they
were increasingly hurtful, mean and aggressive. Lately,
it's been reached a point where everything I write seems
to be read, mainly by that fellow with a british accent, in
an attempt to find another point to discharge another
round of insults.

Perhaps they are trying to attack some "illusory enemy", a
prototype of the "cognitive evil" that, who knows, caused
someone to lose their job or have missed some important
opportunity. I personally did not provoke anything of the
sort to these guys, but perhaps they think I represent
those who might have done so. I have always tried to be
fair, impartial and friendly, but I have been treated as
if I was an enemy to be fought, and not another voice
with which to argue.

However, things went out of control in the more recent
exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.

I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.

Sergio Navega.



0
snavega (3)
10/9/2004 3:48:24 PM
comp.ai.philosophy 6718 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

33 Replies
928 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 7

"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...
> I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
> to friendly argue with people that think differently.
<snip>
> However, things went out of control in the more recent
> exchanges

Sergio,
I would advise you to focus only on the posts of value in a news group, and 
ignore the bad aspects of this medium.  The anonymity of Internet 
communications allows people to unleash emotions (and sometime psychoses) 
that they would normally keep in check if they were in the presence of 
people.

The answer to this is to wade through the communications, pull out the 
golden nuggets and ignore the rest.  You are not required to post answers to 
every nut that posts a reply to one of your messages.  Probably the most 
important piece of advice I have is this:  Set a filter so that you don't 
even see the posts from people you know will offer you nothing of value (but 
lots of aggravation).  I've done it for a few people.  I'm blissfully 
unaware of their posts unless someone responds to them, and I just ignore 
those posts.

Keep growing, develop a little thicker skin.  Learn from your own past 
reactions and alter the way you deal with this.  It would be a shame to give 
up the benefits of NG communications because you can't adjust to the 
annoying aspects of it.  I very much appreciate your posts and hope you 
benefit from some of mine!
Gary Frank 


0
Gary
10/9/2004 4:26:11 PM
In article <10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>, Sergio Navega 
<snavega@intelliwise.com> writes
>I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
>to friendly argue with people that think differently.

No, you're here to peddle deceptions and to egregiously syphon whatever 
you can at the same time. At no time have you shown any grasp of what 
you have been corrected on, and yet you have made yourself out to be an 
authority in areas where you clearly have no expertise.

> I like
>exchanging ideas with people that propose new things, even
>"noisy" things. I have been frequently stimulated precisely
>by some unortodox ideas, coming from people that think things
>that my mind would not spontaneously think. Friendly disagreement
>is enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, and often leads
>both arguers to an understanding of the subject that no one
>had before. It is an opportunity of growth, for both arguers
>and most readers.

For that to work you need to be honest.

>
>Friendly disagreement is also an important reminder that
>*no one* has the "definitive answers" about anything, that we
>all have learning moments, no matter if one is a "specialist",
>an "amateur" or just a "novice". Everybody can learn something.

Possibly true, but it is simply arrogance for amateurs and novices to 
tell specialists that they know better. Try doing it with your physician 
or dentist!

>
>However, the pleasant exchanges and intellectual excitement
>of friendly discussions is something that I'm not finding here
>in this newsgroup.

That's hardly surprising as you persisted with you arrogant, ignorant 
behaviour even after it had been exposed as such. Rather than learn, you 
argued.

>
>Since I've returned to c.a.p., some weeks ago, I have been
>surprised by the level of harsh responses and false accusations
>directed toward me.

Show where they are false.

> In the beginning, I was successful at
>ignoring the gratuitous insults, snipping off irrelevant and
>unnecessarily sarcastic comments, even if they deserved a
>response. My polite education led me to read these messages
>trying to filter out their personal aspects. I had tried
>several times to redirect discussions toward the relevant
>points. Unfortunately, this has been proven unsuccessful and
>things got unbearable for me.
>
This is an appalling travesty of the facts of the matter. You persisted 
in behaving in an ignorant and dishonest manner despite being corrected 
by two experienced psychologists. Science is not about politeness, it's 
about the ruthless pursuit and preservation of truth. What you do is the 
opposite, and it's contemptible.

>Some members of this forum (two or three, and, from these
>three, one person above all others) are acting like if they
>had something personal against me. That's quite odd,
>for no one of them know me personally. In fact, in my personal
>relationship environment, I'm known to be an unusually sociable
>and affable person.

That may well be the case, and how you behave there is not the issue, at 
least not directly. The issue is what you have posted here, and that 
"affable" behaviour is simply instrumental. It is used as a mask to 
peddle egregious snake-oil.

> I don't remember of any situation where
>I've been insulted like here (and I have participated in quite
>a lot of intense debates). I'm not sure what it is, but I guess
>it is related to something that I represent.

And that's very probably why you have learned to behave the way you do, 
ie because you have behaved that way with relative impunity elsewhere!

>
>Nobody likes to be seen as an "idiot", "arrogant", "idjit",
>"stupid" and other such "qualifications". Nobody likes to be
>accused of having "commercial interests", or "jornalistic
>understanding" or "sophomoric ideas". Who can enjoy being
>called a "charlatan", "con-man", "plagiarist", and other
>false and hurtful innuendoes?
>

You're not supposed to like it. These things have been said because they 
are true and, and you have provided no evidence that they are not.

>But that's the way I have been treated here.

And justly so in my view.

>
>Instead of arguing, they prefer to attack the person. As I
>said, I had tried hard to ignore these attacks, but to no
>avail: the more I tried to stick to the point, the more they
>were increasingly hurtful, mean and aggressive. Lately,
>it's been reached a point where everything I write seems
>to be read, mainly by that fellow with a british accent, in
>an attempt to find another point to discharge another
>round of insults.

No, what you write betrays a total ignorance of the history of 
psychology. The things you have said about radical behaviourism etc are 
just false. If people don't correct such egregious falsehoods they just 
propagate.
>
>Perhaps they are trying to attack some "illusory enemy", a
>prototype of the "cognitive evil" that, who knows, caused
>someone to lose their job or have missed some important
>opportunity. I personally did not provoke anything of the
>sort to these guys, but perhaps they think I represent
>those who might have done so.

You are either unaware of the claptrap you have been writing or you 
don't care that it's claptrap. Either way, it deserves to be pointed out 
for what it is, claptrap.


> I have always tried to be
>fair, impartial and friendly, but I have been treated as
>if I was an enemy to be fought, and not another voice
>with which to argue.

No, to be impartial, you would have had to have known something about 
radical behaviourism. You have shown that you have no conception of 
this, or most of the rest of psychology. This makes you prejudiced 
through omission, ie ignorance. Claiming you are *impartial* when you 
have no understanding of what you are criticising is an egregious, 
disingenuous, quite nefarious use of the word "impartial".

>
>However, things went out of control in the more recent
>exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
>terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
>happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
>of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
>angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
>affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.

In other words, you'll try and peddle your snake-oil somewhere else.
You behave like a double-glazing salesman!
>
>I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
>I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>
>Sergio Navega.
>

There's nothing unfair about it. You haven't shown any of it to be 
unfair. You've just asserted that it is. You might as well have asserted 
that you're the Virgin Mary!

-- 
David Longley
0
David
10/9/2004 4:31:03 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> writes:

>I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
>to friendly argue with people that think differently.

That's also why I participate.

>However, the pleasant exchanges and intellectual excitement
>of friendly discussions is something that I'm not finding here
>in this newsgroup.

The discussion do appear to be in a rut.

Still, judicious use of a killfile can greatly improve the signal to
noise ratio.

>Since I've returned to c.a.p., some weeks ago, I have been
>surprised by the level of harsh responses and false accusations
>directed toward me.

Unfortunately there is a small group of posters who are not in the
least interested in the kind of free discussion you desire.  They seem
intent on maximally interfering with the free flow of ideas.

But only rigidly dogmatic fools are afraid of free and open
discussion.  You don't need to pay attention to them.  Add them to
your killfile.

>Some members of this forum (two or three, and, from these
>three, one person above all others) are acting like if they
>had something personal against me.

They find you threatening, because you dare to challenge their
ignorant and dogmatic views.  But pay them no attention.  They are
well recognized as nuts and crackpots.  Their defamatory remarks
won't be taken seriously.

>Nobody likes to be seen as an "idiot", "arrogant", "idjit",
>"stupid" and other such "qualifications". Nobody likes to be

You should take that terminology, when coming from DL, as an
indication that you are discussing relevant and important ideas that
DL finds threatening to his own ignorant dogmas.

Don't be offended by such comments.  Treat them as positive
feedback.  And don't waste your time responding -- that only
encourages the abusers.

>I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.

I hope you will continue to contribute.

>I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.

You can cut the time waste by reading the group less frequently, by
killfiling the abusers, and by being selective as to which threads
and posters you read.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFBaCFWvmGe70vHPUMRAlfdAKDvkW+TVRCrONpTtiJ71YhevKri/QCgsOyd
uGjKYaBAW/P1EkRFNjHZELI=
=AOLU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
 vote for regime change in Washington, Nov 02.

0
Neil
10/9/2004 5:35:23 PM
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:MrK4ltLHJBaBFwdK@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>, Sergio Navega 
> <snavega@intelliwise.com> writes
>>I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
>>to friendly argue with people that think differently.
>
> No, you're here to peddle deceptions and to egregiously syphon whatever 
> you can at the same time. At no time have you shown any grasp of what you 
> have been corrected on, and yet you have made yourself out to be an 
> authority in areas where you clearly have no expertise.
>

Longley, you are not in a position to evaluate anyone's expertise.
You have nothing worthwhile to say. That has been your history on
c.a.p. which you will never escape because you are flawed and only
newcomers to this group briefly think you are human or mildly bright.

I think Sergio's mistake was to be too polite to you. There is no
courtesy requirement for dumb vicious animals.  Nobody at all is going
to miss you. Sergio is capable of contributing thought provoking ideas
which is completely beyond your hohum, feeble repetitious chanting.


0
Stephen
10/9/2004 5:54:02 PM
In article <ZAV9d.27086$QJ3.14343@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Stephen 
Harris <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> writes
>
>"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MrK4ltLHJBaBFwdK@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>, Sergio Navega
>> <snavega@intelliwise.com> writes
>>>I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
>>>to friendly argue with people that think differently.
>>
>> No, you're here to peddle deceptions and to egregiously syphon whatever
>> you can at the same time. At no time have you shown any grasp of what you
>> have been corrected on, and yet you have made yourself out to be an
>> authority in areas where you clearly have no expertise.
>>
>
>Longley, you are not in a position to evaluate anyone's expertise.
>You have nothing worthwhile to say. That has been your history on
>c.a.p. which you will never escape because you are flawed and only
>newcomers to this group briefly think you are human or mildly bright.
>
Who are you to say that I am not in a position to evaluate peoples' 
expertise? All you're doing is saying that *you* don't like what I've 
said. That doesn't surprise me as I've said that you don't know what 
you're talking about either. You're supposed to try to learn from that!

>I think Sergio's mistake was to be too polite to you.

So what? You're just showing that you're not very "bright". He hasn't 
provided any refuting evidence and neither have you. You peddle 
inconsequential rhetoric and you're seduced by inconsequential rhetoric.

> There is no
>courtesy requirement for dumb vicious animals.  Nobody at all is going
>to miss you. Sergio is capable of contributing thought provoking ideas
>which is completely beyond your hohum, feeble repetitious chanting.

He hasn't produced anything other than muddled thinking and 
entertainment,  and I suspect you probably can't tell the difference 
between that and scientific fact any better than he can. That's why he 
was here, and that's probably the only reason why you're here as well.

One reason why "AI" is brain dead is because of the way that people like 
yourself, Navega, Rickert etc think/write. None of you question you 
assumptions and all of you resent anyone else instructing you to do so. 
Until you learn the importance of doing so, you won't understand what 
the philosophy of anything is, all you'll do is keep reporting on your 
own states of ignorance, demanding that these be treated as respectable 
points of view and petulantly stamping your feet as you do above when 
it's pointed out that you're peddling a load of bullshit.
-- 
David Longley
0
David
10/9/2004 6:03:24 PM
Sergio, an alternative is http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/psychefaq.html 
with two moderated lists (not focussing on AI though):

" PSYCHE-B: Areas of discussion appropriate for Psyche-B, where the 
focus is on research issues from an empirical point-of-view, include the 
following:

A) What directions in research are suggested by theory? What questions 
are ripe for research?

B) What can we put our hands on? How can the neural (or other) 
correlates of consciousness be operationally defined and tested?

C) What research has been done, and what does it contribute to our 
understanding with reference to our definition of the problem? "

*and*

"PSYCHE-D: Areas of discussion appropriate for Psyche-D, where the focus 
is on theory related issues, include the following:


A) How do we define consciousness? In the broader sense, what natural 
phenomena are we trying to understand? What needs to be explained, and 
why?

B) What theoretical approaches are being offered in the study of 
consciousness, and how do they contribute to our understanding 
withreference to our definition of the problem?

C) Just how big is this problem, and why?

Feel free to draw from research, but focus on what it means for theory, 
not on issues of research methodology."

*****

Kind regards,
JPL



"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...
> I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
> to friendly argue with people that think differently. I like
> exchanging ideas with people that propose new things, even
> "noisy" things. I have been frequently stimulated precisely
> by some unortodox ideas, coming from people that think things
> that my mind would not spontaneously think. Friendly disagreement
> is enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, and often leads
> both arguers to an understanding of the subject that no one
> had before. It is an opportunity of growth, for both arguers
> and most readers.
>
> Friendly disagreement is also an important reminder that
> *no one* has the "definitive answers" about anything, that we
> all have learning moments, no matter if one is a "specialist",
> an "amateur" or just a "novice". Everybody can learn something.
>
> However, the pleasant exchanges and intellectual excitement
> of friendly discussions is something that I'm not finding here
> in this newsgroup.
>
> Since I've returned to c.a.p., some weeks ago, I have been
> surprised by the level of harsh responses and false accusations
> directed toward me. In the beginning, I was successful at
> ignoring the gratuitous insults, snipping off irrelevant and
> unnecessarily sarcastic comments, even if they deserved a
> response. My polite education led me to read these messages
> trying to filter out their personal aspects. I had tried
> several times to redirect discussions toward the relevant
> points. Unfortunately, this has been proven unsuccessful and
> things got unbearable for me.
>
> Some members of this forum (two or three, and, from these
> three, one person above all others) are acting like if they
> had something personal against me. That's quite odd,
> for no one of them know me personally. In fact, in my personal
> relationship environment, I'm known to be an unusually sociable
> and affable person. I don't remember of any situation where
> I've been insulted like here (and I have participated in quite
> a lot of intense debates). I'm not sure what it is, but I guess
> it is related to something that I represent.
>
> Nobody likes to be seen as an "idiot", "arrogant", "idjit",
> "stupid" and other such "qualifications". Nobody likes to be
> accused of having "commercial interests", or "jornalistic
> understanding" or "sophomoric ideas". Who can enjoy being
> called a "charlatan", "con-man", "plagiarist", and other
> false and hurtful innuendoes?
>
> But that's the way I have been treated here.
>
> Instead of arguing, they prefer to attack the person. As I
> said, I had tried hard to ignore these attacks, but to no
> avail: the more I tried to stick to the point, the more they
> were increasingly hurtful, mean and aggressive. Lately,
> it's been reached a point where everything I write seems
> to be read, mainly by that fellow with a british accent, in
> an attempt to find another point to discharge another
> round of insults.
>
> Perhaps they are trying to attack some "illusory enemy", a
> prototype of the "cognitive evil" that, who knows, caused
> someone to lose their job or have missed some important
> opportunity. I personally did not provoke anything of the
> sort to these guys, but perhaps they think I represent
> those who might have done so. I have always tried to be
> fair, impartial and friendly, but I have been treated as
> if I was an enemy to be fought, and not another voice
> with which to argue.
>
> However, things went out of control in the more recent
> exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
> terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
> happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
> of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
> angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
> affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
>
> I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
> c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
> I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
> one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
> and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
> more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
> being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>
> Sergio Navega.
>
>
> 


0
JPL
10/9/2004 6:10:33 PM
"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
> I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
> to friendly argue with people that think differently. I like
> exchanging ideas with people that propose new things, even
> "noisy" things. I have been frequently stimulated precisely
> by some unortodox ideas, coming from people that think things
> that my mind would not spontaneously think. Friendly disagreement
> is enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, and often leads
> both arguers to an understanding of the subject that no one
> had before. It is an opportunity of growth, for both arguers
> and most readers.
> 
> Friendly disagreement is also an important reminder that
> *no one* has the "definitive answers" about anything, that we
> all have learning moments, no matter if one is a "specialist",
> an "amateur" or just a "novice". Everybody can learn something.
> 
> However, the pleasant exchanges and intellectual excitement
> of friendly discussions is something that I'm not finding here
> in this newsgroup.
> 
> Since I've returned to c.a.p., some weeks ago, I have been
> surprised by the level of harsh responses and false accusations
> directed toward me. In the beginning, I was successful at
> ignoring the gratuitous insults, snipping off irrelevant and
> unnecessarily sarcastic comments, even if they deserved a
> response. My polite education led me to read these messages
> trying to filter out their personal aspects. I had tried
> several times to redirect discussions toward the relevant
> points. Unfortunately, this has been proven unsuccessful and
> things got unbearable for me.
> 
> Some members of this forum (two or three, and, from these
> three, one person above all others) are acting like if they
> had something personal against me. That's quite odd,
> for no one of them know me personally. In fact, in my personal
> relationship environment, I'm known to be an unusually sociable
> and affable person. I don't remember of any situation where
> I've been insulted like here (and I have participated in quite
> a lot of intense debates). I'm not sure what it is, but I guess
> it is related to something that I represent.
> 
> Nobody likes to be seen as an "idiot", "arrogant", "idjit",
> "stupid" and other such "qualifications". Nobody likes to be
> accused of having "commercial interests", or "jornalistic
> understanding" or "sophomoric ideas". Who can enjoy being
> called a "charlatan", "con-man", "plagiarist", and other
> false and hurtful innuendoes?
> 
> But that's the way I have been treated here.
> 
> Instead of arguing, they prefer to attack the person. As I
> said, I had tried hard to ignore these attacks, but to no
> avail: the more I tried to stick to the point, the more they
> were increasingly hurtful, mean and aggressive. Lately,
> it's been reached a point where everything I write seems
> to be read, mainly by that fellow with a british accent, in
> an attempt to find another point to discharge another
> round of insults.
> 
> Perhaps they are trying to attack some "illusory enemy", a
> prototype of the "cognitive evil" that, who knows, caused
> someone to lose their job or have missed some important
> opportunity. I personally did not provoke anything of the
> sort to these guys, but perhaps they think I represent
> those who might have done so. I have always tried to be
> fair, impartial and friendly, but I have been treated as
> if I was an enemy to be fought, and not another voice
> with which to argue.
> 
> However, things went out of control in the more recent
> exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
> terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
> happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
> of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
> angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
> affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
> 
> I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
> c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
> I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
> one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
> and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
> more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
> being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
> 
> Sergio Navega.

If the environment is too entoxicating, don't try to change it.
Acknowledge that there is a source of entoxication. Do what russians
do, spit toward it. End of story.
0
george_bajszar
10/10/2004 12:26:54 AM
"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
> I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
> to friendly argue with people that think differently. I like
> exchanging ideas with people that propose new things, even
> "noisy" things. I have been frequently stimulated precisely
> by some unortodox ideas, coming from people that think things
> that my mind would not spontaneously think. Friendly disagreement
> is enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, and often leads
> both arguers to an understanding of the subject that no one
> had before. It is an opportunity of growth, for both arguers
> and most readers.
> 
> Friendly disagreement is also an important reminder that
> *no one* has the "definitive answers" about anything, that we
> all have learning moments, no matter if one is a "specialist",
> an "amateur" or just a "novice". Everybody can learn something.
> 
> However, the pleasant exchanges and intellectual excitement
> of friendly discussions is something that I'm not finding here
> in this newsgroup.
> 
> Since I've returned to c.a.p., some weeks ago, I have been
> surprised by the level of harsh responses and false accusations
> directed toward me. In the beginning, I was successful at
> ignoring the gratuitous insults, snipping off irrelevant and
> unnecessarily sarcastic comments, even if they deserved a
> response. My polite education led me to read these messages
> trying to filter out their personal aspects. I had tried
> several times to redirect discussions toward the relevant
> points. Unfortunately, this has been proven unsuccessful and
> things got unbearable for me.
> 
> Some members of this forum (two or three, and, from these
> three, one person above all others) are acting like if they
> had something personal against me. That's quite odd,
> for no one of them know me personally. In fact, in my personal
> relationship environment, I'm known to be an unusually sociable
> and affable person. I don't remember of any situation where
> I've been insulted like here (and I have participated in quite
> a lot of intense debates). I'm not sure what it is, but I guess
> it is related to something that I represent.
> 
> Nobody likes to be seen as an "idiot", "arrogant", "idjit",
> "stupid" and other such "qualifications". Nobody likes to be
> accused of having "commercial interests", or "jornalistic
> understanding" or "sophomoric ideas". Who can enjoy being
> called a "charlatan", "con-man", "plagiarist", and other
> false and hurtful innuendoes?
> 
> But that's the way I have been treated here.
> 
> Instead of arguing, they prefer to attack the person. As I
> said, I had tried hard to ignore these attacks, but to no
> avail: the more I tried to stick to the point, the more they
> were increasingly hurtful, mean and aggressive. Lately,
> it's been reached a point where everything I write seems
> to be read, mainly by that fellow with a british accent, in
> an attempt to find another point to discharge another
> round of insults.
> 
> Perhaps they are trying to attack some "illusory enemy", a
> prototype of the "cognitive evil" that, who knows, caused
> someone to lose their job or have missed some important
> opportunity. I personally did not provoke anything of the
> sort to these guys, but perhaps they think I represent
> those who might have done so. I have always tried to be
> fair, impartial and friendly, but I have been treated as
> if I was an enemy to be fought, and not another voice
> with which to argue.
> 
> However, things went out of control in the more recent
> exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
> terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
> happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
> of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
> angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
> affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
> 
> I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
> c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
> I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
> one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
> and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
> more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
> being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
> 
> Sergio Navega.

If the environment is too entoxicating, don't try to change it.
Acknowledge that there is a source of entoxication. Do what russians
do, spit toward it. Basically that's what you did here, and I can 
see all the saliva dripping all over the place.

George Bajszar
0
george_bajszar
10/10/2004 12:37:35 AM
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MrK4ltLHJBaBFwdK@longley.demon.co.uk...
..
>
> Possibly true, but it is simply arrogance for amateurs and novices to
> tell specialists that they know better. Try doing it with your physician
> or dentist!

Then stop doing it!  We are specialists.  You are a technician who does not
know better.


0
AlphaOmega2004
10/10/2004 6:10:33 PM
"Stephen Harris" <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZAV9d.27086$QJ3.14343@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MrK4ltLHJBaBFwdK@longley.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>, Sergio Navega
> > <snavega@intelliwise.com> writes
> >>I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
> >>to friendly argue with people that think differently.
> >
> > No, you're here to peddle deceptions and to egregiously syphon whatever
> > you can at the same time. At no time have you shown any grasp of what
you
> > have been corrected on, and yet you have made yourself out to be an
> > authority in areas where you clearly have no expertise.
> >
>
> Longley, you are not in a position to evaluate anyone's expertise.
> You have nothing worthwhile to say. That has been your history on
> c.a.p. which you will never escape because you are flawed and only
> newcomers to this group briefly think you are human or mildly bright.

Mildly bright - because he can cut and paste info about the brain here and
there.  Or that he throws around names like Quine or Skinner.  That may be
giving him too much credit.

>
> I think Sergio's mistake was to be too polite to you. There is no
> courtesy requirement for dumb vicious animals.  Nobody at all is going
> to miss you. Sergio is capable of contributing thought provoking ideas
> which is completely beyond your hohum, feeble repetitious chanting.

Well said.

>
>


0
AlphaOmega2004
10/10/2004 6:12:14 PM
"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UaAuJXDsfCaBFwtS@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ZAV9d.27086$QJ3.14343@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Stephen
> Harris <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:MrK4ltLHJBaBFwdK@longley.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>, Sergio Navega
> >> <snavega@intelliwise.com> writes
> >>>I'm here because one of the best ways to learn new things is
> >>>to friendly argue with people that think differently.
> >>
> >> No, you're here to peddle deceptions and to egregiously syphon whatever
> >> you can at the same time. At no time have you shown any grasp of what
you
> >> have been corrected on, and yet you have made yourself out to be an
> >> authority in areas where you clearly have no expertise.
> >>
> >
> >Longley, you are not in a position to evaluate anyone's expertise.
> >You have nothing worthwhile to say. That has been your history on
> >c.a.p. which you will never escape because you are flawed and only
> >newcomers to this group briefly think you are human or mildly bright.
> >
> Who are you to say that I am not in a position to evaluate peoples'
> expertise? All you're doing is saying that *you* don't like what I've
> said. That doesn't surprise me as I've said that you don't know what
> you're talking about either. You're supposed to try to learn from that!
>
> >I think Sergio's mistake was to be too polite to you.
>
> So what? You're just showing that you're not very "bright". He hasn't
> provided any refuting evidence and neither have you. You peddle
> inconsequential rhetoric and you're seduced by inconsequential rhetoric.


As if *you* have not been seduced by Quine and Skinner etc.

HA!



0
AlphaOmega2004
10/10/2004 6:59:48 PM
"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...


> I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
> c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
> I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
> one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
> and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
> more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
> being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
> 
> Sergio Navega.


Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
disagree with their opinions.
0
feedbackdroids
10/10/2004 9:52:17 PM
In actual fact, it is Dan that is willing to expend effort to censor and
drive away those critical of what he has to say.



"dan michaels" <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com...
> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message
news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
>
>
> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
> >
> > Sergio Navega.
>
>
> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
> disagree with their opinions.


0
Glen
10/11/2004 10:48:39 AM
feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
> 
> 
> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
> > 
> > Sergio Navega.
> 
> 
> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
> disagree with their opinions.

One cannot argue with a priest.

Priests are not philosophers. They have faith.

Regards,

--
Eray Ozkural
0
erayo
10/11/2004 11:08:38 AM
In article <fa69ae35.0410110308.31076079@posting.google.com>, Eray 
Ozkural  exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message 
>news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>>news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
>>
>>
>> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
>> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>> >
>> > Sergio Navega.
>>
>>
>> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
>> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
>> disagree with their opinions.
>
>One cannot argue with a priest.

False. People *do* argue with priests, not only that, they argue with 
one another. Perhaps you're a frustrated priest?
>
>Priests are not philosophers. They have faith.

False again, historically, many were - you don't know your history. In 
fact, even up to the beginning of the last century they dominated 
academia in all cultures.

What may be closer to the truth is that you, Navega, Michaels etc have 
not learned some important lessons from history, and that's why you 
remain metaphysicians and charlatans peddling falsehoods and rhetoric. 
None of you have any idea what pursuit of truth entails. In fact, you 
behave completely at odds with it, or worse, you just prefer the buzz of 
confusion. Hence your fondness of that "nice warm place". if you pulled 
your head out and took some deep breaths, it might shock you, but you 
might actually learn something useful!
-- 
David Longley
0
David
10/11/2004 11:34:24 AM
On 11 Oct 2004 04:08:38 -0700, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
exa) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
>> 
>> 
>> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
>> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>> > 
>> > Sergio Navega.
>> 
>> 
>> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
>> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
>> disagree with their opinions.
>
>One cannot argue with a priest.

One can certainly argue with priests, Eray. One cannot argue with a
priest's authority, but one can argue facts. 

>Priests are not philosophers. They have faith.

And philosophers are not priests. One can argue with a philosopher's
authority because his authority is supposed to be based on facts and
the truth contained in those facts.A priest's authority is undoubtedly
an emanation of his faith. That doesn't make it true or correct but
does make it impossible to argue with.

Regards - Lester
0
lesterDELzick
10/11/2004 2:28:46 PM
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:34:24 +0100, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <fa69ae35.0410110308.31076079@posting.google.com>, Eray 
>Ozkural  exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message 
>>news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
>>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>>> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
>>> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>>> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>>> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>>> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>>> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>>> >
>>> > Sergio Navega.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
>>> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
>>> disagree with their opinions.
>>
>>One cannot argue with a priest.
>
>False. People *do* argue with priests, not only that, they argue with 
>one another. Perhaps you're a frustrated priest?

Well, David's right here, Eray. (The first time I've ever had to it.)
Priests routinely argue with one another. But they argue facts and
interpretations. They don't and can't argue authority because that's
what makes them priests.

What's confusing in all this is that behaviorists act like priests
instead of philosophers because they don't argue authority. That's
what makes them and materialists and positivists behave like priests
and not whether you can argue facts and interpretations with them.

Philosophers argue authority because they have no other foundational
basis for what they say presumably than the truth of their arguments.
Behaviorists, like priests, discuss their authority but don't argue it
one way or the other. It is simply given. It makes sense to them even
if it doesn't make sense to all and even if it doesn't make sense at
all. But this kind of behavior is hardly peculiar to behaviorists. It
is simply the axiomatic mindset in action. It would be like trying to
argue straight lines with Euclid.

>>Priests are not philosophers. They have faith.
>
>False again, historically, many were - you don't know your history. In 
>fact, even up to the beginning of the last century they dominated 
>academia in all cultures.

Good point. This is also true. And it is also the reason the academic
scholastic mindset is what it is, the refusal to question authority.
It's what distinguishes the academic scholastic mindset from science.

>What may be closer to the truth is that you, Navega, Michaels etc have 
>not learned some important lessons from history, and that's why you 
>remain metaphysicians and charlatans peddling falsehoods and rhetoric. 
>None of you have any idea what pursuit of truth entails. In fact, you 
>behave completely at odds with it, or worse, you just prefer the buzz of 
>confusion. Hence your fondness of that "nice warm place". if you pulled 
>your head out and took some deep breaths, it might shock you, but you 
>might actually learn something useful!

See, now, here, David, you go launching off into some kind of weird,
specious soapbox opera campaign against the poor benighted infidel
without a clue as to what you're talking about. The real question is
whether you or anyone else has learned anything from history. And that
is a question you refuse to discuss in independent terms with respect
to yourself and behaviorism. You refuse to argue your own authority.

You just say it's so and proceed to discuss the egregious errors of
others as if the matter were settled. You have no idea  what the
pursuit of truth entails because you have no standard of truth except
animal training experiments and the anthropomorphism of results. And
that is not an argument for or against your authority to posture as a
purveyor of truth.

Regards - Lester
0
lesterDELzick
10/11/2004 3:02:47 PM
feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
> 
> 
> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
> > 
> > Sergio Navega.
> 
> 
> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
> disagree with their opinions.


You'll notice that a year ago, we were counting DL's posts at about
10,000 to c.a.p. over the past 10 years. Now 1 year later, he's up to
14,600 posts, almost all of them involving name-calling and other bad
behavior. The guy is obsessed with attacking everyone who isn't in his
club.
0
feedbackdroids
10/11/2004 5:46:02 PM
In article <8d8494cf.0410110946.6e6cbcdf@posting.google.com>, dan 
michaels <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> writes
>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message 
>news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>>news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
>>
>>
>> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
>> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>> >
>> > Sergio Navega.
>>
>>
>> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
>> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
>> disagree with their opinions.
>
>
>You'll notice that a year ago, we were counting DL's posts at about
>10,000 to c.a.p. over the past 10 years. Now 1 year later, he's up to
>14,600 posts, almost all of them involving name-calling and other bad
>behavior. The guy is obsessed with attacking everyone who isn't in his
>club.

You're supposed to *read* them, not count them!

-- 
David Longley
0
David
10/11/2004 5:46:33 PM
On 11 Oct 2004 10:46:02 -0700, feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels)
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
>> 
>> 
>> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
>> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>> > 
>> > Sergio Navega.
>> 
>> 
>> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
>> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
>> disagree with their opinions.
>
>
>You'll notice that a year ago, we were counting DL's posts at about
>10,000 to c.a.p. over the past 10 years. Now 1 year later, he's up to
>14,600 posts, almost all of them involving name-calling and other bad
>behavior. The guy is obsessed with attacking everyone who isn't in his
>club.

I'd call it compulsive transferencism. David blames the universe at
large for his own professional failurism. David just envies and
attacks those who haven't suffered from competence rejectionism.

Regards - Lester
0
lesterDELzick
10/11/2004 7:30:32 PM
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:46:33 +0100, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <8d8494cf.0410110946.6e6cbcdf@posting.google.com>, dan 
>michaels <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> writes
>>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message 
>>news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
>>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>>> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
>>> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>>> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>>> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>>> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>>> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>>> >
>>> > Sergio Navega.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
>>> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
>>> disagree with their opinions.
>>
>>
>>You'll notice that a year ago, we were counting DL's posts at about
>>10,000 to c.a.p. over the past 10 years. Now 1 year later, he's up to
>>14,600 posts, almost all of them involving name-calling and other bad
>>behavior. The guy is obsessed with attacking everyone who isn't in his
>>club.
>
>You're supposed to *read* them, not count them!

We use them as markers for the temporal universe as their content is
constant.

Regards - Lester
0
lesterDELzick
10/11/2004 7:32:30 PM
http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Bishop-George-Berkeley/1/
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<416a98af.36122197@netnews.att.net>...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:34:24 +0100, David Longley
> <David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> 
> >In article <fa69ae35.0410110308.31076079@posting.google.com>, Eray 
> >Ozkural  exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
> >>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message 
> >>news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
> >>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
> >>>news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
> >>> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
> >>> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
> >>> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
> >>> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
> >>> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
> >>> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
> >>> >
> >>> > Sergio Navega.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
> >>> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
> >>> disagree with their opinions.
> >>
> >>One cannot argue with a priest.
> >
> >False. People *do* argue with priests, not only that, they argue with 
> >one another. Perhaps you're a frustrated priest?
> 
> Well, David's right here, Eray. (The first time I've ever had to it.)
> Priests routinely argue with one another. But they argue facts and
> interpretations. They don't and can't argue authority because that's
> what makes them priests.
> 
> What's confusing in all this is that behaviorists act like priests
> instead of philosophers because they don't argue authority. That's
> what makes them and materialists and positivists behave like priests
> and not whether you can argue facts and interpretations with them.
> 
> Philosophers argue authority because they have no other foundational
> basis for what they say presumably than the truth of their arguments.
> Behaviorists, like priests, discuss their authority but don't argue it
> one way or the other. It is simply given. It makes sense to them even
> if it doesn't make sense to all and even if it doesn't make sense at
> all. But this kind of behavior is hardly peculiar to behaviorists. It
> is simply the axiomatic mindset in action. It would be like trying to
> argue straight lines with Euclid.

No, at least our behaviorists do not argue the authority. They do not
criticize, because they take it on faith.

> >>Priests are not philosophers. They have faith.
> >
> >False again, historically, many were - you don't know your history. In 
> >fact, even up to the beginning of the last century they dominated 
> >academia in all cultures.
> 
> Good point. This is also true. And it is also the reason the academic
> scholastic mindset is what it is, the refusal to question authority.
> It's what distinguishes the academic scholastic mindset from science.

Right, priests were quite interested in philosophy, but their
philosophy is marked by faith.
 
> >What may be closer to the truth is that you, Navega, Michaels etc have 
> >not learned some important lessons from history, and that's why you 
> >remain metaphysicians and charlatans peddling falsehoods and rhetoric. 
> >None of you have any idea what pursuit of truth entails. In fact, you 
> >behave completely at odds with it, or worse, you just prefer the buzz of 
> >confusion. Hence your fondness of that "nice warm place". if you pulled 
> >your head out and took some deep breaths, it might shock you, but you 
> >might actually learn something useful!
> 
> See, now, here, David, you go launching off into some kind of weird,
> specious soapbox opera campaign against the poor benighted infidel
> without a clue as to what you're talking about. The real question is
> whether you or anyone else has learned anything from history. And that
> is a question you refuse to discuss in independent terms with respect
> to yourself and behaviorism. You refuse to argue your own authority.
> 
> You just say it's so and proceed to discuss the egregious errors of
> others as if the matter were settled. You have no idea  what the
> pursuit of truth entails because you have no standard of truth except
> animal training experiments and the anthropomorphism of results. And
> that is not an argument for or against your authority to posture as a
> purveyor of truth.
> 
> Regards - Lester

Thanks Lester, I found your post very illuminating. 

--
Eray
0
erayo
10/13/2004 6:32:27 AM
On 12 Oct 2004 23:32:27 -0700, erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural
exa) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Bishop-George-Berkeley/1/
>lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<416a98af.36122197@netnews.att.net>...
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:34:24 +0100, David Longley
>> <David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <fa69ae35.0410110308.31076079@posting.google.com>, Eray 
>> >Ozkural  exa <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>> >>feedbackdroids@yahoo.com (dan michaels) wrote in message 
>> >>news:<8d8494cf.0410101352.4b49dcd3@posting.google.com>...
>> >>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>> >>>news:<10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com>...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > I apologize in advance for posting such off-topic material in
>> >>> > c.a.p., but this is probably my last message for some time.
>> >>> > I have a book to publish in the beginning of next year, another
>> >>> > one currently being written, two conference speeches to prepare
>> >>> > and a book chapter to submit to peer-review this month. I have
>> >>> > more important things to do than to test how resilient I am of
>> >>> > being unfairly insulted and ridiculed.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Sergio Navega.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Sergio, you need to understand that the twins are willing to expend an
>> >>> infinite amount of bandwidth to driving people away from c.a.p. who
>> >>> disagree with their opinions.
>> >>
>> >>One cannot argue with a priest.
>> >
>> >False. People *do* argue with priests, not only that, they argue with 
>> >one another. Perhaps you're a frustrated priest?
>> 
>> Well, David's right here, Eray. (The first time I've ever had to it.)
>> Priests routinely argue with one another. But they argue facts and
>> interpretations. They don't and can't argue authority because that's
>> what makes them priests.
>> 
>> What's confusing in all this is that behaviorists act like priests
>> instead of philosophers because they don't argue authority. That's
>> what makes them and materialists and positivists behave like priests
>> and not whether you can argue facts and interpretations with them.
>> 
>> Philosophers argue authority because they have no other foundational
>> basis for what they say presumably than the truth of their arguments.
>> Behaviorists, like priests, discuss their authority but don't argue it
>> one way or the other. It is simply given. It makes sense to them even
>> if it doesn't make sense to all and even if it doesn't make sense at
>> all. But this kind of behavior is hardly peculiar to behaviorists. It
>> is simply the axiomatic mindset in action. It would be like trying to
>> argue straight lines with Euclid.
>
>No, at least our behaviorists do not argue the authority. They do not
>criticize, because they take it on faith.
>
>> >>Priests are not philosophers. They have faith.
>> >
>> >False again, historically, many were - you don't know your history. In 
>> >fact, even up to the beginning of the last century they dominated 
>> >academia in all cultures.
>> 
>> Good point. This is also true. And it is also the reason the academic
>> scholastic mindset is what it is, the refusal to question authority.
>> It's what distinguishes the academic scholastic mindset from science.
>
>Right, priests were quite interested in philosophy, but their
>philosophy is marked by faith.
> 
>> >What may be closer to the truth is that you, Navega, Michaels etc have 
>> >not learned some important lessons from history, and that's why you 
>> >remain metaphysicians and charlatans peddling falsehoods and rhetoric. 
>> >None of you have any idea what pursuit of truth entails. In fact, you 
>> >behave completely at odds with it, or worse, you just prefer the buzz of 
>> >confusion. Hence your fondness of that "nice warm place". if you pulled 
>> >your head out and took some deep breaths, it might shock you, but you 
>> >might actually learn something useful!
>> 
>> See, now, here, David, you go launching off into some kind of weird,
>> specious soapbox opera campaign against the poor benighted infidel
>> without a clue as to what you're talking about. The real question is
>> whether you or anyone else has learned anything from history. And that
>> is a question you refuse to discuss in independent terms with respect
>> to yourself and behaviorism. You refuse to argue your own authority.
>> 
>> You just say it's so and proceed to discuss the egregious errors of
>> others as if the matter were settled. You have no idea  what the
>> pursuit of truth entails because you have no standard of truth except
>> animal training experiments and the anthropomorphism of results. And
>> that is not an argument for or against your authority to posture as a
>> purveyor of truth.
>> 
>> Regards - Lester
>
>Thanks Lester, I found your post very illuminating. 

You're welcome, Eray. Everyone makes mistakes, Not everyone admits
mistakes. David's a classic case. He can't admit mistakes in authority
because he doesn't argue authority. That's the kind of behavior that
discriminates the true believer. And it's a completely emirical test.
I'm glad you found my remarks of interest.

Regards - Lester
0
lesterDELzick
10/13/2004 3:34:30 PM
"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...

> However, things went out of control in the more recent
> exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
> terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
> happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
> of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
> angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
> affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.

How sad. I hope you reconsider but I can't blame you if you
don't. It is because there still are polite, intelligent and open
minded people like you that I come back to this newsgroup
from time to time.

I hope to see you again some time. We've had fruitful but
all to briefs exchanges in the past. Today, we'd probably
have more to disagree on and thus all the more fun.

Regards,

Pierre-Normand Houle



0
Pierre
10/13/2004 4:27:15 PM
"Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<GHcbd.114346$DH5.2053848@wagner.videotron.net>...
> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...
> 
> > However, things went out of control in the more recent
> > exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
> > terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
> > happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
> > of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
> > angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
> > affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
> 
> How sad. 
...................


This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
for Gollum.
0
feedbackdroids
10/14/2004 4:16:01 PM
In article <8d8494cf.0410140816.81f19e4@posting.google.com>, dan 
michaels <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> writes
>"Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
>news:<GHcbd.114346$DH5.2053848@wagner.videotron.net>...
>> "Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>>news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...
>>
>> > However, things went out of control in the more recent
>> > exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
>> > terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
>> > happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
>> > of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
>> > angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
>> > affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
>>
>> How sad.
>..................
>
>
>This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
>brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
>or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
>normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
>for Gollum.

Maybe your mistake is to try to "shake it off" rather than face the 
consequences and learn from them.
-- 
David Longley
0
David
10/14/2004 4:34:25 PM
dan michaels wrote:
> "Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<GHcbd.114346$DH5.2053848@wagner.videotron.net>...
> 
>>"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...
>>
>>
>>>However, things went out of control in the more recent
>>>exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
>>>terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
>>>happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
>>>of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
>>>angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
>>>affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
>>
>>How sad. 
> 
> ..................
> 
> 
> This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
> brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
> or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
> normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
> for Gollum.

But happily we have tools with which we can weed out repetitive 
negativity where we can judge that it provides no new salient 
information :)  On my news reader, Mozilla, it's called "Message 
Filters...".   What is it called on your news reader?

patty
0
patty
10/14/2004 4:55:46 PM
In article <mcybd.469743$8_6.229231@attbi_s04>, patty 
<pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>dan michaels wrote:
>> "Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in 
>>message news:<GHcbd.114346$DH5.2053848@wagner.videotron.net>...
>>
>>>"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>However, things went out of control in the more recent
>>>>exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
>>>>terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
>>>>happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
>>>>of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
>>>>angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
>>>>affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>How sad.
>>  ..................
>>   This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
>> brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
>> or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
>> normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
>> for Gollum.
>
>But happily we have tools with which we can weed out repetitive 
>negativity where we can judge that it provides no new salient 
>information :)  On my news reader, Mozilla, it's called "Message 
>Filters...".   What is it called on your news reader?
>
>patty

The problem for folk like yourself is precisely identifying what "new 
information" actually involves. The reason why people like Michaels 
don't really need any additional "filters" is that they rarely 
understand what they read in the first place. There's no helping them, 
as they have a very hard time doing what they're told. Some folk talk 
about this as a function of "intelligence". Sadly, as far as we know, 
the research suggests that there's not much that can be done to improve 
this once the rot sets in.
-- 
David Longley
0
David
10/14/2004 5:18:57 PM
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:18:57 +0100, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <mcybd.469743$8_6.229231@attbi_s04>, patty 
><pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>>dan michaels wrote:
>>> "Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in 
>>>message news:<GHcbd.114346$DH5.2053848@wagner.videotron.net>...
>>>
>>>>"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>>>>news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>However, things went out of control in the more recent
>>>>>exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
>>>>>terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
>>>>>happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
>>>>>of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
>>>>>angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
>>>>>affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>How sad.
>>>  ..................
>>>   This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
>>> brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
>>> or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
>>> normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
>>> for Gollum.
>>
>>But happily we have tools with which we can weed out repetitive 
>>negativity where we can judge that it provides no new salient 
>>information :)  On my news reader, Mozilla, it's called "Message 
>>Filters...".   What is it called on your news reader?
>>
>>patty
>
>The problem for folk like yourself is precisely identifying what "new 
>information" actually involves. The reason why people like Michaels 
>don't really need any additional "filters" is that they rarely 
>understand what they read in the first place. There's no helping them, 
>as they have a very hard time doing what they're told. Some folk talk 
>about this as a function of "intelligence". Sadly, as far as we know, 
>the research suggests that there's not much that can be done to improve 
>this once the rot sets in.

And yet you valiantly persist in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Regards - Lester
0
lesterDELzick
10/14/2004 6:16:45 PM
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:18:57 +0100, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <mcybd.469743$8_6.229231@attbi_s04>, patty 
><pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>>dan michaels wrote:
>>> "Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn.nospam@attglobal.net> wrote in 
>>>message news:<GHcbd.114346$DH5.2053848@wagner.videotron.net>...
>>>
>>>>"Sergio Navega" <snavega@intelliwise.com> wrote in message 
>>>>news:10mg23f3qa0f664@news20.forteinc.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>However, things went out of control in the more recent
>>>>>exchanges (some days ago), where I started to use insulting
>>>>>terms too. And *that* is something I *cannot* allow to
>>>>>happen! I cannot allow myself to fall into this "black hole"
>>>>>of hiding one's position behind a wall of impenetrable and
>>>>>angry impoliteness. I will continue to be sociable and
>>>>>affable, as I've always been. But not in this newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>How sad.
>>>  ..................
>>>   This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
>>> brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
>>> or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
>>> normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
>>> for Gollum.
>>
>>But happily we have tools with which we can weed out repetitive 
>>negativity where we can judge that it provides no new salient 
>>information :)  On my news reader, Mozilla, it's called "Message 
>>Filters...".   What is it called on your news reader?
>>
>>patty
>
>The problem for folk like yourself is precisely identifying what "new 
>information" actually involves. 

Which certainly doesn't involve historical tracts since that
information has already been exhaustively appraised and fully
integrated into the verbal community.

Regards - Lester
0
lesterDELzick
10/14/2004 6:33:33 PM
> > 
> > This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
> > brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
> > or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
> > normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
> > for Gollum.
> 
> But happily we have tools with which we can weed out repetitive 
> negativity where we can judge that it provides no new salient 
> information :)  On my news reader, Mozilla, it's called "Message 
> Filters...".   What is it called on your news reader?
> 
> patty


I personally read about 1% of #1's and 0% of #2's postings. That
wasn't my point. Can the poster apply such a filter to his own
postings, and not go Gollum? If they can, which I seriously doubt,
then their posts are simply meant to incite the emotions of others.
Either way, it's a bad scene. Clearly, when serious people who try to
make comments in a positive way, such as Sergio, are put into this
sort of environment, it's very stressful, and they leave. Bad scene.
Pathological, to use Hashemkam's term.
0
feedbackdroids
10/16/2004 3:57:22 PM
dan michaels wrote:
>>>This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
>>>brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
>>>or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
>>>normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
>>>for Gollum.
>>
>>But happily we have tools with which we can weed out repetitive 
>>negativity where we can judge that it provides no new salient 
>>information :)  On my news reader, Mozilla, it's called "Message 
>>Filters...".   What is it called on your news reader?
>>
>>patty
> 
> 
> 
> I personally read about 1% of #1's and 0% of #2's postings. That
> wasn't my point. Can the poster apply such a filter to his own
> postings, and not go Gollum? If they can, which I seriously doubt,
> then their posts are simply meant to incite the emotions of others.
> Either way, it's a bad scene. Clearly, when serious people who try to
> make comments in a positive way, such as Sergio, are put into this
> sort of environment, it's very stressful, and they leave. Bad scene.
> Pathological, to use Hashemkam's term.


Well im not that much into Tolkein to be able to grok your reference to 
Gollum ... the only thing i've picked up is that he talks in a very 
private language.  My solution to negativity is to ignore it and focus 
on positive goals.  Focusing on the negativity just makes it worse.

patty
0
patty
10/16/2004 4:52:24 PM
patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message news:<clccd.191859$wV.69761@attbi_s54>...
> dan michaels wrote:
> >>>This is the problem. Negativity feeds on itself. A constant diet
> >>>brings down the entire enterprise - like this forum over the past year
> >>>or so. It gets difficult to shake it off after a while, even for
> >>>normally cheery personalities. Small wonder where Tolkien got the idea
> >>>for Gollum.
> >>
> >>But happily we have tools with which we can weed out repetitive 
> >>negativity where we can judge that it provides no new salient 
> >>information :)  On my news reader, Mozilla, it's called "Message 
> >>Filters...".   What is it called on your news reader?
> >>
> >>patty
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I personally read about 1% of #1's and 0% of #2's postings. That
> > wasn't my point. Can the poster apply such a filter to his own
> > postings, and not go Gollum? If they can, which I seriously doubt,
> > then their posts are simply meant to incite the emotions of others.
> > Either way, it's a bad scene. Clearly, when serious people who try to
> > make comments in a positive way, such as Sergio, are put into this
> > sort of environment, it's very stressful, and they leave. Bad scene.
> > Pathological, to use Hashemkam's term.
> 
> 
> Well im not that much into Tolkein to be able to grok your reference to 
> Gollum ... the only thing i've picked up is that he talks in a very 
> private language.  My solution to negativity is to ignore it and focus 
> on positive goals.  Focusing on the negativity just makes it worse.
> 
> patty


If you look above you'll see that's exactly what I said. Negativity
feeds on itself. That's what made Gollum Gollum.
0
feedbackdroids
10/16/2004 11:55:18 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Digg: I'm a pc. I'm a mac. I'm linux.
http://fuhrerchan.be/ma/src/1157960476967.jpg Sorry, it was too funny to pass up. After takin' a swig o' grog, John Bailo belched out this bit o' wisdom: > > http://fuhrerchan.be/ma/src/1157960476967.jpg > > Sorry, it was too funny to pass up. Go Tron Man! -- "No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed." -- Bill Gates, FOCUS interview http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html ...

Hi I'm a PC, I'm a Mac, I'm a Linux
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/ff/Imalinux.jpg -- "The Linux Desktop Revolution is Dead" http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/69108 On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:53:27 +0100, Clog_-_wog (�) wrote: > http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/ff/Imalinux.jpg Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!! On 3/8/2011 1:53 PM, Clog_-_wog (�) wrote: > http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/f/ff/Imalinux.jpg Give that Lintard a bra! On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:36:12 -0500, DFS wrote: > On 3/8/2011 1:53 PM, Clog_-_wog (�) wrote: >> http://images.encyc...

bug with unpack('m') / pack('m') ?
Having a strange ruby encoding encounter: ruby-1.9.2-p180 :618 > s = "a8dnsjg8aiw8jq".ljust(16,'=') => "a8dnsjg8aiw8jq==" ruby-1.9.2-p180 :619 > s.size => 16 ruby-1.9.2-p180 :620 > s.unpack('m0') ArgumentError: invalid base64 from (irb):631:in `unpack' ruby-1.9.2-p180 :621 > s.unpack('m') => ["k\xC7g\xB28<j,<\x8E"] ruby-1.9.2-p180 :622 > s.unpack('m').first.size => 10 ruby-1.9.2-p180 :623 > s.unpack('m').pack('m') => "a8dnsjg8aiw8jg==\n" ruby-1.9.2-p18...

'reload M' doesn't update 'from M inport *'
I develop in an IDLE window. Module M says 'from service import *'. Next I correct a mistake in function 'service.f'. Now 'service.f' works fine. I do 'reload (service); reload (M)'. The function 'M.f' still misbehaves. 'print inspect.getsource (service.f)' and 'print inspect.getsource (M.f)' shows the same corrected code. 'print service.f' and 'print M.f' show different ids. So I do 'del M; reload (M)'. Nothing changes. I delete M again and run gc.collect () to really clean house. I relo...

Hello I'm a Mac, hello I'm Windows and I'm laid off
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/crgva/2009/crgva090125.gif -- If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or less by definition, *promote* ignorance. Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008 "Terry Porter" <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote in message news:HfednU32t_OVbB3UnZ2dnUVZ_hWWnZ2d@netspace.net.au... > > http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/crgva/2009/crgva090125.gif > Does that make you happy somehow? amicus_curious wrote: > > "Terry Porter" <linux-...

Streetmap: 'mX', 'mY', and 'M' ??
Hi Guys, [Newbie alert!] -- I've used streetmap.co.uk to get some location data. On their coordinates page for a specific UK postcode, an instance of which is linked below, they have OS x and y, long/lat, and 'LR' which is the Ordnance Survey Landranger Grid Reference. These are followed by 'mX', 'mY', and 'M', I've no idea what these are and am very curious. Maybe someone in this group will know? http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?GridConvert?name=450679,208578&type=OSGrid Thanks all. ...

I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until
I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! I'll keep pestering until I'm given a proper answer!!!!!! On Nov 1, 1:17 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.mod...

I'm trying for the fourth and in the subject I'm openly saying that I haven't got the message yet as I'm writing this
A new mug, with white fresh A700 with writing on it with some light grey letters - Love the twenny!!! --+-- narayan --+-- ...

Why I'm in the situation that I'm in...
....even my relatives are talking to me in code and have betrayed me. The reason. As you see, someone else can come in, using my name, and post = similarly insulting stuff to what I've said. The reason why *I* am the one= who has been tortured, abused, stalked, attemptedly-discredited, isolated,= and cut off from law enforcement personnel is: > there are companies that stole from me > they want to keep what they stole without paying for it > these companies have the corrupt Republican party in their pocket > the Republican party is doing their bidding and ...

I'm Coming Back as I\'m
When I send text in a textbox to the server and retrieve into a PHP var, I'm comes back as I\'m - what is causing this slash and how can I get rid of it? Thanks... Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of Ralph Freshour of comp.lang.php make plain: > When I send text in a textbox to the server and retrieve into a PHP > var, I'm comes back as I\'m - what is causing this slash and how can I > get rid of it? You have magic_quotes_gpc turned on in your PHP config. Turn it off. -- Alan Little Phorm PHP Form Processor http://www.phorm.com/ ...

I'm SCSI!! No, I'm USB!! (who am I??)
I have a system here that has 12 USB slots in it. When I insert 12 USB drives in it, I see 12 SCSI devices appear in /proc/partitions (sd[a-l]1). I also see 12 USB devices appear in /proc/bus/usb/devices, with correct data in them. All is well and good, except... I don't know how to figure out which SCSI device is in which slot!! Is there some way to correlate between the SCSI and USB information, so that I can (for example), copy files from slot C to slot G reliably?? I'm very confused!! On 19 May 2004 16:58:12 -0500, Daniel Miller <dan@invalid.com> wro...

I'm in the money, I'm in the money...
I AM MR. BERNARD OKEKE PROJECT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES (DPR) IKOYI LAGOS- NIGERIA E-MAIL:bernardokeke00@keromail.com ATTN: PROPOSAL FOR TRANSFER OF FORTY FIVE MILLION,US DOLLARS (US$45M) TO YOUR ACCOUNT. Your contact address got to me via export promotions council, your reliability and trustworthiness in business transaction was the main conviction that compelled me to solicit for your support in this business. I am the Project Director of the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) Lagos, Nigeria and secretary to the Contract Award Committee of my Ministry,In colla...

I'm tempted. I'm very very tempted.
I've thought about the possibility of somehow paying people to do the ports I'd like to see on the ][... because I'm not good enough to do so myself, and really would like to see them on the ][. I promise I won't ask the impossible =p See, I look at the other contemporary 6502 systems, the Atari 800, the C64 and the BBC Micro specifically, and at all the homebrew going on in the Atari 7800 community, and I kind-of wish we had some of that action here in the land of the good ol' ][ :P -uso. I'm not trying to start a holy war here, just stating an opi...

M'I`5'Perse cution ' their m ethods and tactic s
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -= MI5: methods and. tactics -= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= They deliberately set out to harass in a way that would resemble. the symptoms of. schizophrenia, so that any report of the harassment would be taken as indicating mental illness and "treated". accordingly. They never show their own. faces; they only work through proxies, in the media, among the public, and by manipulating people in the workplace. Since they do. not declare their identity there is. no evidence to initiate legal action against the. security services or anyone else. The only ...

Web resources about - Why I'm here, why I'm leaving - comp.ai.philosophy

Resources last updated: 2/6/2016 11:02:40 PM