Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 09/13/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:10:22 +0100

In article <ci4kqj02qib@drn.newsguy.com>, Daryl McCullough
<daryl@atc-nycorp.com> writes
>David Longley says...
>>Daryl McCullough <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> writes
>
>>>He asked a simple question. Why can't you answer it?
>>
>>Because it isn't "a simple question". It's an ignorant, *idiotic*
>>question.
>
>No, it wasn't. He made a simple request for you to explain your
>position on a subject. And your response has been reprehensible.
>
>--
>Daryl McCullough
>Ithaca, NY
>
No, my response has been instructive - but as usual, you ignore that. 

-- 
David Longley

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
    ... David Longley says... ... He made a simple request for you to explain your ... And your response has been reprehensible. ... Daryl McCullough ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
    ... In article, Daryl McCullough ... >David Longley says... ... my response has been instructive ... The fact that neither of you act on my instructions does not negate the ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: the separation of logic from the application of science
    ... David Longley wrote: ... >> ontology these are quite separate. ... Intensional logics meet that test and consequently it is ... Verhey's recent response applies. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
    ... In article, Daryl McCullough ... >David Longley says... ... >>I have provided plenty of straight answers. ... >Ithaca, NY ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists, #1
    ... In article, Daryl McCullough ... >David Longley says... ... why I keep telling you that your remarks are idiotic and that you're ... blinded by your presumptions. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Loading