Re: Folk Psychology and Social Convention

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eray 
Ozkural  exa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> David Longley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eray
> > Ozkural  exa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > >Yes, I can see how and why. You are trying to tell me what kind of an
> > >idiot you are. You are a meta-idiot, you advocate idiocy and try to
> > >turn newcomers into idiots.
> >
> > Please explain.
>
> Let's explain. You are a megalomaniac psychopath who has nothing
> better to do in life than annoying people on the net and wasting their
> time. While several people here steal time from their lives to learn
> something useful, have nice discussions and develop themselves, you
> ruin it.
>
> Besides you are a complete imbecile. You know virtually nothing about
> contemporary science, yet  you are trying to make philosophy of
> science.
>
> What you don't understand is that 90% of your posts are
> counter-intellectual, counter-ethical and generally worthless. Add to
> that mix your aggressive tone, trying to insert subtle insults here
> and there, and we have the perfect prerequisites for the most unwanted
> person on the net.
>
> When you troll like that, writing an "idiot" definition from your
> english dictionary, you don't get any respect from anybody. You get
> the reaction you deserve. Got it?
>
> Meta-idiot means that you try to create and deal with idiots by
> spreading your stupid dogma to newcomers.
>
> You don't even understand that dogma is the enemy of the philosopher.
> You are pathetic.

No - I'm afraid I still don't understand why you don't understand why I 
called you an idiot Eray - I did try to be helpful -  I provided a 
definition - perhaps I should repeat it:

>> Here's a dictionary definition which applies to your behaviour in 
many
>> posts to this newsgroup. Can you see how and why?
>>
>> idiot - early 14c., from O.Fr. idiote "uneducated or ignorant 
person,"
>> from L. idiota "ordinary person, layman," in L.L. "uneducated or
>> ignorant person," from Gk. idiotes "layman, person lacking 
professional
>> skill," lit. "private person," used patronizingly for "ignorant 
person,"
>> from idios "one's own."

Perhaps you need to read it more carefully? Did you ask a trusted friend 
as I suggested?.
--
David Longley