www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kent Paul Dolan) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> What David fails to mention is how much more intelligent
> than he is most of his critics are, and how their criticism
> is mostly colored by the need to cater to the effects of
> his massive stupidity and inability to stay on topic when
> factually challenged. Every factual challenge he cannot
> answer with countervailing data is answered with character
> assassination instead. Tallying the very few meaningful
> answers he gives, and the very many attacks against his
> critics' character he mounts, one can guess that roughly 99%
> of what he claims is utterly undefendable, making his work a
> festering pile of fewmets, as almost universally held
> anyway.
>
Hypocritical Deconstructionism!
Circular Clownery!
> One need not read a single word of his writeups to come to > this conclusion that they are completely devoid of value, > that conclusion is derivable based entirely on his public > behavior (that "behaviorism" stuff again, which he tends to > espouse as a workable means of judging people), which is the > only part of his output that interests me in the least.
For instance, I did not need to directly address his dogma to refute it according to the five assertions:
1. Google count of ritual words and site promotions (8,000+ total). 2. Intensional/folk psychological language problem only when people disagree with him, not when they agree. 3. No converts to his dogma in 8 years. 4. Unfalsifiable dogma due to a. Language is unreliable in any criticism, b. Thus logic is unreliable in any criticism, c. Thus your interpretation of your experience is unreliable in any criticism, d. Thus no indirect quotation or paraphrasing allowed in criticism, only literal quotes of Longley opinion. (Note any "said that..." replies to this post concerning the word "rely"). 5. Your language is unreliable only on Usenet -> this group -> disagreeing with Longley. No problem in other intellectual groups.
This being Larry, such refutation is of course a coincidental probability calculation requiring an IQ anywhere above our group testing professional's "idiot" classification to factor such trivialities as "transitivity" and other context reducers everyone except some analytically-challenged philosophers with too much time on their hands has known forever. The coincidental conclusion in this case being extensionally expressed in rigorous form as "Longley's work is a festering pile of fewmets."
Q: But Professor Coreylarry, your attacks are unfair!
A: <pauses, points finger in air> "However..."
"My envious imitator forces academic rules, which is no charter here, also granting himself exclusive wild cards therein, to which my ilk will always respond by forcing equal and opposite games granting exclusive privilege as well, leveling the field. Fair's fair, like it or lump it. Complaints on protocol will be fowarded to our sponsor, Lonely Consulting."
Q. Can you explain the Theory of Relativity?
A. "Yes. Next question."
Q. Explain it.
A. "Whichever direction you go, you eventually wind up where you started, expecially in the infected c.a.p. universe still awaiting Nomad.
Q. Is there anything you *can't* explain?
A. "How antennae work. This is the unattainable paradigm inducing the 21 cm. metaphor, plancking one into the bonfire of the analogies which we, in our Quinian PROfound BEfuddlement, must never comprehend. However..."
"If that had stopped real scientists and engineers from miraculously dreaming antennae into existence without benefit of the new Probe Constant, the pink donkeys on Wolf 41 wouldn't be laughing their asses off at the lately arrived 1995 folk droppings, result of prankishly inserting 3.7 GP into our planet's morning flatulence."
"GP" - One English garbage pail, 1 m^3 at 10^5 newtons/cm^2.
But! But! Science is not about ideas, it's about verbal behavior!Hahaha!
That's one hahaha, one belly laugh, a hearty "however...", and 1,000+/- "folkings" mutated from you-know-what.
Larry
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."
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
