Re: Folk Psychology and Social Convention

"David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You're free to discuss whatever you wish of course, however, if you'd 
> done what I suggested above in the first place, you wouldn't have 
> addressed me at all. Instead, you could have directed your remarks to 
> the person who decided to cross post the thread to the other newsgroups 
> in the first place.

No, David, you are always _personally responsible_ for the newsgroups
to which your posting goes; you don't get the cop-out of "everybody's
doing it, so it must be okay", or "but the posting I answered went to
all those other groups".  One would assume a "philosopher" would
have encountered Kant's Categorical Imperative at some point and
learned what rules cover herd behavior. From your failure to behave
in socially acceptable ways, we learn that as a "philosopher" you are
only a poseur, not a practitioner.

Meanwhile, "AI according to Longley" continues to be a high noise
pollution problem in many groups outside the (nonexistent) group
where such discussion would be appropriate.

Perhaps you could mend your behavior, though personally I think it is
entirely out of your conscious control and apparently has been for
years. So, here is a challenge: see if you can confine your postings
to comp.ai.philosophy so that the number of newsgroups you are making
unusable for their chartered purposes is limited to one. If you cannot,
you are by that failure self-defined to be an incompetent buffoon, an
opinion about you which only grows more widespread the further across
the Net you distribute your infinitely repetitive gibberish.

xanthian, whose non-Longley-inspired postings in comp.ai.genetic
somehow magically remain exactly on charter and responsive to group
norms and group benefit.


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG