Re: cognitive != observable?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
Kent Paul Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> "David Longley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > dan michaels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> > > It might actually be interesting to know if anyone [outside of GS]
> > > has actually "not" been attacked by him - in the ritual sense.
>
> > And how would that help you?
>
> By helping classify you to the benefit of all concerned as an
> instantly dismissable buffoon, incapable of carrying out a
> conversation where more than one opinion on any matter is
> entertained without recourse to name calling, insults, and
> character assassination.

Let's face it - I've explained to you that things are not what they 
seem, but you're too impulsive (and the reasons are not important) to 
see that.

> People warned of your behavior in this regard would then know
> better than to waste their time attempting civil discourse
> with you.

That's your opinion, it may also be widely shared by some folk - but 
then we are talking *about* folk psychology, its nature and 
vicissitudes. You don't seem to appreciate what that involves or care.
> This falls under the umbrella of "public good" so suscinctly
> expressed by Scott Adams in the title of one of his "Dilbert"
> cartoon collections:

Idiot!

>      Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons
>
> HTH
>
> xanthian.

Insight-less Idiot.

Follow-ups to comp.ai.philosophy
--
David Longley