Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Sorities, Properties and The Extensional Stance
Message-ID: <jqbE2HJGD.AzI@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <850583038snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <jqbE2Fo3x.ICG@netcom.com> <850679927snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 02:41:01 GMT
Lines: 36
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:50025 comp.ai:42796

In article <850679927snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >In my view, it was the new  logic of Frege which gave the logical 
>> 
>> But Longley claims that *views* don't matter.  Of course, that's his view.
>> 
>
>When  you *stop* such petty quibbling *and* realise how silly  it 

The hypocrite Longley considers all criticism of his hypocritical
inconsistencies to be petty quibbling.  OTOH, *His* petty comments about
other people's use of intensional idioms are to be taken as having great
significance.

>is  to  go  around making such remarks  and  calling  other  folk 
>"morons"  etc.,

"moron" is Hubey's word.

>THEN  I'll  accept  that  you  have  adopted  the 
>extensional stance.

One of the key points of Dennett's stances is that they can be applied
independently, depending upon what aspects one is focused on.  They are not
ideologies to be committed to.

>However, on the basis of a lot (not all  I'll 
>credit)  of  your  behaviour here in  this  newsgroup,  you  just 
>haven't grasped it at all.

Right; if I call Longley an idiot, that proves that I can't do arithmetic.  Or
something.

-- 
<J Q B>

