From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!cmcl2!arizona!gudeman Tue Feb 11 15:25:35 EST 1992
Article 3570 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!cmcl2!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <12446@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 92 05:36:03 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 31

In article  <1992Feb6.211501.32265@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
]In article <12412@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>claiming that you misunderstood my meaning, and the out-of-context
]>quote above is clearly an example of sleazy debate tactics.  But it is
]>you that is guilty, not me.
]
] In the unlikely event that anybody else is interested in this, I recommend
]that they independently seek out the back articles to check on the context,
]and decide for themselves where the sleaze is.

I'll second that.

] I once before tried to take our discussions to email, but you continued
]your public attack.

I continued to reply to replies to my postings as I got around to
them, with little or no regard to the name on the From: line.  If you
took this as a "continued public attack" I'm sorry, it was not meant
that way.  But you could have ended the public debate any time you
wanted to, just by not replying to my postings.

]I would prefer to not need to respond further.

You don't _need_ to respond further.  The only imperative acting on
you is your personal need to have the last word.  Take heart though, I
have a low threshhold of boredom with contentless exchanges like this,
and the other guy usually _does_ get in the last word on me.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


