Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!cliffs.rs.itd.umich.edu!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Sorities, Properties and The Extensional Stance
Message-ID: <jqbE2qqwq.2s3@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95L.961218113526.9334A-100000@unixs6.cis.pitt.edu> <851007099snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <jqbE2osM4.23o@netcom.com> <851090678snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 02:00:26 GMT
Lines: 40
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:50243 comp.ai:42940

In article <851090678snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbE2osM4.23o@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com "Jim Balter" writes:
>
>> In article <851007099snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
>> David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >In article <Pine.GSO.3.95L.961218113526.9334A-100000@unixs6.cis.pitt.edu>
>> >           cdjones+@pitt.edu "CDJ" writes:
>> >
>> >> (4) Longley's Rule: On pain of being a rhetorical trickster, one is not
>> >> permitted to discuss someone after having read and discussed others who
>> >> are relevant to that person.
>> >> 
>> >> CDJ
>> >> 
>> >
>> >I post what I have to say here.
>> 
>> Perhaps the nefarious Longley could explain how that is relevant to charging
>> that CDJ is a rhetorical trickster for having read Russell.  And if I have
>> misunderstood him, perhaps he could explain what he meant without indulging in
>> nefarious ad hominems.
>> -- 
>> <J Q B>
>> 
>
>These  bizarre  and  imaginative  "inferences"  are  examples  of 
>precisely what I have been highlighting as the ill begot  produce 
>of the propositional attitudes and other intensional idioms.

Longley should review Quine's enumeration of nefarious behaviors.

>cf. 'said that'.. 

Apparently there is even an injunction against Longley explaining
"I said that ...".  In fact, the injunction seems to be against
explanation, period.
-- 
<J Q B>

