Eliminating David Longley
Eray Ozkural exa
Longley to the whole USENET community as a net abuser and a crackpot
that should be discouraged from further actions that disrupt the
normal course of discussion on comp.ai.philosophy and elsewhere.
Over the last few months his actions have started becoming more
damaging to this group's spirit. We should not let this happen.
Please post all information you can find that shows evidence against
this broken bot.
Links to archives, reviews, threads about him, threads about threads
about him, etc. are welcome.
Let us start with some interesting historical threads about Longley
again:
What has Longley got against common sense?
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=897763235snz%40longley.demon.co.uk&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1574508464d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D29%26as_minm%3D3%26as_miny%3D1995%26as_maxd%3D13%26as_maxm%3D6%26as_maxy%3D1998%26selm%3D6kijve%2524289%25242%2540cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz&as_drrb=b&as_maxd=13&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=19
8&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995
This is an excellent thread because several people agree that he is a
silly bot :>
Polite response to David Longley; and polite requests.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=6nuqf2%24k27%242%40cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Blongley%2Bgroup:comp.ai%2Bgroup:comp.ai.*%2Bgroup:comp.ai.*%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.ai.*%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3D6nuqf2%2524k27%25242%2540cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz%26rnum%3D7
Surprise! David Longley posted a summary of his position! People
trying hard to be polite to his views.
1. FOL and 2. Longley's insidious programme
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=806856918snz%40longley.demon.co.uk&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Blongley%2Bgroup:comp.ai%2Bgroup:comp.ai.*%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.ai.*%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D806856918snz%2540longley.demon.co.uk%26rnum%3D6
Another instant classic. About David Longley, his knowledge(!) of
first order logic and his programme.
On and on.... I predict that there are many threads dedicated to him
which shows how much time and effort of the group participants he has
wasted. That is the typical distinguishing feature of a spammer.
Fortunately, we won't be wasting much time on this thread because we
simply have to refer to net history. It's even fun reading this
information because he is probably the most spanked person on USENET.
And he never gave up because he believed that he had a priviledged
access to truth!
I will collect the information and make a summary. We can then post it
as some kind of ANTI-LONGLEY FAQ, whenever we detect David Longley
continuing his silly "behaviour". We should also post it on newsgroups
where abusers are reported.
Thanks,
--
Eray Ozkural
David Longley
Ozkural exa <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
>This thread is a process to gather information for reporting David
>Longley to the whole USENET community as a net abuser and a crackpot
>that should be discouraged from further actions that disrupt the
>normal course of discussion on comp.ai.philosophy and elsewhere.
>
I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look *carefully* into the
facts of the matter.
>Over the last few months his actions have started becoming more
>damaging to this group's spirit. We should not let this happen.
If "damaging to this group's spirit" amounts to encouraging/forcing
people to question modern mentalism as cognitivism I think my efforts
should be reinforced by others. It's the influence of cognitivism in
modern psychology and AI that's really damaging.
<snip>
>1. FOL and 2. Longley's insidious programme
>Another instant classic. About David Longley, his knowledge(!) of
>first order logic and his programme.
I hope readers are prepared to dismiss Quine here as well. When I first
brought this material to people's attention many had no grasp of what
was being said by myself or by Quine.
<snip>
>
>I will collect the information and make a summary. We can then post it
>as some kind of ANTI-LONGLEY FAQ, whenever we detect David Longley
>continuing his silly "behaviour". We should also post it on newsgroups
>where abusers are reported.
Is this going to be of the same intellectual quality as your conception
of behaviourism?
You should, as I have advised, spend some time doing some serious study
rather than wasting your time promulgating your misconceptions and
misrepresentations.
--
David Longley
LocalFolk
>Please post all information you can find that shows evidence
>against this broken bot.
"Post all." You're serious here.
Thank you for fanning the flames, little boy.
-JH
Daryl McCullough
>
>This thread is a process to gather information for reporting David
>Longley to the whole USENET community as a net abuser and a crackpot
>that should be discouraged from further actions that disrupt the
>normal course of discussion on comp.ai.philosophy and elsewhere.
>
>Over the last few months his actions have started becoming more
>damaging to this group's spirit. We should not let this happen.
I think this is going way overboard. I don't get much out of
Longley's posts, either, but that applies to the vast majority
of all posts to comp.ai.philosophy. This isn't a moderated newsgroup,
and Longley's posts are on-topic, and less abusive (in my opinion)
than many of his critics.
If you want a moderated newsgroup, fine. I think that would be
an improvement. But I don't think that singling out Longley to
blame the poor signal-to-noise ratio makes any sense.
--
Daryl McCullough
Eray Ozkural exa
restriction here.
However, I am very serious about Longley becoming the primary source
of noise on this group. He's been more abusive than all other manifest
attacks on this newsgroup combined (such as Bloxy's).
If you have a Longley link, please post it.
New information isn't needed, I just want to make a meaningful
collection of Longley links.
da...@atc-nycorp.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote in message news:<blf5f...@drn.newsguy.com>...
David Longley
dishonest to say so openly.
In article <fa69ae35.03100...@posting.google.com>, Eray
Ozkural exa <er...@bilkent.edu.tr> writes
--
David Longley
Neil W Rickert
>I'm not sure if I want moderation. Most people seem to dislike that
>restriction here.
>However, I am very serious about Longley becoming the primary source
>of noise on this group. He's been more abusive than all other manifest
>attacks on this newsgroup combined (such as Bloxy's).
You can simply ignore him. He will eventually tire of playing
interference, and will go away for a while.
Why not revert to discussing AI, and stop making Longley the
central theme of your posts.
gyuri
Make Gasolini, not tea for AI. I don't know master Rickert,
it sounded funny when I wrote it. Put lipstick and uncle
Billy-Bob's black spit on Niel's face, then fart real good,
billyboy. Niel Rickfart to the rescue! Keep yo' lip nice and
sticky. <lick>
George
gyuri
(Intense French kissing with Niel online.) Good bye Niel.
I can't see you any more mi amore.
George
Eray Ozkural exa
your lack of intelligence and morals. I will find more, do not worry.
David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<53V1SCopH1e$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
David Longley
All you are doing here is making a public announcement that you are
embarking on a smear campaign. How intelligent and moral is *that*?
Are you also looking for the posts which actually appreciate what I have
posted?
--
David Longley
David Longley
Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> writes
Probably for the same reason that you have so often - you learn more
from me than you do the other rubbish you post. You just don't have the
intellectual honesty to acknowledge it.
--
David Longley
Daryl McCullough
>Why not revert to discussing AI, and stop making Longley the
>central theme of your posts.
I second that emotion.
--
Daryl McCullough
David Longley
<da...@atc-nycorp.com> writes
I third it - why not make the subject matter the theme?
--
David Longley
Acme Posting
> Neil W Rickert says...
>
> >Why not revert to discussing AI, and stop making Longley the
> >central theme of your posts.
>
> I second that emotion.
Note that Larry (me) has been posting strictly within the Avatar
thread lately, which thread is not about AI but exclusively about
Longley.
It is easy to avoid this thread, even with the most challenged reader.
So c.a.p.ers - you have welcome relief from Larry, at least for a
while, and I'll try to stay out of your hair for as long as possible.
I hope I'm drawing at least some of the Longley posts away too...
Larry
Eray Ozkural exa
> All you are doing here is making a public announcement that you are
> embarking on a smear campaign. How intelligent and moral is *that*?
You are making an action that would be morally wrong to a neutral
poster the only defendible moral choice.
> Are you also looking for the posts which actually appreciate what I have
> posted?
I've made tons of google searches, and I do find some posts written by
you that are worthwhile.
Unfortunately, the ratio of informative posts over counter-productive
posts is too low to be significant. The ratio of posters whom you get
along well with over the rest is even lower.
The ratio of times when you have followed netiquette over those you
have not followed it is low, as well.
In all good faith, the obsessive repetition is not welcome in any
normal newsgroup.
Thank you,
--
Eray Ozkural
David Longley
>news:<OXg4KPF$j+e$Ew...@longley.demon.co.uk>...
>> All you are doing here is making a public announcement that you are
>> embarking on a smear campaign. How intelligent and moral is *that*?
>
>You are making an action that would be morally wrong to a neutral
>poster the only defendible moral choice.
>
Nonsense - I've encouraged discussion in this newsgroup, and on subjects
which have educational and practical merit - how dare you imply
otherwise!
>> Are you also looking for the posts which actually appreciate what I have
>> posted?
>
>I've made tons of google searches, and I do find some posts written by
>you that are worthwhile.
>
You *only* malign and complain - you never acknowledge you are wrong,
and you keep posting nonsense which reveals that you really have very
little knowledge in the relevant areas. You need to listen and learn.
>Unfortunately, the ratio of informative posts over counter-productive
>posts is too low to be significant. The ratio of posters whom you get
>along well with over the rest is even lower.
The people I don't get along with are the ones who lie, distort, won't
correct their egregious errors even when these are pointed out, and who
demand to have their ignorant opinions taken seriously when they
actually have no merit. If I didn't do this, *I* would be a hypocrite.
What you see me criticising, *should* be criticised.
>
>The ratio of times when you have followed netiquette over those you
>have not followed it is low, as well.
>
Nonsense - Whilst I *have* repeat posted, it has always been apposite.
>In all good faith, the obsessive repetition is not welcome in any
>normal newsgroup.
These slurs, irrelevant ad hominems and other non sequiturs are the
posts that most reasonable people will find unwelcome and repetitious.
Most reasonable people will be looking at your posts and threads and
think very poorly of *you*. There are always a few idiots who will use
unmoderated newsgroups dishonestly and inappropriately, but that's what
I'm criticising. What several of you will not accept is expert criticism
- it's quite clear that you don't really want the forum to be
educational, you just want to sound off and trade "opinions".
I've offered a serious challenge to modern programmes in AI &
psychology, all I've got in response from most people (and I can name a
few who have *tried* to do otherwise - Bill is one, Curt another) - I've
seen Glen contribute material which I recognize as quality posts, and
all I see in response is thoughtless nonsense which shows now investment
by the authors at all!
You need to go away on one of your breaks and re-think what you are here
for.
--
David Longley
Eray Ozkural exa
> You need to go away on one of your breaks and re-think what you are here
> for.
I am not here to argue with a mindless psychologist who seems to have
little idea of what contemporary science is like.
Sorry, but you don't seem to understand that the whole point of this
thread is to prevent you from wasting others' time.
That is all you have done.
By the way, let the group members decide on how poorly they will think
of me or you.
It's pathetic that you think of yourself as a philosophical authority
when almost all reputable members of the group except the extremely
tolerant have made fun of you, spanked you, and basically erased your
reputation some time in the past.
You are the dust that will be blown. Those without ideas are not worth
my computation.