From[Bill Williams 22 June 2004 2:20 PM CST]
[From Rick Marken (2004.06.22.1120)]
Bill Williams (22 June 2004 12:10 PM CST) --
if you are offended by what Rick Marken said, as Bryan may have been, then
there is an issue involved here concerning offensive speach.
The issue is whether I called Michelle an ignorant slut when I said:
This may be _your_ perception of of what is at issue. Other people may have a
different, a very different, perception. My own perception of the issue
begin long ago when Bill Powers called me "bent." The event has now slipped
beyond the archive's one year or so limit and/or is otherwise inaccessible.
Bill Powers argued that he was blameless in calling me bent because he really
didn't mean it. (This was long before Bill Powers new found devotion to the
idea of peer review document what you say sophistology.)
This is complicated, but basically, while I have been accused of not being
willing to learn from Bill Powers, there is evidence to the contrary. I paid
close attention to Bill Powers sophistology and learned, that you can say
almost anything you want, and it is OK as long as you say you didn't mean it.
I guess you weren't paying attention when Bill Powers was teaching some of
the rest of us how to use the language.
If I said that it is my perception that Michelle Ivers is an ignorant
slut would I be immune from criticism for having said it? I think not.
Then why did you go ahead and say it?
Michelle seems to have acknowledged that I did not call her that.
Rick you really are a cad for going on about this.
But she has not yet explicitly agreed to that.
No gentleman would ever expect a lady to acknowledge such a thing, let alone
explicitly acknowledge such a thing.
I am waiting to hear what she has to say. Perhaps she agrees with you and
thinks that in my sentence I called her an ignorant slut. We'll see. If,
indeed, Bryan was offended by what I said at least he didn't deal with the
offense by slandering (or libeling, if you prefer) me.
You could ask Bill Powers. If you really didn't mean it, or at least you say
you didn't mean it. Then you didn't say it. These being the rule of logic
that apply on the PCT network, I am not sure what we can say for sure. Oh,
I remember, we can say, "All I can know is what I perceive." Subject to the
disclaimer that if we say we didn't mean it then we didn't say it.
if I were to call you a nigger, would you be offended.
No. But that wouldn't make your saying it (if you said it) any less of an
Of coarse not. But, I did say it didn't I. Try saying at the check in counter,
"If I had a bomb in my suitcase.... " and see where it gets you. You'd wish
you were upside down in a ditch.
But you didn't say it
I think I know what I said.
so I (unlike you) am not going to say (every
two posts or so) that you called someone a nigger.
But, why would I object to your saying such a thing?
Is there something missing here? Could it be what at one tme was called
"common sense?" But, "skin bags" do not, and can not have anything like a
common sense. So, what Michelle really meant can not be determined as a PCT
"Common sense" exists in the PCT "skin bag"
Rick, now you are really upside down in the ditch. Bill Powers objects to the
association of the "skin bag" theory with PCT.
Martin Taylor might also take you to task, because the phrase "skin bag" is
a term that Martin introduced.
as control of program and
principle type perceptions. The HPCT model represents a guess at the
functional architecture of the neural contents of individual "skin bags",
each of which is covered, incidentally, with sensors for many different
types of physical energy (light, sound, chemical, etc) and effectors
(muscles, glands) for producing physical effects on the world. These bags
come in many different colors, sizes and shapes.
Maybe they do. But all apparently according to PCT that we can see is the
inside of the bag.