The truth is out there

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sun Dec 13 22:52:36 EST 1998


What you've posted is, once again, Libel.

=Do Not= link me within 3rd-party Denigration. K. P. Collins

[Andrew, if you need anything I can do, with respect to what Mr. LeFever
has posted, I'll Serve your needs in any that I can do so. ken collins]

F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> 
> Nice that each has found someone who "understands".
> Let us hope they email each other directly, incessantly.
> 
> Maybe someone should fund a think-tank for these great minds--with
> padded walls?  We have a couple of other candidates, absent from this
> group (mercifully) for a while, but not forgotten...
> 
> F. LeFever
> 
> In <913570714.12075.0.nnrp-06.d4e44203 at news.demon.co.uk> "Andrew K
> Fletcher" <andrew.k.fletcher at naturesway.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >Thanks for your kind review Ken
> >
> >Would like to offer the following remark to the use of a microscope,
> and
> >hope it is received in a positive context.
> >
> >Education has been the downfall of science and prohibits free
> thinking.
> >Education causes people to stop before they say something. A child is
> far
> >more clever than some well educated people, whom I have met. They have
> >become too well educated, and no longer see the wood for the trees.
> >A top scientist was talking on a BBC radio program about the advances
> in
> >science. Listeners were invited to ask him questions.
> >
> >Needless to say there were not many takers. However I asked him this
> >question: "When you look through your microscope, do you see more or
> less of
> >the object which you are focused on?". To my surprise he couldn't
> answer the
> >question and blinded the question with B.S. and somewhat hesitant
> political
> >skill. A child would have probably answered "More", meaning more
> detail, but
> >you actually see less of the object.
> >I was trying to point out that the closer one looks at the details the
> less
> >one sees. In other words step back and look at the whole picture. This
> is
> >particularly important with regard to trying to work out how things
> happen
> >in the real world. You can't take a slice from a tree any more than
> you can
> >take a slice from a vital organ, to find out how it works because you
> have
> >disconected it. "Sorry for stating the obvious again".
> >kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
> ><36733F0D.5BA589C9 at pop3.concentric.net>...
> >>Good for you, Andrew, the integration inherent in your Theory is
> >>Quite-Nice. You can Verify your position be-cause, if it's Correct,
> the
> >>"tube"-construction must be graded over the length of the tubes
> >>(greatest where the tube is oldest, least where the tube is newest.)
> a
> >>carefully cross-sectioned tree, a microscope, and the Will to do
> what'll
> >>be a lengthy cross-correlation process are all you need.
> >>
> >>I enjoyed reading your work. Cheers, Ken Collins
> >>
> >>Andrews K Fletcher wrote:
> >>
> >>[his Interesting Theoretical Position re. water flow in trees]
> >
> >



More information about the Microbio mailing list