Neurobiological revisionism

Claire Maier bioaw124 at emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
Sun Mar 27 21:22:15 EST 1994


Michael Kisley (kisley at rintintin.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: bioaw124 at emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Claire Maier) writes:

: >You have a truly amazing talent for writing huge numbers of words
: >without saying a damned thing.

: >What's your point?  What does this recitation of historical trivia
: >have to do with modern neuroscience or neurology?

: >Please post a _real_ abstract of your paper, if that is what you
: >are claiming to be doing.  It should be under 300 words.  And given
: >your love of historical non sequiturs, please do not make any
: >direct references to anything before 1980.  The abstract should
: >justify your initial claim that an understanding of bioelectric
: >forces would revolutionize the treatment of neurological disease.

: I found these posts interesting and enjoyable reading, regardless of their
: adherence or non-adherence to the strict definition of "abstract".  Your
: post, Claire, is inflammatory and unnecessarily harsh.

: Michael Kisley

I don't think so.  He started out pooh-poohing all of modern
biology, neuroscience, and neurology, which in itself could be
considered harsh and inflammatory toward the biologists,
neuroscientists, and neurologists reading this newsgroup.  He then
goes on with 3 posts of mostly unrelated historical tidbits, none
of which explained why he seems to think that all of the rest of us
are doing bad science.

If he is going to make such broad and damning statements, the least
he could do is to post his reasons in a clear and concise fashion.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list