kkollins at kkollins at
Fri Dec 11 20:06:00 EST 1998

Marco Hoeksma wrote:
> kkollins at wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you'll cite some specifics?
> What about:
> the Neural Topology, which Rigorously-Preserves the
> Body-External-Environment Topology, and, hence, the External 3-D
> Energy-Gradient Topology is Rigorously-preserved at the  molecular
> "level"... and beyond, to the Ionic-Conductance "level"... and to the
> "Level" of "only" Energy... the "Automation of 'knowing'" results from
> such...

Do you think I'm not aware that what I've posted (I've not checked the
acuracy of your attribution) will tend to be "moved away from" by folks
who're unfamiliar with it? I am Aware of such... just as Gallileo was
Aware of the Consequences of his having to declare what he Saw with his
own eyes... how does such "nullify" a Scientist's Obligation to Declare
what he Sees with his own eyes?

> > Or, if you'd rather, just show me one Pharmacoligical dynamic that
> > contradicts what's in AoK, Ap9. ken collins

You Cannot. No one Can.

> Better yet, you show me some publications about this Aok and Ap9 (and
> Ap5 and External-3D-Energy-Gradients and whatever) in a few serious
> journals, and I might even look into it. (So don't start about what
> you've posted in this NG).

=Please= Forgive me for stating a simple fact: AoK's explication of why
decussation occurs is the single most-significant "event" that's
occurred during the entire History of Science. I've sent it out again
and again. It's not been published. I've never received any Reviewers'

If you've an interest in why it's been so, perhaps you'll take it up
with the folks who make Editorial Decisions. From the beginning, no one
has discussed such with me... not Editors, not Writers, not the Mail
Room Clerks. AoK's stuff has never received a single word of Criticism.

I "gave-up" on the wastefulness of submitting AoK when what had been
raucous denigration on the parts of folks who'd not even read AoK,
transformed into universal Silence, which never-the-less, Spoke volumes.

Yuo know, I Understand what's transpired... the Understanding of what's
transpired is wtitten in AoK, as is the Understanding of what to do with

But the Understanding has still not been communicated to those on whose
behalves the work was done, who Suffer Greatly... not has it been made
available to the Children.

So I remain Obligated.

> (Btw, my teacher in elementary school always told me not to 'quote' (!)
> every word. It gives the impression you can't think of a more suitable
> one.

I do what I do in an effort to communicate to folks that the Familiar
symbols that they read in my posts need Unfmiliar consideration... the
"symbology" is just the stuff of another long-on-going communication.
Waste gives me Sorrow, and I tend not to do stuff enduringly if it's
wasteful to do so. The "symbology" is not.

> But then: =Underlining=, "quoting" and Putting-Everything-in-Capitals probably makes you feel more secure about the nonsense you write.)

Now, earn the criticism you've already heaped up... show me one thing in
all of Pharmacology that Contradicts what's been in AoK for 10 years.
ken collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list