m.r.hoeksma at pharm.uu.nl
Mon Dec 14 04:24:00 EST 1998
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> Marco Hoeksma wrote:
> > kkollins at pop3.concentric.net 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?
Talking about grandiosity. You yhink that your gibberish puts you right
up there with the likes of Gallileo? And can you really see 'external 3D
energy gradients' at a molecular level? Man, you must be God.
> > > 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.
You're right. No one can, because no one knows what AoK is. You refer to
AoK all the time, you talk about things like 'TD/E(up)' but you never
post the full story.
You are very right when you say (over and over again) that we don't have
a clue of what you're talking about. But it's your fault, not ours.
> =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.
You are insane.
> I've sent it out again and again. It's not been published.
> I've never received any Reviewers' Comments.
> 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.
It has never received any attention except your own.
> 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.
Right, the silence spoke volumes. But again, your understanding of this
> 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...
Maybe you should read my comment on that again. You made my point.
> 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
As a scientist who abides by the mores of science, I will not even
attempt to do so.
drs. Marco R. Hoeksma
University of Utrecht
Faculty of Pharmacy
Dept. of Psychopharmacology
More information about the Neur-sci