C.R.E.B

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Thu Dec 24 19:19:19 EST 1998


Krakatoa wrote:
> 
> In article <3681743C.56462637 at pop3.concentric.net>,
> kkollins at concentric.net wrote:
> 
> > 1. I stand on what I've posted... it will be yet another thing that,
> > several years, hence, will be being Plagerized all over the Internet...
> > and, Sadly, if Experience holds, in the Formal Journals, "Two".
> >
> 
> Yes, you posted that you didn't bother to read the paper, which I guess
> you're proud of.

The night of my CREB post, I gave the most "time" I was able to give to
anything to my reading of the paper in question and writing the msg I
posted. I'm an Amateur. I work as a programmer during the day, and do
what I can on my research at night, on weekends, hollidays and
vacations. "Time" is precious to me, and I only give any task that which
it needs. Then, I move on to the next thing.

Beyond this, I expect that it's the case that it's not clear to folks
that I Honor Truth... if there's any small part of the paper that I've
not read, I say that I've read the paper incompletely, because that's
True.

It's somewhat "amusing" to me that your responses to what I posted are
so "condescending". Dr. Kandel has been one of my Heroes for decades,
and the paper was referred to me by one of the few folks here in
bionet.neuroscience who has given me the Kindness of "just" doing
Science with me. I took my last vacation day this year to Honor that
Colleague's "just" doing Science with me so I could make the trip to the
nearest University Library to get a copy of the paper... I only get 10
vacation days/year, so I gave 10% of my year's wealth of vacation
days... and 100% of such wealth at the "time"... to Honoring the one
who'd "just" do Science with me.

So what's "amusing" is that you seem to think my post is some sort of
"angry-trashing" stuff. It's not that, but just-the-opposite stuff. When
I'd read 13 pages of the paper, I saw that there was a Contribution that
I could make. When I see such, if there's someone who's "just" done
Science with me, I always try to Honor such by giving back what I can
Contribute... it's =this= that I did in my post.

I Apologize to you, and any others, if my "lack" of "expected style"
"misled" you. It's just that I do not have "time" for "style"... for me,
such'd be Total-Waste, and I Waste is one of the things that I Choose to
"move away from".

This clarification having been given to you, I Invite you (and your
Colleagues) to Discuss the "ramp" stuff if you Choose to.

I was going to start a new thread pertaining to it this evening, anyway,
because, on the way home from Mass this evening, I Realized that there's
a =small= (judge for yourself, after reading the new thread's first msg
(which I've not yet begun to work on)) "nomenclature" problem in what I
posted that, it seems to me, is the "tail that's been wagging the dog"
in folks' minds. I'll get that sorted out, and will Appreciate your
comments.

But if you Choose to continue to be a Jackass, I'm just going to let you
flap in the wind. K. P. Collins



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list