META:OFFTOPIC: admin address?

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Wed Jun 10 19:20:47 EST 1998


flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>... for responsible readers who wish to add to complaints to the
>service provider whose service "cijadra" has abused  while abusing this
>newsgroup.
I guess you are very responsible when abusing this newgroup for
personal warfare against me on no scientific base of taking what I say
and proving it wrong,
and while doing vain talk about scientific lacks you claim to be upset
you keep insulting, resending articles without comments, and indicate
to several people that you are chosen to chose who may state his
opinions where.

Maybe first learn to advance from primitive insulting to arguing with
scientific proof against what others say 
and to tolerate different opinions.
You admin address starts to be of interest for me, too.

> You might notice the quality going down, and 
>>certain posters to become absent.
That does not amaze me, certain people spending a lot of time either
insulting, or declaring censorship the great thing, making calls for
mailbombing, threatening, claiming to be able to judge what is of
interest for ALL in here, telling a lot of people to stop writing, to
then come with their theories or other stuff that often is far more
boring, spicing the whole thing with theories about memory areas that
are all being generalized, the realisation that there is data going to
different system which has been known for ages,
and maybe on and off talking about the hippocampus independent from
the "I", going the hippocampus is sending this... and doing that...
instead of "I" am...
Say, has it even ever occured to you to look at this little, utterly
inconspicuous data-track called fornix, and where it goes?

If I were to go to your style my comment would be:
Your theories are sometimes so mind-bogglingly ... that it is no
wonder that a lot of people leave.

Between those adoring censorship and ranting unscientifically against
any opinion that they do not share not even bothering to quote the
statement that they consider wrong and saying why that is not possible
nor even giving their theories, 
though in other contexts making wrong theories or talking about stuff
that has been known for a while in other circles,
and between space alien and Al discussions (where hearing and seeing
are two), advertising for stuff sold and so on, 
this is no wonder.

And I am sure sending articles without comments again and stuff like
that, talking about lack of "sientificness" of others without giving
scientific proof what of what they say is wrong,   or with personal
warfare or endless posts about censorship and whom you are generous
enough to allow to post where,
are going to increase the quality ever so much, Frank LeFever.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list