ESP

K C Cheng kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com
Wed Jun 24 12:33:00 EST 1998


F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> =

> In <358FDBF7.2C0D at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
> <kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
> >
> >F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll write again, more succinctly: the bottom line is, if you cannot=

> >> tell us HOW your have "proven" whatever it is you say you have
> >> discovered, we may doubt that you have "discovered" anything.
> >>
> >> Not knowing what it is you claim to have discovered, I cannot judge
> the
> >> quality oof your thinking regrding it,  However, you have several
> times
> >> in the history of this newsgroup commented on things I DO know
> >> something about, and so I know that you are capable of stating (as
> if
> >> fact, not just a modest "guess") thoroughy misleading mixtures of
> fact
> >> and nonsense.  This makes me suspicious of the validity of your
> private
> >> "proofs".  The remedy for this, in science, is too describe your
> >> prooofs pubolicly in sufficient detail too allow others to evaluate
> >> them and perhaps attempt to replicate them.
> >>
> >> In <358D943B.4676 at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
> =

> >Re above:
> >Naturally, before people get to know the truth,  they might  consider
> >truth to be  "nonsense,"  or vice versa:  e.g. Darwinian evolutionary
> >thinking is a total fallacy, and yet people worship it like God!
> =

> Can you, in 10,000 words or less (preferably much less) point out to us=

> naifs the basis for judging it a "total" fallacy?
This will be at my new site about to be uploaded at
http://www.easyhosting.com/~kccheng.  I'll inform the moment
 it is successfully  uploaded. =

> >I have no way of letting people read all my 19 volumes.
> =

> Have you any way (i.e. any wit) to write 19 ABSTRACTS?  It has been
> standard practice in scientific communication for many years to provide=

> an ABSTRACT so the reader may judge the relevance of the full text and
> the likely value of reading the full text.
It's totally inadequate to have abstracts when the proof is vital.
Every sentence must be read, every diagram studied, to see what is =

right, what is wrong. =

> To the extent that your previous posts over many months (and, indeed,
> your most recent) serve as a SAMPLE (if not a formal abstract) of your
> knowledge and your thinking, obtaining and reading one of your private
> texs (no doubt full of private thinking) does not seem worth the
> effort.
As I said before, it's up  to others to seek, not for me to give,
knowledgee.
Since you don't feel it wothwhile to  get a copy, I doubt it's wortth =

my 100 dollars to send you one.  When Einstein published his Theory of
Relativity, =

surely it was not for him to explain first.  It was for others to buy
it.  Even today few
people understand that theory.  Yet, people are buying and readin them.  =

It's a free world.  One can remai  ignorant, or one can actively seek
truth.
Everyone's thinking is "private."  Why should anyone's be "public?"
 =

>    In everyday language, "put up or shut up=A1I
That goes for you too!  That kind of arrogance is like the Nazis to
the Jewish scientists in WW II.  Ha! What's so important about you?
Being an American? =

>   However, I have
> >several volumes published for private and public viewing.  Before I
> can
> >have money to publish them all for a world wide evaluation,  I
> attempted
> >to have several issues put on the Web.  But,  now,  I have to buy a
> new
> >site  just to show them.
> =

> Howabout buying postage to send ONE brief manuscript (covering just one=

> point of your 19-volume argument) to a peer-referreed journal?  This is=

> the basic method for seeking an evaluation.
Why should I waste money on postage when I can publish myself?
The reasons for doing as I do are given on my webpage.
> =

kccheng:=B9=BF=C2=F7=F7=F7=F7=F7=A5=BB=BC=A7



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list