noise of Eugene Leitl

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Sat Jun 27 21:28:28 EST 1998


From: Eugene Leitl <eugene at liposome.genebee.msu.su>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:32:46 +0400 (MSD)
To: cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Cijadrachon)
Cc: "bionet.neuroscience mail newsgroup" <sci-neuro at dl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: META: Re: noise of Eugene Leitl
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid

Cijadrachon writes:
 > Concerning "victims" there are those who are victim of their own
 > stupidity to download texts from people of whom they do not wish to
 > read texts, to then read them, and to then be uspet about having
 > fallen victim to reading them...  And to do that again and again,
>with no learning effects taking place... And to then wildly complain
>about being victims. Assuming that all are as bright as they
>themselves are,
>and therefore suffer the same fate...
 
I have said repeatedly why you are intolerable in
bionet.neuroscience. I will say so once again for the benefit of 
new readers.

(My, we are not a little bit miffed, are we...)

You would be right if mail filters were standard parts of every
mailer, and everybody would be proficient in their use. Unfortunately,

the scientists whose opinions I value are not, 
(Lol)
so both you and the administration of your site do not have a point
here.
 
 > >Eugene Leitl wrote:
 > >> The problem is pollution of a once useful newsgroup with wacko
posts...
 > 
 > I notice that you are still not bringing scientific proof against
what
 > I say, so far restricting your stuff to wacko mails to me, first
from

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 
- If you'd look around in the other branches you'd know that with many
of the areas that I perceived others perceived them so, too, so that
with two exceptions the "claims" are not that extraordinary in other
circles than yours.  And I am neither going to prove to you that I
perceived my belly and other areas in the body and brain.
They are there and if you cannot sense them that is your problem.
In my branch little is proof and a lot is practical, and that is where
we are different, meaning that if I have the right people (and for
that there are not that many on Earth who can get far) as students and
they want it can teach some segregation ways.

And once  a person gets it all I need to bother with is to give
balancing instructions, as it is a very unnatural stage and concerning
two areas connected with high dangers for some, but about the sectors
themselves they can then learn themselves.

In my branch we tend to not torture others for data about ourselves
but research ourselves.

...So far proofs on your part are lacking.  
- You re the one into science, and I observe that though I asked you
to several times you never proved me wrong so far.
And I have asked others to do so and they did not.
I do not say that all I say is correct, so I'd even appreciate if you
were to prove me wrong, so I can learn something else from you than
your insulting.

...Shut up or put up... 

- Ah, so because you could not prove so far that I am wrong I am to
shut up...  Very logical thinking.  I can theorize around here like
all, and if you do not like it, how about you are getting at least to
a slightly more adult level.

...I have been shut out from my Munich accounts because of mailbombing
you. The Munich adminstration had acted correctly because, unintended
(- of course...)
on my part (it was a bug in a script: delay set too low), the action 
was out of proportion: both local and nonlocal mail delivery was
interrupted. I have not intended this to be denial of service. My
intention  has been, and still is, to make you go away from
bionet.neuroscience.

- You might have liked the time of censorship 57 years ago?


(Cij.:)
 >I also notice that a lot of what you are writing here and privately
> to me is also exceeding my personal wacko-degree several degrees,
and THAT should make you think...
 
I have no idea what you are hinting at. 

- Hm, the bit with the thinking did not seem to have worked out...

(Eug.:)
I have tried both flaming you privately and argumenting with you both
privately and publicly (this is a final attempt) to no avail. 

- I could have told you so before if you had bothered to ask.
I have kept indicating that the trick is in stating what I say is
wrong why, and what is correct instead.

(...)
 > How about instead of mailbombing and wacko-remarks you bring proof
 > where I am wrong to support your remarks, because until then your
 > remarks more seem to indicate to me that you are unable to do so 
 > and try to compensate that with primitive warfare.

Warfare is not primitive, warfare is either instrumental, or not. You
have proven yourself immune to flamage and reasoning both, warfare is
the only means left.

(German songs: Ahugahagahuga!  
...Und schon sind wir wieder im Neandertal...)


Regards,
Eugene


- Well, I am of course honoured by your regards,
and if you wish to extend them a little, do me a favour and print and
cut this out and glue it to your monitor:

(I repeat officially, as I asked you several times privately before:)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE PRIVATE MAIL FROM YOU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


By the way, as usual I was impressed by the scientific brilliance of
your entire post.   

I can really learn a lot from scientists. 
Especially about some programs of the hypothalamus, already got
several lectures about that. If you'd move just a little onwards 
you might discover some laughing center.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list