Budding neurologist

K C Cheng kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com
Sun Oct 4 10:35:23 EST 1998


Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
> =

> Cijadrachon (cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de) wrote:
y
> : Cheng is more  honest  in his way than the in thy way,
> : and yet talkst  as if thou wert  the Creator of Chengs and all brains=

> : and more worthy.
> =

> If you have any references to thousand year old papers on
> the synapses, please post them whenever and wherever relevant.
> =

> As far as Cheng's honesty?  He claims to have all these great
> things he has discovered (460 volumes worth!) but everything
> he posts is pure, unadulterated crap. =

Talking about your own prejudiced yapping?  What else have you shown to
us that you have is not "crap?"
> =

> =

> : You are misjudging Cheng.
> : He is fanatically convinced of what he does and to me  seems not the
> : person out for cheating.
> =

> In other words, intent is lacking?  In reality, he is not honest
> with himself and if he is not honest with himself, how can he be
> honest with the rest of the world?
>You are talking about yourself again! =

> : To the opposite if someone were to ask me how many hours of work he
> : has put into the thing, I do not exclude  that the price is low if yo=
u
> : were just seeing the working hours.
> =

> But effort is no measure of value.  If it was, the downfall of
> Hitler's Third Reich would be considered a great travesty because
> of all the effort he and others put into creating it.  Instead,
> we must measure value by other means which may be much harder to
> discern.  By other measures of value, Cheng's life work may very
> well be worth less than if he had spent his life cleaning out
> pig pens.
That may be so to you and your like, not to others.
> =

> : Not meaning that what he says  is necessarily something you are into
> : and agreeing with..
> =

> I don't measure value by whether or not I'm interested in the subject.
> =

> : >If you really had something of value, you could publish it in
> : >the peer-reviewed journals.
> :
> : Who apart from some Westies would do that?
> :
 =

> Cheng seems to be under the impression that we should spend a huge
> amount of effort going through everything he has written and that
> anything short of that is very unfair to him.  He seems to think
> that his 460 volumes are so great that everyone should drop what
> they are doing and read them -- that it is our duty to hear him
> out.  In reality, it is his duty, if he wishes to be heard, to
> convince us that what he says is worth our time and effort.  So
> far, all his arguements have had exactly the opposite effect.
>You seem to think that I am God, having all means on earth, without peop=
le's help, to transcribe, publish, and give to you for free.  What are yo=
u, some sort of "take all?" =

> : >Are your thought processes as disorderly as your web pages?
> :
> : Minus 13 on tact and minus 666 on not thinking the question till the
> : end why someone might be that fanatically after understanding the
> : brain.
> =

> I suspect that Cheng's pet cat understands the brain better than
> he does.
My pet cat certainly behaves better than you. =

> : >:... Please do not let skeptism get the best of you. ...
> : >  So, please wait and see. The proof is the thing in any
> : >: scientific doctrine.  Whether right or wrong  depends on it. That'=
s why
> : >: only after, not before, reading and digesting the whole proof shou=
ld
> : >: anyone voice an opinion on the electromagnetism of memory, mentati=
on and
> : >: behavaiur.
> :
> : >There are thousands of kooks who are attempting to pass off their
> : >halucinations as fact.
> : Did you read what he said at all?
> =

> Yep.  He said that noone should express an opinion about his crap
> until they have read and understood all of it.
> =

> : And how about you tell us what is wrong about what he just said, than=

> : going kooking like you would not know but judge like someone where
> : what is said is not the topic but personal emotion stuff.
> =

> It is clear from what he has presented that he doesn't understand
> anything of value about the subjects about which he writes.
>It is sure you have a clouded conscience. =

> : Many  points for Cheng.
> =

> Yeah, sure.
> =

> : <stupid magic stuff snipped>
> =

> : >Experience rapidly teaches one that someone who is not highly
> : >knowledgeable about a scientific discipline is extremely unlikely
> : >to be correct when asserting that the current theories are wrong.
> :
> : B.s.
> : The ones who know nothing about them I often like best.
> =

> Does whether you like them have any bearing on the matter?
> =

> : They are not rotten by  dumb theories, but simply point at their head=
,
> : and tell me how deep in from there and what that does there.
> =

> In other words, nothing matters but halucination?
> =

> : While many shamans and others have been linking via  hundreds and
> : sometimes far more kilometers for ages, neurology has discovered
> : recently that there are  different fields in the  brain and is
> : puzzling about their  meanings.
> =

> Citations, please.
> =

> : >To do the work you claim to have done would require a great
> : >deal of organizational skill just to keep things straight.
> : >You haven't shown signs of such skill.
> :
> : Nearly half a thousand  books?
> : Some videos and so  on?
> :
> : I guess  you simply never tried  to write that many,
> : and that is  why you say so.
> =

> Like I said, effort is no measure of value.
> =

> Eric Johnson
Like I said, what has your effort produced other than this crap?
-- =

kccheng =BEG=ABa=B8s
http://www.kccheng.org
http://www.easyhosting.com/~kccheng



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list