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:
> : 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=
> : 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'=
> : >: only after, not before, reading and digesting the whole proof shou=
> : >: anyone voice an opinion on the electromagnetism of memory, mentati=
> : >: 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?
More information about the Neur-sci