IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

To Cijadrachon (was Re: none)

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Sat Oct 24 09:04:58 EST 1998

Markus Collins <markus at fastcat.ml.org> wrote:


I add one too that.


>I tried to help you.
Like in generalizing people with white skin and black skin like you'd
never been to Europe & Africa and noticed that already here in Bavaria
people tend to be already a bit different from those whose ancestors
are from islands in the north...

> I tried to help you put your creative
>energy AND time into good use.

Interesting words for "use your time for what I believe to be a good

Just to your information, if I wish to use my creative energy outside
autistic dock-off phases there are little occupations like dungeon
master of a game system from here or writing myself stories or stuff
like that where I have more than enough of that if I am after that.

>And you refuse to try to read EVEN ONE properly written
>scientific article to see what I MEAN by a logical
>and reasonable research, 
How good that you know all I read.

I told you to send me stuff that you want me to read and as currently
I am getting quite a load of e-mail from other people it might take a
while until I get there and read it.

>and to see that with BILLIONS of people in US and western Europe (since
>in your message, you singled out US and Western Europe
>as the self-censoring...), 
Simplified many Christians.

>the chances of a bunch of "US and Western Europe" idiots FOOLING everyone
They do not fool magicians.
Nor people who are far enough into magic perception.

And if you drop the theories and go for the texts, and  then keep in
mind that they are basically blind even one the thousands of base
ranges, unless using machines, so that they are very clumsy in
expressing energy stuff, then like reading Ron  Hubbard and his
psychological stuff with some if you sort of overlook expression and
go after what they actually say it is correct. And the Westies have a
lot of detail data and some range data of which I doubt that as a
human you can perceive that.

I do not recall saying that they fooled everyone.
Maybe you did not read right what I said.

> for 30 years is just next to impossible. (Learn some
>statistics and probability.)

Actually I still regret I did not record that in university.
Added that that was someone with one of the most boring, monotonous
voices that I know and that he'd have needed an hour to explain in
complicated words what 12:3 is, according recordings would have been a
neat sleep problem remedy.

And probability and statistics if I blind  500 million people and then
ask them to tell me something where you need seeing, is that they do
not see it.

>... this will probably
>be my last post directed at you.

>Using any one human as the pivot point, (for example, you)
I am not sure I am a good human to pick as I regard part of myself
non-human. Maybe for human example pick folks with sort of a complete
setting of stuff in sectors of the brain.

>you would consider SOME SCIENTISTS to be more on the
>"ethical side", and some more on the "unethical side".
I am not going to look up "ethical", but the way you use it it sounds
more like a term I might use in general, not bothering much which of
the branches of Earth they are from.

>...If you DONT LIKE what science has brought you,
>then feel free to choose to die at around 40 years old,
>because that was the average life span one century ago.
Taking in the child-death birth-rate and stuff like that maybe, but
else that sounds like nonsense to me.
And I read from when to when some folks, lived, too, and am aware of
bio-clock settings.
The age you give woman can still have children. The bioclocks see to
aging years after that for serious.

You should check your statistics for whose deaths are all in there.

Also you are rather sure that within Nepal, other Asian places, Middle
and South America etc. all people would drop dead around 40, if
science was not there.

I believe you are generalizing too much again.

Concerning me if I had died at some point where I nearly would have,
that would not have been so bad,
also believe to recall something similar to that before birth; sort of
not new on some levels. Very soft death.

Also just before I had found peace in a place in Africa of the
horrible artificial frequecies plagueing me here so much, and had
reached other stuff that I had wanted to reach, would have been an
O.K. death.

And my neighbour died long before 40, a  hard death, as do many
others, from cancer that I feel sure he would not have had if science
did not exist.
You forget to list all the corpses.

>> Humans are animals, fish are animals, spiders are animals...
>> how precise.
>Pardon me for my imprecision. That was very wrong.
>I meant non-human animals.
>> And what is  "work on"?
>Any sort of work you like, as long as it is approved
>by your fellow scientists.

How nice and ethical. I am sure the people of other races appreciate
the way you generalize all of them as below  you and as possessions to
abuse the way YOUR fellows approve of.

>Yes, once again, the set of all possible thing to perform
>to an object is LARGE.
If you take some plastic object and don't molest others with what you
do with it I would not mind.
Then you can ...umm, perform  with it, what you find pleasing.

>> >would need to pass through evaluation board (which certainly
>> >     included many animal right advocates) before being
>> >     allowed.)
>> Yeah, and next we come to my rights being negotiated by strangers.
>> Up theirs. What's right for me is not necessarily for you and what is
>> right for you might kill me if I were to do the same.
>No, not YOUR right. 

You are not getting the point.

>The rights of some non-human animals
>PURCHASED by the researchers.
Oh, so I purchase myself some slave and  then it is right.

There is no rightful purchase of us mammal persons nor persons of
other races, unless you twist what is right.
>At SOME point, we have to be JUST a little bit selfish here.

You do  not have to, but out of the comfort for yourself and your race
on the costs of others claim so, and such racism is unfortunate.

We had Mengele here in the KZs and others that remind me of what you

> ... learn a BIT basic stuff about fundamental physics.

>> Well, get practical and e-mail me what you think I should know and be
>> open to me asking questions about it,
>> then I might take your recommendation serious.
>Unfortunately, what I know has taken me more than 30 years
>of full time studying and research to gather.  There is no
>shortcut for you to suddenly be able to discuss DETAILS
>with others.

Actually "given your patterns" I thought that some evasive reply would

>However, some simple familirization with logical, deduction,
>induction, basic statistics, basic probability, and
>a bit about physics+chemistry+biology should get you
>quite far.

I do have German A levels you do not tend to get here without all of
that, and did some studying in university.
Actually I must admit that being braindamaged and being off-line most
of the time did not prevent me from passing examinations sufficiently
enough without even straining much most of the time.
Your school system is valued to be worse here.

However within Red Indian and other magic I can go 100% and not get
far and notice a lot that I do not have normal-born human

The same as you recommend me physics I recommend you Red Indian
magical knowledge.

Get at least total basics like "seeing".

>> Nearly totally unlikely but preferred would be teacher who can do the
>> according stuff again and again maybe even over years, and at the same
>> time "highlight" different areas in the brain while we are on LSD, THC
>> and sober, so I can try to watch sector to sector and maybe some year
>> manage alone, too. 
>Actually watching what part of the brain is active is already
And  has been for thousands of years.
> It's called MRI scan.
It is called (part of) "seeing" or second face

> Basically the human drink a small bottle of slightly radioactive compound, which will go into the
>blood stream.
Basically folks trained for decades can do it sober, and else you can
do it a slightly or very sense-enhancing compound, which will go into
the blood stream.

(... Actually I start to find this conversation funny.)

...Though I guess if you have someone sense-censored, your way might
be better,  though sounding ways more unhealthy, and not allowing
internal energy-data comparison nor straight working on the problem at
the same time.

>This compound is detected when glucose is being broken down
>(ie. a cell is RETREIVING ENERGY from glucose), and so the person
>lying in a MRI scanner, and the person THINKS about the past,
>or sing a song, etc., and we can get a 3D scan result showing
>the regions of the brain digesting LITTLE or MORE or EVENMORE...
>energy. (One screen you see from dark blue all the way to
>dark red, indicating the level of activity)


Is that healthy?!

What goes active when someone sings?

When does the radioactivity stop, or how does it get out?

>For someone who does not try to stay in the "KNOW", you'd think
>that you can get far with it. Unfortunately, no.

For someone who does not stay in the "PRECISE", you'd think 
that you can get far with it. Unfortunately, yes.

(THE know and THE not stay in the know.
+ , on top of all generalizing, "you'd".)

By  the way, we have conservatives, here, too, who believe that just
what they know is to be THE rule for all, and are not willing to be
open for much they do not know yet.

>Goal: Try to understand why a particular person-dependent
>      region of the brain would become the focal point
>      for an epilepsy outbreak in an epilepsy patient.

I do not like the word patient.

Alone straight there we are having different goals, as my goals
certainly so far would never include such a term nor thinking.

Within all resembling epilepsy in my brain the inputs ALL without
exception were of artificial sources.
I asked another one and he said that with him it is the same.

So in that case the sector is less relevant, as, if the artificial
signals that other people torture sensitive ones with, would not be
there, the problem  would not be there.

Within the brain within my brain it is the area I call my playground.
I guess you call it blabla if the cingulate gyrus.

For me  the sector is not that relevant there but the stopping methods
if it goes overload if I mess around in it on drugs.
There is a system how it goes overload.

I know that system, and I learned a lot about isolating the pulsing
cluster(s) straight before the get too big and "jump over" to other
sectors and I get off-lined too far to block them  out.

Again we are having different goals.
My interest  is to first remove the artificial frequencies that are
triggers, and if there is one pulse going off to immediately isolate
out the sector and shift power to others and make totally differing
rhythm with central force to counter and break the pulse rhythm.
And then to as soon as the artificial signal stopped relax the sector
for a long time, and afterwards preferably avoid the like for a while,
as afterwards it is likely to happen much faster.

As for the why there are different why's within me.

The ones I know could  be summoned up with autistic playing with LSD
in my brain and getting my playground (and one other area) to do some
stuff with tape-music it is not meant for by nature,
and the other stuff was just prestage of epileptic stuff and happened
after I had a concussion, in the start even with rhythmic lights.

So in general it has not one single cause for all humans.
Basically in my playground in the brain it is sufficient to
injure-blaster  one small area in there with artificial frequencies,
then the next hit coming of a regular pulse within a certain
"distance"  (that has some inner sense that I am sure the neuro front
can explain you better than I with all their potential and spike
stuff; or maybe just imagine an outer rhythm and an inner one
overlaying too powerfully), then it feels like not just one cluster
but more and more cramp-pulsing, and if you don't isolate them out
hell's fast it'll jump to other sectors and semi-offlining and jerks
also firing into motorics and to the body are on the next programs.

I must admit that recongizng the artificial ranges triggering in time
and reacting in time to isolate the cluster and  shift to other areas
and make counter-rhythms to  overpower are ways more interesting to me
as to why exactly to the last fart it happens.

That won't make the artificial  frequencies go away nor help me
counter-rhythming, nor relaxing the the overload areeas long enough
afterwards so I can take them in use again without them protesting
nor overloading straight again, which they usually do much faster.

With others I guess I would simply try to ask them, but be more
interested about when it first started and what triggers it, and if
they had it doing holidays in areas with very few artifial energies
around. And then teaching them counter-rhythming if it looks like that
might help  and if it looks like they did not have that idea yet

We are having different approaches towards the brain.
I am more practically orientated, so I'd wait unitl  the one is in
front of my nose and  then look at and maybe eventually into the

>Number of subjects (ie. people):
Actually sub-ject is also a word that I somehow would feel  hesitant
to use about soneone  in hearing range.
Maybe that is just because it translates weird into German. 

>      In the few reports recently I've read, the
>      number of subjects well exceeded one hundred people.
>      In the past, there have been WAY MORE, but I don't
>      have the SUM of the numbers. So I can not quote you.
>Instrument Used: MRI

Are you sticking artificial energies into someone with an ill brain?

(Mine hurts at the concept of most artificial ones and even many other
human ones, though so close to the own, after a pulse-overload.
Is that healthy?) 

>Result: Inconclusive.

Now, who would have thought so.

(Unless they are at (signal-)pulse-overloading.)

>Even with such a specific goal, it is currently
>helping the researchers little. Unfortunately.

Are you talking about researchers of Westie branches or in general?
Suspicioulsy sounds like  the first.

>Goal: Try to understand why a particular person-dependent
>      region of the brain would become the focal point
>      for an epilepsy outbreak in an epilepsy patient.

>...Even with such a specific goal, it is currently
>helping the researchers little. Unfortunately.

"Person-dependent region of the  brain" - Now that is what I call
specific. So, would  that be the other regions of my CPU in the brain?
But that would not be person, because part of the emotion generators
are part of what makes my personality to quite an extent, so that
they'd count in under "person", but my playground in the brain and the
relay station to the front computer are not, so that, although they
are part of my CPU, I'd  not count them in under "personality".
Or with person one just takes the areas of the brain that have
"I"-perception and therefore are persons.
But then it would be two, possibly even three, as some folks say there
is an area I never could access back then that is having
I"-perception, too.  They are so different, that again the sentence is
not specific, but keeps making no real sense when trying to understand
what  particular person-dependent area you are referring to.

For me what is specific about it is that whoever wrote it has zero
internal  perception. And too little understanding about what he is
writing about, yet seeming unaware of it, and  therefore calling it

About the focal point 
once the cramp-pulsing spilled to other areas, 
at least within me, though then I am not around anymore much to really
judge,   that is also not correct, as by then so many have joined,
that that area alone seems no longer central only source of it, 
and I believe that even if it were to stop, all those many around
would still go on.

Recommend you reconsider that part.

Though of course you can feel free to hunt for goals like this...

>Goal: Try to understand why a particular person-dependent
>      region of the brain would become the focal point
>      for an epilepsy outbreak in an epilepsy patient.

But do me a favour and don't call something like that "specific",
unless you mean that the specific bit is that you have a sentence that
does sound erratic and make it your goal.

>...Even with such a specific goal, it is currently
>helping the researchers little. Unfortunately.

And that that goal should help any person makes no sense to me.

Unless you mean isolating out an area where I am able to, 
but for that the own I areas are sort  of command-giver, 
not all areas to do with "person" or personality,
and I do not believe that the area access of all humans is the same
there, as some brainsurfers went to places I never have.
Apart from maybe MBD effects and drugs used as blockers & amplifiers,
such also seems to have to do with how you axoned out inside /  how
often you "acess" some area.

I'd be very careful to generalize there.

You might not believe  "where some of the autist experimenters go" ...
"to boldly go where no one was ever weird enough to go before".

And even less what they do there once they docked there well enough.

>or an epilepsy outbreak in an epilepsy patient.

...And, as mentioned, I find the word "patient" horrible,
and from my point of perspective either all people would interest me
and all I hear about it, if that was some area I'd like to specialize
in (which it is not), or I'd try to understand enough about the
individual being in front of me and maybe asking my help.

"Epilepsy patient" to me is sounding like mainly some insurance-money
sources interest me in a generalized way, the individual is not that
important, and all the folks who'd not drop by, either, some of which
like I might just get it in connection with certain artificial
frequencies making a pulse within a certain signal distance that is
congruent with some inner system, synches and then overcharges,
and see the problem in that their brain was by nature not built for
some folks nailing artificial ranges through the own brain not giving
a damn if one regards that as private space nor what damages it does.

And with that persective the main aim is to get people to stop making
artificial rhythmic signals that are of the according sorts.
And the aim would not be messing around in the own brain for it being
a way that in a natural surrounding there would not be the according

And me akasha-surfing - liker would of course pretty soonish wonder
about some magic brain energy alteration stuff that might be extremely
dangerous for the person, but then again maybe also very helpful ... 
... and is less intelligent to discuss with you than with an average
5-year-old, and also here in Berlin I just met two people who have the
magic power for that and they both did not have sector teaching yet,
nor the interest, as such would take months or years and be very

>> In other words I have not even gotten the magic basics of "getting
>> out"  yet,  and should I ever learn to be "out" it might take me years
>> if not decades to cover the basics there.
>Your talk of "out of body" experience makes me
>think that maybe you don't want to be scientific (ie. logical,
>proof-based, reasonable, can be based upon, can build additional
>ideas upon, ...), but you want to be metascience.

The one who is illogical is you.

Such stuff has been known and practiced for  thousands of years and is
one of the advanced basics of magic perception.

What you say is like someone blind telling me  that seeing something
that is more away than his blind's stick can reach is not logical and
not reasonable, and therefore all according thinking of  the person is
not, but metascience.

I start to wonder which world you live on.

This is so basic stuff, that what you say is to me like someone not
having understood yet that of letters you can make words, as within
magic that is about the same level and still far away from the
equivalent of understanding sentences and writing books.
Within magic "seeing" is like learning the letters, and  extending far
out like learning the words.
Total basics.

You sound like someone who somehow managed to live so sense-censored,
that he is not even  understanding what so many branches of Earth for
thousands of years have been after, nor where they are, nor were 
in places like here they once were before the Christians started
censoring so folks would not get how Jesus did his stuff and the
Vatican could stay in power and make money as the voice of some god
enabling it.

I have the impression you also never even just most vaguely got  how
Jesus did his stuff nor where they Vatican would be in money and power
if they had not tried to censor the knowledge about magic and many
people would try to imitate Jesus stuff and some of you folks probably
straight docked with technology on top.

>(Again, search "metascience" on www.altavista.digital.com
What is metascience?
What does meta mean?
If it is anything to do with real magic, compared to the world, where
would you estimate them to be,  taking US-wicca-name-abusers as the
bottom and some Indian groups as being extremely advanced?

>> >after grade 11 in high school,
>> >a student would now that the effective radius of
>> >an electron is shorter than the MINIMUM WAVELENGTH of
>> >human's visible light spectrum. Thus, it is
>> >IMPOSSIBLE for today's human beings to EVER SEE an electron
>> >by naked eye.)
>> And - where is the bit about what you can perceive within and how
>> about you lecture me on all the stuff that is between tow humans heads
>> linking brain-energies to go  akasha-surfing,  and so on?
>Um... well, (...)

(And the rest did not have it either.)

...Simplified the message was that you are so prejudiced,
that though you are not able to "see" and though you are not
understanding some of  the even most basic aspects of magic and have
not even trained for some days what others have trained for years or
decades, you are so sure about yourself and your sense-censored
Westie-stuff, that you have not even understood what I tried to say
there and criticized in you.
Nor likely ever will, as some prejudiced mammal abuser like you
combined with your Westie knowledge would be a serious danger  in the
area of magic, and at least of the folks I know here I have trouble
imagining anyone wanting you in their brain for transcopying energy
data for magic perceiving.

Actually maybe that is better that you don't understand magic,
and think that you know about 

Several years back someone who was in Africa told me that in some
places people ran from him as white people from the tribes'  legends
were connected with the danger of being abducted to be sold as slaves.
I had places in Africa where people would stare at me for hours
because the sight of white people were so rare.
The most powerful amgic perceive that I know here in Germany told me
when I asked  him  that he only knows few people as skilled as him in
that: two from Africa and one from India.  Some who were in South
America told me about tribes where not many white people  had come by

Many are still about as willing to tell whities about their stuff as
you'd be if I shot your ancestors, grabbed their lands, transported
some of their riches to my land and then demanded, that you talk in
the language of those who shot  your ancestors with me about the
magical secrets that are passed on strictly within the family or
within your branch with me.

Last one who told me he saw some yogi in a temple floating up and
being above the ground after hours of meditation described it like a
highly religious act, and I guess you'd faster get the Pope to allow
you to MRI or trode him  while he chats with "god" than such a yogi.

...And know all of Earth has must have cued up in front of your door
so you know about anywhere in the world. Or you managed to be to all
places, speak all languages and get all folks to share their magical
secrets with you, often just handed on within the family or according
branch, and that in spite of all your prejudices and though you do not
even get "seeing" yet and do not have the transfer basics.

Man, I am deeply impressed by your knowledge.

>... has shown
>a SINGLE EXAMPLE of how MAGIC cause ANY currently
>proven law of physics to BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY.

Why would it? Physics and magic are based on the same laws.
If you use your head's & body's energies or machines does not alter
such laws as such. Therefore the statement as such makes little sense
to me. You can call your branch physics or magic or Great Green
Klumpatsch Power, and what you name is not going to alter the way
basic principles.

>And so if the laws of physics are AS IS (within the range
>of certainty), then the any conclusion DERIVED from
>And thus, no magic YET.

And  the blind spoke:"And I am blind and thus, no seeing YET."

>Furthermore, "sub-atomic sense-enhancer"? You talk like
>you're uneducated 
...spoke the one whose education about magic seemed zero...
>but try to SOUND scientific.
I regret that this is not a German magic room and we'd be having this
in my language. 

>First of all, in classical physics, subatomic refers
>to the realms of quarks and leptons, and so on.

Here with others into magic perception we use it for energies smaller
than atoms. Call it what you want. It's not going to change it.

> Most
>of these particles can not travel for more than
>0.0000000000001 (10^-9) meter before degrading and
>forming other matter.

If you mean forming matter like I send something and "phuff!" there is
a huge gem, no, unfortunately it certainly does not do that for me.
... Or maybe fortunatley, as with some people I'd tempted to
materialize all sorts of immature stuff within them, their computer ,
their toilet while they sit on it, under their blanket, in their
fridge and pants and in other slightly inconvenient spots... lol. 
(How was that about being creative  -  that is one where I might enjoy
it ...  Which is probably why the wise ones of Earth would never teach
people like me stuff like that :-(    ... Apart from that I am far too
MBD and too lazy anyway for a lot, if not most.)

>And "sense enhancer?" That's look at the human machine,
>shall we?


If that was supposed to mean "let's", I do not believe you can,
and  there is something alone to the word "human" that tells me  that
you do not get one of the basic conepts, as by age the way I reshunt
stuff there to older whatever that seems suspiciously pre-human to me.

Also you are not an internal perceiver & an akasha-brain-perceiver.

>1) Light passes through our iris, and is focused
>   onto the retina.

BTW, I take it transcending and enlightenment are not your favourite
skills ...

>   (So any NON-LIGHT will not be focused and reflected.
>   However, a beam of nonlight, if pointed EXACTLY onto
>   your retina, can still ARRIVE at the retina.)
What is all light for you and what is nonlight?

>2) The photoelectric cells on the five-layer retina
>   breaks down a particular kind of chemical when
>   assisted with light energy.
>   The breaking down of the chemical changes the
>   electrical potential level, thus opening the Calcium
>   ion gate.


>3) The opening of calcium ion gate causes a flow of
>   ions, which generated an "action potential" along
>   the axon out of the eye and into the central nervous
>   system.
>To which two places first?

>4) Then the various visual centers (V1, V6, etc.)
Where is that, the "trafos" in the back (occip.?)
Or some other place?

>   then "SORT OF" (we still know little) analyzes it...

They get a lot in double within magic, some straight and some from the

But I do not get how it makes an identification like "coke".

I have never been able to perceive the temporal cortex.

Where are to sort of "data-cards" that match incoming
"frequencies"/forms of akasha with known objects, so that one does not
actually need to scan the whole load?
Feels like that is also going highly active whithin forms of

Any idea anyone if that is to do with areas of the temporal cortex or

>Now, I can not POSSIBLY think of ANY subatomic reactions
>that would allow our retina to sense anything other
>than light. 

I do not know what you all call light.

But I guess since there is the term enlightenment, and that seems to
refer to some base of magic perception, it is O.K. if you call them
Don't think anyone ever seriously bothered to name all that stuff
anyway, not even some basic thousands of main ranges (of lots of
stuff), if anything than can be discussed magically anyway, so I guess
to all so far that seemed pretty much a waste of time.

(Though with you I di not put it beyond yuo that you and your branch
might actually might, heehee... ;-)

And they are energies to me.
So light is close enough.

>>... reactions there are between them? And with particles, quarks and
>> electrons what they look like,
>> and with the first two if there are different kinds?
>Um... have you heard about particle accelerator?
Vague stuff, but could as well say no.  What comes up most is talk
with someone in Salt Lake City a decade ago about folks wondering
about some long pipe stuff there but to do with other stuff... 
And then thoughts about controlled fission - or was it fusion? - 
at the site of Salt Lake city. And some talks with Mormons that might
make some wonder about the uups!-factor. 

>Essentially, it's a multiple mile tube, wrapped inside
>concentric loops of wires. As electric current runs
>through the wire, then any one familiar with
>electromagenism would know that the moving electrical
>field GENERATES a perpendicular magnetic field, which
>PULLS and SPEEDS UP electrons that escape from
>say a Compton Effect.

Second last word I do not know.

>Then as they get speed up, some electrons are ahead,
>and some are behind.  By deliberately making it hard
>for electrons to pass through, we can intersept 


>electrons until one 1 is circling around in near light speed inside
>this tube.

(So there is stuff smaller than an atom that CAN go further than just
just the distance you mentioned.)

>Then the trajectory can be recorded by measuring how IT
>affects the magnetic field. (As I said, any moving
>electrically charged particle generates a magnetic
>field.) ...

Are there non charged ones & what do they look like compared to the
charged ones?

>The "collisions" 
What happens there?

>was what they used to FINALLY
>prove the existence of quarks, which are what
>make up protons and neutrons.

I thought we were at what you call electrons.

And if you mean that there are very little energies that is what I try
to tell you the whole time: That there are bunches of them.

>Um.. that's "China", not "Chena".
Yes, sorry. Actually you should have seen my spelling four months
after a concussion.
Gave me deep insights into what here we call "Legasthenie".

I wrote a sentence on the computer, looked up expecting it to be
there, to maybe find words and word-ends missing; letters, syllables
and words switched, and maybe the sentence starting with one sense and
ending with another, not compatible.
And by the time I had descrambled it I forgot what the stuff before
was about. 
I worked pretty hard on it for many months, but if I do not check here
sometimes loads of letters switch, and sometimes words.
And often I am simply too lazy to bother as long as I guess that the
other one will still get the meaning.

>And you're wrong. There are exceptionally many brilliant scientists
>on the panel from especially China and Russia.

Let me guess: They do not write in Chinese or Russian...

And let me guess: Their number is fairly low compared to the Westie

BTW, neither has a reputation to magically be of high interest, but to
be of communist-"idea-ed" systems.

>(...Though some of the other experts have "left" Russia a long time ago.)
That does not amaze me.   ;-)

>> And that likely most or all of them folks writing there are not using
>> the senses that the Vatican forbade that lead to magic and are needed
>> there.
>"the senses that... lead to magic"???

>I'll PRETEND you didn't say that. 

Or did they call it the senses that ARE magic?

Doesn't really matter.
Guess if I am still at targetting out for me they'd be more like
others sticking bunches of cables someplaces.
More like lead to.
And when the stuff there reacts then magic.

...Just realized that I might have picked the wrong terms, or that in
England it was translated totally different,  and that history there
in such might have been different, given St. Partick and in northern
England (? ) maybe monks with the front shorn and long hair in the
and later and Henry VIII.

> Such rather male thinking is like telling me to censor my senses and
>Once again, stereotyping an ENTIRE GENDER!!!

Excuse me, just how many males did you hear initiating and executing
inquition and how many females?
Compare the numbers.

If you had not snibbled out what they "such" was about I could have
commented, and about "RATHER male thinking" and "ENTIRE gender" I 
>think that maybe you don't want to be scientific (ie. logical,
>proof-based, reasonable, can be based upon, can build additional
>ideas upon, ...),
and do not
>EVEN ONE properly written
>scientific article to see what I MEAN by a logical
>and reasonable research, 
about own errors and overreacing
correlating  rather with ENTIRE 
not to forget three exclamation marks. 

>However, some simple familirization with logical, deduction,
>induction, basic statistics, basic probability, and a bit about 
Broca's and some place in the front of the head 
> should get you quite far.

Though the bit with repeating sentence signs at the end 
like some weird autist finding a new movement, like hitting some key, 
might be a bit more tricky.

>What had MEN done to you???
>How could you call ALL MEN such thing???

What thing precisely?

I do need not feel like to commenting straight again.
But I take that you found out that instead of several times hitting
one button like "?", 
one can also play parrotting the own intelligence and scientific
remarkably elegant elaborate elocution with:

>Rude! Rude! Rude! Rude! Rude!

BTW, stoned if you make two dots in the "u", here means a male dog,
somehow turning the word pattern like an optical picture of barking

Must be just that I am stoned.

What was it again you were saying about "MEN???"

>Well, if you want others to BELIEVE you, then PLEASE do what
>others request for you to convince them.

And next time I don't BELIEVE your Oh-So-Aaaahmazing Scientificship
then you do ALL (heehee) I request for you to convince me?

Man, you might not be as bright as a lollipop 
(of course just meaning colours here).

But did you get some faint back-echo from the front recommendation

Else maybe head (grin) for your hypothalams, that is old and should be
giving old advice counselling you.  ;-)


.And now we come to megalomania.

This aspired term, so far fought for especially heroically by 
his Royal Censorship Fevering Frankenstein 
and my own sacred Acidic Pope's Taciturnity, 
now has found an new aspirant thundering past both, convinced that jut
because of him and two others, the Acid Popes are flocking in by the
bushels, to teach them stuff like "seeing" in magic 
about as basic as writing letters and words (though not sentences and
books yet) in Westie sciences.
And mistakes mentionings of stuff thousands if years old like
mistaking someone mentioning numbers but not teaching HIM nor those
chosen by him counting  to 100, having to leave the room.

So  he can  go on about electrons (about which I got several mails
asking in other rooms into such stuff) that, no one seems to ever have

Opposite to "seeing" that is understood by practicers of magic here,
in Africa, in India, in America and, from what I heard, also Australia
and various islands.

>Otherwise, quit trying to convince Cheng, Frank, or me, by
>posting in this newsgroup!!!

Dear winner of the m-contest (just scrolled to the
bottom to find your name,
then up again, and found it)

Taraa!: Markus Collins  

Do your know what I'd think if Frank were dead today and parked
underground into some earth-furniture tomorrow?!

And just to your information, Cheng I'd not like on LSD.
Though I would not mind a joint and the candle perception game with
him if he were living just round the corner.
Frank is the type where I guess I'd rather kill him than have him in
my brain.  And saw to not calling up some rather late stuff, to do
with something he was after, in some internal restructuring time, till
basically gone apart from fragments. Hopefully gone
Not that I know all of the world the way you do,  of course, Oh
Allperceiving M-Contest Winner

>Dr. Steven Hawking had a lengthy debate on 
>EPR paradox, 

>So if you don't agree, and yet you post here TRYING
>to get people to agree, 
You are not a good megalomaniac yet.
Not "trying to agree". But IS.
Just like the own middle finger is.
>then the LEAST you should
>do is to show us an EXAMPLE.

Bin ich dein Hampelmann?!

The LEAST a megalomaniac might want to get is more humour 
while telling other peple that they should follow his commands, 
... BTW before I seriously had to check for your name.

>(Just like if I yell that I own 10 billion dollars,
Well for half of that I'd even get tempted to teach nerds.

Not too big sickos, though.

>In case you didn't get it, 
on the foundation of what proof what whatever it was I said to him was
wrong and his theory or whatever there corrrect?
You left out your scientific proof concerning his and my debates
>the analogy is that
>your laughing at Dr. Frank LeFever shows that
>you know way too little 

Would you mind, after all the scientific praising babbling, to
seriously list proof for what you say there?  
Else I will take it as primitive bullying.

...Like taking all of our debates and giving your scientific proof
that he was correct there and me wrong and then also count in 
points the other way around.
The lack of such a scoring list makes me suspect that you can't.

And are just some big mouth, discussing in a style suspicioiusly
familiar, who is
>to even be discussing on
If you can't  that tells me a lot about your scientificness and what
you are really after, m-competition winner...

BTW, you are one of the few who did not get yet that discussion is
pretty futile with me, as you have not reached the megalomaniac level
of IS. That is the difference between you, Frank and me.

So far if I said something IS so, dead serious, 
there usually did not come proof against it, and the same if Frank
says IS.
When I go mightcouldpossiblethatmaybe... or Frank goes theorizing than
care is advisable.

That is something you seem to lack.

And though I hate Frank he is not that stupid.  

Amazes me that you even feel you need to interfere in this war, that
you do not have seemed to have tracked the roots of, nor the
development, in rather primitive style.

But maybe LeFever needs such backup.

>In case you didn't get it, the analogy is that..
neither you nor Frank seemed to ever have perceived areas of the brain
and are like blind people poking at pictures that are of other races,
shredding them to pieces with your blind sticks, and making a science
or complicated words about the shreds.


>No, NOT an actual human being. 
With "cultivated...with same nutrient"
who would have thought so that by today you don't straight cultivate
them in some nutrients like other people their own nerdophilia.

>... etc. etc. etc.

>> ... it amazes me that you are actually seeming to stick a pygmy,
>> someone from Central Africa, from Eritrea and from other quite
>> different locations / tribes into one kettle,
>> and people from Scotland, northern Germany, Bavaria and Italy into
>> another.
>What I meant was that so far, there have been no evidence to
>show that humans, when given the equal opportunity from
>childhood, would not perform equally good (within statistical
>significance, which WOULD take naturally smarter/dumber people
>into consideration, etc. etc. etc.

I heard of enough statistics, personal reports and did enough own
observations to know that a lot of potential is not the same.
And you smarter-dumber sounds like you do not understand the brain
well in spite of all your who-is-to-be-in-this-room blabbing.
I had that impression already when you talked about epilepsy and at
various other points.

You talk very area independent and processing independent, as if you
had never watched your brain nor others inside think nor learn nor
apply data.

>> You generalize differences in structures that here average little
>> children the age of five could point out to you from dozens to
>> hundreds of meters away.
>Once again, you NEED experiment!!!!

No, I certainly don't.
Your four exclamation marks won't change it.
But if YOU need one take a pygmy and a 1.90, blond guy from Denmark,
and  then take 100 children the age of five from different places
around Earth and ask them to point out from 200m distance which one is
Actually you needing an experiment with four exclamation marks for
some structure differences little kids can get is hilarious.

People(s) are so different outside and inside, that it amazes me how
someone can be - excuse me - so dumb to need experiments that for
other people are obvious, and when talking about differences between
peoples within Europe or elseplace not notice so many differences and
just keep coming with vague smart/dumb obsessions.

You do not need to believe me, but already between many people from
waht we call Ostfriesland and many in Bavaria there are quite some

>Ancient people believed that a heavier ball would drop faster.
>And any 5-year old can see that.
>Problem is: That's NOT true!!!

Did you find the ever so scientific exclamation mark button again?!!!

Try dropping the sun on Earth and a tennis ball from the same
distance, and you might come to notice something while measuring the

And Earth's reaction to it.

>If there is no air friction, they would fall at SAME speed.

You can leave the air friction away in the experiment.

We can also make it more absract and theoretical
and take a pebble  and the heaviest sun of our galaxy.
Distance about where our sun is.
Straight angle, total standstill,  and just let go.
Measure how fast they hit each other.

>Differing yes. I'm different from my neighbor. From you. etc. etc.

Yes, and some of the eceteras are even more different than other
eceteras, and some of the ecerteras from other places have alikenesses
in their differences that are rare or not there with the eceteras from
your place or another place far away. You are getting there.

>Capabilitywise, there have been NO agreed upon report
>that shows that given equal opportunity since childhood,
>that any race would perform OVERALL WORSE than any
>other race.

Define race, Oh Your ScienceshipPie

And  then watch sports a lot and abstact thinking contests.
And for the crown of the event Japanes folks, and folks from here
drink alacohol and write some tests
folks from near Wadley in Mexico and from here take Peyote and try to
go out of body.
(For theory you may raise them in the other place.)
And then you compare the results.

Maybe you might come to notice some enzyme  or whatever stuff 
and whole rows of energy differences then, etc., etc., etc., ...   ;-)

>> Personally I doubt that  neither you nor the writers of them could Re
>> me correctly if I were give  them a map of the brain and ask them to
>> tell me the basics for intelligence.
>Well, that's one of the exciting idea that scienstists in
>1990's try to solve. They call this the "decade
>of the brain".

Lol.  Have fun with your "solving" such an ever so exiting idea.  ;-)

>Unfortunately, they have not solved it.
Oh, really? That nearly escaped my and other brainsurfers' attention.

>Likewise, even if we don't understand the brain yet,
>we can still do statistical analysis of
>a LARGE number of people,
Herrre cometh the proclamation of the Oracle of Chaoticon: 
Thou mightst not get far in finding what though seekst but sundry
othere thinges in their steade. 

> taking into consideration
>their culture background,
> their family's life style,
>their economic situation, the quality of schooling
>in that region, etc. etc. etc.

And thou art into secondary eceteras. 

>> If I perceive into some another heads I perceive so much to do with
>> intelligence that I'd be an old fossil before having explained you
>> half of that.
>How exactly do you PERCEIVE into some another head???

I spent some hours REing this, then decided that your criticism of me
calling stuff subatomic deserves a better one, 
far too precise for my style and far to imprecise for yours,
deleted it, and wrote one in smurf-language, 
straight making fun of  you, and then read some comment that is
following this, and hit the del button again.

There was a description under Acid Pope blubblebla students into the
temple of the mind, that I had taken care to write in a way that
someone not a mental rocket and stoned could still grasp most of it.

Else you can also go to some meditation group teaching that, learn
transcending and enlightenment, and then find someone who likes doing
it with you with eyes open, practicing looking through each other. 

At least maybe till then it balances you out.

And actually I could  not even tell you how I perceive into my left
fingers nor how EXACTLY when playing guitar I know that they press the
strings  where I want them to or missed.

Let's say I simply know, and can teach so to most others, without
knowing to the last subatomic fart how that works exactly.

Nor am I overly eager to find out.

For me there is a way I could find a a lot, if I am nor very mistaken,
just would take years, cost me some very, very high inner prices and
maybe leave a lot of lasting physical damages.

And just that I know a few chords on a guitar and can teach them to
others, does not mean if someone doubts I do, that I am obliged to
teach him or others or people damaging instruments or appreciating the
damaging of instruments to study what such damaging does, in any form.
Nor that I HAVE TO know to the last quark of my brain how I make
chords or single tones on a guitar. And discuss that with someone, who
is insisting, that it is not enough that I know how to make some
chords, but implies that all I say about how to play on a guitar is
nonsense, because I did not  give him the notes on some piece of paper
and did not draw the thingie looking remotely like & the correct way,
and that therefore I am not to comment on anything to do with playing
a guitar.

However, while talking about music, I get that he is generalizing
stuff at times that shows that there are some very basic correlations
that he did not get yet or is plain talking nonsense.

Imagine you see dfg of someone talking about D major on a guitar, and
then you maybe count the strings up to the according postions and to a
D chord and compare and write back that part is wrong.
And  the other tells you to leave the music room, because you are not
saying why (apart from maybe recommending to make a downwards pointing
triangle in the highest strings, base in second and tip in third bar),
yet himself not proving why not.

And I hop up  and down and say "triangle"  and the other hops up and
down insisting that he never hear of traingles in music and that
before I can't decorate the front of five long parallel lines with 2 #

I am not to talk about D major in the first place.
Me likely replying something along the lines if he knows where he can
stick his two # together with the f.

And  that I am neither his music teacher 
nor am going to not comment on music just cause he does not get what I

>In your level of debate and logical discussion, you can
>not possibly graduate from high school in the US
In your level of debate and logical discussion I find it unlikely
you'd get A-levels here. Guess-estimate you Realschullevel.

Are you wishing to extend more politenesses?

Like percentages able to read an write O.K. in the USA, violence,
metnal stabilities, acceptance of US educations sytems here, abilities
in other languages and many other details about the education system
of the occupiers of Red Indian lands?

>> >Furthermore, the original poster's question IS important
>> >to general public.
Not the general public here nor much the general public that can
afford a computer, and if she were to go to were lots of the general
pulic is needing aid, the idea might arise to see to getting a dollar
a day for each child and person, and not to wonder forever about
another one who has food again and is not going to die soon, and might
recover quite fast if a natural life is tried to be lived.

>> Must have excaped me. The systems tend to be programmed for hunger and
>> have been more millions of years into the past than I can imagine.

>This is bionet.neuroscience.
>The first neurotransmitter was discovered about 25 years ago,
>quite by accident.

Context correlation?

>Looking at the nutrients digested and made use of, and
>actually actively maintained by the brain is ONE way
>of trying to sort of the INCREDIBLE MASS the brain is.
Well, then don't eat one for a while and watch what it does.
If you want to shorten it go past some anorectics.

Actually I find the thought funny of you folks cuing up with disection
stuff and greedy snibbeling expressions behind some anorectic person
and wanting them to sign that ones they starved dead you may cut
around in the brain, as I somehow suspect that that might get some of
them to become aware of what they are doing ways better then some
Westie shrinks' methods.

Different topic, but when I was with some friends, we watched some
film seeming to play in a time over a thousand years ago, where some
old "doctors" with scary faces were like a hoard of vultures around
someone injured, discussing possibilities to do.
I thought that discussions about "letting out" blood, turning the head
the way Jerusalem is, round glass things onto your back and heated and
a load of other stuff far better, should get people maybe not THAT
ill, to catapult out of bed and range with amazing speed.
And in these days with hospitals overcrowded  here sometimes, 
that maybe they are making some errors not learning from the past in
such matters.

>So... PLEASE read up more on what's going on.
...Spoke the one who seemed to be zero on Red Indian healing
knowledge, Indian magic, African magic and some healing there, 
and other places around the globe,
so narrow minded, as if nearly all that was there for him concerning
"going on" were branches of Westie systems, and most of the results of
thousands of years of research of Earth he was oblivious to.
How about you improve your learning on Red Indian healing ways to the
point of knowing there the equivalent of what I know about neuro and
some of their stuff, and once you are there you go one telling me what
all I have to know. At least by then you are able to "see".

>...It has the latest summary of scientific publishing
>of the week!!! Very nice if you want to know
>what problems HAVE been solved, and what are currently
>BEING solved, what they've TRIED, why they WORK, why
>they DON'T WORK, etc. etc. etc.

Of the world or of Westie-World?

Stuff like what you told me about epilepsy and  the "goal"?

>> >And as any neuroscientist can tell
>> >you, today we are still TOO puzzled by this amazing organ.
>> >And we should try to learn more.
>> Surrrre, so just let me cut some stuff in your head, or even  better
>> take out the entire sector.
>> Where it was we could cram in measuring stuff.
>No, I won't let you cut me.

:-(              ;-)

>That was a STUPID comment for you to make.
If I were you I'd not bet on that.

You are overlooking that some who do not read the stuff you mention
instead straight looked it up in areas of their brain.

You just missed a unique chance to find out how similar you are to
other mammals.

THAT would  have been one where I would have had to study some neuro
and other stuff for serious, because though I know from what I'd have
to segregate your areas within to make you extremely aware how little
you are different from other mammals, I am not sure how to do the
operation itself. 

But for that I do not need some e-zine, but to brainwash Baumgarten of
the Schnippelinstitute in Koenigin-Luise-Street to stop looking at me
like at some absurd imp he on and off spots smurfing through HIS
edifice, and can't puzzle into place, but to give me some corpse heads
and let me go playing, best with someone called Zarko and THE
lirabrian along in the project...Likeliness too many billions against.
BTW, this is a joke, just in case you wonder.
Would not snibble in your head for serious, and maybe never should in
anyone's, as I consider my (?) fine-motorics not good enough for that.

>It makes your logical argument look the more stupid.
You can't really judge that unless I'd do it, and after that you might
never feel like abusing other mammals, as you'd be too alike.

And it is not based on logic, but internal knowledge, the way I
roughly know where my stomach is and when it wants food and what not
to stick into it just smelling some stuff.

>> We could also starve their children of some nutrition.
>No, you go ahead if you want. We won't.
Fine, than how about not damaging us mammals on intention. 

>So you, who knows so little about even the MOST
>fundamental physics, which the modern
>chemistry and biology is based upon, what
>clue would YOU have?

As you, who knows so little about even the MOST
fundmental magic, thousands of years older than physics, 
nor about akasha, of which all is, 
the clues I have about anything to do with magic, the brain, loads of
internal process and lots of other stuff would be a waste of finger
movement to type. And a lot I am not even out  for neuro to get,
pretty much second least of all branches of Earth.

>Anyway, I just gave a lecture to an undergraduate
>seminar of BIOL 315 (cellular biology), and I'm
>feeling particularly "teacher-like" right now,
>and that's probably why I wasted 15 minute typing
>up this response.

You failed.
I know folks here eleven more logical  than you.

> (1) Search on the web for the keywords I mentioned
>     today. For example, EPR paradox, ...

And next I come with some abrv.ed magical stuff, and tell you to go
searching someplace for the according stuff.
Best German stuff.
If you want me to read something stick it here or e-mail it without an
attach file.

> (2) Be open minded. I'm open-minded, in that if you
>     can show me ONE case of magic that causes
>     the world to behave in a way that is not
>     allowed by the currently discovered laws
>     of physics, 
Lol. You are close minded like one of the most prejudiced sense
censored Westies I ever encountered.

How about the other way around, once physics is more advanced and gets
the contexts better you show me one case of physics that causes the
world to behave not allowed by akasha and magic laws.

You babble total nonsense at times.
Magic and physics are of the same laws, one using body and brain
energies and the other machines, simplified.

You talk like some little childie who can't discern some fairy tales
from what is.

I have rarely ever met someone as illogical like you, with some real
nuts execptions.

> As you know,  we're all kind of half-stuck at this point.

Most people I know  have trouble different reasons, like being
pregnant or in debt or the car not working or at someone's  home in
Ex-Jugoslavia things being in bad conditions ...
I am not into the way you generalize sometimes.

>     You probably don't agree with his metascience.
>     He probably doesn't agree with your metascience.
>     You two are such perfect pair.
>     Try argue out who's right.
>     Then you're see that metascience is full of crap!!!
>- Markus
I think  a different  full of it.

Actually I am not even sure what you mean with metascience.

And I commented on Cheng's writings here, telling him to learn
"seeing" and then do a certain candle game.

And he told me about some question that I do not recall another one
replying to that he believes that that is so,
and if that is so the day he finds out what I told him there he will
understand why I asked. If he bothers to recall. 

I believe you do not seriously even grasp  what Cheng is saying there.
And certainly did not grasp the candle-RE.

The day you advanced in "seeing" and with your subatomic
understanding, then maybe you might start to get what Cheng said and
where he was wrong, and get why I told Cheng to learn "seeing" and
play that game with someone and WATCH it.

I believe your arguing who is right does not come up that much.
When Cheng talks about little stuff being sort of absorbed, I know
enough about how I use other brains a little along for more track and
tuning power and how a steer a little over there that though I do not
agree with all he is saying, I know that he is considerably closer to
some stuff than all others in this room.

He is just still young ion being that upset about it, as telepathy
wasn't invented yesterday and of course you stick loads of the little
stuff into the other brain and it does stuff there, else I guess it
would not work.
And I know enough about what to stick there so I get a non-MBD
LSD-subatomic parallel processing and tuning backup to use along, that
some things did not go completely past my attention. ;-)

The idea with yours being the last RE had it's wisdom points, as if
you Re this and me back and we were to do that for a while, some might
have to buy new computer stuff to download it.

And to refer to some other question of yours:
Imagine a T.V. not  tuned to a canal and loads of sizzling stuff.
But not sharp sector pictures like neuro makes.
Just different clumps with different energies;  retuning into one or
several I might aim in my brain for the same position(s), sort of
running both parallel in attention. 
And if you tune to some other ranges, then it does not resemble the
sizzling on T.V. anymore. There are many thousands of tunings that I
know a bit about. Many hundreds to do with the brain.
Could also be tuned quite different (to do with "third eyes" connected
on whitish ranges) and the front of the skull popping up; had that
happen accidentally a few times. That's cool, then though someone has
his mouth shut, the teeth become visible, spooooky.  :-)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net