F. Frank LeFever
flefever at ix.netcom.com
Sun Sep 27 11:24:47 EST 1998
In <360BCF19.2E5 at postoffice.idirect.com> K C Cheng
<kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com> writes:
- - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>I never said memory stored as electrons. Instead, they are taken in
>stored as stimulus-specific electromagnetic particles. As I said, why
>do you think you know anything to criticize me when you don't
>anything relevant to that field?
And just what field might that be? Evidentally it is (besides not
being neurology or neuroscience) not electromagnetics. Not the English
language, either. in passage above, what is referent for
"they"--memories? electrons? Memories stored as "stimulus specific"
electromagnetic "particles"? Electrons stored as "stimulus specific"
Never mind that "particle" is just one metaphoric way of describing
some aspects of electrons... What is this, the static-electricity
theory of memory?!?
How does such a "particle" become "stimulus specific"? How exactly
does one tell one electron from another? (Even assuming the
preposterous notion of this mythical "particle" being transported into
and preserved within some bodily tissues...)
Your posts so far can be categorized as (1) those referring to bizarre
concepts so vaguely stated as to elude rational criticism, and (2)
those purporting to answer rather mundane questions, with terms
sounding enough like standard textbook items to fool the neophyte.
Your lack of competence so evident in the second category, and your
lack of humility or self-criticism in offering these misleading
"answers" are sufficient to tell us not to bother reading your Magnum
Opus and are sufficient instigation for us to warn neophytes to ignore
your answers to mundane questions.
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
More information about the Neur-sci