Hi Christian.
"Christian Wilms" <usenet at out-of-phase.de> wrote in message
news:1ft8yal.141kvqubqjxo0N%usenet at out-of-phase.de...
| Dag Stenberg <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote:
|| > This would facilitate the sorting of noise, but unfortunately
| > we all also know that these categories would not stay apart.
|| Through the past weeks there have been a few threads on the noise
level
| here. I'm certain most of us agree, that this level will never
change on
| it's own, as Neuroscience tends to attract many individuals with
very
| ... let's say: strange theories and even stranger "Truths".
|| I figure the easiest way of lowering the noise you actually see is
a set
| of personal filters, which fish out the SPAM, flamers (which I
haven't
| seen here sofar) and those people whose only form of arguement
consists
| of standing by what they have posted and who hold their Truths for
so
| selfevident, that there seems to be no need of actually providing
data
| or other forms of "proof".
All the data necessary are published in the Literature.
| This said, I would also enjoy a group in which one can discuss
methods
| and principles of Neuroscience.
There's a place for the reiteration of what's in the Literature - so
as to refine understanding with respect to this or that of its
aspects.
But, in a place devoted to all of Neuroscience, if it's in the
Literature, why discuss it, other than adding to it what's not
already in the Literature?
This's what I do, and I do not stand on what I post out of
'obstinacy', but because I've done the work entailed in Verifying
Truth with respect to anything that I do "stand on".
It all just needs to be done.
Cheers, Christian, ken
