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

Noise (was: Re: Basic Neuron Questions)

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Fri Apr 11 04:00:11 EST 2003


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






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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