K.P. Collins

DAN umogbor1 at cc.umanitoba.ca
Sun Mar 23 22:34:03 EST 2003


Unfortunately your response has done nothing but to validate the opinions
expressed by others on this message board. I spent the time to explain
things that perhaps you did not understand and hoped you would not just
respond as "verifiably false". I ask you to elaborate furthur. It is never
enough to say verifiably false, you MUST clarify your arguments! I'm fine
that you stand by what you've posted, but to say that I am wrong is not
enough, perhaps provide a meaningful counter argument. I think this would
prove difficult, as many of the processes I have disscussed are well founded
and unfortuantely you clearly cannot grasp this. Don't bother to respond, as
I'm sure this will be beyond your comprehension and just seem verifiably
false to you (even though you cannot verify this).





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list