Opioids and cancer
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Tue May 6 18:12:41 EST 2003
"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43525ce3.0305060827.7668eb5 at posting.google.com...
| I am not being negative, I am trying to discuss
| but you obfuscate at every turn. Someone asks
| you to explain IN LANGUAGE THEY UNDERSTAND
| AND !NOT! YOUR NOMENCLATURE(JARGON)
| but you refuse, saying you can't be bothered,
What you say is False.
I did 'bother'. AoK is written as an integrative guide to the
then-existing literature, which means that everything in AoK just
builds upon what was already rigorously-defined within the
All along, the 'problem' has been that folks just hadn't come to know
and comprehend what was in the them-existing literature, so when I
build on top of that, folks can't comprehend the synthesis because
they don't comprehend the fundamentals that're being synthesized.
I've been over and over and over all of this many times in the past.
I'll add, here, that it's long been obvious to me that there're folks
who did understand, at least in part, but these folks opted to
'borrow' what's in AoK, rather than Acknowledge what's in it with
respect to the Suffering of Humanity.
It's been my own deepest-Sorrow. I knew that, if my work was to come
forward, it would be these folks [the folks who opted to just
'borrow' my work for their own purposes] who would've been the folks
who could've got the communication of NDT's synthesis rolling.
Seeing them Choosing otherwise has just rent my spirit over the
course of these decades.
I've tried to continue despite their 'borrowing', withholding of
Acknowledgement, and their ab-use of NDT's understanding, but it's
hard to do so, because I see it all, and it's like I must work in the
midst of its constant Savagery.
If you want to know what it's like, imagine yourself, no matter where
you go, witnessing folks Savagely abusing their own Chidren and,
arbitrarily, the Children of others. What would you do? How would you
procede? I hope you'd do something to counter the aboue, but since
you constantly witness so much of it going on, how, then, could you
accomplish anything other than intervening on behalf of the Children.
I understand that this analogy will most-likely 'fly right over
folks' heads', but an abstract version of its stuff is my constant
'companion'. I've tried to explain, and it's 'hilarious' - as soone
as folks begin to get it, they turn tail and run ['move away from'
the understanding because they cannot, yet, endure the TD E/I(up)
that's correlated to it within their own nervous systems].
It's all so exceedingly-Savage - folks 'blind' to all of this stuff
that they're, nevertheless, doing.
Imagine having to go forth despite such, and perhaps you'll
understand a bit of what's in what I do.
But it's not as you've sad above. AoK is an integrative-guide to
then-existing literature. The broplem has been that folks just didn't
comprehend what's in the then-existing literature, and although AoK
'holds folks' hands' during the integrative process, if folks don't
know what's in the external literature [basically, what's referenced
in AoK], they cannot grasp AoK's synthesis of what they cannot
uderstand [except for the 'borrowers', and the more I do, these
'borrowing' folks only become more 'frightened' with respect to being
discovered as having ab-used NDT's understanding - so their
understanding is 'lost' to the possibility of NDT's stuff being
It's all Sorrowfully Nasty.
I have to go forward in the midst of such, anyway.
| but then you complain when people don't listen.
| It'd be like asking someone to analyse Shakespeare
| before they could speak English.
I don't disagree with your metaphor. The solution is to either learn
English, or work with accurate translations.
| You cite that all current data in the literature
| fit nicely into your theory,
As far as I know, this's True. What you seem to miss is that, when I
say stuff like this I'm just reiterating the Formal Challenge I've
had before Neuroscience ever since AoK was written. I'm trying to
give folks reason to select a published report and use it in an
attempt to 'attack' NDT's stuff.
I used to reiterate this challenge in detail, but now only reiterate
the gist of it, which is what you're referring to.
| but you have never gone into any more detail than
| simply stating such a fact and asking that we accept it.
What you say, here, is False. I've continually done exactly that/ The
problem has been that most folks just don't possess the prerequisite
basic understanding, so when I discuss it's synthesis, it 'flyie
right by them'.
What can I do other than encourage folks to purchase a coppy of
_Human Neurosanatom_, but Carpenter & Sutin, and learn its stuff?
I can't do 'the Vulcan mind-meld' in order to 'zap' the necessary
fundamentals into folks' brains. "Biological mass" is constructed as
the result of actual neural activation within folks' brains. Folks
have to do all that for themselves. ["Ain't nobody else can do it for
you." [Johnny Cash, "The Reverend Mr. Black"]]
| I and others have repeatedly asked you to post your
| thesis (AoK or whatever it is called) but you refuse
| saying its too old;
Here, you flat-out misrepresent Truth. I send AoK to anyone who asks
for a copy.
I don't go around forcing it on folks - just simple Courtesy.
| yet on the other hand you say recently published
| results were discussed in that document 20
| years ago.
Yup. I stand on that.
Why do you think no one's posted any explicit challenges from the
contemporaneous literature? :-]
| Just post it somewhere or send it.
Are you asking for a copy of AoK? You mean you've been hassling me
all these months, and you've never even read AoK?
Good grief :-]
| I accept the proviso that it is a little bit dusty. You
| cannot expect people to just believe that you are
| telling a truth, when no-one understands what you
| are saying.
I disagree with the last part of what you say here.
I do not expect folks to 'just believe' me.
I do expect folks to allow me to meet with them in-person, so that
they can ascertain Truth in any way that they wish to go about doing
| And you cannot get out of it by saying you want a chosen
| jury to hear you - many scientists publish their work to
| hostile reception (cf. cold-fusion in Science last year), and do so
| knowingly. Thats how the game works.
I understand. As I've explained repeatedly, it's just that I've not
been able to get NDT's stuff Published - it seems that I can't even
get it by mail room clerks.
I have a written promise from the AAAS that AoK will receive "a
thorough and professional hearning". I received that written promise
back in 1988. I'm still waiting for its Primise to be fulfilled.
| So please either stop asking to
| be heard by people you choose
I've never done such. I've always said I'll go anywhere.
| or stop bombarding this newsgroup with
| stuff that you very well know people do not
| understand and cannot ever understand until
| you do some detailed explaining.
'well spoke', in accord with the fact that all you've ever done is
hassle me, without ever mentioning anything in Neuroscience [you
know, so I could actually respond from the perspected of Neuroscience
It's all lost for 'me', Mat.
I gave all.
Folks're going to let me die because I've Loved them.
All I'm doing is not allowing myself to 'run scared' from all that.
K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci