Opioids and cancer

mat mats_trash at hotmail.com
Wed May 7 03:19:48 EST 2003


> 
> | 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.
> 

Which requires that the person who can speak English teach those who
can't, or that the English speaker does the translation.  Either way
the onus is on you.

> 
> | 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'.

Because people don't understand it because you refuse to explain in
any other terms but your own.

> 
> What can I do other than encourage folks to purchase a coppy of
> _Human Neurosanatom_, but Carpenter & Sutin, and learn its stuff?

Many people have and probably know it better than you, but have
obviously not come to the conclusions you have.  People cannot 'see'
what you are talking about when they read anything that you suggest. 
This is the whole problem.

> 
> Here, you flat-out misrepresent Truth. I send AoK to anyone who asks
> for a copy.

You have refused to post it on the www in a posting to this group from
a couple of weeks ago, citing that it needs to be rewritten.  Email it
to me at the address above.

> Why do you think no one's posted any explicit challenges from the
> contemporaneous literature? :-]
> 

Because no-one can judge whether what you are saying/arguing is true,
false or not even worth such a value judgement, again, BECAUSE NO-ONE
UNDERSTANDS A WORD YOU ARE SAYING - its just a semi-random sequence of
words to everyone else but you.

> 
> 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
> so.
> 

Why should you expect in-person review?
> 
> 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.
> 

Post it on free webspace, its easy and, of course, free.

> | 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.

You've repeatedly asked for it to be a 'jury of my choosing'

> 
> | 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
> :-]
> 

I've discussed topics with several other people here.  For the last
time - I cannot discuss what I don't understand.  If I was to discuss
what you are talking about it would be no more intelligent than random
word generation.

> 
> Folks're going to let me die because I've Loved them.

Whats with this Jesus complex thing you have?  If you and He are so
alike why don't you act like him - explaining everything to anyone in
terms they could understand, not dressing it up in jargon.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list