KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
> That you've done this in this Formal Challenge thread is
That's the way threads work. They start out with one topic (here it was:
Smith predictor and the cerebellum) and a discussion develops. During
this process new sub-threads develop. Such subthreads are denoted with a
new topic (typically the first post will contain a "(was: ... )"
statment and continue on their own. You did this by spawning the "formal
challenge" thread and I did it again. Nothing "unacceptable" about it. I
never read any rule deeming such as improper in any netiquette post.
> What you've posted is =completely= False, Christian.
I was refering to what I have read here in the last few weeks. So I do
in a strange way stand on what you have posted. Everytime the discussion
gets down to solid arguments, you tend to be evasive by "standing on
what [you] have posted".
> But this doing has been a pretty-'lonely' endeavor, because, for
> years, all I got were rather savage attacks by folks who had not
> bothered to read AoK. AoK is a 'tutorial' with tespect to doing
> Neuroscience in a globally-integrated way. If folks don't read and
> study AoK, it's hard for them to understand anything further that I
If spreading AoK (since last week I even know what _this_ acronym stands
for) is so important to you, if AoK is hypertext based (I reckon reading
something to this degree a few weeks ago) and if all your ideas in AoK
have already been stolen, then why not place it on a WWW-page and refer
to it in the signature under all your posts.
> Seems you're a case in-point?
Without having access to AoK, how could I be aware of anything which is
discussed in it?