KPC and b.n.
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue May 13 08:46:35 EST 2003
"Christian Wilms" <usenet at out-of-phase.de> wrote in message
news:1fuwfp7.1sv5z9omck00N%usenet at out-of-phase.de...
| KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
| > That you've done this in this Formal Challenge thread is
| > unacceptable.
| That's the way threads work. They start out with one topic (here it
| Smith predictor and the cerebellum) and a discussion develops.
| this process new sub-threads develop. Such subthreads are denoted
| new topic (typically the first post will contain a "(was: ... )"
| statment and continue on their own. You did this by spawning the
| challenge" thread and I did it again. Nothing "unacceptable" about
| never read any rule deeming such as improper in any netiquette
A Formal Challenge is a Man puttling his Life on the line.
There's just no acceptable rationale for doing anything under that
heading except addressing the Challenge.
I don't expect anyone else to agree, but, as far as I'm concerned, to
do otherwise is unthinkable.
Why not 'jump' some other thread in which, it should be obvious, that
I'm trying to allow my 'self' to be open to criticism?
Why not just let a Formal Challenge just stand-alone as a Formal
There's a 'time' and place for everything - some things just cease to
Be if they are not just allowed to Be what they are.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and, of course, anyone can do
whatever they want to do in any NG, but, as far as I'm concerned, a
Formal Challenge in Science is not something to 'transform' into
anything other than what it is through 'jumping on it' in any way
other than meeting it head on, defeating it if it can be defeated -
otherwise, let it sit-there, waiting to be taken-up, or not.
And, as I write this, I'm feeling 'guilty' about insisting on it, but
good grief, it's 31+ years of work that you're treating as if it's
| > What you've posted is =completely= False, Christian.
| I was refering to what I have read here in the last few weeks. So I
| in a strange way stand on what you have posted. Everytime the
| gets down to solid arguments, you tend to be evasive by "standing
| what [you] have posted".
If you check, studiously, you'll find that I only 'flip-folks-off'
when it's become obvious that they are just 'fishing', or when they
totally ignore the discussion I've worked to present to them. I don't
have 'time' to 'run around in circles' at the bidding of folks who
come in to b.n for any purpose than to do Neuroscience.
What about all of my 'personal' discussions?
They constitute a long-term working toward elucidating
"Consciousness" - I am using myself as the 'case study' - making this
point or that, which will be pulled-together down the road, a long
'time' hence [if I can find a way to keep working]. I'm laying
ground-work. It wouldn't be fair for me to use someone other than
myself as the 'case study'.
I only rarely allow myself the Luxury of Wasting Energy. Everything I
do here in b.n builds toward lifting folks up in understanding with
respect to stuff that's worth understanding.
b.n is where I Work. This is not some 'social club'. It's literally
Would you go into an office building and wander around interrupting
folks while they're Working?
It's Nonsensical to do so.
So, why do it.
I'm not singling you out. I'm addressing these comments to all the
folks who just think nothing of interrupting the Work folks do in
this Science 'place'.
And I'm nor telling you to 'go away', Christian, but, if you have a
purpose here in b.n, why don't you just do it, and let me do my Work?
I expect you've not looked at it this way, but please do. Not
everything in Life is a 'lark' with respect to which nothing matters.
Some things do matter, immensely, and it's always the case that the
more difficult they are to do, the easier it is for anyone to
recklessly break their momentum - because, if they are difficult,
they're already 'stretching' folks' capacities with respect to
understanding them. In such cases, any reckless thing breaks the
momentum, forcing the one who's doing the Work inherent to just start
back where he was a shile ago.
Sure, it's easy to exert such force within difficult dynamics, but
why do such? Why not just look for 'fun' in some less reckless way?
Or, if it's Science, why not actually do Science?
Why just jump in to 'break' the discussion for the sake of
What folks who do this sort of thing in a Science 'place' do is like
climbing up into a high-rise construction project, looking around for
a Construction Worker who is dangling out on a lefge or a girder and
deliberately distracting him from hiw Work - there are Serious
Consequences inherent. It's not a 'lark'.
|| > 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
| > study AoK, it's hard for them to understand anything further that
| > do.
| If spreading AoK (since last week I even know what _this_ acronym
| for) is so important to you, if AoK is hypertext based (I reckon
| something to this degree a few weeks ago) and if all your ideas in
| have already been stolen, then why not place it on a WWW-page and
| to it in the signature under all your posts.
I've discussed all this repeatedly, and even in the recent past
[probably still on the board].
| > Seems you're a case in-point?
| Without having access to AoK, how could I be aware of anything
| discussed in it?
| regards, Chris
I email AoK to anyone who wants it. It's ~350k. Runs under MSDOS[tm]
or Windows[tm]. Let me know it you want a copy.
I'm sorry, for having to say it plain as I have in this msg, but I'm
Working here, you know?
Don't be 'offended'. But do Science or just forget I, and the stuff I
Why interfere with a guy who's just Working?
That you do so is why I react to what you do, as I do.
It's just common sense to not interfere with a man who's Working.
b.n is the only 'place' that I have in which to Work.
K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci