In article <jk9jqvsgk2n33dvkli6g3bgsf4pkchvhir at 4ax.com>,
Reality Therapist <not at here.not> wrote:
> Embedding those empirical factoids into the protocols defined by fora
> classification supports a conclusion that discontinuation of such
> indiscriminant posting demonstrates respect for other forum members
> that will increase Ken's chances of BEING respected by them, at least
> in the form of increasing the odds of his work being read. To suggest
> that he be "kill-filed" instead quietly watches a course of action
> that points to nowhere. That's why asking him to stop demonstrates
> respect for everyone, especially Ken. That's also why I suggested that
> he consolidate his theory in some approachable, concise fashion.
>> Ken, if you've got something to say that's important, that's how
> people are going to find it - quality over quantity of output, and
> with content that's specifically related to a given forum, which your
> theories are, but your random news is not. And to define everything as
> being related to neurscience, as you have, imposes a
> meaning-destructive definition against the specified content protocol
> of this forum that constitutes a de facto attack on others ultimately
> not unlike a virus attack.
You make several very valid points - if you'd expressed these things in
the first place I wouldn't have been so quick to get on my high horse.
But I'd still prefer not to silence someone by making communication
uncomfortable - occasionally a pearl surfaces from the dross, and it can
be a useful intellectual exercise to treat a so-called "crank" post as
if it were a well formulated argument!