But there's no point trying to discuss "the science" as you say that's
all sewn up by your theory. What I'm saying is that say there are bits
of truth in what you are saying, say that there are even some important
truths in what you have to say - it's possible that this is vitiated by
the balance of what you say. I'm saying that there may be a bigger
picture that you are not seeing, and that that unbalanced bigger picture
is what people are recoiling from, and which is leading you astray.
It is notoriously difficult to get the balance right as one takes on
more and more. Look at most of the research papers which are published -
they are highly specialised and tightly written. Even the review
articles are - and even when they are written with a theoretical
integration at the end of them, they are judged on the extent to which
they succeed in accurately reviewing the evidence *and* taking the field
forward in terms of at least suggesting further empirical work which
will advance the field.
You are not doing that - and as a consequence, you are not helping
yourself achieve what you want to achieve. If you don't have a go at
implementing something like what I have suggested, you'll just make
yourself very ill, and you've already said that it's taking a heavy
Look at my first post *again* and take the advice positively - work on
what you have done, pare it down, see what's there.
<Wlzsb.245004$0v4.17142411 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, KP_PC
<k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> writes
>>"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4RDR1PW61Us$EwCr at longley.demon.co.uk...>| Hi Ken,
>|>| Please see my original post (not the follow up reply).
>|>| Think about what I have said. Try to implement it, but if you
>| find that impossible having given it a week or so to see how it
>| seek for professional medical help - explaining what you are trying
>| achieve and what seems to be getting in the way.
>>All that's 'getting in the way' is that I can't get a
>>Anyway, I've done what you suggest, repeatedly,
>>So I Reject the 'premise' that was, long ago, tested
>beyond reasonable doubt.
>>Anyone can test it. Go saying you've only an under-
>graduate degree, telling folks who have Professional
>'reason' to believe it's 'impossible', that you've
>developed a unified theory of central nervous system
>function, cognition, affect, and behavior, and see for
>yourself what happens.
>>It never gets around to discussing the Science.
>>It's always stereotypically-Humiliating - hugely -
>like being stretched on a rack - to the 'delight' of
>whoever it is to whom I've reached-out.
>>You know, kind of like what's transpired during
>>It happens this way because I must go 'unannounced',
>so it always gets-down to PTOFA real-quick.
>>How could it be otherwise?
>>I'm a walking-talking 'contradiction' of the haphazardly-
>accumulated Erroneous stuff that folks get handed
>while being trained for their Professions.
>>So I've just got to 'continue', doing 'scraps' here and there,
>hoping this or that will 'stick', and that folks'll 'compare-
>notes' in the background, and, so, 'unfamiliarity' [and
>'moving away from'] will be replaced by 'familiarity' [and