A Million Parrots (OH MY GOD)

ken kpaulc at [remove]earthlink.net
Wed Apr 14 21:56:22 EST 2004


"ken" <kpaulc@[remove]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_Mmfc.10315$k05.3666 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "John H." <johnh at faraway.> wrote in message
> news:407df45d at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > Ken,
> >
> > For weeks now David has been earnestly attempting to make you realise
that
> > you're whole approach is misguided, that you need to carefully rethink
> your
> > use of language, that you persist in habits of thought that only
alienate
> > you because it gives rise to language and posts by yourself that are
> largely
> > incomprehensible and often littered with errors.
> >
> > Why David persists in these endeavours is beyond me. I have seen many
> others
> > attempt the same over the years and all with the same result: your
> > persistence refusal to accommodate your communicative style to standards
> > appropriate to this forum. His persistence is to be admired but I'm
still
> > betting he will not win the day even though he is giving you very good
> > advice and is genuinely trying to help you. I think you will never
change,
> > that you take his approach as being offensive is clear evidence that you
> > completely misunderstand his goal.
> >
> > That you commenced a thread complaining about no-one responding to you
> > should be evidence enough for you that you need to change your
> communicative
> > style. Instead, you blame everyone else for not responding instead of
> > identifying the problem as emanating from yourself.
> >
> > However, given that at various times you claimed to have achieved the
> > following:
> >
> > re formulated special and general relativity
> > provided a fundamentally new understanding of the universe (tapered
> harmony)
> > claimed to have answered all the great questions of Neuroscience.
> > Solved Fermat's last theorem
> >
> > the only logical conclusion is that you must be the most intelligent
> person
> > who ever walked the earth. Hence it is not surprising that you ignore
the
> > advice of others, it would seem that rather you would have us all bow
down
> > at the feet of Great Sage in order to received the great truths espoused
> > therefrom. You need to understand that from the perspective of others
you
> > come across as someone who is intransigent and holds most
neuroscientists
> > and physicists in contempt. You may claim otherwise but that is just
> pissing
> > in the wind.
> >
> >
> >
> > John H>
>
> You're 'forgetting' a lot, Sir.
>
> About 99%
>
> What do =you= think I mean when I say I Honor Truth?
>
> A 'fitting' way to 'Die'... in a B. S. 'sandwitch' :-]
>
> Kindly, spare me anything more, Sir.
>
> k. p. collins
>
> > "ken" <kpaulc@[remove]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:_mhfc.9563$k05.7544 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > "David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:hpWTl+iiwZfAFwUb at longley.demon.co.uk...
> > > > In article <1X9fc.9686$A_4.3775 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
ken
> > > > <kpaulc@[remove].invalid> writes
> > > > ><Bouh> wrote in message
> > > news:jiko70l6v1lo97lb47i6ns2pg2s8egfmrh at 4ax.com...
> > > > >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:19:51 +0100, David Longley
> > > > >> <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >> >In article <ejgo70lf7kqols1blpoua7aa213m9qhmh7 at 4ax.com>,
> > > > >> >Bouh@?.?.invalid writes
> > > > >> >>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:51:34 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
> > > > >> >><gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>>"Higgs boson" isn't "in" the ordinary lexicon,
> > > > >> >>>you shit-spewing monkey.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>Is it your only argument ?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >You don't retain much from post to post do you
> > > > >> >Joe? Do you make an  effort to do that or does
> > > > >> >it just happen?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well, as everyone has now grabbed your warnings
> > > > >> about the language,
> > > > >> [...]
> > > > >
> > > > >Longley Plagerized that to which you refer, out of AoK.
> > > > >
> > > > >He's spent months in bionet.neuroscience waving his
> > > > >'behaviorist' feather at 'me', 'thinking' he could acquire
> > > > >more to Plagerize.
> > > > >
> > > > >And what's Sorrowfully-'hilarious', he 'thinks' that he
> > > > >can retroactively make it appear that what he Plagerized
> > > > >'has been in' Behaviorism, 'all along'.
> > > > >
> > > > >But he's 'just' a Plagerist.
> > > > >
> > > > >K. P. Collins
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have little doubt that you will ignore the following as usual, but
> > > > perhaps it will be of use to someone else who reads your posts and
> > > > doesn't know what to make of them.
> > > >
> > > > I've yet to find anything in your writings which is either original
or
> > > > useful. That is not me being unkind, it's just that the things you
> have
> > > > written about are either a prime example of what not to do in
> > > > neuroscience or simply restate in a rather eccentric if not florid
way
> > > > what has already been said in more mundane terms by others. To give
> some
> > > > context to that remark, I suggest you take a look at where I worked
> when
> > > > I started my post-graduate training nearly twenty five years ago,
who
> I
> > > > worked with, and what my work was on. if you can understand it
(which
> I
> > > > doubt) you might find it interesting and possibly enlightening.
> > > >
> > > > Here's a reference:
> > > >
> > > > TJ Crow and J F W Deakin "Brain Reinforcement Centers and
Psychoactive
> > > > Drugs" Ch. 2 Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems Vol. 4,
Ed
> Y
> > > > Israel, F B Glaser, H Kalant, R E Popham, W Schmidt and R G Smart.
> > > > Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1978
> > > >
> > > > If you look into the history of this work you'll find a couple of
> papers
> > > > by Crow (in the journal Psychological Medicine) building on Herrick
> and
> > > > Sherrington's very early and seminal phylogenetic analyses of how
> > > > olfaction, gustation and nociception figure in the "directionality"
of
> > > > behaviour and the structure of mammalian brains. You'll then see how
> > > > that figured in some of the work from the 60s onwards on the
> monoamines
> > > > Dopamine, Noradrenaline and Serotonin. What I learned in those years
> led
> > > > to a profound rethink in how I appraised behavioural neuroscience
done
> > > > by my colleagues and how many pursue that today and it shaped much
of
> > > > what I have done and written since. Over the years, I've
periodically
> > > > referred to the research on monoamines and behaviour (only half
> > > > jokingly) as the ABC (Accelerator, Brake and Clutch) of behavioural
> > > > neuro-pharmacology.
> > > >
> > > > Quite apart from my advice for you to get some help, I have (on a
> number
> > > > of times) made efforts to nudge you towards some *respectable*
> research
> > > > which I suspect (in the long distant past) you only vaguely
> understood.
> > > > What you're mistakenly doing not only illustrates what the last part
> of
> > > > that quote from Quine ("Mind and Verbal Dispositions" warned
against,
> > > > and is an error I think we are *all* prone to (to *some* extent) in
> our
> > > > private behaviour, (something Glen and I have discussed several
times)
> > > > but one which, in your case, is i suspect, so extremely
dysfunctional
> > > > that it has to be described as clinical.
> > > >
> > > > You are almost certainly confusing or confabulating what you have
read
> > > > and heard with what you think you are originating. That's very
easily
> > > > done, and in some instances it doesn't really matter too much within
> the
> > > > bounds of how we socialise our common-sense knowledge, e.g. where we
> > > > encourage students to "think matters through for themselves".
However
> > > > even in ordinary everyday life their are public reality checks, and
in
> > > > *science* these get quite stringent. One has to search the
literature
> > > > for anything that might be a precedent in order to contribute
> something
> > > > *beyond* that.
> > > >
> > > > You don't seem to appreciate how this "game" is played or why it's
> > > > played the way that it is. There are others who post to newsgroups
who
> > > > have the same problem, but not to the same extent that you do.
> > > >
> > > > It isn't done so much to credit, or honour others (although it may
> seem
> > > > so). It's done to at least *try* to ensure that whatever one has to
> say
> > > > does actually make a useful contribution to improving, or advancing,
> > > > prediction and control (in some conceivable or demonstrable way)
> within
> > > > that field of research or field of application. That's what peer
> review
> > > > is all about basically, and it's a painful process. This is
extremely
> > > > difficult to understand unless one is working as a professional
> > > > researcher (although there can be very rare exceptions).
> > > >
> > > > If you listen carefully to those who have worked in research, you'll
> > > > find they wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is not prepared for
the
> > > > extreme specialisation and specificity which it demands of one these
> > > > days. Research tends to make what one works on appear arcane and
> trivial
> > > > (or just downright odd) to those outside the field albeit only for
> > > > obvious reasons to those who already know how the game works
perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > I reckon it's your *failure* to respond appropriately to these
> > > > contingencies which makes the way that you write appear *extremely*
> odd,
> > > > and it's the fact that you don't respond appropriately to being told
> > > > that (by lots of reasonable people who are not being malicious)
which
> > > > makes your behaviour look clinical.
> > > >
> > > > Prove me wrong Ken - cut out the odd syntax, paranoid talk and be
more
> > > > critical of your own private and public verbal behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Longley
> > >
> > > What do =you= think I mean when I Declare that I Honor Truth?
> > >
> > > K. P. Collins
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list