neil.fournier at sympatico.ca
Sun Feb 1 15:38:39 EST 2004
Have you considered perhaps circumventing the entire peer-review process and
publishing it as a book? Generally most people save their more "creative"
and novel ideas for that avenue of discourse (i.e. Straussman, Eccles,
Edelman, etc.). The major difficulty will be finding the appropriate
publisher, however. I am aware of a few firms that would probably consider
publishing your ideas. (Obviously assuming that the data is coherent and
correct). Have you ever contacted people in the certain areas of science to
perhaps collaborate on some of the concepts you are trying to investigate.
(I'm sure you have.... This process can be quite unnerving) I understand
that it is probably quite difficult for you to contact people in academic
circles, since there really is a cleavage between academia and non-academia
circles. (A cleavage that I think is completely absurd and self-limiting).
However, the reality is that your credentials, where you work (or teach),
and what journals you publish in are all factors that matter within this
community. (think of the stupidity that having impact factors for journals
really are. I have read many awful studies published in Neuron, PNAS,
Nature, and Science). Colleague, publishing and grant review is as much a
social process then it is a scientific one. Unfortunately, sometimes more
emphasis is placed on the social aspects rather than scientific merit.
Just a consideration and suggestion. I still wouldn't mind reading the
original theories that you keep on referencing in your discussions.
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BvdTb.5744$jH6.305 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns948183AB2CD2CBilZ0rhotmailcom at 220.127.116.11...
> > ...though Ken, you still use too many 'quote'
> > marks and =emphasis= lines and my personal
> > favorite, references to things most haven't and
> > can't see [AoK, Ap8].
> BTW, "=[...]=" is just my version of
> Or are you talking about the fact that
> AoK remains not-Formally-Published?
> I do presume that anyone who wants
> to read AoK can, in fact, do so.
> It's 'published' - just not in the usual
> And it's sufficiently well-written, and
> everything in-it sufficiently-substantiated
> in the replicable experimental results.
> "Tapered Harmony"?
> Anyone can see that it stands Verified
> by just doing the "lawnmower experiment".
> It's TH that Clinches everything.
> But, BilZ0r, what can one do, after asking
> to be allowed to present a Gift of under-
> standing, but not being permitted to do so?
> It's a 'funny' thing about understanding - it
> happens within individual nervous systems,
> and =cannot= be 'forced' - no matter how
> much one can see that understanding is of
> Both NDT & TH are earth-shaking in their
> collective value.
> But all that they are pales in significance of
> the Loss to Humanity that occurred ~2000
> years ago.
> There is the one thing in-common - folks'
> ken [k. p. collins]
> > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in
> > $GO6.640 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
More information about the Neur-sci