Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield ?
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Fri Feb 13 03:40:45 EST 2004
In article <ngvm20dhocqmnjkm1f984462t1v1l5ntdj at 4ax.com>, r norman
<rsn_ at _comcast.net> writes
>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:44:47 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
><gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>RN: "Perhaps in another 50 years we will all think like [Ken]..."
>>GS: Especially if someone dumps a powerful psychosis-inducing drug into the
>>"r norman" <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:jd5l20d11nt95du21tr7mitl2fdqsp1rc0 at 4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:11:36 GMT, "k p Collins"
>>> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> <snip virtually all the content>
>>> >I stand on what I've posted.
>>> >[I forwarned that the stuff that I discussed
>>> >in my reply to your post is "too-hot", and
>>> >encouraged you to not reply, so don't be
>>> >'angry' with me. It's just that, where I am,
>>> >Science 'moves toward' Truth.]
>>> >Thank You for the work inherent in your
>>> >replying, Dr. Norman.
>>> >K. P. Collins
>>> As I said -- I, too, stand on what I've posted. I'll continue with
>>> the "traditional" way of thinking which I believe has served us so
>>> fruitfully for the last 50 years of experimental neurophysiology.
>>> Perhaps you are right. Perhaps in another 50 years we will all think
>>> like you and wonder why we were so dense all those years. But for now
>>> I remain unconvinced.
>Who knows? Someday pigs may fly. Someday we will actually find WMD
>in Iraq. Someday (although this one is even less likely) we may be
>teaching about 3-D energy dynamics!
>As a rapidly aging guy brought up in the Eisenhower era to be polite
>and respectful, I find truly appalling the level of civil discourse
>all too often practiced on news groups. (Not this one so much). I
>think I made it pretty clear that neither I nor anyone else in the
>universe believes his theories. But I didn't feel it necessary to be
>rude about it.
Is it rude to refer to what appears to be psychotic behaviour as
psychotic? Not only does Ken show classic signs of psychosis, but he
also violates nearly every rule of scientific etiquette. He assimilates
the work of others, fails to acknowledge where it's come from (cf
Gellhorn, DA, 5-HT and NA etc), misleads the unwary (though I can't
imagine there are many of those), ignores all advice, and should at
least get some professional advice. Is it being rude to try to be honest
with him? Is there not a risk of reinforcing what is otherwise just bad
behaviour by "being polite"?
Like several here, I mean Ken no harm, but I'd like to see him face
facts. It's possible - and with some help, he need not give up entirely
on what he's interested in. But as things are, there's no chance, and
"being polite" may not be the way to help.
More information about the Neur-sci