Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield ?
k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Fri Feb 13 23:44:03 EST 2004
"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IzC9tvKhNBLAFwQ2 at longley.demon.co.uk...
> 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
> >>water supply.
> >>"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. But as things are, there's no chance, and
> "being polite" may not be the way to help.
> David Longley
Most of what you've posted is Lies [who or
what is "Gellhorn"?], but I agree with the first
phrase in your last sentence. It's as you say,
so I'm using the Freedom, inherent.
K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci