About Ken [was: Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield]
k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sat Feb 14 23:31:00 EST 2004
"r norman" <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qq8t209ahdsfv06ahud80a9hmgdf9ns66g at 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:51:22 -0500, Doktor DynaSoar
> <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:31:28 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net>
> >} 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.
> >I'd like it to be known that I have nothing against him and his
> >"theories" I only have something against him expounding them at
> >unsuspecting people asking serious questions. They're very often
> >students, and posting in a non-alt newsgroup might expect real answers
> >to their questions. I think they deserve the chance to find the right
> >answers, and that sometimes necessarily includes indicating a given
> >answer is wrong. If in doing so I can shorten the time it takes to
> >make the effect stick, and therfore decrease the long term traffic
> >noise level, I will.
> >Compare him with John Winston. John hangs out in the UFO and
> >paranormal groups, regularly posting things he's found along those
> >lines. If someone asks him a question about something he knows or has
> >material on, he posts it. He's been doing this for 15 years on usenet
> >and Fidonet before that. He's impervious to flames because he knows
> >he's done nothing to give people cause to be upset with him. Never has
> >he done the equivalent to what goes on here, such as answering every
> >question by claiming it's related to motion (because after all, all
> >energy and matter are in motion) and then relating it to Bob Lazar's
> >"discovery" that the anti-gravity engines in the flying saucers at
> >Area 51 run on element 115. I've been a major fan of John Winston (for
> >his behavior, not his material) for all of those 15 years. No one can
> >claim that in all that time he misled anyone.
> I apologize. An inexplicable twitch of my thumb on the mouse caused
> me to post, not just one, but two unfinished posts.
> Ken's posts are most definitely disruptive. But he is not going to
> stop just because we tell him that. I don't know his problem, but I
> can't help him. My point is that I demean myself by getting nasty and
> vicious and it still doesn't solve anything.
> I further apologize for even suggesting that such nastiness had
> occurred in this group. I had not. It is just that I read the
> incredible flaming that goes on in groups like talk.origins and then
> come here all riled up and overreact.
> Ken, if you are reading -- you are entitled to post your theories.
> But you are entitled to do it just once and then stop. You are
> entitled to respond to other posts and queries. But just once. It
> really is an abuse of news group protocol to answer your own posts and
> do it again and again and again. There are threads where you post
> four, six, even eight, ten or twelve posts in a row. If you have
> something to say, say it once and stop. If you think of more to add
> later, too bad. That means you shouldn't post anything until you have
> thought it through sufficiently. I won't attribute psychological
> pathologies behind your behavior but you should know at least that is
> not normal especially in a group that is supposed to be devoted to
> science and not to advocacy or disputation.
Sorry, Dr. Norman, what you've posted, quoted
below, is B. S., and you should know that [by now].
And, beside, what you've said about my replying to
my own posts is contrary to the dynamics inherent
in =all= non-trivial 'memory'-center-of-mass shifts
[the dynamics of which I discussed in long-former
posts [involves glial function, and derives in then-
current globally-integrated 3-D energydynamics]].
So, I'll 'follow the energy-gradient' to there's Worth
in doing so, 'thank-you-very-much'.
Think about it, a bit.
How to you expect that New-stuff can be communicated
if the only one who knows it is 'silenced' by arbitrarily-
I'm working on behalf of folks who Suffer - folks upon
whom Neuroscience has 'turned-its-back'.
And you propose 'rules' that, if I adhered to them, would
have only the 'result' of me, also, turning my back upon
Have I, in the past, given you more Credit than is your Due?
k. p. collins
More information about the Neur-sci