About Ken [was: Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sun Feb 15 00:39:42 EST 2004


"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%6DXb.5722$hm4.1993 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8CCXb.5697$hm4.3080 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > "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>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >} 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-
> > imposed 'rules'?
> >
> > 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
> > them.
> >
> > Have I, in the past, given you more Credit than is your Due?
>
> The other thing is that, after the 33+ 'years', I'm a bit 'beat-up'.
>
> What do folks 'expect'?
>
> 33+ 'years' of seeing the Need, doing what's Necessary, but
> being ever-more 'ostracized', is 'all-sweetness-and-light'?
>
> I'm Hurting, big-'time'.
>
> =Not= from anything that was inherent in doing the work, but
> as a result of the intense 'aloneness' that the doing of the work
> imposed, compounded by folks 'moving away from'.
>
> "But you have no idea what it's like to be alone." ["Lucy", in
> =While You Were Sleeping=]

Doing what needs to be done, in NG discussions,
is orders of magnitude less-productive than is
meeting to discuss in-person.

Folks who miss reading this or that post, cannot
go-forward in a NG discussion, but that problem
just doesn't exist within in-person discussion.

And in-person discussion has the advantage of
diagrammatic accompaniment, in which direction-
ality can be kept-straight, and even animated.

Fact is, that not everything comes to ones mind
during every msg that one posts [especially not
when one has to try to 'balance' writing for folks
who've been reading all along [are there any?],
and the sort of 'onslaught' that's occurred. here
in b.n. recently].

All one can do is 'swim-up-that-current' - to
'spawn'-information.

[And, yes, here, I've =deliberately= 'violated' the
'rules' that have been proposed. The 'rules' 'move
away from' Truth, and would impose 'moving
away from' Truth.]

No one wants to be Finished with what needs
to be done more than I do.

ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list