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

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Mon Feb 16 01:21:42 EST 2004


"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:dmou209b56rl9045dndp90ek1avnmh8l7f at 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:53:00 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> } 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 respecfully suggest a reconsideration of this. If he restricts his
> posting to the relevant threads, no matter how often or apparently
> ill-conceived in anyone elses' opinion, it remains isolated from
> discourse to which it is irrelevant. Repetative self-response is a
> pretty good indicator for even the novice that there's something a bit
> unusual.
>
> As for responding to any question as though it were the nail to the
> hammer of his "theory", no, I'm sorry, there are some things that are
> just wrong and if his answer is wrong, as he says, he'll stand by it.
> If he's allowed to do so, fine, but I'd consider it unconscionable for
> anyone who knew better not to correct it so as to make sure the less
> knowledgeable were not misled. The student asks, expecting to be
> taught. If doing so, by those here most capable, is not the primary
> purpose of this group, then in my opinion it doesn't deserve the
> bandwidth dedicated to carrying it.


I =AGREE=, and not that, thus far, having received
ample opportunity to do so, you've not pointed to
anything that I've discussed as 'being in error'.

So, where does that leave you with respect to your
own 'flowery' statements, above?

> Making him stop is impossible, and wrong. Making him stop being
> disruptive is the task. Doing so with the least other disruption now
> and in the future should dictate the means. I think keeping his
> traffic focused within relevant threads, regardless of amount, to be
> the most efficient way to accomplish these.

All you've done, thus far, is the sort of weak-
kneed ad hominem stuff that's the Hallmark
of Belligerent-Ignorance.

I Invite you to try to find Error in anything that
I've posted.

For that matter, show how anything I've posted
is 'disruptive' [without Genuine Purpose and
Utility with respect to Neuroscience].

K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list