I stand on what I've posted, but
explain why, below.
"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:lce4301koj1sp0n2p0c0gtsfbvoksuju68 at 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:21:42 GMT, "k p Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> } 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'.
> } I Invite you to try to find Error in anything that
> } I've posted.
>> In <AhvPb.17594$q4.2672 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, in response
> to a straightforward question about the correlation dimension of a
> time series, you responded with:
>> } You're missing some crucial data that cross-correlates
> } your 'time' series to the cerebellar topology.
>> Not only is that wrong, it's so far from logical that it calls into
> question your very intellectual and cognitive capabilities.
>> The shape of a part of the brain has absolutely nothing whatsoever,
Topology has nothing to do with "shape".
> even in the greatest stretch of imagination, to do with calculation of
> cD from an arbitrary time series. If you think it does, you're wrong.
> If you think you have some "theory" concocted which shows this, you're
> as wrong as a football bat.
One of us is Wrong :-]
> If you really need someone to tell you that, Ken, you have a problem
> far more serious than simply wanting to talk about your pet "theory"
> in every conversation. It is far more than simply wrong to think that
> mathematics is influenced by anatomy.
> That was just the first one. I could continue, but that could be
> construed as purposefully humiliating you.
While you have manifest all manner of
Falsehood against my Person, you've
not yet done anything that 'humiliates'
You'd have to do something that's
True to attain that 'goal'.
> I will not do that in
> response to a direct or implied question. However, if people,
> presumeably students whether formally or informally, ask specific
> questions, and you respond to them with information that is so
> obviously disconnected from the subject matter that your response is
> confusing at best and quite irrelevant,
That's just it. Nothing in anything I've
ever posted is either.
Neuroscience is Neuroscience, and
there's no way around the fact that
> I will not hesitate to do so.
> If that is the only way to bring the fact of it to your attention
> (directly telling you apparently doesn't and only feeds your
> insistence at continuing) and thus prevent undeserved confusion on the
> part of the questioner, I have no problem whatsoever in doing just
It's as I said. You've presumed 'two'-much.
K. P. Collins