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

Doktor DynaSoar targeting at OMCL.mil
Wed Feb 18 13:16:51 EST 2004


On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:19:14 GMT, "k p  Collins"
<kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:

} 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".

It has everything to do with shape and nothing else. It is a branch of
geometry. Whether it is the outter surface of a part of the brain, or
the networked interconnections of neural pathways, it is shape and it
is regading, in your statement, anatomy.

} > 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 :-]

Well, since I can calculate the correlation dimension of an arbitrary
time series, and despite knowing about brain structure, do not need to
use any of that information in order to perform the calculation, I
would say the evidence of data places the football bat squarely in
your hands.

} > 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'
} me.

It's part and parcel of your thinking on the matter that prevents you
from facing the fact that you have.

} > 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.

What happened to standing by what you wrote? Does that only apply when
it's convenient for you? 

I just gave you a concrete example. The same sort of thinking
obviously applies here. Frankly I don't care whether that thinking is
just wrong, ignorant, or delusional. Regardless of the reason, you'll
be held accountable for it. 




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list