"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:67a7305spe9460env17t7lp44ramobmo1h at 4ax.com...
> 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.
I want, only, to be "held accountable for" every-
thing I've discussed.
The 'Problem' has been that no one will do that.
Hold me Accountable.
You'll have to do more than 'he-says-she-says'
I stand on what I've posted.
K. P. Collins