A matter of taste
effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au
Sun Feb 22 10:44:06 EST 2004
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gl3_b.15718$hm4.14651 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> [If you're talking about my Attributing
> Priority to Jesus. Yes, I stand on that,
> with jaw-hanging-down, that the ex-
> perimental results point directly to Him.
> I'm Willing to Die for this, Peter. I'll
> never 'deny' it. I've seen it with my own
If you can't cause your scheme to encompass a specific explanation of
religiosity (including one such as your own) then I am afraid for, your own
sake and for your hard and talanted work's sake, that you/it has a crucial
fault and can only ultimately become a failed undertaking to undertand and
On the other hand it might be usable as platform for "successful
However if I hope you find a way to come to your senses as far as this 'snag
of a science integrator' is concerned (i.e., your snag) - I bet it will be
easy for you to put sharply analytical conceptual claws into this your
ideationally expressed AEVASIVE encumbrance - and rip it into neat
post-religious pieces. %-|
I did not just joke before about "deification": You could also consider
contacting some religious group (and ditto funding body) from which you
could gain sufficient funds to support yourself and your project more
comfortably than now, and one within which you could also feel appreciated
and closely emotionally supported at the same time.
I wish you best of luck any which way you go.
More information about the Neur-sci