k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Jan 21 06:45:56 EST 2004
"Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in message
news:bulc2s$nc9$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> In bionet.neuroscience k p Collins <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net>
> > Hi, Dag.
> > I stand on what I've posted, Dag.
> > So, since the topic has become
> > 'suggesting' to others what their
> > 'shortcomings' are, I 'suggest' that
> > you spend some 'time' working at
> > extracting information-content
> > from dynamic visual imagery.
> > Somewhere in that effort, you'll
> > come to understand the position
> > I've discussed :-]
> > ...
> I am used to lecture to medical students on
> this topic, trying to make it comprehensible
> to normal brains. What you write is far out.
That's why I discuss it - to drag it in from
the 'fringes' of what's known, to the center
of what's known.
> I also suggest you read Neil Fournier's
> (NMF) kind advice to you in another
> posting very carefully. I agree with him
> on the main issue, athough I am not
> confident that you are going to change
> your way of writing. But if you took his
> advice, and changed your approach, it
> would be very good indeed..
I replied to Neil, in reiterative-detail.
My reply has not yet appeared in b.n.
Of course I Agree, Dag, but I'm holding
on to Dear Life, and what's left of that
I don't accept that no one will allow me
to stand before them, in-person.
But, if that's to be the case, I'm doing
what I can do, in the way that best
sustains staying-alive. [I'm not asking
anyone to understand this 'weirdness',
but there's nothing I can do about it,
either. The 'decades' take their toll.]
> I am also rather tired of having to scroll
> through all of the previous discussion just
> because you do not care to clip off
> everything except the very essentials to
> show what you are commenting. Those
> who want to read the whole previous
> posting can go to the previous posting.
Obviously, although folks can, folks
It's what Neil was addressing in his post.
I do the 'inclusiveness' because there are
always new folks 'stumbling' upon this
or that, in a post, that interests them.
Damned if I do, and damned if I don't :-]
NDT's reification of the phenomenon of
decussation is the single most-significant
'event' in the entire History of Science.
I didn't ask for the Responsibility inherent,
but it fell to me, and I was brought-up to
meet Responsibility head-on.
So I do.
Cheers, Old Friend, ken [k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci