death of the mind.
Glen M. Sizemore
gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 13 05:56:19 EST 2004
Here's the thing about you, Peter; you think you're some kind of
intellectual iconoclast, but you're not. You're just a jerk pushing a
sophomoric philosophy via nearly incomprehensible writing, peppered
with your stupid acronyms. Your attacks on my ideas consist of mere
assertion that that I am wrong, or dogmatic, which is pretty much how
silly wannabes attack on USENET since they are unable to offer any
"Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<bhXHc.500$QT.17328 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> "John Hasenkam" <johnh at faraway.> wrote in message
> news:40efc9eb at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > Hey Peter,
> > Not true to say seeing red is a photoelectric effect, we see red even when
> > the frequencies are not those we think of as designating red. With age the
> > frequencies hitting the retina change because of change in the vitreous
> > matter, but we still see the same colours. Seeing colours is not just a
> > product of the visual system, clearly other types of information modify
> > colours we see.
> You simply plucked your disagreement out of context (you obviously did not
> consider what I wrote in the sentence that followed).
> Anyway, I can easily put up with the fact you did not get what I was saying.
> Have gotten used to that most people don't.
> However, I have to exert some self-control not to rip the head off the
> simultaneously genuinely vile and intellectually oh so stale Glen Sizemore.
> Luckily I remember these wise words: "If one argues with a fool the chance
> is he is doing just the same."
More information about the Neur-sci