ken's work

ken kpaulc at [remove]earthlink.net
Wed Mar 17 18:56:43 EST 2004


A COMPOUNDED post.

"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
news:m.kirkcaldie-F3C34E.10313018032004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
> In article <f856c.45441$aT1.1957 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>  "ken" <kpaulc@[remove]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote in
message
> > news:m.kirkcaldie-5B9302.10001818032004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
> > > See you later Ken.  Sorry you didn't accept the
> > > challenge, but I guess I knew you wouldn't in the
> > > end.  I wish you well.
> > >
> > >          Matthew.
> >
> > Your "challenge"? :-]
> >
> > You mean your 'scientific-mud-pies'? :-]
>
> Sorry - to clarify, my challenge of predicting
> the outcome of an experiment in neuroscience
> based on your theory.

Ho, ho, ho :-]

"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
news:m.kirkcaldie-5B9302.10001818032004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
> See you later Ken.  Sorry you didn't accept the
> challenge, but I guess I knew you wouldn't in the
> end.  I wish you well.
>
>          Matthew.

Your "challenge"? :-]

You mean your 'scientific-mud-pies'? :-]

It's so-Amazing.

You post a lot of Crap against my Person,
and then "bilge" when I don't allow myself
to be 'manipulated' by leaving Truth in your
hands? :-]

Anyone can type a lot of B. S. into an Inet
NG.

You gave me no Reason to believe you
would not do so.

So I offered to accept any Published Paper,
as I have consistently done for more that two
'decades'.

You see, even if Jackasses got a Bogus Paper
past Reviewers, they Cannot get all the Refs
cited in the Bogus Paper past all of the Refs
cited in all the Refs... .

Which is the way I Work.

Anyway, your B. S. was...

All in the 'time'-frame of the Templeton? :-]

And you 'think' you do so in-'secret' :-]

People will Die as a Result of your B. S.

> However, you appear to think that my criticisms of your approach are
> some kind of ad hominem attack, and it's therefore best that I don't
> continue with them.
>
>       Regards,
>
>          Matthew.

Your "criticisms" were nothing-of-the-kind.

Your 'challenge' was nothing-of-the-kind.

And you 'deny' it.

All I can tell is that you've done nothing-of-the-kind
'stuff'.

In a 'time'-frame in which doing so will take-Lives.

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list