flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
>More of his psychotic-sounding nonsense,
As usual non-psychotically you are scientifically not quoting the
parts you are having differing opinions about, and as usual avoid
giving scientific proof against what I say, and as usual you are going
>squeezing out legitimate neuroscience discussion again.
Are you talking about yourself?
Your enitre post had nothing to do with neurology, but just with your
warfare against me and primitive insulting.
And the sad thing, talking about psychotic, is that some are accusing
others of stuff that they are doing and are not even noticing it
How about you are giving your own complaints addresses since you are
so convinced of yourself and your own scientific arguing.
Maybe some day bother to read your own posts and how much of them is
about something to do with neurology and how much is going on forever
about whom you are gracious enough to allow to write where in your
dreamt of future, repeating long texts again complaining about people
sending texts, telling people to shut up in the name of all of
neurology and so on.
And then compare how many words of what you write are interesting new
aspects or theories about the mind / neurology and how much is your
personal warfare against others.
Maybe those numbers will tell you more.
...By the way, I am still impressed by what you wrote about memories.
How about for a change instead of ranting primitively against who may
write what, you are taking the parts you do not like,
and either look from whom they are and simply don't download the
according texts in the future,
or you quote the texts and then bring scientific proof what is wrong
Where I come from it is custom to not attack the entire person, unless
they do so first, but to listen to what they say, and then point out
where one thinks different and what the own opinions are.
And when harping around on scientific aspects, I believe here most
would feel it rather out of place to come with childish insulting
instead of scientific arguing against what the other one is saying.
I have no special interest in arguments being scientific, so for me it
is sufficient of you are f.e. giving the areas of the brain or remarks
about energy ranges and what they can be used for or something like
that and say where you are thinking what instead.
If you can't even do that, to then try to compensate it with insulting
is not casting a good light upon you nor your claimed aiming at
discussions here being as much to do with neurology as the one I
And excuse me, but your entire post was less scientific, than some
coversations I might have with older children here, and did not
contain anything that I found interesting about the mind apart from
displays of your rank fighting programs.
Would it bother you a lot to mayhap return to the scientific levels
you seem to aspire so much?
(I wish I'd speak your language better, English restricts me...)