> Concerning "victims" there are those who are victim of their own
> stupidity to download texts from people of whom they do not wish to
> read texts, to then read them, and to then be uspet about having
> fallen victim to reading them... And to do that again and again, with
> no learning effects taking place... And to then wildly complain about
> being victims. Assuming that all are as bright as they themselves are,
> and therefore suffer the same fate...
I have said repeatedly why you are intolerable in
bionet.neuroscience. I will say so once again for the benefit of
You would be right if mail filters were standard parts of every
mailer, and everybody would be proficient in their use. Unfortunately,
the scientists whose opinions I value are not, so both you and the
administration of your site do not have a point here.
> >Eugene Leitl wrote:
> >> The problem is pollution of a once useful newsgroup with wacko posts...
> I notice that you are still not bringing scientific proof against what
> I say, so far restricting your stuff to wacko mails to me, first from
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far proofs on
your part are lacking. Shut up or put up. (Btw: your habitual abuse of
newsgroup participants does not count as a claim nor a proof).
> your mentioned "Bavaria" (...university computers) and then via AOL
> and other servers.
I can't parse this sentence. AOL? Huh?
I have been shut out from my Munich accounts because of mailbombing
you. The Munich adminstration had acted correctly because, unintended
on my part (it was a bug in a script: delay set too low), the action
was out of proportion: both local and nonlocal mail delivery was
interrupted. I have not intended this to be denial of service. My intention
has been, and still is, to make you go away from bionet.neuroscience.
> I also notice that a lot of what you are writing here and privately to
> me is also exceeding my personal wacko-degree several degrees, and
> THAT should make you think...
I have no idea what you are hinting at. I have tried both flaming you
privately and argumenting with you both privately and publicly (this
is a final attempt) to no avail. If you think that wacko, ok by me.
> And about your suspension stuff I'd not be so sure, even about
> Bavaria, as you might underestimate that some people do not exclude
> that what I told them about perceptions of areas of the brain (more
> than here in the "mammal-cutter area", and yet just a fraction of what
> is there) might be correct (though some of my theories might not be).
> And you seem to underestimate the dimensions that some people see in
> if those perceptions were correct.
You are free to find another channel for your point of view. This one
has not been founded by you, and is not designed by the likes of you.
> How about instead of mailbombing and wacko-remarks you bring proof
> where I am wrong to support your remarks, because until then your
> remarks more seem to indicate to me that you are unable to do so
> and try to compensate that with primitive warfare.
Warfare is not primitive, warfare is either instrumental, or not. You
have proven yourself immune to flamage and reasoning both, warfare is
the only means left.