F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> Yes, what has happened in Yugoslavia was avoidable.
how would you've gone about achieving the amelioration of the long-standing
hatreds over there, Mr. Frank?
> No, it has nothing to do with anything Ken Collins said or didn't say,
> did or didn't do.
I agree, everything I've posted has been "moved away from" (AoK, Ap8).
> No, no one in Neuroscience is "afraid" of anything Ken Collins
> says--just afraid he'll say it in this newsgroup and drive serious
> readers/writers away.
what, and interfere with all of the "serious" topics that have been the
sustinence of this place? :-)
i stand on what i posted.
> (For example, I am a card-carrying member of
> Society for Neuroscience, and I am not afraid of his "theories" or his
> "pedictions" or whatever; and no, I am not dependent on government
> grants nor private industry grants).
no one should be afraid, they just are, and if you want me to analyze your
own former posts with respect to such, i will do so.
but, since you're a card-carrying member of SFN, why don't you get a bunch
of other card-carrying members to sponsor a presentation by me at their
next annual meeting... with, of course (from your perspective), the sole
purpose of debunking NDT's position? You know, put a little substance in
your "protestation". perhaps you'd make the papers, "Famous NY guy
'debunks' the work of the 'mad scientist' who, although possessing no
advanced degree, has, for decades, had the temerity to say that the
Neuroscience community was letting folks down." [applause, applause... then
on to a guest appearance with Leno and another on _Politically
Incorrect_... not to mention the in-depth interview on NPR... go for it,
mr. frank. for my part, you have my word that i'll breathe nary a word
outside of the Science, and if you want, i'll do the presentation with a
bag over my head... "the unknown neuroscientist" :-) what've you got to
> On my first aquaintence with your writing, the mixture of sense and
> nonsense you posted about decussation, it seemed you simply needed some
> clarification and/or correction about some of your misconceptions;
that's B. S. everything's in the archives. want me to refresh your memory?
> you eventually proved to be incorrigible and on a very private trip,
"incorrigible"? i agree, i won't "corrige" Neuroscience's turning tail upon
> unable to communicate your ideas clearly (neither the bizarre nor the
> mundane ones). This in itself is adequate to account for your failure
> to win acceptance in the scientific community.
more b. s. Mr. Frank, i do what i do for reasons i've already stated.
there's never been the simple opportunity to just discuss NDT's principles.
there's always been the b. s. drowning out anything and everything of the
theory that i tried to discuss.
besides, Frank, didn't i send you a copy of AoK? (i'm not sure. i don't
keep tract of who i send it to, and tend to remember only folks who i've
sent it to repeatedly, but who still profess not to have read it, and who
continue to ask for it... you know, such repititiveness augments the
if i didn't send it to you, then, if you're so "interested" in
Neuroscience, and all that, why don't you give me permission to send it
along to you? then you can "debunk" it's stuff right here in
seems fair enough to me, no? ...especially since you're so "interested" in
the Neuroscience, and since you're such a bonified card-carrier, and all