IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

a prediction confirmed

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Thu Apr 8 22:38:59 EST 1999


In <370D331F.FDAAFBB6 at banet.net> ken collins <kenpc at banet.net> writes: 


- - - - - - - - (snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - -


 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
>lose? nauta.

Do you mean Walle Nauta, the great neuroanatomist?  Or do you mean
"nada"?
>

The combination of naivete and grandiosity in your proposal is mind
boggling.  (Of course, the grandiosity comes as no surprise, given your
belief--expressed in one other of your MANY posts back-to-back with the
same heading today--that you can control the stock market.)(And of
course I know why this has not made you rich: either too dumb to know
how to buy and sell stocks or else too moral to take unfair advantage
of the rest of us; I can guess which one you'll admit to)

You have already had your chance at a presentation to SFN: besides
myself, I know of two other members who are regular participants in
this newsgroup (I've met them at SFN); and surely there are a few
others.  You have not stated any idea clearly enough to engage serious
interest.

Apparently you have some image derived from some movie as to what this
important and dramatic presentation at SFN would be like.  The reality
is either
 (1) a platform presentation (slides, microphone, podium), usually 10
minutes or so (smaller groups with more time to spare might give you 20
minutes), and 5 minutes for questions from the audience.  A very small
fraction of the 20,000 members in the room (anywhere from 20 to 200,
depending on the interest in that session's topic).
or
 (2) a poster presentation, in which you put whatever makes your point
(a few well-chosen words and very clear figures), readable at a
distance of 3 ft or so, on a board about 4 ft by 5 ft, and stand by it
for at least the designated hour (if you wish, the whole morning or
afternoon session) to answer questions and discuss your paper with
whomever stops by.  Topics of great interest might draw 30-40 during
the session, others might draw 5 or 6.  A few may read your abstract
(two abstract volumes, each the size of a Manhattan phone directory)
and write or email to request copies of a fuller paper if available.

Either presentation requires a discipline you have not yet exhibited:
choosing a manageable chunk of your ideas, organizing and clarifying
that chunk, then stating the point you are trying to make in clear and
precise language, using commonly understood terms or (if necessary)
explicitly defined new terms.

We ae tired of your taking up so much space in the newsgroup with your
posturing and hinting at your greatness, and tired of your complaining
that no one will give you a hearing without ever doing the hard work of
actually presenting an idea.

I stand on MY previous post, that you are

>> 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>

- - - - - -(snip) - - - - - -

Regarding your kind offer below: yes, you have permission to send me
whatever.  I will not try to download huge files, nor risk computer
virus infection by downloading whatever it takes to read them.  Send me
an abstract, and if it looks worthwhile I'll ask you to mail me a hard
copy. Indeed, you have my permission to send it even if I do not think
it looks worthwhile.  I'd prefer to keep a buffer between me and the
crazies ("present company excepted" I believe is the polite formula),
so why not send it to me c/o the NY Academy of Sciences, 2 E. 63rd St.,
NY, NY 10021; under my name write "Chair, Linguistics Section".

F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.


>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
>micromods.)
>
>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
>bionet.neuroscience.
>
>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
>that, no?
>
>ken collins[...]
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net