to tell the truth, i was ashamed of my previous post within minutes of
it was meant to fall on the whimisical-to-moronic scale much closer to
whimsy, but landed closer to rude idiocy
apologies to any offended, esp'ly the hard working researchers whose work
underlies the tv program
"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:r35Kd.97948$w62.50958 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Lance Sherman" <lancesherman at insightBB.com> wrote in message
> news:hUPJd.21750$ox3.4982 at attbi_s04...> | It's rare that you, me and Longley are all laughing at the same current
> | neuroscience news.
> | 'Course I'm only guessing about Longley.
> | :-)
> | "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> | news:9cFJd.89715$w62.58688 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...> | > [...]
>> FWIW, I rate my response as being
> overly-sensitive [at least in the con-
> text of what others know about all
> that's entailed]. I can't apologize, yet.
>> I've long been aware of the work
> that's been done by one of the Re-
> searchers who appeared on the TV
> show, and I've had nothing but re-
> spect for his work.
>> It's a Lover's quarrel.
>> And a Lover's aching to =get on
> with= what =needs= to be done --
>> ken [k. p. collins]