On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:24:47 +1000, "Entertained by my own EIMC"
<write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"r norman" <r_s_norman from _comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:q3k51397ohdvlt8ma2acrk5ipj6gur7pq3 from 4ax.com...>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:27:19 -0400, "Glen M. Sizemore"
>> <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> More long-winded than I had hoped but there
>>>>>you have it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why working on lobster stomach (as in stomatogastric system)
>>>> is so much less worrisome!
>>>>>>Wise of you to keep it short, Dr. Norman. You knew that saying anything
>>>than one sentence would probably get me going again.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't actually mind long winded stuff if, like yours, it has some
>> actual content. It is just that I am a bit preoccupied right now and
>> don't have the time to spend reading it that carefully and responding
>> to the technical details. I do like the overall tone, though.
>>My EPT interpretation of your discussion is simply this:
>>Both of you are *potentially* and unknowingly scared [I'd say 'SHITScared'
>:-)] of what you would find if you analyzed habituation comprehensively
>enough (not just in depth but in dEPTh) and by force of this same scope of
>analytical logic you were brought close to touch on the topic of
>>It is clear to me that this is a topic that to people near the norm of
>neuroscientific attitudes (where you two seem to be) is
Perhaps people "near the norm of neuroscientific attitudes" simply
have a better perspective on what is good science.
Sorry, I just could help myself! But I am also arrogant enough to
actually believe it.