IUBio

brain Atlas

Gerry S. Oxford, Ph.D. gsox at med.unc.edu
Tue May 7 08:28:18 EST 1996


enticy1 at aol.com (ENTICY1) wrote:

>Of course you don't. You have no information in your memory to relate it
>to.
>If you did you would declare it to have at least some relevance. But you
>don't.
>So you declare it NOT to have relevance.

This I did not do.  I merely point out that if you wish acceptance, nay even
acknowledgement of your position, then allowing individuals the benefit of
previously documented ideas and information (right or wrong) helps to put
your own views in a greater context of discovery.  

 YOU
>are 
>attempting to dictate the availablity of knowledge because YOU don't get
>it. That is stupid.

Hey, *I* didn't provide the original poster with a biased, limited information
resource in the first place.  Hmmm, I believe that was ....... 

>And let us get this 'peer reviewed' garbage out of the way now: Peers know
>what they already know. If something is presented to them they do not know
>it is rejected.

I said "peer" review.  This means scrutiny by scientists, and does NOT
imply a preconceived bias.  You must be having a tough time dealing with
this system otherwise the hostility you demonstrate is puzzling.  How do
you find "peers"?

> I expect it. I
>welcome attacks but I also respond to them. 

No attack here.  I suggest you turn some of your energies away from
epilepsy and toward paranoia as a subject.

--
Gerry S. Oxford, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology
University of North Carolina
----------------------------
"The opinions expressed above were left over after all of the
good ones had been taken."




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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