In article <71gt3i$4ao$1 at news.utdallas.edu>, "Carol" <drcomet at utdallas.edu> wrote:
>OK,
>>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <71gmqv$6pa at sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>showed to my own students), I'm not so sure they did get everything
>>except love; a significant degree of malnutrition was involved, as
>> I know, it seems as though experiments done with human beings can never
>do enough to screen out those "confounding" variables ... not to mention
>the ethical problem here.
>>>oon the effects of early experience/maternal-infant interaction on
>>brain fine-grain neurochemical neuroanatomy, see a series of papers by
>>Michael Meaney and colleagues (working out of McGill).
>> Thank you. You're the second person I've read that has recommended
>Meaney's research.
>>>clearly does not understand very well. Exactly what threat does he
>>perceive?
>> Rigid thinking ... that's all ... sometimes it's hard to be open-minded
>after you have spent so much time and energy getting to where you are at ...
>>>concealing--WHAT??? What on earth do these people imagine?
>> Maybe they'll come out of the woodwork and tell us.
Now, any way you conceal your face,
you will still show your card,
any way you cut it.
"Come out of the woodwork" is a specific term,
used to discredit something upon arrival.
It is such a derogatory term, that it, in itself,
sopposed to provide the subconcious "truth of the matter".
It means that those "evil" people are below human level,
they are like some cockroaches, hiding in the woodwork.
Some trolls of sorts. Nothing to even consider worth
arguing with.
That is the language of suckocracy and lickassocracy.
What is interesting about it, that the terms of this
grade indicate that not simply you are dumb, but you
use deliberate methods of discrediting that, which
does not fit you cofortable world of materialistic
lies of survival.
You stop questioning something greater and assert:
"well, this is just the way it is", implying that
there is no need to "worry about it", "don't take
in personal", just accept the rules of sucking.
It is either you suck their blood,
or they WILL suck yours.
It is that simple.
Why bother with all these complications?
So, you say "they will come out of the woodwork",
meaning, they are just low grade, don't REALLY
understand how it all ticks and how exactly the
blood flows through the pipes.
It has been said:
"They recognize each other by the smell".
Yes, these bio-robotic prototype ideas, programmed
into your idiotic 10 instruction cpu, are the
REAL communication between the suckers.
Your "family values", "free [sucking] world",
"evil empire" [now, which one?],
"national interests"
[you mean nationalistic interests?],
"hard work"
[so the fat cat on the top can suck
maximum amount of your blood],
"good citizen",
"law abiding"
[and what about the fat cat?
is he also subject to it, or he just need a "good"
lawyer?],
and on and on and on.
All ugly shit of the lowest grade, meant to manipulate,
dominate, opress and exterminate "undesirable elements".
All bio-robotic programming.
You see, what these bio-suckocracy peddlers essentially
say is this:
Bio-robot:
Biological entity,
programmed to behave according to a limited set of instructions,
based in morality, ["good" and "bad" definitions]
created by the priest,
to manipulate your fear and guilt,
in order to collect the sin tax.
Because the preist knows real well:
"You never become rich, working for others",
and since that sucking priest is utterly incapable
of producing anything, but guilt, and since deep
inside he knows full well, that this whole thing
is just a scam and there is no god,
but the money, so he finds a nice and comfortable
way to make a living.
Here is your "family values":
Money = god,
God = money.
You have reduced the most essential and most magical
aspects of existance to purely mechanical machine.
Then you will brainwash the young people in your
parasitic societies and make them believe that
"DNA is all there is to it",
"there is just nothing else".
So, the meaning is: You better learn the tricks real
fast and do what we tell you, and make sure to tell
the same thing to your own children, cause you know
the meaning of life now, right?
Now, back to woodwork.
You see, you cunning super priests of science
in the age of corruption,
the arguments were presented, and the arguments were
specific, significant and multiple.
Now, you put up a plastic face and say:
"well, may be they will come out of the woodwork
and tell us all about it".
Well, how many times do you have to be told the same
thing? You have guts to call yourself a scientist?
You are being told this way and that, and you NEVER
address the issues, nor did you even perform any
analytical work on it.
All you do is throw the weight around,
put a bunch of letters after your name so that
the other bio-robots could recognize your validity
and lick your ass from the very start.
But you don't do you "home [sucking] werk", do ya?
Better stop sucking here, worse than a black hole
and come and look at the whole picture like a
REAL scientist, and not like an ideological arm
of this evil sucking system,
disguising itself in a while robe of a scientist.
What new possibilities and insights have you opened
with this sucky "DNA rules" brainwashing fatalistic
materialism?
What follows from it?
What are the consequences on the very essential
elements of human being and a life force as such?
Aren't you trying to say:
"Hey, it is all simple. Just program that cpu
real good with desirable instructions and it will
do EXACTLY what you tell it"?
>>>constituents respond, he would not demand to know why cells do not all
>>react the same way because they all have the same DNA.
If you sniff my whiff, you are going to make it stiff.
> Even us undergrads understand this one.
You dont understand shit.
Utterly programed into oblivion.
To even make a claim of this caliber that you understand
one of the most significant aspects of life force itself,
is nothing, but arrogance of utterly programmed
bio-robot.
Becase the scientists of the highest caliber have to admit
that we are just beginning to have a little glimps of this
and that.
All we have right now is a needle size opening in ONE
specific direction. And what we see is just a shadow in
the valley of darkness.
>>as well) have had these same insights, long before, and either accepted
>>them as truisms widely known, or elaborated on them and developed them
>>further, or rejected them--depending on how the insight held up against
>>experience.
>> Experience, yes. I'm just here to second the motion...
Which mostion are you here to second?
Can you state your position exactly and specifically,
instead of hiding by someone else's back and then asserting
a majority opinion to discredit the other views, that
could be orders of magnitude more valid, then the one
you pellde?
>Carol
>
