IUBio

It's all so-"interesting"

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Wed Jan 6 23:26:13 EST 1999


I've defined my usage repeatedly, Mr. Frank, and I stand on what I've
posted.

It's all so Sorrowfully interesting. There're folks here in
bionet.neuroscience, including you, who are endeavoring to transform
what I do.

It's unnecessary, because, if no one wants to receive the stuff of my
posts, I can do nothing beyond that, except look for another means to
try to reach the folks who Suffer Greatly be-cause the understanding has
been withheld from them... you know, the next "Watts", the next
"Yugoslavia", the next "ethnic" Massacre... the Lives Wasted, and all
the Burdens that Wasted Lives impose upon any Society.

Folks here in bionet.neuroscience have been "toying" with the dynamics
of communication with respect to such. It's all so interesting.

I have to admit, the whole "internet" is "interesting", "two". I've been
looking around for databases. I've not been able to find a single
actually-useful online database. All the databases I've found are just
superficial front-ends to nothingness. It's all so "interesting".

It's like some sort of weird virtual "reality"... like a fantasy movie.

Disagree?

Show me [anyone] a useful online database on the "internet".

Seems to me it's all "just" one big-Deception, in which folks're being
fed a Calculated "line" of B. S.

But then, I did get "233.78", and ~69, off the "internet" today. Be
pretty hard to misrepresent such, with the numbers coming out in the
papers in the morning, and all.

It's "just" so "interesting", though... it's as if all the data that
used to be available for DL has "evaporated"... all that's left is
superficial nothingness... and myriad ways to use one's credit card.

[Why was I looking for data? There's a perfect correlation between
"stock market" performance and my posts since 12Oct98. I understand that
very few will just take my word for that, so I was looking to compile
the data, and offer it to anyone who'd want to look and see. It
constitutes Proof of a whole realm of things that are in the stuff I've
been discussing. It constitutes Proof that folks across the Nation (and
beyond) are actively participating in what's going on here in
bionet.neuroscience. It's all so "interesting"... but there's no data to
DL, which is "interesting", "two".]

You can give up on thinking you can "transform" anything, Mr. Frank. I
gave you the benefit of the doubt until I came across a msg of yours,
months back in another Newsgroup, berating some poster's discussion with
comments likening it to "rat shit"... I couldn't take anything you've
posted seriously after that (although, I did try once).

So, what's your point?

Why do you, or anyone else, think I eschewed "reward". I explained
early-on, one's voice is much more Precious than "reward"-stuff. Why?
I've nothing to lose, so there're no "handles" on my person... so folks
have nothing to grab in efforts to "steer" me.

Yeah, words, once posted, just sit-there, sucking in any, and all,
"addendums" that are attached to them. Other than pointing out what's
going on, there's nothing I can do with respect to such, except pick up
the pieces, and begin again. The work, inherent, is not very inviting,
but I've this thing about not giving-up on the Children.

But isn't it a Waste to elevate comments, such as yours, with long
discussion?

Yes.

But there's a meta-thing occuring. Perhaps others find such interesting,
also?

It's all so "interesting". I came here with simple, but Awesome, Truth.
Yet, all this B. S. has "greeted" it... it's all so "interesting".

K. P. Collins

F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> 
> More "private" language (personal, secret definitions)?  Classically,
> "double-bind refers to patterns of communication/interaction in which
> (1) verbal and nonverbal messages contradict each other, and (2) there
> is some constraint ("taboo") against acknowledgement of the
> contradiction.
> 
>  Not familiar with either of these conditions being met in any recent
> post, so cannot imagine what is meant by use of the term in kkollin's
> post--maybe this is some kind of "battery"? (I'll call it this since
> kkollins has usurped normal use of the term "libel").
> 
> Or maybe it's just careless "writing"...
> 
> F. LeFever
> 
> In <3692F72A.D3B94940 at pop3.concentric.net> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
> writes:
> >
> >The post was, like the double-bind-stuff from some others, including
> >yourself, a blatent attempt to ab-use NDT's understanding... just one
> >more Jackass thing piled onto the understanding's just-becoming-ness.
> >
> >I'm not surprised to hear of your "support" for its position, Mr.
> Frank.
> >K. P. Collins
> >
> >F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> >>
> >> I have to admit I agree with Cijadrachon in most of this.  (Her
> >> criticism of my post perhaps suffers from her not understanding its
> >> context)
> >
> >> [...]



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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