In article <369B5126.44F04806 at ix.netcom.com>, dsargent at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>> > Ahh, the new kkollins! Often in error, never in doubt!
> >
> > After some "clever" gobbledigook to show his contempt for the question,
>> Not contempt for, but amusement by. How does 'porcine' anything belong in
> this ng? For crying out loud, that means 'pig'. I know because I read
> 'Animal Farm' a few months ago. I interpretted, correctly I think, someone
> just trying to put multisyllabic words together [which seem meaningless in
> context with 'intramuscular administration'] and had some fun with it.
> Please, Mr. PhD, (or anyone else who is such a loser as to try to mock my
> admittedly narrow field of neuroscientific knowledge (I only just started
> to learn about neurological topics and relevant parallel applications))
> show us how applicable porcine cholecystokinin is to neuroscience
> discussion [as stated]. am I bitter at your superciliousness? No, I think
> that you are a sorry little man who needs to have his family commiserate
> with him so he can find the strength to continue functioning during his
> pitiful, miserable existence.
What are you gibbering about now? LeFever is one of the few people who
makes sense in this newsgroup. He is certainly not the only person with a
PhD here, basically all neuroscientists have a PhD (I do) or are in the
process of getting one , so please restrict your disdain for PhDs. You are
not likely to make friends by this, insulting him directly because he puts
his professional affiliation in his sig file. How did you take it as a
personal affront, and where do you get off making these long posts against
him anyway?
CCK IS involved in the nervous system, anyone with an introductory level
education in psychobiology or neuroscience knows this. LeFever was just
showing his disdain for someone's total lack of knowledge of the subject.
I think disdain for ignorant posts is a totally legitimate reason to make
a post in this newsgroup (i.e., to correct total misinformation... in this
case fabrication). Since the role in the gut was supposed to be a
satiety signal via the vagal nerve even there it was neural; now it is
known to be a signaling peptide widely utilized in the nervous system.
Because of the proposed role in satiety, it has even made its way into
basic psychology texts.
Cheers,
Stephan
>> > our new neuroscience expert tells us CCK is not relevant to
> > neuroscience. I'm not sure, but I THINK I saw a few poster
> > presentations on CCK at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in LA last
> > November (my presentation was on a different topic and I do not try to
> > keep up with the CCK lit). In any case, CCK is yet another substance
> > found first in the gut or other nonbrain tissues (cf. serotonin,
> > substance P, histamine, etc.) and later found to have a significant
> > role in the brain.
> >
> > I think it is clear who belongs in a different newsgroup...
>> Ah, pride strikes again! Excuse me for not being able to have 1 or 2
> job/graduate designations under my name as you seem to enjoy making
> reference to. I think I do not need to make an exit; rather, someone needs
> to dismount from their high horse.
>> > F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
> > New York Neuropsychology Group
> >
> > In <369AAC11.75513797 at ix.netcom.com> Richard Sargent
> > <dsargent at ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >ricyoung at iupui.edu wrote:
> > >
> > >> Could anyone tell me what newsgroup I should direct this question
> > to, or
> > >> maybe someone here knows....
> > >> Is porcine cholecystokinin exactly structurally analogous to human
> > CCK?
> > >
> > >Actually, PCCK has an expansive effect on porcine organelles while its
> > >humano-homologue is strictly contractive to the human gallbladder.
> > >
> > >> Would porcine cholecystokinin become antigenic after intramuscular
> > >> administration?
> > >
> > >It depends on your inertial reference frame. A tissue biopsy may be
> > >conclusive as regards the effects of PCCK.
> > >
> > >> If so, is there a comercially available recombinant CCK>?
> > >
> > >Personally, I wouldn't invest in PCCK if I were you. However, the
> > HCCK can
> > >be solenized into iguano-cholecystokinin and recombined with
> > multicultural RNA
> > >strands independent of mitochondrial abiogenesis.
> > >
> > >
> > >> andy young
> > >>
> > >> ricyoung at ruby.iupui.edu> > >
> > > To answer your question about what would be the choice newsgroup for
> > a post
> > >of this sort, this definitely would not be material for a neuroscience
> > >newsgroup. Look for a biology newsgroup.
> >
>> Peter L. Sargent
