IUBio

Brain Use/40 hertz

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Sun Jan 24 13:02:10 EST 1999


(Skip.)

Frank LeFever:

> this is such utter nonsense that you do indeed qualify as the next kkollins!

Once upon a time a man (who liked to mention that he wrote some
truckloads of books)  

said to another man (who never understood what the other one was
exited about concerning energies as he just saw the errors but had no
subatomic understanding of the matter to understand)

that it is not correct to refer to himself in a negative way when
talking to another,

so he picked a fourth.


5,6,7, 8 turned 90 degrees...


...........................................................................................................
> this is such utter nonsense that you do indeed qualify as the next 
slings and arrows
>>re test: it's ok, he took the bait; so far, doesn't have a clue.
>>Continue as planned--keep him on the line!

.........................................................................................................
>        Well, let us at least hope he knows what he is talking about   
>        when he tells us his name.

 Ph.D.  Neuro             psychology

US ing.


Don't know if Claude's names' list is longer or shorter thn mine,
there are people who believe that it is safer to change it often,
and with some Red Indians I would expect that if they were to  meet me
that they of course do not straight tell me their name but maybe some
European one, and for some it might be amazing that a man would think
of another man as having just one name, as if a person were a
possession named once be the name.


Personally I find it interesting that parent given names I might
forget fast, while self given ones are often easier, and names given
to someone by friends and accepted by him 
might be even easier at times. 

..............................................................

>Referenced immediately below is the name of the most egotistical,
>pathological liar I've met in years

F. Frank LeFever wrote:

>     A lot of nonsense with a lot of assurance.  Possibly a new
>    kkollins?

He is not a pathological liar; and when he lies he usually seems not
aware of it.  Did not think long enough about it and could be
mistaken, but have the impression that in the last month his
discussions referring to rankfighting bioprograms  got a bit different
to the ways he seemed to do it in the start, might not have
rechannelled it "right" when some canals got plugged an itsibisty.

;-)

I believe that he wanted to insult kkollins in a way here not correct
and wanted to insult you, but that you should think about what he says
in the first sentence.

In inside age he is younger in quite some things than where you
register there for me, and also in some areas ways further than me.

Richard Sargent <dsargent at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>I have to apologize to F. Frank LeFever, as I really let him have it.  I'm
>sorry.
>
>I feel very penitent and seek forgiveness from the newsgroup and the offended
>parties.
>
>Peter L. Sargent

 :-)


>>             "dissolved by acidic spinal fluid" ?!?! Please tell me you
>>             know this to be a joke!

>No, Frank, not a joke, the results of a 5 minute web search. 

Don't know about spinal fluid. 

One might be careful arguing with someone reading about the results of
those sitting with a microscope studying parts of puzzles sliced and
wondering what the pictures might be, 
and studyig different groups of puzzle fitting bits and naming them,
and categorizing the dots on the back with complicated names,
calling himself Title, Slice - dot-categorizing  group


>Do I have time to ascertain the validity of all findings?  Should I care to?  

 Neuro itself is reknown with some for trying to avoid to admit where
the I areas are in the limbic system to go on abusing other of other
races, to not use the senses the Vatican forbade and therefore not
getting subatomic relations, to often overlook glia, to not understand
some very basic relations within and between areas, etc.
and to therefore often favour some made up stuff as theories that'd
fit such.

Therefore I'd be careful with validity.

Ever tried to read a book where someone tried to stick the I into a
pretty undifferentiated frontal cortex (maybe indicated "cause ours is
bigger - justification") so that he seems to write his data so that
you keep; having to try to think from such odd angles into the brain
instead of from the own I? Similar acrobatics elseplace, too.

To admit where we are might bring the loss of being allowed to abuse
other mammals and birds, so there seems to be an art of decades to
find  theories why we do not go from the hippocampus towards the
diagonal bands; even if its Alzheimer and others parents might be
dying. 

I guess some sensee consored ones doing some of the sickest crimes of
humanity to people of other races need a justification why their
violent race is so much better, and some might have some religious
belief and want to be there after death and need it not to be in the
limbic system, and that that is why so many sometimes outright silly
theories can pass  and why in contrast some stuff that is very very
old is hailed like new data.

I have read some crap where some others of the Titles hailes it, and
someone told me a bit about what one of their Gurus once said and
often it is stuff where I guess you have to be headblind and sense
censored on top to come up with that.

>How would you know, Frank?  You've repeatedly demonstrated ignorance

IMO he does not understand most main data that is needed for his job
and therefore has been for damaging brains more  in ways I find pretty
sick,  and many very old effective skills of mental healing of Earth
he does not do he does not have the capacities for in my estimation.

But in summoning up data from abusing, crippling and killing persons
of other mammal races and from humans with physical brain problems he
tends to be quite good.

>One thing we definitely can conclude --you, Frank, are not a valid source,

YOU conclude.

When Frank uses vocabulary I know and it is about stuff where I can
sort of match, I rarely get error readout. 

If he says something IS about areas or stuff where I have less or no
internal data I therefore tend to take that serious.

>> ...            such utter nonsense that you do indeed qualify as the next
>>             kkollins!

>Ahh, pathetic  .. truly a science experiment gone bad.  You end this
>foolish reply of yours Frank, with insults to a person who hasn't even
>spoken in this whole time!

And I observe that kkollins is usually not attacking other to take
moods out as the other way around I observe in a way that at times is
getting mentally quite weird. He is off-balance in eg.3, and kkollins
usually is adult enough to try to not let it go down to such low rank
fighting niveau.

>Frank, you have demonstrated yourself (...) a repulsive personality.

Bingo.

> You must be an incredible loser, Frank.

There are people who are pretty imbalanced and not far with their
inner development and as a person are not that great, but if they
specialize on something till there they get the "great" input thne
that can be  used to blend over eg.1 requests and also eg.3.

What  you are referring for me sounds like to do with the third
emotion generator but if I ask my systems to guess Frank the readout
is a lot to do with one.
Three as well, but not in the loser way but in another way.

Like Frank so far I have never seen running an apologies like you
have, and there is a power that takes, and to do with eg.3 that one is
not far in him. Nor in me as far as that goes.

But eg.1 stuff is not net room discussion I guess.

Especially not with males.

flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:

>  I studied brain function and behavior in rats many years
Fits.

>and hours reading the scientific/medical literature related to brain
>function (every week), gives me some depth.

I like it that  you do,  but that you do does not mean to expect that
all others do as you do.

And learning abusing rats instead of real training I get more the
damaging brains with drugging and frying bit.
Could fry the front, then you can win easier in such stuff and others
against that person as well:

>Regarding jokes: Mr. Sargent still doesn't get it.

BTW, I have optioned many times not to get sarcasm.
And if the other one really does not get it, and you really learned
that much about brain damages, then there is something puzzling me
here, as back then with Cheng, in what you are doing.


Last night a bloke around 30 told about attacking someone 14-year-old
and seeming to self-pride himself about the results. Don't know if
you know what I mean, since talking about abstract thinking and other
stuff. 



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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