Ken Collins wrote in message ...
>[...]
>i, of course, used the existing concepts, hard fought for, and hard won,
>through the dedicated efforts of research done before my 'time'. it wasn't
>in my 'heart' to 'demean' such, but i see, because of your post (which
>reflects my own discussion posted in another thread a few nights back, with
>respect to Aristotle and T. S. Kuhn), that it's easy to misinterpret the
>gist of what i've said, in this thread, in such an "intent-to-'demean'"
way.
>>the point i was actually addressing (which is the same point i'm always
>trying to address) is that, given AoK's tightly-written introductory
>discussion of NDT's stuff, which goes beyond what formerly existed, it's
>nonsensical for folks in Neuroscience not to deal with such... as, at least
>in communications involving me, has been the case... and since NDT does go
>beyond what formerly existed, it makes no sense to discuss it without
access
>to context and clarification that i can easily and willingly supply,
>in-person, so that no misconceptions will be left to distract anyone from
>what's in NDT.
>>this one thing is at the heart of everything i've ever posted in any online
>'place'
but, of course, even the above will result in folks' 'feeling offended'.
they'll ask, "Why don't you publish in the normal way?"
the simple Truth is that my papers were almost-all(*) rejected by
secretaries, without ever having been sent out for review. i'm not 'blaming'
secretaries... secretaries just adapt to the positions of those for whom
they work, and those folks've held that, 'anything done by anyone not having
credentials has to be worthless, so discard it without considering it.'
(*) the papers that did make it by secretaries, 1.) made it by the
secretaries because i hand-carried them by the secretaries, or negotiated
'action' directly with editors... but they all suffered the same, 'anything
done by anyone not having credentials has to be worthless, so discard it
without considering it' fate, sans secretaries.
the Q that begs an answer is, 'why is it so, needlessly, 'difficult' to just
do Science?'
the answer is in both _WHY..._ and AoK, which makes the 'refusal' to deal
with those papers all the more nonsensical.
and, then, when the stuff that's crushing folks, throughout Humanity,
because the understanding hasn't been communicated to them, is considered,
the nonsence, inherent, is readily seen to be, again needlessly, compounded.
Why?
see _WHY..._ and AoK.
K. P. Collins
>[...]
