You know I've learnt something very intresting from posting a question here.
And that is that if you ask someone who is an "expert" in a field something,
then they will insult and patronise you for the small and unimportnat
points, because "they are clever".
I'm not just talking about the guy below but most of the posts here really
are even bording on friendly.
Right, guys, I'm not a "neuroscientest", a university professor or guess
what? I don't even have letters after my name, or have a degree. But that's
alright, you've proved all that matters - sad because I had expected
better...
F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7i7m8a$68g at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>Occasionally (well, actually fairly often) someone posts something here
>which makes it easy to believe that in at least some cases this is
>true.
>>Someone with even half a brain might wonder who these "neuroscientests"
>(sic) are, how they made this estimate, and where they published it,
>and save the deep philosophical question until these basic questions of
>fact were addressed.
>>F. LeFever
>>>>In <7i4285$sge$1 at news5.svr.pol.co.uk> "Simon Marsh"
><simonmarsh at tardis99.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>>>Some neuroscientests estimate that during an average lifespan, a
>person uses
>>only 1/100 of 1% (.0001) of his potentional brain capacity. - Why do
>we
>>have a brain with so much capacity that we hardly test a fraction of
>it in a
>>normal life time?
>>>>>>>