I stand on what I've posted, but would
appreciate it if you cited the ref. that
cited my unpublished ms.
[BTW, do not presume to 'know' what
I am, otherwise, doing. It's nobody's
business but my own.]
K. P. Collins
"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:5v0s20d3scvght9eplgoqu0koqucfokmcq at 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:42:39 GMT, "k p Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> } "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
> } news:dunm20pkmshsis92poi69d8avsn34um205 at 4ax.com...> } > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:49:46 GMT, "k p Collins"
> } > <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
> } >
> } > } Hi Peter, Thank You for posting this stuff
> } > } to which you've referred in the past.
> } > }
> } > } All of this is 'just' standard Neuroanatomy,
> } >
> } > No, it's functional neuroanatomy, outlining and focusing on functions,
> } > not just locations.
> }
> } I stand on what I posted, including my
> } follow-up.
>> I stand on what I said. You're wrong.
>> } > } most of which has been known since Cajal's
> } > } huge Accomplishments,
> } >
> } > So all the references from the 50s and 60s are useless?
> } > Ramon y Cajal died in 1934.
> }
> } It was in my point, but, no, all replicable
> } data is as Gold.
>> Then it wasn't all know since Cajal's time. A lot of what Luria said
> came from data published after 1934. I stand on what I said. You're
> wrong. And you weren;t just incorrect. You regularly make up stuff and
> throw it out with no consideration towards what you are saying to
> whom, and with no regard for the truth.
>> } > } and it's all included
> } > } in explicitly, in the form of a Proof of the
> } > } TD E/I-minimization Principle, in AoK, Ap3
> } > } [functional ramifications are discussed in the
> } > } "Short Paper" section of AoK, and in Ap5,
> } > } 6 & 7].
> } >
> } > It is?
> }
> }
> } I stand on what I posted, including my
> } follow-up.
> }
> } > } But what Luria addresses is not the same as
> } > } what's in AoK.
> } >
> } > It isn't?
> } >
> } > It is or it isn't. You said it was (sic) "in explicitly".
> } >
> } > <snip redundant ken-rant>
> }
> } I explained what's pertinent, in lengthy
> } discussion that's occurred between the
> } OP and me, but you've 'snipped' it,
>> It's still completely accessable to anyone via Google, or simply by
> access their news server and downloading the message using the
> message-ID in the References: header.
>> } Falsely terming it a 'rant'.
>> It was a bit weak for a rant. Perhaps "blabber" is better.
>> } What can I say?
>> What you could say is whether it is or isn't. You contradicted
> yourself, and your supposed explanation did nothing but obsfucate.
>> } I stand on what I posted, including my
> } follow-up.
> }
> } > } I don't know if you implied, in former msgs, that he
> } > } did, but Luria didn't say any of this.
> } >
> } > You're darn tootin'. He made sense.
> }
> } I stand on what I posted, including my
> } follow-up.
> }
> } You're choosing Falsehood, and,
> } otherwise, being unthinkingly-Offensive.
>> I am thinking perfectly well, thank you. And unlike you I can
> replicate any piece of evidence to support my point and present it in
> an intelligible and acceptable fashion. However, I would expect you to
> ignore it all over again, so I leave doing so as an exercise.
>> } And using a Taxpayer-funded ID to do so.
>> Nope. I pay for it out of my NIH grant. Since that grant constitutes
> my income, I'm paying for it with my paycheck. By the way, it's the
> department of psychiatry. At the medical school.
>> } 'go away'.
>> Can't. I'm dedicated to keeping quacks, kooks, and loonies in their
> place and debunking the BS that might confuse people who're interested
> in the truth. It's a time honored traditional hobby for many
> scientists.
>> Feel free to continue jawing up a storm with any such who want to
> engage you in your pet "theory". I'm not against that stuff. Heck, I
> enjoy a great conspiracy theory myself and hang out on those boards.
> But leave real people with real questions that have real answers
> alone. You can confuse them with much irrelevant and frequently wrong
> stuff.
>>> By the way, is this you? It's the most recent PubMed reference I could
> find for a "Collins KP":
>> J Urol. 1988 Nov;140(5):984-5.
> Complications of penile prostheses in the spinal cord injury
> population. Collins KP, Hackler RH. Division of Urology, McGuire
> Veterans Administration Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia.
>> Then there was an article about clubbing of fingers (probably a letter
> rather than an article, as there was no abstract) and an article about
> Social Security. Clearly no other science articles there.
>> But I did locate: "On the Automation of Knowledge within Central
> Nervous Systems. (Unpublished manuscript)." elsewhere.
>> That parenthetical phrase looks likely. Only found it in the
> references of one article though. That sounds likely. Am I warm?
>
