In article <gypPb.5726$rW5.376194 at news20.bellglobal.com>, NMF
<neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> writes
<snip>
>>With respect to your theories regarding brain functioning, there are some
>extremely interesting components that you advocate. The problem is how you
>present your ideas. Unfortunately they are presented in an extremely poor
>and unorganized manner. (I stand corrected if a significant sample of
>readers from this group believes otherwise. )
Much of what you say in your post has been said several times to Ken, by
several people, all of whom mean him no harm and who, I believe, in fact
think they have his best interests at heart just as you clearly do. All
such attempts have to date had little or no effect other than to
reinforce his (in my view) clearly pathological verbal behaviour. I have
suggested to him that he seeks medical help - again, with his long term
best interests in mind.
He does nobody any harm, except perhaps himself, so if people are going
to respond to him, perhaps it would be helpful to focus specifically on
those of Ken's thoughts which you (and others?) find 'extremely
interesting', pointing out why you find them so. Whilst I personally
don't find much (if anything) original or rational in what he posts
which has not been said elsewhere by others (and more clearly) - perhaps
by focussing on what you find 'extremely interesting', and by
encouraging him to provide evidence to substantiate what he says, at
least *something* helpful might be done (if only vicariously). The
alternative, ie ignoring his odd verbal behaviour, may prove just as
'effective' if not complementary.
.
I suspect few if any really will have the time or interest - the
evidence to date is that it would be a Sisyphean task.
--
David Longley