Hi Matthew.
All I do is cut through the B.S.
And, then, it's 'hilarious', folks who
write like you say I should 'borrow' my
work, and get Published.
If the way I post is 'inscrutible', then
why have so many 'professionals' been
'borrowing' it?
:-|
I explained why I post the way I do
in a reply to NMF, recently.
The 'meta-point' that I'm always
discussing is how 'raunchy' 'peer
review' actually is.
It's sort of a 'joke' I'm playing on
the status quo in 'science' - that one
can adtually Do-Science, and the
only result of that is an ever-accum-
ulating mountain of shit... er, Plagerism.
I'm 'wondering' how long it'll take folks
to get-it.
My Purpose is =Serious=, despite the
fact that I've chosen to 'have-fun' while
doing what needs to be done. [Only be-
cause, if I didn't, what I have to do would
have left me devastated, long ago.
Cheers, Matthew, ken [k. p. collins]
"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <Matthew.Kirkcaldie at removethis.newcastle.edu.au> wrote
in message
news:Matthew.Kirkcaldie-1A9237.13551422012004 at seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> You know, Ken, I waded through the jargon of your post and from what I
> could make of it, it sounds like a reasonable account of what the
> hippocampus may be doing. However you are going to limit your
> interaction with other interested people if you stick to such obscure
> and undefined terminology - it becomes such an effort to read that there
> is little motivation to do so. It's a pity, since there seem to be some
> sound ideas buried within. I would guess that this is the reason you
> have had little success with publication.
>> As a rule, I always avoid defining new terms, preferring to limit my
> explanations to those achievable using English and widely-understood
> anatomical / physiological terms. Often it can be a good discipline.
>> MK.
