On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:27:06 GMT, "k p Collins"
>You 'snipped' the context in which I was
>Criticizing =myself=, not you, for "spouting-off".
>>I explained that I =should= look it up, but
>opted to work from memory [from a grad
>school course in the 1975-6 academic 'year'].
>>I've enjoyed both the info you've provided,
>and the 'fire-within' that's evident in your
>>I've just been working to enable you to
>see that DHEA is 'just' another neuro-
>chemical 'tool', and that one has to resort
>to the neural Topology to be able to interp-
>ret the roles of any such neurochemical 'tools'.
>>My pursuit of this'point' is quite generalized.
>I've been discussing it for more than a decade
>here in b.n, and I write for those who've been
>reading that discussion all along.
>>Cheers, ken [k. p. collins]
Thanks to you.
>"James Michael Howard" <jmhoward at arkansas.net> wrote in message
>news:42jc10h1cprl90bt1k3ttgt6vt2e1rqcmp at 4ax.com...>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:42:57 GMT, "k p Collins"
>> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> >Cheers, Neil,
>> >"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:FwfRb.33366$Kg6.239796 at news20.bellglobal.com...>> >> Although the actual link between sex and the amygdala was advocated
>> >> before Heinrich Kluver and Paul Bucy work in the thirties and forties.
>> >> [...]
>> Well, I apologize, guys, for causing you to take your time to admonish me
>> "spouting off." I knew about the sex connection with the amygdala in
>> gosh, I really did. I simply stumbled onto the abstract I posted here
>> it stimulated my enthusiasm for my idea back then.