On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:37:46 -0400, "NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Read my entire email next time. It wasn't written to criticize you for
>"spouting off". (You didn't).
>Thanks. I was probably hypersensitive.
JMH
>"James Michael Howard" <jmhoward at arkansas.net> wrote in message
>news:fbkd10llbve6i031liqglilrhbqb501fau at 4ax.com...>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:27:06 GMT, "k p Collins"
>> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> >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
>> >pursuit.
>> >
>> >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.
>> JMH
>> >"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,
>> >> >
>> >> >ken
>> >> >
>> >> >"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
>> >even
>> >> >> 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
>> >for
>> >> "spouting off." I knew about the sex connection with the amygdala in
>> >1984,
>> >> gosh, I really did. I simply stumbled onto the abstract I posted here
>> >because
>> >> it stimulated my enthusiasm for my idea back then.
>> >
>>>