Re: Etheric Body and Energy (was Candida diet)

[Guest guest]

A general comment to both Ron and regarding the sub-discussion in

the Candida Diet thread:

I do not see, at all, how the idea of EFT, or acupuncture, etc,

conflicts with Western science. While I'm not sure exactly what an

" etheric body " is, judging by the way it sounds, I do not understand

why this is necessary to explain the results of EFT or other " energy "

paradigms.

We know that all life emits various forms of energy. Humans, in fact,

are phosphorescent in our skin at a level too visible for the eye to

see -- I will link to this article in Issue six of my newsletter --

and we know that magnetic properties allow for radiation, oxidation

states, etc, to have a viral-like perpetuation (see, e.g. Mark

Purdey's theory of BSE).

Rather than invent a term that has no meaning like " etheric, " why not

try to work within the model of what is observable? It's not like

science hasn't given us a LOT to think about in terms of " energy. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 9/13/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> If this stuff had anything to do with physics - the work energy theorem,

> change in kinetic energy, entropy, and all that, believe you me it would

> have been explored by now.

I just get the sense that you're quick to dismiss things as quackery

and like to flaunt your knowledge of physics.

> I mean heck, if we can determine the energy

> of a neutron with a specific mass, over a a specific time interval in eV

> (electron volt, a measure of energy for microscopy), then certainly we

> can deal on a molecular level.

I think this is entirely backwards, especially since what you really

mean to say is " biological " level, or " biomolecular. " It is much

easier to draw conclusions and absolutes from in vitro science than to

draw them from biological science.

You seem to be advocating the idea that as something becomes smaller,

it becomes harder to study. At least at the cellular (scratch that,

the tissue) level and below, the opposite is true-- although it might

become true again at some subatomic level. The closer one gets from

the atomic level to the cellular level, the more complexity and

intricacy arises.

In fact, just look at how much more difficult it is to understand how

thought processing in brain tissue works compared to how difficult it

is to look at the activities of a single neuron. We have a

half-decent grasp of the latter, but we don't even come close to

understanding how multiple cells interact together to form a thought,

and store it in memory.

> I think there is much to the placebo

> effect, and that may be why some of these techniques work. Maybe there

> are other reasons sometimes as well. But if it is *really* energy

> (1/2mv^2), then it is highly detectable.

That's not really true, especially if no one is looking for it. I

think maybe your emphasis on physics over chemistry and biology is

causing you to see the term " energy " in an over-simplified manner.

" Energy " can be effectively stored, in a sense, in *arrangement,* in

the sense that the effects of the energy are transmitted and stored.

No one " detected " the effects of copper chelation on the energetic

arrangment of prions until someone thought to look for it, for

example.

We DO know that organisms emit all kinds of " energy " and it *is*

detectable. What effects that might have on arrangments at the

intercellular, cellular, and subcellular levels is something

super-complex that will take a long time to discover.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 9/13/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> >I just get the sense that you're quick to dismiss things as quackery

> >and like to flaunt your knowledge of physics.

> I think this is getting pretty personal.

I don't think so. You were, essentially dismissing it as quackery,

and the bulk of your post was about how they use physical concepts in

communication with those who don't know physics. That's a common

theme that comes up when you dismiss something as quackery-- I mean,

I'm not implying things beyond what you present on the surface.

And I suppose " flaunt " might have been a somewhat provocative word,

but it is true that you tend to show off random bits of knowledge like

any given formula that aren't germane to the point. I'm not

suggesting that's necessarily some flaw on your part-- I guess you're

trying to make the point that there's hardcore knowledge to be had or

something like that.

But what happened to 98% of my post?

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

>

> >We know that all life emits various forms of energy.

> >

> Life emits heat and sometimes sound. I've been known to emit some

> methane and pheromones from time to time <g>, so I can go along with

> chemical energy as well. What other *various forms of energy* are

> emitted?

Radiant energy.

> >Humans, in fact,

> >are phosphorescent in our skin at a level too visible for the eye to

> >see -- I will link to this article in Issue six of my newsletter --

> >and we know that magnetic properties allow for radiation, oxidation

> >states, etc, to have a viral-like perpetuation (see, e.g. Mark

> >Purdey's theory of BSE).

> >

> >

> My veterinarian can find ringworm by shining a black light on my cats'

> skin. So ringworm has phosphorescence. Is phosphorescence a good

> thing, I wonder? Too visible for the eye to see? What does that mean?

Sorry, I meant that it was not visible because it was at such a low level.

> If humans are phosphorescent in the skin, I would like to know at what

> wavelength or frequency range of the emr spectrum that it is

> detectable. Do you have any citation for this idea that humans are

> phosphorescent in the skin?

Yes, you'll get it in a day or two when I send out my next newsletter.

I'm going to withold it for now, although you could probably find

info on it searching easily.

> >Rather than invent a term that has no meaning like " etheric, " why not

> >try to work within the model of what is observable? It's not like

> >science hasn't given us a LOT to think about in terms of " energy. "

> >

> Yes, there is a lot we do know. The vast majority of medical

> instruments are based on physics, not biology. From the microscope,

> stethoscope, ultrasound, x-ray, MRI, CAT scan, EKG, ABR and others, we

> are able to detect the workings of the bodies through purely physical

> science-based devices. Some of these instruments do have an effect on

> the organism, however.

I don't know the stories behind the other instruments, but the guy who

invented the MRI credited Ling's association-induction hypothesis as

its inspiration and foundation, which is a biological theory. Your

distinction between physics and biology is non-sensical because

biology is founded upon physics.

> What I am saying is if some of these alternative forms of healing want

> to use the terms of science, then they should be scrutinized

> accordingly. We can observe energy from one end of the scale to the

> other. If we can't observe it then we don't know the merit of it.

I agree, but in your previous post you said something to the effect

that if the claims were true we'd have " observed the energy " by now,

and made an outrageous portrayal of the supposed simplicity of

observing such, as if what we know now already proves those theories

wrong, when in fact it doesn't, and the complexity of the subject is

thousands or trillions times more complex than you were leading on in

your original post.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Well, I do. Do I sit and rant on list about you flaunting your

> knowledge of biology? There is no need to address the person in this

> way. Address the issues, please.

I probably should have stated what I was meaning in a different way,

but I was intending to address the issue-- or rather, your approach in

your critique.

> No I was not. Again " you you you " . This is what I said:

>

> " I think it is used esoterically to laypeople ignorant of physics and

> science in general, but ultimately useless in any real space-time

> " observable " sense. "

>

> All I am saying is whatever level it is working on, the terms of science

> are probably being misused.

I'm honestly not familiar with the terminology that EFT uses, although

I doubt they are intending their terms to be confused with those of

other fields.

> Whether or not it is quackery is something

> else *entirely*. Personally, I feel that many alternative health

> modalities are very effective. I feel others are flim flammery. So

> what? Please do not put words in my mouth or announce my position on

> things. Not only can I state them myself, they have absolutely no

> bearing on the content of the post. Next you're going to tell me my

> humanistic assumptions make it impossible for me to discuss these things

> with any objectivity. Please, leave *me* out of this. Discuss the

> issues, not my personal motives. For the record, I have no opinion on

> EFT concerning whether it is quackery or not.

I wasn't addressing your personal motives, but the appearance of your

public writing. That said I apologize if the statement seemed to

imply some sort of lack of integrity or appeared to strike at personal

motivations.

> Show off random bits of knowledge? Perhaps I did not explain myself

> adequately, but I assure you I am not " showing off. " Drop the " flaws on

> my part " stuff. All I said was if it is energy, then it is detectable.

> See my response to your other message in this thread about energy and

> phosphorescence.

And like I said, this is not necessarily true. Emitted energy can be

detectable, but the intricate arrangements that are the legacy of an

electromagnetic memory, if you will, are only detectable to the extent

we're actually looking for them.

> >But what happened to 98% of my post?

> >

> I wanted to address the personal nature of your post initially. If you

> can refrain from personal comments, then I can discuss the rest of the

> *issues* in your post.

Fair enough. I guess it didn't seem to me like something offensive

when I wrote it, but apparently it was so I'll just concede the issue.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> I have seen similar discussion wrt acupuncture.

>

>

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006 & articleID=00019055-0198-12D8-BDFD8\

3414B7F0000 & colID=13

> " These findings might help explain the results of a study published in

> the May 4, 2005, issue of the Journal of the American Medical

> Association, in which Klaus Linde and his colleagues at the University

> of Technology in Munich compared the experiences of 302 people suffering

> from migraines who received either acupuncture, sham acupuncture

> (needles inserted at nonacupuncture points) or no acupuncture. During

> the study, the patients kept headache diaries. Subjects were " blind " to

> which experimental group they were in; the evaluators also did not know

> whose diary they were reading. Professional acupuncturists administered

> the treatments. The results were dramatic: " The proportion of responders

> (reduction in headache days by at least 50%) was 51% in the acupuncture

> group, 53% in the sham acupuncture group, and 15% in the waiting list

> group. " The authors concluded that this effect " may be due to

> nonspecific physiological effects of needling, to a powerful placebo

> effect, or to a combination of both. "

It would be much better study material to use something more serious

than headaches, and something with a lesser variety of types and

causes, but perhaps that would be more difficult to pass by an ethics

board?

I think the biggest problem with this study is that it showed such a

high placebo response. I don't think a study with such a high placebo

response is very valuable. I'd like to see them treat a condition

that has a very small placebo response.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

yes on the beta-endorphin involvement in cutting. It's what's behind

exercise addiction too - going all the way beyond the runner's high

and exercising into pain and injury for the flood of protective

endorphins.

Interestingly, many of these " emotional " problems are physically

caused and can go away with a better diet. (that's what we see at the

Potatoes not Prozac online groups)

Connie

> I recently saw a special on TV that was looking into

> " cutting " . Some people do (esp. teenagers) this who

> have emotional problems. What wasn't understood by

> parents, etc. is why would they do something that

> appears to be so painful. When the people who cut

> were asked about it, they all said it feels good,

> makes them feel better. Anyway, a study was done and

> what was found was, when these people cut themselves,

> endophins were released and I believe serotonin levels

> rise. Well, there's the answer. This type of thing

> may be what is occuring in accupuncture as well.

>

> jafa

[Guest guest]

--- In , Furbish <efurbish@g...>

wrote:

> ps, , if you're listening - I loved your discussion on the

> thread dealing with Ayurveda (and in general), and I think (what I

> perceive to be) its subtext is an important addition to this

> discussion. Strange and uncomfortable and " primitive " metaphors can

> be as " correct " as those with which we're familiar.

,

Are you single?

B.

[Guest guest]

On 9/14/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Deanna-

>

> >Yes, but then we have political and monetary motives highly involved in

> >the cholesterol controversy. Of course, that may be why I take a dim

> >view of the pharmaceutical community generally (that and I used to be a

> >registered pharmacy tech). Profit is fine when it is based on science,

> >but it is unethical when science is obscured for the sake of it.

>

> Yes, but money plays a role in more than just the pharmaceutical

> market. That's why the AMA has historically tried to squelch competitors

> like doctors of osteopathy and chiropractors -- not because MDs are better,

> but because they didn't want the competition. This sort of thing is

> rampant. It's one of the big reasons we have a sickness (not health care)

> industry. Sickness is profitable. And the stuff that makes people sick is

> profitable.

Additionally, money is not the only, and probably not the primary,

motive that obfuscates science. What pharmaceutical ties did Ancel

Keys have?

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

>

> >Obviously it would be inefficient for me to ask you for clarification

> >for every single statement regardless of how apparent your meaning

> >seems to be. This order of difficulty is DIRECTLY IMPLIED in the

> >quoted text above. You assert that it is easier to determine

> > " molecular workings " than it is to determine properties of subatomic

> >particles, when in fact the phenomena to which you refer are more

> >accurately referred to as intermolecular or subcellular.

> With this logic, cosmology would be the easiest of all to understand.

There is no such logic in the above quoted text. The only comparison

of ease that is offered is between subatomic and intermolecular. In

the above text, there is no trend implied.

> No I didn't imply ease, and really who cares?

When someone says " If we can determine x, we can certainly determine

y, " that implies to me a comparison between the ease of determining x

and that of determining y. Perhaps there is a more precise or

accurate word than " ease " to use, but I think it's sufficiently to the

point.

> I in fact apologized for

> being hasty in writing that last night. End of discussion. No

> implication of ease either way. This is a big stinky red herring, and I

> do not appreciate it.

Then stop responding. Your apology for haste last night was not

specific, and you reopened the issue by including it in your response

today. How do I know that your apology for haste applied to this, and

not to the other points? I'm simply responding to each post as it

comes.

> >No kidding. The only reason biology doesn't make a difference in

> >physics is because physics strips physical phenomena of their context.

> > If you think for a moment that you can look at the physics of a

> >biological system distinct from its biology, that is a joke! Isolated

> >physics is theoretical. Physics in a biological system is BIOLOGICAL.

> >

> >

> Yeah fine, but originally, we were talking about energy. Energy is

> measured in Joules, calories, eV or what have you, no matter where they

> are measured - in people or in engines.

I'm not sure why this point isn't obvious, but the magnitude of energy

is not the only observable phenomenon related to it.

> It seems energy and energy

> fields are metaphorical and/or esoterically co-opted in some contexts

> that have nothing whatsoever the common usage. That is all I meant.

Actually as pointed out I'm quite sure that you are the one

co-opting the term " energy " for its exclusive use in specific contexts

whose descriptions and theoretical formulations considerably post-date

the first use of the time, and given the population difference between

Eastern and Western countries I certainly doubt that the usage for

which you are claiming exclusive rights to the word is actually more

" common " than the Eastern models.

But what I was responding to was your assumption that the " energy "

must not equate to any " Western " concepts of energy simply because we

have not yet determined the mechanisms (if they exist) by which EFT,

acupuncture, and other " energy " models work.

You are reiterating this now. I still disagree with it. As far as I

understood your original argument, you argued that since energy is

quantifiable, we would have already sorted out the issue at a

" molecular " (necessarily meaning intermolecular, biomolecular,

subcellular, cellular, intercellular, etc) level, since we can

quantify energy at the subatomic level. If you have abandoned this,

or if I have misunderstood it, then I no longer know what your

argument is, but still dispute this point, awaiting an explanation of

the true argument behind it.

> > " Highly " is relative. We know much more than we used to, but to think

> >we " highly " understand how thinking relates to brain physiology is

> >ridiculous.

> >

> >

> That is true, highly is relative. I did say _becoming_ understood.

Yes, but I'm the one who originally made this specific point and this

set the basis for the relevancy of responses. My point was simply to

demonstrate that, between the subatomic and the tissue level, each

progression towards the latter indicates a new layer of complexity

that makes the dynamics of that level much harder to discover and

explain. The fact that the field is " becoming understood " does not

refute my statement. Thus, my response as to why your statement did

not refute mine needs to be considered against the standard of

relevancy that my initial point established, not against a new

standard of relelvancy that you (couldn't have) established.

> >You are the only one claiming simplicity. These entire discussion is

> >founded upon your claim that if there was anything related to " energy "

> >regarding EFT and such treatments, we would already know of it,

> >because it must be easier to detect things at the molecular level than

> >that of subatomic particles.

> No, you miss the boat. I am saying that we can measure energy, be it

> chemical, nuclear, mechanical electrical or otherwise.

I agree.

> So if there is

> energy involved we would probably know.

We already know that fingers emit energy.

> As far as some new energy form,

> fine, I can swallow that idea, but I wouldn't bank on it.

I never suggested it, though it's possible. I don't think that's

necessary, though, to establish some minimal degree of plausibility

for a mechanism by which EFT or acupuncture could exert real effects

using some " Western " sense of " energy. "

> >So there is nothing different about magnetizing a paper clip and

> >magnetizing brain molecules.

> >

> I never said that there was not a difference in effect!

Your words seemed to imply that, although I will take this statement

at face value.

> If magnetism is

> acting on a paper clip or a brain, it is still magnetism.

I agree.

> I was not

> referring to consequences of the application. Going back, if EFT

> influences energy, then it is energy.

Going back to EFT, we already know that fingers emit EM energy and

transfer potential energy through kinetic energy, etc. What we don't

know is the great complexity of intermolecular workings, the knowledge

of which could establish-- or refute-- a plausible mechanism by which

these energetic -- in the Western sense -- phenomena could make EFT

" happen. "

> >This is absurd. Again, inflammatory or

> >not, you are insisting on a simplicity that does not exist.

> >

> No I am not insisting on simplicity for the umpteenth time.

Ok.

> Physics is

> anything but simplistic. To understand the theories of molecular

> bonding, one must look to physics.

Absolutely agreed. Chemistry is nothing but applied physics. I think

it would greatly enhance the learning of chemistry if physics were a

prerequisite to chemistry; however, I seem to have been the only

student to whom calculating the vectors of dipole moments sounded like

an additional layer of fun to add to Gen Chem 2.

> If you haven't done that, then you

> must accept it on faith. Chemistry and biology are complex, sure. But

> they operate within the laws of the universe.

Agreed. Although it is impossible to learn any of the subjects to the

point where we can avoid taking things on faith-- it's just a matter

of where we draw the line.

> > I

> >apologize if this leads me to speculate that this is derived for your

> >specialty in physics, a discipline that isolates these phenomena as a

> >rule, but that seems readily apparent regardless and I'm going to say

> >it again, and if I cease to say it for politeness I'm still going to

> >think it.

> You know, I don't think you have adequate experience with physics to

> knock it just so.

I don't see why you think I'm " knocking " physics, nor do I understand

why any of my comments on this particular subject have been considered

" inflammatory " by you.

> I remember arguing with you over the idea of

> statistical mechanics - a quantum version of thermodynamics

I'm glad you now admit it's the domain of thermodynamics....

> - which you

> would not accept as a bona fide field of study no matter the citations

> from college physics texts I offered.

Likewise, you absolutely refused to accept the term " thermodynamics, "

despite the fact that all standard college chemistry textbooks refer

to statistical mechanics as " thermodynamics. " Since you recall the

situation, you'll also recall that the debate did NOT arouse from my

objection to you using the term " statistical mechanics, " but to YOU

objecting to MY use of the term " thermodynamics, " despite the fact

that my usage was and is both appropriate and accepted.

What you mean by " not accept, " in the above quoted text is my refusal

to agree to your lack of acceptance to the standard terminology that I

was using, NOT my lack of acceptance of your alternative, but also

appropriate and more precise, usage.

> This is the classic argument from ignorance.

What am I ignorant of?

> Mathematics is my real specialty, btw.

Yes I know, but out of physics, chemistry, and biology, your more

specialized in physics whereas I am more specialized in chemistry and

biology. You have also stated repeatedly that you like physics better

than the other disciplines, especially biology.

I'm not using this as a criticism of your ability to understand

biology at all, but merely a criticism of your particular focus and

emphasis, which is why I don't understand why you considered my

statements " inflammatory. "

> >>>We DO know that organisms emit all kinds of " energy " and it *is*

> >>>detectable. What effects that might have on arrangments at the

> >>>intercellular, cellular, and subcellular levels is something

> >>>super-complex that will take a long time to discover.

> >>Well, you mentioned radiant energy recently. That is by definition

> >>electromagnetic energy. And yes, we emit infrared, but that is about it

> >>as far as radiant energy goes. We sure don't emit light, gamma, x-rays,

> >>microwaves, radio and long waves, at least not to my knowledge.

> >>

> >>

> >We emit light.

> >

> >

> Oh yeah? Do support this claim. Do you glow in the dark? Cuz I

> don't. Sorry, we may reflect, but we don't emit visible spectrum waves.

You are absolutely wrong, and I promised to provide the link in my

newsletter. The only reason I haven't done so yet is because I

thought it was so interesting that I did not want to ruin the

" surprise " if you will, as it was planned to be the headlining item of

my " 'Best of the Net " section. (Though again, I'm sure you could

Google it and find it easily.)

As I said previously, the emission is not of a great enough quantity

to appear visible.

I'm surprised that you are treating this as if I never said this, or

as if my claim is unreliable. Did you forget? Do you think I'm

lying?

> >>Infrared is heat, which I already mentioned. So we have heat, chemical

> >>energy and sound. What else?

> >>

> >>

> >A whole world of biological complexity that interacts with these energies?

> >

> At the end of the day, I can yield that biology is complex with many

> factors to consider, many that we haven't an adequate grasp of. But you

> said various energy sources are emitted from the human body. You have

> yet to support this.

Hmm-- ok, off the top of my head from this discussion, infrared, light

(visible spectrum, I think but would have to check.), arrangement

(potential.) I'm not sure why the number of different types of energy

are important. Potential would be sufficient in itself. EM just

mixes it all up a bit for extra fun.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

>

> >Actually as pointed out I'm quite sure that you are the one

> >co-opting the term " energy " for its exclusive use in specific contexts

> >whose descriptions and theoretical formulations considerably post-date

> >the first use of the time, and given the population difference between

> >Eastern and Western countries I certainly doubt that the usage for

> >which you are claiming exclusive rights to the word is actually more

> > " common " than the Eastern models.

> Oh puhlease Mr. Bandwagon.

LOL! Speaking of addressing one's opponent's motivations...

> Why don't you define energy ... or stop

> responding. Is it conserved? Does it have potential and kinetic

> components? Where does heat fit in?

I don't know... why don't you read my post and respond to what I wrote

instead of making a non-sensical response that bears no relevancy to

anything I said?

> >But what I was responding to was your assumption that the " energy "

> >must not equate to any " Western " concepts of energy simply because we

> >have not yet determined the mechanisms (if they exist) by which EFT,

> >acupuncture, and other " energy " models work.

> Define the concepts. There is no western science and eastern science,

> only if you consider psychology a science, then yes, there is a

> difference with respect to citta and manna. Demonstrate this supposed

> dichotomy in science, Mr. Scientist.

My use of quotes was meant to suggest that the commonly perceived

dichotomy is not a true one.

> $$$ Quack quack quack $$$. FTC.

> FDA. You can fool some of the people ...

I don't respond to nonsense.

> Whoopdifunkingdoo. They ain't emitting light. Ah haaa haaa haaaa!

You're going to feel awful silly for this statement when I provide the

link to the article showing that fingers emit light, then.

> >I never suggested it, though it's possible. I don't think that's

> >necessary, though, to establish some minimal degree of plausibility

> >for a mechanism by which EFT or acupuncture could exert real effects

> >using some " Western " sense of " energy. "

> Please do define the difference of Western and Eastern science,

> especially in terms of energy. My God, the Indians have nuclear weapons

> (such peace loving vegetarians)! Do tell, your knowingness, what

> difference their science has from ours. Are their bombs more full of

> prana? Should I contact Homeland Security??? <not> <bs> <know the

> difference> <quack quack quack>.

While I did use the quotes, quite clearly indicating a colloquialism

rather than a true dichotomy-- after all, aside from a direct

quotation, that's precisely what quotes are always used for-- the idea

that you don't actually know what I mean by the difference in

conceptions of the word " energy " is laughable. You're being

argumentative for no reason whatsoever except it's own sake.

And you look like a duck.

> >Going back to EFT, we already know that fingers emit EM energy and

> >transfer potential energy through kinetic energy, etc. What we don't

> >know is the great complexity of intermolecular workings, the knowledge

> >of which could establish-- or refute-- a plausible mechanism by which

> >these energetic -- in the Western sense -- phenomena could make EFT

> > " happen. "

> Mumbo jumbo. Cite it or smite it Dr Eastern Alternative Pleasure. Why

> don't you research it and measure it if it really exists? And why, pray

> tell, do you have a website devoted to science if you can't even figure

> out what is and what isn't science? $$$

Look, if you want to be insulting and once again resurrect your absurd

accusation that you drag out whenever you're in an argument with me

that my purpose on this forum is to draw attention to my $3/day income

from my website, then I might as well just make the much more benign

point that my knowledge of molecular and cellular biology is vast

compared to yours, and that molecular and cellular biology is the

singular domain that governs this concept, despite your incorrect

attempt to drag it under the domain of purified physics so that you

can simplify the entire subject into easily quantified magnitudes of

EM emissions.

> > Absolutely agreed. Chemistry is nothing but applied physics. I think

> >it would greatly enhance the learning of chemistry if physics were a

> >prerequisite to chemistry; however, I seem to have been the only

> >student to whom calculating the vectors of dipole moments sounded like

> >an additional layer of fun to add to Gen Chem 2.

> >

> >

> Well, physics depends on higher math. Both chemistry and biology do

> not. So unless you can be doing differential, integral and partial

> differential calculus while being science-non-existent, then you'd have

> to fill it with something like biology and chem, which, last I checked,

> are not dependent on any math 'cept algebra 1 (5 years away from the

> lowliest mechanics physics that would be core curriculum for anything of

> substance).

And if you had even close to the knowledge I have of chemistry you'd

have some idea about what math it's dependent on. I'm not claiming

that chemistry requires anywhere near the math that physics does, but

just that you don't know what you're talking about in this particular

case.

> But wait. This is all western bullshit! Let's smoke a

> joint and do sun salutations whilst looking to Eastern Science <whatever

> that is>!

Hmm, let's pretend we know what is talking about so we can just

throw it all into Eastern fluff and ignore it! *rolls eyes*

> No, thermodynamics is macroscopic. When you spoke of entropy in

> microscopy, then it was statistical mechanics. Again, you demonstrate

> ignorance with respect to the subject matter. Do you have a physics

> book handy, as it would really help?

Right. Every author of every chemistry textbook is wrong, and you are

right. After all, since you have a non-degree partial formal

background in math and physics, your own terminological preferences

automatically trump all the Chem PhDs who write the textbooks.

> >Likewise, you absolutely refused to accept the term " thermodynamics, "

> >despite the fact that all standard college chemistry textbooks refer

> >to statistical mechanics as " thermodynamics. "

> >

> Thermodynamics is easily understood with calculus in physics on the big

> scale. Statistical mechanics is exactly analogous to quantum mechanics,

> when you look at classical mechanics on the macroscopy. Get it?

If you are saying that statistical mechanics is the microscopic

thermodynamics that corresponds to the macroscopic " classical "

thermodynamics then yes I get it, which is what I've been saying and

what everyone else seems to think.

> >What you mean by " not accept, " in the above quoted text is my refusal

> >to agree to your lack of acceptance to the standard terminology that I

> >was using, NOT my lack of acceptance of your alternative, but also

> >appropriate and more precise, usage.

> >

> No, you brought in BS from the EAST and try and pawn it off as yet

> ANOTHER RED HERRING. Define and understand energy mathematically and

> otherwise, else *you* drop it.

I didn't bring anything in from the east. So, I'm not really sure how

to respond.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

By the way, Deanna, just between you and me--

The only reason I made up that blatant lie about the study finding

that we emit small amounts of photons from our hands and fingers is so

I could generate lots of cash by plugging my free newsletter. Thanks

for continually disputing it, which gave me an extra couple chances to

plug my upcoming newsletter, which will probably boost my subscription

rate for this weekend.

By the way, if anyone's listening, that's at

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Newsletter.html

My plan is that when the newsletter comes out Saturday morning a few

hundred people expecting to see the article on how our hands emmit

photons will click on the contact page on my site to complain about

it's absence.

Little will they know that sometime between Friday evening and

Saturday morning I will have replaced the contact page with a page

full of Google ads.

In retribution these unsuspecting people will go on a clicking rampage

and generate tons of money for me.

After all, who the hell would get into a conversation like this if it

wasn't for the cash?!

LOL.

;-)

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

--- In , Furbish <efurbish@g...>

wrote:

> I'm off to shove a Gauss meter up my ass and ...

>

> F,

That's hot.

B.

[Guest guest]

On 9/14/05, Deanna Wagner, mistress of hilarity, <hl@...> wrote:

> Oh puhlease Mr. Bandwagon. Why don't you define energy ...

The capacity to do work. *yawn*

>or stop responding.

Right. I must necessarily humor your irrelevant physics tests so you

can inevitably make references to how your mathematical background

trumps all other knowledge, and so you can bring the discussion away

from a subject in which you lack a basic background-- molecular

biology -- into a subject -- physics -- in which you do have a

background, all the while insisting upon its relevance due to the fact

that biology is ultimately based on physics, all the while ignoring

that biology IS physics and that the physics from your physics

textbooks are irrelevant becuase they are by definition physics

extracted from its biological context, whereas biology texts are by

definition physics concepts *applied to biology.*

Of course the problem with biology textbooks for you is that all their

mathematical formulas are filtered so that only the relevant ones are

used.

> Is it conserved?

Neither created nor destroyed. *yawn*

> Does it have potential and kinetic components?

I don't know if I'd say " components " but yes, one due to arrangment,

the other motion... blah blah...

> Where does heat fit in?

Generally absorbed from the surroundings or evolved to the

surroundings, could be considered as a form of energy, measured as the

change between two data points, or considered as a chemical reactant.

Change in Gibbs free energy equal to change in enthalpy minus the

product of temp in K and change in entropy. Etc, etc.

God forbid I may have betrayed any " ignorance " by " co-opting " any of

your " thermodynamic " terms...

> Define the concepts. There is no western science and eastern science,

> only if you consider psychology a science, then yes, there is a

> difference with respect to citta and manna. Demonstrate this supposed

> dichotomy in science, Mr. Scientist. $$$ Quack quack quack $$$. FTC.

> FDA. You can fool some of the people ...

Arf arf. *wags tail*

> Please do define the difference of Western and Eastern science,

> especially in terms of energy. My God, the Indians have nuclear weapons

> (such peace loving vegetarians)! Do tell, your knowingness, what

> difference their science has from ours. Are their bombs more full of

> prana? Should I contact Homeland Security??? <not> <bs> <know the

> difference> <quack quack quack>.

Cockadoodledoo. *chirp chirp* <snort>

> Mumbo jumbo. Cite it or smite it

Actually I used my last fire and brimstone yesterday so the smiting is

out, but I'm glad you're here to amuse us with your inability to

distinguish between an argument for plausibility on the one hand and

confirmation on the other... or wait, maybe those are concepts of the

Eastern Scientific Method, I forget.

> Dr Eastern Alternative Pleasure.

So does this make me a Sex God or only a mere mortal love doctor?

> Why don't you research it and measure it if it really exists?

I don't know what equations I would use, since all of my textbooks are

written by quacks who argue out of ignorance. I would appreciate you

writing letters to all of them, so that they can change their ignorant

use of terminology to something more acceptable to you. After all,

you've had advanced calculus, and I doubt the dopes who wrote

_Molecular Biology of the Cell_ took anything after Algebra 1, which

is all you need for chemistry. LOL.

> And why, pray

> tell, do you have a website devoted to science if you can't even figure

> out what is and what isn't science? $$$

I just follow the cash trail with my nose *oink oink* -- I mean snout.

But actually aren't you the one here who lacks the relevant

background to distinguish between plausible and implausible? <neigh>

> Well, physics depends on higher math. Both chemistry and biology do

> not. So unless you can be doing differential, integral and partial

> differential calculus while being science-non-existent, then you'd have

> to fill it with something like biology and chem, which, last I checked,

> are not dependent on any math 'cept algebra 1 (5 years away from the

> lowliest mechanics physics that would be core curriculum for anything of

> substance). But wait. This is all western bullshit! Let's smoke a

> joint and do sun salutations whilst looking to Eastern Science <whatever

> that is>!

In addition to my earlier point that you have absolutely no idea what

you're talking about, I would also like to point out that your

complete and total absence of an idea of what type of math chemistry

requires betrays your lack of a chemistry background and the fact that

the chemistry you took in college was every bit as much " fluff " as the

physics and calculus that I took.

By the way, there are NO mathematical equations in my molecular and

cellular biology textbooks. That's because biology is an entirely

DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE from physics, which depends on higher math.

Really. There are not ANY equations.

It's too bad, too, because since biology is dependent on physics, all

these biotech kids are just taking fluff and filler by taking

completely math-less classes like chemistry and cellular biology that

do not provide the advanced calculus that is the sole prerequisite for

understanding how biology systems work. And by the way, you can't

even understand the basic concepts unless you have had three years of

this advanced math. So you'll have to trust me, or go back to school

for years.

Oh, and wait!

ln k2 - ln k1 = -(Ea/R)[T2^-1 -- T1^-1]

My equation is bigger than yours! I guess we know who won THAT argument.

> No, thermodynamics is macroscopic. When you spoke of entropy in

> microscopy, then it was statistical mechanics. Again, you demonstrate

> ignorance with respect to the subject matter. Do you have a physics

> book handy, as it would really help?

Please inform the following of their ignorance:

C Kotz (SUNY) and Treichel, Jr. (U Wisconsin-Madison),

authors of _Chemistry and Chemical Reactivity_ who have a section on

" thermodynamics " and consistently refer to " thermodynamics " at the

microscopic level that you insist is not thermodynamics.

Alberts, , , Raff, , and Walter, authors of the

graduate-level textbook _Molecular Biology of the Cell_ who use the

term " thermodynamics " exclusively to refer to what you insist is not

thermodynamics.

Additionally, you may want to alert all the professors in molecular

and cellular biology departments everywhere who consider _MBOTC_ to be

the definitive " Bible " of molecular and cellular biology. They might

want to be informed that the entire book is written by dopes who argue

from ignorance and know less about their subject material than some

gal on the internet whose non-degree physics courses clearly trump

their PhD and post-grad research.

That's just what I have within arms reach. The use of terminology is,

from what I've seen, consistent across chemistry texts.

> No, you brought in BS from the EAST and try and pawn it off as yet

> ANOTHER RED HERRING. Define and understand energy mathematically and

> otherwise, else *you* drop it.

Unfortunately I'm not sure what sound a herring makes.

Arf arf. <chirp> <chirp> *grunt*

That should do.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I have no idea. I haven't looked into his bio. Perhaps he had ties to the

> vegetable oil industry, though, which I understand was extremely active in

> the defamation of animal fats. Money certainly isn't the only factor

> distorting science, but I don't believe it's possible to make a legitimate

> case that it's not the primary one. Religion, for example, is a powerful

> factor, but religious fundamentalists wouldn't have the power they do today

> if they weren't allied with big money. I haven't yet read it myself, and I

> might not because it's liable to be extremely depressing, but I'm told that

> _The Republican War on Science_ offers some really outstanding reporting on

> the subject. (And no, I'm not saying that the Democratic party is up for

> sainthood in this domain. Far from it. But its obfuscations are

> junior-league compared to the modern GOP.)

Actually I'm sort of the opinion that human nature is the primary

obstacle to science. I think that pyschological obstacles to the

scientific method need to be vigilantly combatted against in a

scientist, usually with at least some degree of failure.

I'm sure Keys' theories were boosted to prominence in part by the

financial interests who found them useful, but I've not seen any

indication (in the little looking I've done) that Keys had direct ties

to them, nor do I see that as necessary for an explanation.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >Actually as pointed out I'm quite sure that you are the one

> >co-opting the term " energy " for its exclusive use in specific contexts

> >whose descriptions and theoretical formulations considerably post-date

> >the first use of the time, and given the population difference between

> >Eastern and Western countries I certainly doubt that the usage for

> >which you are claiming exclusive rights to the word is actually more

> > " common " than the Eastern models.

>

> This strikes me as a strange sort of PC, multi-culti argument to make. The

> fact is that the English word 'energy' has very defined meanings,

> particularly in the scientific domain. I don't see why it's supposed to be

> legitimate to translate foreign words with entirely different meanings to

> 'energy' and then announce that the _translations of different and

> essentially unrelated foreign words_ should have precedence over the

> English meanings. It would be much better to talk of 'chi' and whatnot and

> look into whether there's actually anything to the idea of flowing or

> blocked chi and so on and so forth.

So the Greek word " energhia " post-dates modern physics? I seriously doubt it.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >Actually I'm sort of the opinion that human nature is the primary

> >obstacle to science.

>

> Inasmuch as all human behaviour is determined by human nature interacting

> with the environment, isn't that sort of tautological? I think it's more

> useful to consider which elements of human nature are involved -- only

> specific understandings will enable us to combat the forces which oppose

> and distort science.

I guess the way you understood it it's tautological, but I meant

specific elements of human nature, despite not having clearly

delineated them in my post.

> > I think that pyschological obstacles to the

> >scientific method need to be vigilantly combatted against in a

> >scientist, usually with at least some degree of failure.

>

> Sure, but combatting them in a scientist is only one problem among many.

I'm not sure what you mean.

> >I'm sure Keys' theories were boosted to prominence in part by the

> >financial interests who found them useful, but I've not seen any

> >indication (in the little looking I've done) that Keys had direct ties

> >to them, nor do I see that as necessary for an explanation.

>

> It's not necessary that Keys had financial ties to the vegetable oil

> industry or any other industry, it's only possible. Perhaps he simply saw

> his lies as a route to power. After all, self-interest is a very powerful

> element of human nature, and people will lie, even to themselves, in the

> pursuit of money and power.

Sure. I just wanted to emphasize that this can occur independent of a

monetary motivation. For example, Keys wouldn't even necessarily have

to see this as a chance to rise to power because of financial

interests that were willing to support the theory-- although that

could be involved too. Simply coming up with any kind of

revolutionary theory is a chance to rise to notoriety, and coming up

with one that you expect to influence public health policy and be

embraced by the public at large has much more potential for that than

other theories that are of a more strictly academic interest.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >> Please do define the difference of Western and Eastern science,

> >> especially in terms of energy. My God, the Indians have nuclear weapons

> >> (such peace loving vegetarians)! Do tell, your knowingness, what

> >> difference their science has from ours. Are their bombs more full of

> >> prana? Should I contact Homeland Security??? <not> <bs> <know the

> >> difference> <quack quack quack>.

> >

> >Cockadoodledoo. *chirp chirp* <snort>

>

> Are either of you free range? Cuz I'm getting mighty hungry from laughing

> so

> hard at this exchange.

I've had it with your sarcasm. Eat me.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

>Hmm-- ok, off the top of my head from this discussion, infrared, light

>(visible spectrum, I think but would have to check.), arrangement

>(potential.) I'm not sure why the number of different types of energy

>are important. Potential would be sufficient in itself. EM just

>mixes it all up a bit for extra fun.

This shows utter ignorance.

Originally you said " we emit light. " This is false. Now you say photons.

Well, all electromagnetic energy comes in photons, including infrared, which is

part of that spectrum (but you obviously have no clue as shown by the redundancy

in listing), so yeah duh, we emit photons, but not visible light as you claimed.

Potential energy is not emitted. Hit the books.

Deanna

http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html

Alternative Medicine and the Laws of Physics

So-called " alternative " therapies, mostly derived from ancient healing

traditions and superstitions, have a strong appeal for people who feel

left behind by the explosive growth of scientific knowledge.

Paradoxically, however, their nostalgia for a time when things seemed

simpler and more natural is mixed with respect for the power of modern

science (Toumey 1996). They want to believe that " natural " healing

practices can be explained by science. Purveyors of alternative

medicine have, therefore, been quick to invoke the language and symbols

of science. Not surprisingly, the mechanisms proposed to account for

the alleged efficacy of such methods as touch therapy, psychic healing,

and homeopathy involve serious misrepresentations of modern physics.

[Guest guest]

> > Well, physics depends on higher math. Both chemistry and biology do

> > not. So unless you can be doing differential, integral and partial

> > differential calculus while being science-non-existent, then you'd

have

> > to fill it with something like biology and chem, which, last I

checked,

> > are not dependent on any math 'cept algebra 1 (5 years away from the

> > lowliest mechanics physics that would be core curriculum for

anything of

> > substance). But wait. This is all western bullshit! Let's smoke a

> > joint and do sun salutations whilst looking to Eastern Science

<whatever

> > that is>!

[]

.... I'd better stop typing

> before I get enough wine in me to perform equally well.

[]

Now if you don't mind passing that bottle of Chateau Mouton

Rothschild...or was that White Zinfandel <g>

Wait a second...

do people *drink* and *post*?

B.

/ever honing those perception skillz

//thank you, Captain(s) Obvious

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> >Hmm-- ok, off the top of my head from this discussion, infrared, light

> >(visible spectrum, I think but would have to check.), arrangement

> >(potential.) I'm not sure why the number of different types of energy

> >are important. Potential would be sufficient in itself. EM just

> >mixes it all up a bit for extra fun.

> This shows utter ignorance.

LOL! Of course it does! The more ignorant I can prove myself to you,

the closer I'll be to writing a graduate-level chemistry or biology

textbook that is universally considered authoritative, so I'd consider

that a good sign.

> Originally you said " we emit light. " This is false.

Yes, " Dr Mitsuo Hiramatsu, a scientist at the Central Research

Laboratory at Hamamatsu Photonics in Japan, who led the research, "

was arguing from ignorance when he told reporters that " hands are not

the only parts of the body that shine light by releasing photons, or

tiny, energised packets of light. "

I said light because the word " light " was used a dozen times in the

article. I didn't think, at the time, to make a note of the

frequency. Neither the article nor the abstract that is linked to

makes a note of whether the frequency is within the visible spectrum,

and the full-text is restricted access, so I cannot verify this.

Note that the one time where I referred to the spectrum I said that I

*think* the article said visible. As it turns out, it used the word

" light " repeatedly but did not specify precisely what it meant by

this.

> Now you say photons.

> Well, all electromagnetic energy comes in photons, including infrared, which

> is part of that spectrum (but you obviously have no clue as shown by the

> redundancy in listing), so yeah duh, we emit photons, but not visible light

> as you claimed.

You know most people wouldn't stretch an ambiguous statement like that

to assume the worst. When I listed " light " after " infrared, " I

attached parantheses to it that said I *think* the article said

visible spectrum light, thus THAT was the differentiation that

justified a second spot on the list. Note that in the final two

sentences of the paragraph I quite CLEARLY imply that there are only

two fundamental differentiations between EM radiation and potential

energy, making it at least suggestive, if not quite clear, that I'm

aware that infrared is simply another frequency on the spectrum of

radiant energy that also includes the range of visible light.

Consider for a moment that this is literally ELEMENTARY SCHOOL level

science! You are accusing me of ignorance of knowledge that is

acquired at the LATEST among children in SIXTH GRADE!!!

I'm amazed that after a night of PUI and the chance to recover you

would still continue in the same vein, making the most outrageous

accusations of ignorance (which I suppose are a step better than

ulterior motives!), apparently because you are annoyed at me for

correctly pointing out your ignorance of advanced molecular and

cellular biology-- as if that's something to be embarassed about!

Clearly my admitting to my own lack of knowledge of physics and

pointing out your own corresponding lack of knowledge of college-level

chemistry and biology is tempered, reasonable, and based on

observation and prior knowledge, whereas your ridiculous accusation

that I am ignorant of sixth grade physics is a cheap shot where you

are stretching my words to find the smallest element of ambiguity to

exploit and cast as if it were an indication of a total failure of my

ability to remember basic childhood-level learning.

> Potential energy is not emitted. Hit the books.

There's nothing in the quoted text that says potential energy is

" emitted. " Hit the quoted text.

The most hilarious part of this entire discussion is that when you

consider the possiblity of " energy " being a player in alternative

therapies you immediately jump to equations of subatomic phenomena--

the absolute least likely equations to have any relevancy-- and

automatically think of radiant energy, both of which betray your

" ignorance, " to borrow the word you are so fond of using, of how a

biological system works at the molecular level. The primary " energy "

capacity in the body is the energy of arrangement. Even the

electrical transmissions through nerve fibers are ultimately mediated

at the synapse by chemical energy.

I'm sorry, but at least when I suggest you don't know about something,

I'm actually correct. I readily admit to the things that I don't

know, and the things that you have a much greater knowledge of than

me. Yet would you stop to think, just for a second, that your

background in math and physics might be insufficient to consider these

issues when coming up against my background in molecular and cellular

biology?

At least according to my cell bio teacher, by virtue of passage from

that particular class, it placed us in something like the top 1% among

*scientists* or maybe even *biologists*-- I forget which she said --

in our understanding of the dynamics of cells. In the general

population that would put as at the top less than 0.1% of course.

And I would also point out that the effects of magnetic phenomena on

arrangments within the body that are able to perpetuate in various

ways are entirely in the domain of *chemistry*, which, while based on

physics, and in fact BEING, essentially, a sub-discipline of physics,

is a subject that I have considerable more formal experience in than

you, which is compounded by the extensive tutoring, reading, and other

reinforcement of this understanding.

So it is very odd that you are so quick to dismiss something I say as

quackery when you don't understand exactly what it is I'm saying, and

I find it odd that it seems to be your assumption that I must be

ignorant of even a sixth grade understanding of these issues, rather

than assuming that I might know something about them that you don't.

> http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/park.html

> Alternative Medicine and the Laws of Physics

> So-called " alternative " therapies, mostly derived from ancient healing

> traditions and superstitions, have a strong appeal for people who feel

> left behind by the explosive growth of scientific knowledge.

> Paradoxically, however, their nostalgia for a time when things seemed

> simpler and more natural is mixed with respect for the power of modern

> science (Toumey 1996). They want to believe that " natural " healing

> practices can be explained by science. Purveyors of alternative

> medicine have, therefore, been quick to invoke the language and symbols

> of science. Not surprisingly, the mechanisms proposed to account for

> the alleged efficacy of such methods as touch therapy, psychic healing,

> and homeopathy involve serious misrepresentations of modern physics.

And if you paid attention to a single word I've said, you wouldn't be

conflating 's argument with mine, and you'd see why this is

irrelevant.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

> I'm amazed that after a night of PUI and the chance to recover you

> would still continue in the same vein, making the most outrageous

> accusations of ignorance (which I suppose are a step better than

> ulterior motives!), apparently because you are annoyed at me for

> correctly pointing out your ignorance of advanced molecular and

> cellular biology-- as if that's something to be embarassed about!

Libel

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >I've had it with your sarcasm. Eat me.

> LOL. It's a good thing isn't the jealous type because this is a

> provocative double entendre. <g>

Well I think " eat me " is often used synonymously with something like

" f*** off, " or something, which I quite obviously didn't mean, but is

more consistent with the sense in which I meant " eat me, " here-- or,

should I say, the sense in which I meant the doubling component of the

double entendre... I think...

> Having said that, how do you prefer to be prepared? Grilled? Poached?

> Marinated in lemon juice and put in a Ceviche salad? Fried? Or would fried

> create acrylamides? If I make brain soup, will I become smart like

> you?

You're asking *this* libelous sixth-grade intellect?

Maybe if you eat my brain you'll suddenly forget ROY G. BIV.

And if you forget that, it's a short way from forgetting infrared is

just before red, and ultra violet is just after violet... and then

it's all downhill from there.

*quack quack*

> <actually beginning to salivate...sshhhh...don't tell anyone>

Arp! (that's the sqeaky version of " Arf! " )

*makes puppy whining sound*

*gets scared and runs away*

Arf!

*gets lost in a pile of clothes of his human compansion's closet and

bumps his head*

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 9/15/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote:

> Libel

This accusation has no basis, and as such, is an unwarranted attack on

my character.

I consider the above to be libelous.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

[PAUL]

>> It's easy

>>to examine the workings of a single neuron, as has said, and it's

>>easy to examine the mechanical function of an arm, but there's a lot that

>>MRIs and whatnot won't tell us.

[DEANNA]

>No, actually *I* said the workings of a single neuron were examinable.

>Sure, there is much that medical instruments can't tell us. They can

>tell your vision pretty well, and without exerting any ill effect also.

(Then apologized for the misattribution.)

Actually, I think, , you may have been referring to this, in which

I was the first to bring up a neuron, and was referring to the

relative ease with which we can examine it compared to the

interneuronal formations of thoughts and memories:

>In fact, just look at how much more difficult it is to understand how

>thought processing in brain tissue works compared to how difficult it

>is to look at the activities of a single neuron. We have a

>half-decent grasp of the latter, but we don't even come close to

>understanding how multiple cells interact together to form a thought,

>and store it in memory.

Chris

On 9/15/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 9/15/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote:

>

> > Libel

>

> This accusation has no basis, and as such, is an unwarranted attack on

> my character.

>

> I consider the above to be libelous.

>

> Chris

>

> --

> Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

> And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

>

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html