From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:41:27 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
      
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote   
   >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 02:33:07 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
   >> If you're talking about nerve impulses, then describing them thus is so   
   >> elliptical as to be inaccurate.   
   >   
   > I know I'm going to mis-spell this, but:  Kirlean effect.   
      
   Has nothing to do with nerve impulses.   
      
   > Here's what you do not know, so take this info and process it in whatever   
   > blender you have:   
   > Before I had lasik, I could look in a bathroom mirror using only indirect,   
   > shadowed sunlight, and whilst gazing downwards, could detect something very   
   > much like (what I consider to be) astral light photons emitting from my   
   > eyes, focused downward towards whatever it was I was gazing at near the base   
   > of the mirror.   
      
   Optical illusion.  The fact that your senses are not reliable is not a   
   surprise to me.   
      
   > MY eyes "transmit" (or did, prior to lasik, which destroyed   
   > my near-vision.)  Furthermore, you can get an idea for yourself what these   
   > light photons looked like if you take a standard red laser, aim it in a   
   > mirror, and direct the light beam PAST your eyes (NOT directly back into   
   > them!) but near the side of your head.  In the mirror, you will see the path   
   > of the laser photons, and no, they're not reflecting upon dust particles.   
      
   Yes they are.  You will also see a "speckled" or granular effect, as the   
   coherent beam interacts with itself.   
      
   >> If that's what you mean, say so.  Don't invent pseudo-scientific   
   >> mumbo-jumbo to dress it up with.   
   >   
   > It's called Freedom of Speech, you fuck-nut.   
      
   It's called lying about your competence in order to sound more   
   authoritative than you actually are, in order to sustain your inflated   
   sense of self-importance.   
      
   >> And you're scientifically illiterate.   
   >   
   > Not everyone on this planet writes for science digests.  I write what I   
   > experience in as clear a terminology as I *prefer* for the *average reader,*   
   > shit-weasel.   
      
   Nice try Dick; nut pretending you're only writing nonsense in an attempt   
   to be "clear" is pathetic.  You simply don't understand what you're   
   talking about, and no amount of wriggling on the hook is going to change   
   that, nor disguise it.   
      
   If anything, it only makes you more comtemptible.   
      
   >   
   >>>> Dick, the rods and cones do not transmit.  Period.   
   >>>   
   >>> what utter bullshit!  of COURSE they transmit, otherwise you'd not be   
   >>> able to distinguish between dark / light / colors / motion!   
   >>   
   >> They do not transmit in the way you are talking about.   
   >   
   > Fuck-face:  anything that can be used as a *raw* receiver can be reversed as   
   > a transmitter.   
      
   Simply untrue.  It's true for antennae; but the rods and cones work by   
   exposing light sensitive dye (rhodopsin) to light.  Do you expect   
   photographs to emit light?   
      
   A good example of a little knowledge being stretched all out of shape.  It   
   would have taken you, what, five minutes, to look up how the eye actually   
   works.  Less time than it probably took you to write this reply.  But you   
   didn't - you hoped you could bluff, insult and posture your way out of it.   
   As usual.   
      
   Pathetic.   
      
   > True, the quality is largely much poorer or lower than for   
   > something *designed* as a transmitter, which -- incidentally -- can also be   
   > used as a receiver.  Take for instance speakers and microphones:  just   
   > reverse the jack you've got them plugged into, and *presto!* a mic becomes a   
   > speaker, and a speaker becomes a mic.   
      
   Science by anology does not usually work.  As in this case.   
      
   >   
   >>> And furthermore, David, it's well established that you and I do NOT see   
   >>> eye-to-eye on just about everything, so do ME a favor and just can-it.   
   >>   
   >> No.  I'll continue to correct your scientific boo-boo's, so long as you   
   >> continue to pretend that you know what you're talking about.   
   >   
   > For the last time, queer-mo, I *only* write about what I know.  I ASK about   
   > what I do NOT know.   
      
   No, you pretend to know about all sorts of things. I don't know whether   
   there are any fields in which you are competent, I'm beginning to suspect   
   not; but certainly whenever you post about anything I have even shallow   
   knowledge about, your posts are full of reasoning and factual errors.   
      
   As to why you do this, who knows; but I suspect it's partly the reason I   
   gave above, and partly because you're smart enough to sound competent and   
   authoritative, so you've never had the incentive to really study in depth.   
      
   >   
   > Don't bother replying:  you've taken enough of my time already.  You're   
   > kill-filed.   
      
   I'm not posting for you, Dick; but for anyone else who still might think   
   you know what you're talking about.   
      
   Plus, I get to have the last word.  Marvellous!   
      
   And the last word is: antidisestablishmentarianism.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)