Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply » steve

Posted by JahL on March 5, 2001, at 6:17:06

In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, would you have a reply, posted by steve on March 4, 2001, at 19:25:41

> > I can see how you meant to imply that banning the discussion of cars would be unconstitutional. But it wasn't clear from how you phrased it.

It was very clear (ie grammatically correct). What's not is why you have trouble with vaguely complex syntax. If you read the sentence again, you will see I don't 'imply' anything; I say the aforementioned *would* be unconstitutional. Please explain a) how this is unclear (!) & b) how this is implying anything.

> > As for the 'Molecular brain surgery' issue. It is generally understood in research circles that all psychotropics work by affecting the brain's structure. Downregulation and changes to DNA expression are some of the things that happen. Cam W. can tell you how SSRIs affect, at the very least, 5HT, CRF, NA, GR and DA receptors. THey also cause the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, which is actually believed to cause mild (re) growth of the hippocampus. And yes, those are structural changes.

Yes, this is all standard information; I don't think I'll be bothering CamW this time. This 'understanding' isn't restricted to research circles!

Again, Steve 'structural change' *does not* imply surgery. Taking steroids alters various structures in the body, not least muscle tissue. But by no stretch of the imagination could this be compared to surgery. Please look @ yr dictionary; surgery is defined by the use of *operations* in a medical context.

I am not going to argue semantics with you. Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to attribute the *correct* meaning to words.

I am dropping out of this one.I can't argue with someone who manipulates the facts to satisfy their agenda. Rules of debate deem the arugment should fit the fact and not vice-versa.

Our only real area of disagreement is over the extremity of yr standpoint. Radicalism is fine for the individual, & terrible for the masses. (ie 1 Nazi does not make Hitler's Germany.)

(a no longer involved in this discussion) Jah.


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


[757]

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:JahL thread:743
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/757.html