I use "cognitive" and "conscious" to emphasize theOriginally Posted by DrSmellThis
difference between what we think is happening (i.e., our thoughts) compared to the unconscious behavioral affects
that occur in response to the effect of pheromones on hormones. I do this throughout the article. Therefore, you
explicitly imply (I'm using explicitly for emphasis) that its reviewers and at least one editor either do not
recognize the (i.e., your) need to dispose of pseudoscientific jargon, or that they recognize the (i.e., my) need
for emphasis. Which do you think is correct? Maybe you should read the article before deciding. Or perhaps, maybe
they just didn't want to mention "pseudoscientific jargon" for fear of bruising my ego.
Given this ongoing need, why does it appear that he has only postedOriginally Posted by DrSmellThis
approximately 10 times since joining in May, 2006? And why so much activity in this thread? For all we know he could
be a majority stock holder in Erox/Human Pheromone Sciences who is waiting for the stock to rebound with new
fertilizer for the androstadienone and VNO approach.
Now we also have changed this thread from androstadienone and the VNO to JVKOriginally Posted by DrSmellThis
and his ego, and you appear to have decided what is unscientific fertilizer.
ThisOriginally Posted by DrSmellThis
Forum has never been about scientific ethics; it's a marketing tool. You've used it to promote your product, I've
used it to promote mine. It is now being used to discredit me by changing the focus from putative human pheromones,
which you agree I know a lot about, to my ego--which you and others seem to think you know about--in this thread.
So, if I don't spend much more time responding to posts like this, I hope you understand
why.
JVK
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
Bookmarks