🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34C89A17.46A9@pacbell.net>, Stephen Harris
<mulcyber@pacbell.net> wrote:
>[...]
>This project has the characteristics of what is called psuedo-science.

  Maybe.

>However, I think why not wait and see the demo. That you broke the
>news about this before having the demo ready was a mistake.

  You're probably right.

> I visited
>your website and noticed you had the file size of the demo specified.
>I think it was like 658k indicating you had already done the work on
>it. People are going to figure then that it is not working right.

  People can make any guess they want.  It's their prerogative.  There
is a difference between not ready and not working right. 

>Perhaps unlike some others, I'd be delighted to see a "breakthrough".

  Ah.  Are you saying that the others would be disappointed?  It sure
seems like it.

>What is your reason for not getting a patent?

  You can't patent natural processes IMO.  At least you should not be
able to.  My thesis is that biological neurons will be found to work
pretty much like the neuron model that I propose in the article at my
site.  Besides, if this leads to something big, there will be enough
for everyone.  I'm not greedy.

Regards,

Louis Savain

President, Marengo Media, Inc.