Hi Mung:
I think you implode way too easily.
My purpose for continuing on this Forum, even though I am using time that could be spent with better purpose elsewhere, is because I can be objective in the face of vocalized nonsense. Some of you are not sufficiently exposed to tolerate that kind of fungus. I am a retired administrative law trial lawyer so I have had a lot of exposure to many, if not all, of the types that seek to get you off balance by projecting themselves as your superiors. Not with me.
The easiest way to start this program is to demean whatever it is you have to say. If they are not far enough advanced in your subject the next step is to demand you provide proof, in their journals, of what you contend. Lawyers deal with precedents. That means we look to the past for determinations of the same question to guide us in our understanding of the current question and to help us gain a better understanding of our issue. Science pretends, and the advocates that are nasty and overbearing pretend, to consider new issues but it is a sham. The systems are so far apart when it comes to logic and the search for the truth that I am at times ashamed to make a comparison. I enjoyed having an opponent that thought he was the utmost or the new anti Christ because I could take advantage of that by comparative presentation of what the issues really meant. Since when do NEW theories appear in the old tired journals?
Way too much talk.
jjw
