"It goes this way: Galileo said that if a ship is passing a dock, it makes no difference if it is thought of as the ship passing with the dock the Rest Frame Reference, or if the ship is the RFR and the dock is passing. I agree with that. That is legitimate Relativity. "

As do I. You clearly understand this.

"Mathbabble says this: If a car traveling at 100-kph strikes an elephant, it makes no difference if we use the elephant as the RFR, or if we use the car as the RFR, and consider the elephant to be doing 100-kph. And this is correct as far as the energy release at impact."

As far as I can tell, this is the same as the boat analogy, except you put numbers in. Are you math-phobic?

"Einstein effectively decided that the elephant is capable of accelerating itself up to 100-kph!! "

First of all, the situation you are describing has nothing to do with relativity, it can all be described classically. Second of all, the elephant is only moving at 100 kph relative to the car's RFR, not to its surroundings.

"My theory is correct, AS PER EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS ARISEN AFTER MY PUBLICATION, if you're using that system. Or do you prefer a double standard?"

I prefer a concrete prediction, such as "Pioneer will show an anomolous acceleration of 10^-7 cm s^-2" or something of that nature. Tell us, will Pioneer's acceleration remain constant as it moves outwards? If not, how will it change? If we launched a much more massive probe (say ten times as massive), what would its anomolous acceleration be? What about one with more surface area? If you can't answer these questions, your theory is useless. Furthermore, I don't see how you could answer them without math.