HI Harv,

I happened across astronomy.met and saw that you had posted there, I have immensely appreciated your comments. Needless to say, my knowledge of philosophy is limited however, I am capable of recognizing ignorance and stupidity neither of which you seem to display (well, a little ignorance of mathematics perhaps). Nonetheless, I would very much liked to re-establish communication if at all possible. I am sorry that you feel so strongly about revealing your identity. I promise I will keep all information to myself if you would have the guts to write me directly at doctordick01@yahoo.com. I really think we could have an interesting conversation.

Have fun -- Dick

• Let's keep our contact here - harvey1 - October 11, 2004 - 12:23 UTC
  • The essence of my postition! - doctordick - October 12, 2004 - 21:43 UTC
    • Looks like an improvement - harvey1 - October 13, 2004 - 05:14 UTC
      • Harv re: philosophical commentary about editing - carefuluniverse - October 13, 2004 - 15:07 UTC
      • You need to read more carefully! - doctordick - October 14, 2004 - 01:47 UTC
    • Question 1 - harvey1 - October 14, 2004 - 23:33 UTC
      • In my model, a mathematical relationship exists! - doctordick - October 16, 2004 - 19:25 UTC
    • Question 2: what is set B exactly? - harvey1 - October 16, 2004 - 20:18 UTC
      • Are you reading what I say carefully? - doctordick - October 19, 2004 - 17:17 UTC
    • Question 3: how do you know set B is an unordered set of A? - harvey1 - October 19, 2004 - 17:57 UTC
      • Do you understand the nature of modeling? - doctordick - October 21, 2004 - 20:52 UTC
    • Question 4: is your model a physical model? - harvey1 - October 21, 2004 - 21:42 UTC
      • It is a Logical model: a procedure! - doctordick - October 23, 2004 - 14:23 UTC
    • Question 5: what is an explanation if physical is undefined? - harvey1 - October 24, 2004 - 15:23 UTC
      • You could have put more thought into that! - doctordick - November 30, 2004 - 02:34 UTC
        • Nature is sometimes not logical - yanniru - November 30, 2004 - 14:54 UTC
    • Set-Up for Question 6 - harvey1 - December 3, 2004 - 18:49 UTC
      • You miss the entire essence of my work! - doctordick - December 4, 2004 - 00:28 UTC
        • At this stage... - harvey1 - December 4, 2004 - 04:33 UTC
    • Question 6: what's wrong with astral explanations? - harvey1 - December 3, 2004 - 20:36 UTC
      • Nothing! - doctordick - December 4, 2004 - 00:03 UTC
    • Question 7: how to decide what is known information? - harvey1 - December 4, 2004 - 04:30 UTC
      • Known information is what the explainer provides! - doctordick - December 5, 2004 - 02:26 UTC
    • Question 8: an explanation must be consistent with experiences? - harvey1 - December 5, 2004 - 17:08 UTC
      • Then arn't all expectations of a physical nature? - doctordick - December 7, 2004 - 01:41 UTC
    • Question 9: Is an 'undefined' explanation a real explanation? - harvey1 - December 7, 2004 - 02:54 UTC
      • What is required to make something an explanation is exactly def - doctordick - December 11, 2004 - 16:55 UTC
    • Question 10: what are the properties of a general explanation? - harvey1 - December 12, 2004 - 03:17 UTC
      • Read the description of the model (nt) - doctordick - December 13, 2004 - 02:11 UTC
      • Not to be rude! - doctordick - December 13, 2004 - 02:25 UTC
    • Question 11: ls it really a model of a general explanation? - harvey1 - December 13, 2004 - 03:38 UTC
      • Sometimes I wonder if you read what I write! - doctordick - December 15, 2004 - 18:29 UTC
    • Question 12: Is a lie to be considered an explanation by you? - harvey1 - December 16, 2004 - 03:45 UTC
      • You are not being clear! - doctordick - December 17, 2004 - 04:16 UTC
        • hi Dr Dick - sagefr0g - December 17, 2004 - 09:53 UTC
          • Ok, it might be interesting. - doctordick - December 17, 2004 - 23:03 UTC
            • yes interesting but old hat.... - sagefr0g - December 18, 2004 - 03:33 UTC
              • Why can't you? - doctordick - December 18, 2004 - 16:08 UTC
                • i may be able too.... - sagefr0g - December 18, 2004 - 23:55 UTC
                  • You may be trying to read too much into that statement. - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 20:27 UTC
            • Competency is not the issue - harvey1 - December 18, 2004 - 13:05 UTC
              • What I present is not a "Theory"! - doctordick - December 18, 2004 - 16:05 UTC
                • Convoluted bs... - bruce - December 19, 2004 - 07:43 UTC
    • Question 13: does it matter to you if the explainer is lying? - harvey1 - December 17, 2004 - 04:39 UTC
      • Why should that have any bearing on the problem? - doctordick - December 17, 2004 - 23:11 UTC
    • Question 14: does a method help you if the 'known' is a lie? - harvey1 - December 18, 2004 - 04:37 UTC
      • That has no bearing on the problem. - doctordick - December 18, 2004 - 15:34 UTC
        • Demons and the approximate truths (or lies) they share - harvey1 - December 18, 2004 - 18:57 UTC
          • You are wrong again Harv! - doctordick - December 18, 2004 - 21:01 UTC
            • The ways of a demon - harvey1 - December 19, 2004 - 06:00 UTC
              • Sorry, I'm right and you're wrong? - doctordick - December 20, 2004 - 02:18 UTC
                • Modeling troubles? - harvey1 - December 20, 2004 - 03:35 UTC
                  • You simply do not understand the model! - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 12:32 UTC
                    • The statements which are false - harvey1 - December 21, 2004 - 14:16 UTC
                      • Complete misrepresentation Harv! - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 19:51 UTC
                        • Round and round we go - harvey1 - December 27, 2004 - 05:15 UTC
                          • First, you are certainly confused! - doctordick - December 28, 2004 - 02:30 UTC
    • Question 15: What if set B is disjoint from set A? - harvey1 - December 18, 2004 - 18:40 UTC
      • A is what is to be explained! - doctordick - December 18, 2004 - 20:30 UTC
    • Question 16: Is set 666 enough to foil any model of explanation? - harvey1 - December 19, 2004 - 05:45 UTC
      • An explnation of C is presumed to be an explanation of A. - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 12:47 UTC
    • Question 17: can you resolve this discrepancy with set C? - harvey1 - December 27, 2004 - 05:34 UTC
      • No discrepancy exists! - doctordick - December 28, 2004 - 02:33 UTC
        • Straw man? - harvey1 - December 28, 2004 - 03:34 UTC
          • You are creating your own definitions! - doctordick - December 28, 2004 - 04:22 UTC
            • Not so - harvey1 - December 28, 2004 - 04:31 UTC
              • I presume from these responses - doctordick - December 28, 2004 - 16:53 UTC
                • No, but first I must understand your definitions - harvey1 - December 29, 2004 - 00:38 UTC
                  • Honestly? I don't believe you Harv! - doctordick - December 29, 2004 - 01:46 UTC
                    • Well, I am insulted... - harvey1 - December 29, 2004 - 01:56 UTC
                      • Hah, you're insulted? Don't make me laugh! - doctordick - December 30, 2004 - 18:16 UTC
                        • A little defensive are we? - harvey1 - December 30, 2004 - 19:58 UTC
• Again, the mutual admiration but no astronomy posted! - carefuluniverse - October 11, 2004 - 17:43 UTC