Hi Harv,

I absolutely cannot believe Harv and Wanda are different people. They could not both generate such identical idiotic misrepresentations of what I am doing.

I have done nothing but carefully defined an explanation and examined the consequences of that definition. The fact that you have now resorted to introducing inconsistent explanations as a reason to believe my deductions are false is utterly idiotic. That is exactly what Harv does all the time. I don't bother with "inconsistent" explanations for one and only one reason: only a complete idiot would consider an inconsistent explanation as being worth the trouble to examine.

You have apparently totally failed to read (or want to ignore it because it doesn't go along with your agenda!)

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/general/messages/4690.shtml

In that post, I point out the following:

"Give me the set of expectations your explanation of something implies for some specific set of circumstances, and it is a trivial problem to design an algorithm which will reproduce those expectations in detail. Call the algorithm "Wanda's expectations" and just lay out a table! The method is, go to the table, find the circumstance and read off Wanda's expectations. (And they do not have to be the same as anyone else's.)"

And they don't have to be consistent either!

Finally, it is you who keeps promulgating that I am "presenting a theory of everything".

Have fun -- Dick

• I'm having fun - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:58 UTC
  • I don't think you have paid any attention at all to what I say! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:12 UTC
    • intellectual honesty is not your strong suit! - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:48 UTC