It's all unclear to me too, Mike, but one thing I understand quite well is personality. Oh sure, I pomp it up a bunch, but there is a solid understanding of personality types behind my assertions, and Stafford's is a textbook case of self-delusion.

>>>"All the references to personality have no bearing on the issue at all."

Wrong. My rudeness and tendency to avoid real criticism would certainly not be without bearing on the issue of my own, radical mathematical ideas (if I had any). Indeed, without a good grasp of math, it might be the best angle you've got to expose my incompetence.

>>>"You appeal to the authority of unnamed sources you do not even claim to have read."

Largely incorrect. I alluded to two 'authorities' (Alex and Yanniru), and on many occasions I've explained why I think Stafford's ideas are useless. In short, ya don't need math to see how using reductionism to tear down holism is a doomed approach.

Even Einstein was not alone in his ideas for very long. Our illustrious Stafford has found no support from the physics community, and he's been pushing this stuff for 40 years.

Without math skills, I have to use what I know. Maybe I should tone down the "fluff."

• A commendable objective - pmartin - May 10, 2002 - 16:43 UTC
  • Stick to the math -- your ulterior motives are showing! - luis_hamburgh - May 11, 2002 - 18:02 UTC
    • You are right, Luis - pmartin - May 12, 2002 - 00:16 UTC