I was a bit bothered by your message, so much so that I decided to post from home, something I never do.
It's not easy discussing anything with you. Except for Paul, perhaps, I think you pretty much insulted everyone here, including me at some point. I soon noticed you were too sensitive to criticism, so I decided to keep my mouth shut and just try and learn what I could, and learn I did.
However, I never fully supported all of your ideas, I find some of them bizarre and a few of them just plain wrong. But I have no interest in discussing as you have never, not even once, acknowledged the validity of any criticism from anyone. You hide yourself behind the complexities of your math, and in doing so you have become just like one of the authorities you're so fond of criticizing.
Like anyone else, I happen to have my opinions on everything, and I'm glad I found someone who shares some of my most out-of-the-mainstream positions. But while I regard my position as opinion, you have more and more made it clear you take yourself as the keeper of absolute truth. Your contempt for any discussion which doesn't involve the ideas in your paper, your disregard for the intellectual achievements of our species, your insistence that our attempts at understanding our universe and our place in it are "just a story", I'm sorry to say that I don't share those opinions with you at all.
So what is left? I still think you have an important message, and that is that people should think more clearly about what they are saying, especially when they have the responsibility to educate the masses. I think many of our scientists are corrupt bureaucrats who care more about their petty ideologies and interests than about truth. But we must be very careful not to throw the baby with the bath water. Dismissing the whole of science, the whole of philosophy, the whole of religion, as "just a story", is not only wrong, misguided, misleading, it can be poison to a person's mind. I think that's really what turns people off from your work. Misquoting from a movie, sometimes when you're right, you're wrong.
And last but not least. I do hate it when people assess my intelligence based on my ability to understand boring mathematical "proofs". That Feynman quote from your paper, the one which says "if you can't express it in math then you don't know what you're talking about", I could never swallow it. But that's OK.
All in all, it's been fun. But, as you have noticed already, if the truth of your arguments is in your math, this is definitely not the place for you.