>>>"I'm not so sure you should count yourself
the evaluator of my comprehension."

I'm not so sure you should reveal you insecurities thusly. When I said "many," I didn't mean "the guy with many screennames." I never specified you, o complex-ridden one.

>>>"There is a way of explaining his work that makes it very clear, I think."

Maybe so, but not from the source itself. Even a satirical take on it seems to be a lot clearer than anything Stafford offers (like "The Theory of Nothing," for instance).

When I initially challenged him to concisely state the meaning of his work, I used relativity as an example. I basically said, "even a theory that so few could understand at first was easily expressed in a few words." Only later did I understand why he ignored this point and continued to offer no simple description. His theory is based within the rejection of relative time.

The recently sited commentary (the Google discussion group) sums up nicely how Stafford's stance is foundationally myopic. Even without understanding all the math, someone as uneducated as I can see what Stafford cannot see.

• One second - luis_hamburgh - July 20, 2002 - 17:39 UTC
• Are you a Trinitarian? Three posts where one would do? - carefuluniverse - July 20, 2002 - 18:54 UTC