Hi Mike,

***Are you vouching for the accuracy of everything Dr. Dick said in that post...?***

I am an old man and I date back to the time when the teacher/student relationship was not a peer relationship.

When the professor delivered a lecture, and I learned something as a result, I didn't feel obliged to "vouch" for what he/she said.

No. I am not vouching for the accuracy of everything Dr. Dick said in that post.

***...or what?***

Here's what:

I have found, though hard work, that the veracity of Dick's paper is beyond my ability to confirm or deny. I also learned enough from it to arrive at a strong belief that what he has done is correct.

What I would like to see now, is for someone, who does have the capability of understanding his work in detail, to go through his work line by line and determine if there are any errors in it or not. It would also be nice if that person would do as you ask and explain the gist of what he has discovered in plain and simple English. That would be icing, or gravy, whichever you prefer more.

So, since I think Bruce might be capable of understanding the details of Dick's work, I appealed to him to start his debunking effort with the above post. If he finds an error in that, I wouldn't expect him to give Dick's paper any more consideration. If on the other hand, he finds no error in Dick's post, I will be immediately on hand to challenge him to have a serious look at Dick's paper.

Warm regards, you gadfly you,

Paul

• Well, he took me to task, and you applauded - kantolfir2 - July 29, 2002 - 19:48 UTC
  • but he was right! I did say that! oops - kantolfir2 - July 29, 2002 - 19:51 UTC