Good to hear from you. Have you got your log building built yet?
"your apology for Dr. Dick[ that "Dr. Dick just has difficulty dealing with illogical statements."] is either a statement that attempted to be insulting to me (but I was obvlivious) to me or it is a bogus explanation."
Given those two choices, I would have to say it was bogus. I certainly did not attempt or intend to insult you. What you called an "apology" was nothing more than a guess on my part and not meant to be an "explanation". What I meant by "illogical statements" were statements that are not in the context of a careful logical or mathematical development. So I really meant most all statements that are used by most all people in most all conversations. Dick has tried to point out that since an early age he has been skeptical of most all statements in most all conversations except for those "logical" statements in a mathematics or physics context. So that puts you in the same category with all the rest of us. Dick is simply more comfortable commenting on rigorously thought out statements such as you find in mathematics than he is in ordinary speech. And, you have to admit that your language is more innovative, colorful, imaginative, and maybe obtuse than most of the posters here. Sorry for giving you a hint of an impression that I was trying to insult you.
"Paul Is Too Supportive Of Dr. Dick"
Does that mean I can relax a little? If you mean that I waste too much of my precious energy supporting Dr. Dick, then I can assure you that I don't. The amount of energy I put into it is not a waste as far as I'm concerned. Instead it is fun. I am eager to help anyone try to understand what he has done to the extent that I can. And I am eager to hear anyone's arguments that Dick is wrong.
I am not interested in, nor do I spend a lot of time on, ad hominem attacks on Dick or on perfunctory or specious attacks on his work. As you know, I spent a lot of time studying his work, specifically looking for errors all the while. Since I am not competent to follow it all the way through, I can't say for sure that it is error free. But, to the degree that I was able to follow it, I found it to be correct and convincing.
In this forum, I have found no one who is both more competent than I and who has looked at Dick's work in as much depth. I would dearly love for someone like that to come forward and either tell me where the errors are, or confirm my conclusions that the work is sound.
So it is with that objective that I put energy into "supporting Dick". It is for my own reward, not his. I am interested in figuring out how all of reality works and I spend a lot of enjoyable time thinking about the problem. As you know, I have figured out a scheme which makes sense to me and which incorporates Dick's results as a perfectly compatible component. As you also know, people on this forum don't comment much on those ideas when I present them, but when I do present them it is for exactly the same reason. I am sincerely interested in anyone's ideas that will show where my scheme does not make sense. If they can convince me of that, I will eagerly correct the errors and change my views of what reality is all about.