Dear Flyer,

You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the 
Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful 
to the discussion? 


On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:44:47 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
> Haha! Ya Liz, I think your point is very well taken. 
> On my part, I am finding it infinitely amusing that a guy who is so 
> obviously self-deluded and unable to grok any of the most basic criticisms 
> of his "theory" from the many textbook gedanken experiments so 
> compassionately offered by people (experiments, by the way, that are easy 
> to find in sophomore college level textbooks on physics available for free 
> on the web) on this list nevertheless feels as though what he says is 
> original and important enough to write a book on "Reality". What could this 
> guy possibly know about reality when he can't even answer in good faith 
> some of the most basic objections made against his "account"? 
> Oi vey! At least Roger Clough's vacuous murmurings bow in the direction of 
> greatness (Leibniz)... this guy pretends he's figured it all out for 
> himself, and his (wrong, or at least apparently indefensible) theory stands 
> alone and has no need to build upon or incorporate anything that came 
> before. 
> Talk about hubris... 
> Nevertheless, following along is very entertaining for me!!
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 4:46:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>> On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen <> wrote:
>>> Terren,
>>> First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories 
>>> into standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
>> This is fine if you are writing fiction, but in science you have to be 
>> prepared for some parts of your theory to overlap others. The definitions 
>> and categories you use, the logic and any maths that is applicable, are all 
>> derived from existing theories. What you call shoehorning is an attempt to 
>> find out what your theory actually is.
>> Over and over, someone makes a comparison and is told that is what your 
>> theory is NOT. This is starting to look like "Games People Play" - I'm 
>> thinking of the one where someone says they want to do X, their friend 
>> says, "Why don't you (do something that will help you achieve X) "  to 
>> which the other person always says "Yes, but..." and comes up with some 
>> objection. So they never achieve X. In this case, we say "Why don't you 
>> give a formal definition that anyone can understand?" and you say "Don't 
>> shoehorn me - I've explained that - see my post of... it's obvious... 
>> anyone who disagrees with me is a moron..." Anything but actually achieving 
>> X, in this case a theory with a formal definition that can be critiqued. 
>> It's almost as though you only came here in the hope that everyone would 
>> say "Yes, wow, wonderful theory! Shut down CERN, this guy's got it all 
>> worked out..."
>> A formal definition is needed, with defined terms, assumptions, 
>> deductions, proofs. You haven't even given a proper definition of P-time 
>> that actually makes sense yet.
>> I await your hand waving tack spitting insistence that you have, or stony 
>> silence 'cos I'm only a stupid gurl as the case may be.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to