As much as I love The Matrix (and I do love me some Matrix) and popcorn 
(ditto), I gotta tell ya, edgar, there is no better entertainment that 
seeing a grown man, who has been eating a steady diet of his own bullshit 
for years (it seems, as you do appear to be particularly truculent in your 
views), get called out on basics. Doubly entertaining is the fact that, as 
your paper house of "p-time" and "theory of reality" (HAHA, that is making 
me chuckle a bit just typing it) that you "wrote a book about" (HAHAHAHA, 
make it stop, please...) keeps getting more rained on and obviously not up 
to the scrutiny of even basic empirical and theoretical questions, and as 
your tin hat is increasingly unable to keep out those terrible rays of 
truth that perhaps you might not be such a misunderstood genius after all, 
but rather just another crank with too much time on their hands, you just 
redouble your efforts and tilt at bigger windmills!!!! I love it! Please, 
don't stop being you, and please keep on making more earth shattering 
"contributions" that all of us here are just too dull to get. 

Of course we're all too stupid to understand your brilliant insights... of 
course you are the solitary genius (HAHAHAHA)... carry on, PLEASE!!! And 
everyone else will carry on asking their oh so dumb questions about 

1) what empirical/theoretical anomalies/shortcomings/results your "theory" 
(chuckle) is able to explain

2) what observations/evidence/experiments (gedanken or otherwise) you might 
suggest that would convince us your theory is better

3) what theoretical/logical/mathematical framework does your theory build 
upon and in what way does it constitute an improvement.... (or what, you 
think your discovery is SO MINDBLOWINGLY ORIGINAL that there are simply no 
precedents for it? You have won the magical belief lottery?)  

And I will continue to lurk and eat my delicious popcorn... HURRAY FOR THE 

On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:52:59 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 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? 
> :-)
> Edgar
> 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 <edga...@att.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to