----- Original Message ---- From: Remi Cornwall
RC: You know nothing. You aren't doing research at top universities, you don't have supervisors/mentors at the highest level, have to be subject to due-diligence, show real data, approach a problem from many directions and get it to tie up, get peer reviewed. ... and while that can be a disadvantage to publishing more-and-mode rehashed mediocrity, it can be a distinct advantage in finding the occasional hidden truth - the big breakthrough - i.e. in some pursuits (a few) where the mainstream is wrong. There are admittedly not many where areas where the mainstream is wrong, thankfully, but there are more than most close-minded pedants can easily grasp. RC: That is the mark of real science. It's honesty, openness, plasticity of thought ... ... you are joking, right? Or do you not understand our shared language very well? There is very little plasticity of thought in the mainstream, almost by definition! especially when real data comes in to challenge accepted belief structures. It generally renders pedants very uncomfortable- causing them to spout out rather silly-sounding non-sequiturs in defense of what they think they know. The easy thing to do is simply to do the DISHONEST thing - which is what you are practicing today it seems, and call the real data "wrong", simply because it does not fit well with you flawed understanding, and especially when you have failed to do the work necessary to see for yourself. Your incorrect notions on this will change, probably sooner than you desire - and in the mean-time, you can sign-off from the list once again to pursue something which apparently does seems to have merit, perhaps even a spark of genius -- but which you seem reluctant to explain well-enough for meaningful criticism. Why waste our time with this absurd level of negativism on issues where you are misinformed, and yet remain secretive on issues where you do have expertise ? Jones
