>From Axel:
... > If Mills does come up with a project that does succeed in a way that > my web can’t explain, then my web may be subject to a major rethink. > But like all the others, I now have a hard time changing my mind. > I believe that you also have a web that is very hard to change and > it is interwoven with the web of Mills. I feel for you. FWIW, I try my best to not be taken in by the wiles of CQM. That said I must admit that all those "dots" you refer to DO have the capacity of blinding me from seeing the bigger picture. Have I been taken in by CQM? All I can say here is that it would be foolish of anyone to allow themselves to be taken in by a new & exotic controversial theory where one has no chance of being able to follow the applied math. That's me, by the way. Under the circumstances, all I can do is stay aware of the fact that such temptation always exists. It exists within all of us. I'll let minds better trained in physics and mathematics than my own repertoire of perceptions get to the bottom of this fascinating conundrum. Truth of the matter is that I'm much more selfishly motivated. I'm less concerned about whether CQM is a better theory than SQM. I'm much more interested in finding out whether BLP's latest experimental findings are accurate. Experimental evidence always trumps anyone's pet theory of the day. Perhaps I should just say, I feel for you too! I can appreciate where you are coming from. > No blame here; this is all a natural manifestation of human nature > and I understand the weakness that is so derived. We must all live > within the bounds of our limitations. None taken. Yes, it is a natural manifestation of the human nature. I certainly agree with you on that. Good comments, Axel. All of them. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
