[Gary Eickmeier]

Dick Pierce wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

And precisely why is it MY job to "explain" YOUR theory?
You're done a miserable job of explaining it, it would seem,
to anyone but yourself.

And your theory is not a theory, not by any accepted
scientific and technical usage of the term. It's your
story, you're sticking to it. But it's not a theory.

Where are the testable, falsifiable predictions of your
theory, to just give one of many examples of the properties
and attributes that might qualified it as a candidate for
a theory?

When I last pressed you on some of your assertions over
a year ago, you defended your story, for example, by saying
that you got a phone call from Amar Bose, like that means
ANYTHING.

so let me give you the Readers Digest version.

And Readers Digest is the LAST place I would look for
any coherent explanation of any technical topic. But,
thus far, that's all you've provided.

My take is that you like your Bose 901s. You really,
REALLY like them. You drank the Bose kool-aid. Now you
construct an entire world view whose puropose is to
make that fact self-consistent. And you manage the
cognitive dissonance created by the surrounding physical
reality and its contradiction to the world you created
by being dismissive of other views, by name dropping, by
refusing to address technical challenges using reasoned
technical, fact-based arguments, outright denial of
physical contradictions in your story, fabrication of
positions and viewpoints of others not sharing your kool-
aid, and by blaming others for not "explaining anything
about your theory."

And that's my story, and I'm sticking to it until I am
presented with compelling evidence that might suggest
that story needs modification.

As I said, I would be glad to send you the PDF of my basic paper, plus the
Mars paper that goes a little deeper into the field-type vs the head-related
type systems, as defined by Snow and Olson.

Gary Eickmeier