Nick:

Instead of reviewing your deeply embedded premises, you have rolled out extensive (to put it mildly) discussions about the world as it would seem to be if those premises had actual validity in the working of the world.

This is an endless screed. The reason our human history from HErod's infanticide to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the insurgencies of Iraq is so riddled with insanity is because of the same gap in reasoning which informs your lengthy dissertation.

This is the simple truth of the matter, in my view: if you postulate inaccurate assumptions abotu any system, then any analysis of the system will breed multiplying complexity and generate endless efforts to compensate for that complexity, which was introduced by mis-assumptions in the first instance.

This is the actual reasoning behind my terse dismissal.

What you have defended as rational dialogue is actually something else -- a long tape of noise which will not be resolved because it embraces the very generators of noise in its premises. These premises are built intot he terms you use, and the intermediate assumptions that lie behind the steps of your reasoning, and color the whole thing. To my view this is trying to measure a curve-ball universe with a straight-edge. It will never come out quite right.


A