In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, galathaea <email@example.com> wrote:
>there is one word i have been waiting for you to mention for years > >you are so close > and you still keep avoiding it >that i can no longer wait silently: > > QUANTALOID
Yeah, yeah, quantaloids.
>you > who have so fervently fueled the anticranks > have slipped more and more > after years of your own abuse on others pursuing such >towards these same studies > >do you find anything dishonest about such?
No, I study whatever I'm interested in, and I change directions as I see fit.
When I was younger I may have been rude to you, or someone you know - is that why you're so grumpy now? If so, I apologize. I've learned to be more polite, which at times
>you mention bub > a great philosopher, physicist, and mathematician > >did you mention your distaste for bohmian mechanics > to he who has contributed so much to its study?
No, but the interesting thing is he gave a talk criticizing Bohmian mechanics and the Everett interpretation as "Lorentzian" interpretations of quantum mechanics, referring to how Lorentz almost got the idea of relativity but posited an awkward "mechanism" for how it was supposed to work, leaving the final steps of the revolution for Einstein.
So, he's no Bohmian now. He too seems to feel free to change his views.
>the point of course is >at some point > as you get closer and closer to positions > that you have shown disdain for in the past > >there comes a time when you should publicly apologise >and admit that they are valid lines of research > (which you might take up yourself now, it appears)
Okay: I publicly apologize for every mistake I ever made - but none of the things that weren't mistakes that someone else may think are.