>>12813590Nathan. If I read your paper, that means I read all of it. It's garbage. I know that's not what you want to hear, but it's the truth. It reflects minimal understanding of all the experiments you listed (at least, the good experiments). It cites actual garbage rejected "experiments", and doesn't even properly derive anything. If you want a good comparison, Tooker's papers are actually interesting to read and one can learn something from them. What Tooker does is invent new concepts which aren't even wrong, but incorrectly assigns them meaning where they don't have meaning. In other words, he basically has category errors. But he's also my favorite schizo here.
You, on the other hand, don't even have a sense of humor. Your paper isn't even factually based, it's not interesting to read, it's formatted by an actual dolt, and is a literal waste of time to read. I only read through it because I give all cranks here a fair shake before systematically tearing them to shreds. I won't repeat my rebukes here, since I already gave them to you the first time you posted this shit. It's not even worth a technical debunking, it's just worth mocking as the worthless pseud you are.
I recommend if you continue posting here, to include a name in all your comments, this way we can properly identify you as our village idiot.
