(urth) Fish and Caves

[Gerry Quinn]

From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>
>>Gerry Quinn: Where do I suggest that parts of the book are meaningless?  I 
>>have said that
>>some possible interpretations of parts of the book must be wrong.  I 
>>wouldn't have thought
>>that would be very controversial.
>
> Seems like almost all you do is assert that various interpretations of the 
> book must be wrong. If
> we follow that trajectory, all interpretations are wrong and the book is 
> meaningless. Gets
> a bit tiresome.

Ideally, all but one, or at most a few, should be wrong.  How large a 
proportion of posited theories are wrong will depend on the number of 
theories posited, which in turn will depend on the extent to which the 
positors screen their ideas for consistency with the text.

My observation is purely statistical.in nature.

> How about a change of pace? Leave out all mentions of the "wrong" and 
> discuss what you, Gerry
> Quinn, think is the right interpretation. It would be refreshing to hear 
> something positive
> from you. Antechamber=spaceship was good. More, more!

You seem to think that the Solar Cycle has some secret history that is its 
fundamental theme, that is everywhere obscured by misdirection and hidden 
away in allusions.  I don't subscribe to that.

I don't consider it a negative action to point out problems with proposed 
explanations.

- Gerry Quinn