(urth) theories

[Lee Berman]

>Gerry Quinn: I can’t understand why such a person finds this and similar ideas 
>sufficiently attractive to persist with it....I’m merely asking a question about 
>the topic.  Is that against your rules?

 
Gerry, the problem is that you have asked this same question numerous times over
the past few years. I have given you detailed answers each time. Apparently it
never sank in. What would be the purpose in repeating my answers to you?
 
Judging by your responses and your own stated interpretations of Gene Wolfe's
work, the reason for your questions are not those of a scholar seeking to 
expand his knowledge of Gene Wolfe via the thoughts of others. Instead your
questions seem those of a saboteur, asked only to garner ammunition to shoot them
down, without any effort being put into actually understanding what your fellow
Wolfe fans are trying to say.
 
I think perhaps you see yourself as a forest ranger, trying to clear away the 
underbrush and weeds so as to allow the theories you approve of to grow up tall
and strong and unencumbered. I can understand why you might want the Quinn quercus
oaks to thrive and not be crowded out by those nasty Aramini ashes, the Berman birches, 
the Dunn dogwoods, the Stockhoff sycamores and the Wynn willows. Let's be realistic, 
Gerry. If all those posters who propose all these "unlikely"theories that you don't 
understand simply stopped posting, what would you have left to talk about here? 
 
In truth I really don't think your intelligence is so different from the others here that
it limits your understanding of these other theories as severly as you claim they do. It 
may be as simple as saying that if you try to understand the theories of others you will. 
If you are trying to not understand them, (only to undercut them) you won't.