<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=severiansola@hotmail.com
href="mailto:severiansola@hotmail.com">Lee Berman</A> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV><BR>> > Gerry Quinn: If you can show an interpretation is wrong, you
save others from <BR>> > being misled by it. Seems a good reason to
point out the problem.<BR> <BR>> But is it possible "others" don't
really need saving? Are not "others" fully <BR>> capable of deciding for
themselves which interpretations have merit? Do <BR>> "others" really need
Gerry Quinn to do this work for them? What qualifies you<BR>> for this
position as saviour?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You might as well argue that nobody should post their interpretations, as
others could think them up for themselves.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If people have already worked out my reason or another reason why an
interpretation must be wrong, of course I do not save them time. But I’d
say on balance I am their saviour of time, if you want to used such a perverse
sense of the word “saviour”. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What qualifies me for the position of saviour of their time is merely a
post that saves them time.</DIV>
<DIV><BR> <BR>> Gerry is it possible your contributions are actually
more self-serving than in<BR>> the service of others? I do appreciate
your honesty in posting such a revealing <BR>> and candid statement of your
intentions. And I apologize for the rhetorical <BR>> questions. But
perhaps they are worth asking. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><Shrug> It’s hard to see what I gain from pointing out flaws in
theories, except what everyone gains, i.e. a better feel for which theories are
viable. Whatever my motivations, what you seem to be doing is implicitly
calling for the censorship of posts that point out flaws in theories, or perhaps
only in your preferred theories. Such censorship is rarely conducive to
progress.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>