I thought that way 24 hours ago. (See my comments to numerous posts yesterday on this topic).
Now, I'm reassessing. There are still pieces missing from the puzzle (pieces that I think proponents conveniently ignore) - and the way the ideas are articulated do a great disservice to the theory - so yeah, it might be nonsense masquerading as a logical idea (hey, Covid19, right?) but the question is, why do so many people get caught up in it, then?
I'd be interested in discussing it with an unbiased, objective mind. I suggest you take a listen to this podcast (juan o'savin) and tell me what you think. I'd like to pin this down one way or another. Either pin down exactly where the theory is based, and whether that basis is false, or pin down where it is based, and whether that basis is real. (PS. Not a fan of O'Savin at all, quite suspicious, but this podcast seemed to illuminate some of the core ideas of the theory much better than random posts on GAW.)
I thought that way 24 hours ago. (See my comments to numerous posts yesterday on this topic).
Now, I'm reassessing. There are still pieces missing from the puzzle (pieces that I think proponents conveniently ignore) - and the way the ideas are articulated do a great disservice to the theory - so yeah, it might be nonsense masquerading as a logical idea (hey, Covid19, right?) but the question is, why do so many people get caught up in it, then?
I'd be interested in discussing it with an unbiased, objective mind. I suggest you take a listen to this podcast (juan o'savin) and tell me what you think. I'd like to pin this down one way or another. Either pin down exactly where the theory is based, and whether that basis is false, or pin down where it is based, and whether that basis is real. (PS. Not a fan of O'Savin at all, quite suspicious, but this podcast seemed to illuminate some of the core ideas of the theory much better than random posts on GAW.)
Interested? Two minds are better than none.