The down-votes for my opinion is amazing. It seems I have no right to take a different direction from the herd and take a different path? Wow, get along lil' doggies. There's only one path. Now, take it!
So you're the down-voter. I suppose it is your right to do so, but definitely not for your premise though. I thank you for responding. However, unfortunately your response sits at the very bottom of Graham's Hierarchy of Argument. 'Name calling' is pathetic and goes against the rules. GAW strives for its members to be at the upper level of this hierarchy. I suggest you read and understand them.
You mentioned Feynman was "one of mainstream's darlings". It wouldn't be for the same reason Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, or even a Amy Schumer or Seth Rogan are promoted? A colleague of mine worked several years with Carl Sagan and said he is a "big fake", an "actor" who stole the headlines of the work others did. He was never even involved in the projects. He too publicly was endeared by mainstream television because of his ((karma))).
We are the news. Not the lying propaganda mainstream. A long time ago, decades ago before 'Q' made publicity, I was discerning "mainstream darlings". Feynman was one of them to which I questioned his promotion and his celebritiness.
The down-votes for my opinion is amazing. It seems I have no right to take a different direction from the herd and take a different path? Wow, get along lil' doggies. There's only one path. Now, take it!
So you're the down-voter. I suppose it is your right to do so, but definitely not for your premise though. I thank you for responding. However, unfortunately your response sits at the very bottom of Graham's Hierarchy of Argument. 'Name calling' is pathetic and goes against the rules. GAW strives for its members to be at the upper level of this hierarchy. I suggest you read and understand them.
You mentioned Feynman was "one of mainstream's darlings". It wouldn't be for the same reason Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, or even a Amy Schumer or Seth Rogan are promoted? A colleague of mine worked several years with Carl Sagan and said he is a "big fake", an "actor" who stole the headlines of the work others did. He was never even involved in the projects. He too publicly was endeared by mainstream television because of his ((karma))).
We are the news. Not the lying propaganda mainstream. A long time ago, decades ago before 'Q' made publicity, I was discerning "mainstream darlings". Feynman was one of them to which I questioned his promotion and his celebritiness.
So be it. Henceforth it is important to keep in mind Graham' Hierarchy of Argument for guidance.