From [Marc Abrams (970920.1055)]
I'am a bit bewildered. Rick, in your post
[From Rick Marken (970919.0900)]
I'm afraid I'm way behind on responding to posts. I don't know
if I will get a chance to reply to any of these in the near
future and I'm kind of tired of arguing about the same stuff over
and over.
Does this pertain to my post on (970917.1020)? If so, didn't mean to
waste bandwidth. Can you refer/direct me to the archives/papers, etc.
where that "stuff" was discussed.
I'm more interested in doing exactly what Rupert Young
(970919.1130 BST) calls for in his excellent post:
I agree, I think Rupert posed an interesting set of questions. I'am not
sure "how" they differ in "kind" from mine.?
Was I "off" base in the questions I posed?. If so, please elaborate. Did
I "come off" Dising PCT?. Hope not, couldn't be further from my intent.
Just don"t "understand" why I got _NO_ responses. Anybody got a clue?
Those questions are _extremely_ important to me and my "ability" to help
reconcile PCT within me. I _Beleieve_ that the "answers" to those
questions are _currently_ "available" to us in the _EXSISTING_
"framework" of PCT. Where do you begin?
Sometimes its more important to "know" the "right" "questions" than any
one single answer.
Rick, its when people _STOP_ asking questions that I would start to
worry. Thats when people don't "care" any more.
Each of us has taken our own "path" of "discovery" to PCT. Each of us
needs to "reconcile" PCT with what we do and do not know currently about
PCT, and various other "theories" we may have to "explain" the current
voids that exist.
Hope there is some interest.
Marc