dadeets wrote:My mistake. It wasn't the top level. What I did is do a search on "Judy Wood," and this was the only item that came up.
The search functions for this forum are quite abysmal.
I just figured, if someone was to post something on her stuff, this is where it is to be done.
No. Based on the subject, there are many possible categories. For example, billiard balls would go into Collapse Progression. There, it could be objectively demonstrated to run afoul of the laws of physics top to bottom, front to back, using little effort (but good effort thrown after bad cause).
From the responses to my post, I see a strong bias towards trashing.
Definitely from me, but I'm the only one who's responded. I'd like to say you can't judge the entire forum on the opinion of one member, but it may actually be the case here. I don't know for sure. I certainly haven't run across any proponents here in the past.
I'm interested an objective conversation, but I guess I will look elsewhere.
It's probably wise to look elsewhere for the willingness to discuss Judy Wood theories, but I'm not going to just walk away from the 'objective' adjective. I've determined to my satisfaction that the claims I've examined are pure bunk. Not by a slim margin, either. Please don't confuse or conflate unwillingness to waste time with a lack of objectivity. No one here has an obligation to deconstruct her arguments in detail but that says nothing about lack of objectivity and to insinuate such is incorrect.