Hansel, you are most irritating with your schoolboy cracks, even though — perhaps because — they are so silly. Do you even deserve entry into a civilized discussion? One wonders. Where is the critical thinking in your own stream of offerings? I recall only puerile insults. Perhaps you can elaborate on where critical thinking has appeared in your posts. Refresh our memory.

I don’t recall it ever being absent in mine, despite what you say, since they are usually far longer than your own, because I like to look into a topic thoroughly, and actually think critically ie objectively consider the merits of some view that doesn’t initially fit with my preconceptions.

How do your own little casual wisecracks rate on this scale? They could be written by a simple computer algorithm whose only programmed objective was to take down Rossler, without bothering with specifics.

Is this true? Is “Visitor” or your other pseudonyms simply a little auto-commenter you have written. I would suggest that you transfer your genius for writing tiny apps of this kind to actually thoughtfully assessing what Rossler says, or in your opinion, omits.

This is what is known as “critical thinking”, a phrase you misuse.

And why all the pseudonyms in offering you pseudo thoughts? Are you ashamed of yourself, and hiding behind a series of false names in order to avoid public responsibility for your work?

If so, maybe this is why they are shallow and impolite. I suggest you enter your real name, like a man, and state your thoughtful views, like a man, and not a mouse.

You are a man, aren’t you? And not a mouse? It is hard to tell.

But you have mentioned it, yes, serious editors of real math journals would be critical, perhas even more than the commenters of Roessler on this blog. So if the article is published even though it is clear that the “paper” is of lowest quality, even lower than undergraduate work, you can make your own thoughts about the quality of the journal.

Good luck with your first steps into the world of critical thinking!

Have you read it, or are you simply jumping the gun?

Probably the continuation of the pseudoscience-numerology connection with avoidance of revie processes and so on of El Naschie, Roessler… worthless.

But Prpfessor, you neglect to answer my question above.

President-elect of the German Physical Society Professor Johanna Stachel’s lecture was better than any I had ever heard. Maximally competent in the things told. And she is a kind person — I later talked to her. I genuinely admire her.