As to reading my stuff:)No!No! think of content first, then who wrote it.:)

One of the things I had found was to respect people thoughts and if such a link of paragraph was to be read of theirs, then it must lead back to site where it was taken.

I wanted to respect the source of information and places, so this compromise was thought of. If you do not like the “source,” then I can not be faulted on its content. Only, that I linked it?

So your rules of netiquette do not apply, hence the moderated usenet forum rules do not apply also. Your software should not support this if this is to be taken as netiquette issue. This is easily solved.

In all cases, I link to the sources as best as possible with secondary links sometimes to source as well.

Interesting site of yours, with some debate about it’s authenticity and law? Copyleft idealism?:)

A.J. Tolland just explained us this stuff – he was excited that Peter Woit writes about his math research.

What is this referring to? A talk at Harvard by Tolland? Or anything online?

To construct a consistent theory of all kinds of matter and all interactions, including gravity, is generally regarded as the ultimate goal of theoretical high-energy physics and is likely to remain so for a long time. But the development of theoretical physics is notoriously difficult to predict, and it is not easy to formulate a research plan that can be followed for several years, comprising both a main goal of great scientific value and concrete partial goals that can be achieved in a more limited time. Still, it seems essential to have at least a rough plan for the future, although one must be prepared to be flexible about it when this is needed. In the following, I will therefore try to give such a plan

Peter asks too many questions, many of them have a very well-known answer.

The six-dimensional theories that explain the SL(2,Z) symmetry of N=4 Yang-Mills in d=4 are a completely inevitable part of string/M-theory, and there is extensive literature about them. See the (2,0) theories.

Obviously, Tolland et al. have had many more things to say.

You ask where to begin? Where most of the rest of us began – with friction problems, inclined planes, and our own common sense and respect for our scientific forebears. Throw in honesty and hard work and you may get somewhere.

-drl

He’s not “just” looking – he’s NOT LOOKING AT ALL. No one in the usual gang of suspects is looking at anything except their own twisted hallucinatory reflections. These people are actively trying to destroy Western science, a collective creation of millenia that is disgraced by their presence.

-drl