04-13-2018, 06:52 AM
(04-12-2018, 07:25 PM)Mikebert Wrote: > You know John, you have posted detailed analyzes every day for
> years. This makes you an historian of the recent past with deep
> knowledge of the last 15 years. Think of it this way, a historian
> may spend years working on a monograph about the detailed events
> of a 15 year period in the 14th century, for example (I've read
> some). Such works come from reading scads of accounts of the
> period, which is exactly what you have done. If you were projected
> into the future 200 years you could write dozens of monographs
> about the early 21st century based on the your collected
> observations in real time.
> What I am getting at is you have all this material. Do you have a
> synthesis? I am not talking about GD. GD is your own construction,
> like those of my own. They provide insight. But others have
> studied these things before you. Do you engage with them in your
> intellectual work? Here is the reason. Your GD model is
> different. It appears to work by an mechanism that is dissimilar
> from those of other cycles. But it is of inconvenient
> length--around 70 years. I cannot relate it to any data set that I
> know about. Have you developed more compact ways to represent your
> thesis? Many thousands of pages of text isn't useful data because
> it requires enormous work to deal with. This work would most
> effectively be done by you.
> I don't usually check out this section very often, but when I do
> it's mostly presentation of what is going on now. There doesn't
> seem to be a separate theory section. So what is the objective you
> are trying to achieve?
I've tried writing books, but after writing them, nobody gives a shit,
and I have zero motivation to try again. If someone wants to pay me
to write a book, I'll do it. If someone else wants to write a book,
I'll be happy to help out and be supportive. But I'm not going to
even try to do anything like that again unless someone else has plenty
of skin in the game. Being Sisyphus gets real old.
