Re: Introductions

[bfarnell@xxxxxxx]

Bruce Grant wrote:
> 

> For new list readers or people like me who don't always keep up with the
> list, it might be really useful if proponents of various active theories
> about the VMS would post a similar short item explaining the basics of
> their hypothesis.

I agree, plus I would love to see a list of all of the pieces of the
puzzle that don't seem to fit, for instance the high redundancy/low
'word' length contradiction.  If we take the history of science as a
guide, the real secrets should be hidden in the apparent paradoxes
(paradoxi?).  Actually, I know all of this stuff is out there in the
list histories and websites, but that doesn't mean it's easy to see all
of the info on one theory or aspect in a logical order.  It's too bad
that there aren't more people interested in the subject.  If it was
worth someone's time to really research everything that's been done and
organize it in a clear and concise way it would probably lead to some
big strides ahead.  Sometimes I think 90% of the work has already been
done, but related parts may be so disparate in time that they don't get
put together.  This is not a comment about anyone on the list, it comes
from my observations of history as well my experience in the
intelligence field.  Individual pieces tend to get forgotten because
they seem to bear no relevance, when another related piece shows up the
two never meet and the second piece may also be lost for the same
reason.  Unfortunately, this would be quite a monumental task.

Regards,
Brian