>Thank you for your kind and forgiving spirit. Now that I have
>transgressed, though, what is your preference from here? Would you like
>to get Tom's response, perhaps after you had time (if you do have time)
>to post a thoughtful response to his post?
I really don't have the time now for a protracted debate by a long volley
of alternating voluminous point-by-point treatises. If you want to post
Tom's response you may. It is just not very likely that I would continue
to return the serve if it requires a lot of time and effort. If others
want to actively debate the arcana of GR that's fine with me. Then I
could keep my participation down to a managable minimum. If others on
the list are eager to be inundated with the technical details of how
various weak field limits of GR are taken and systematically corrected
for regarding its handling of retarded causation, then I'm all for a
debate--as long as *they* conduct most of it. I just do not want to have
to bear a very heavy load of the posting volume--especially if it
requires me to spend a lot of time sifting through lots of GR books and
papers (which I do not have the time to do).
So Bill, you can do what you want regarding whether or not to post Tom's
responses. It's just that you'll not be likely to get much of a response
out of me if you do.
David Bowman
dbowman@georgetowncollege.edu