In an email today I was accused of “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. Guilty as charged, Your Honour. That is the WHOLE FUCKING POINT. Peter and Paul represent the theories of particle physics and gravity, and they have been at loggerheads for over a century. They cannot both be correct. The lawyers have been arguing about it for a century, and precisely no progress has been made, except that the lawyers have made a lot of money, and everybody else is bankrupt (of ideas).
My correspondent is convinced that Peter is correct, and refuses to consider the possibility that Paul might have a case. How can I have a discussion in that situation? Well, of course, I can’t, but that doesn’t stop me continuing to try. Nor does it stop me from going crazy with frustration at the idiotic refusal to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.
The assumptions are inconsistent. Therefore we have to discuss the assumptions, and prioritise the important ones. I have tried for a dozen years or more to get this on the agenda – to no avail. Instead we have committees of lawyers dedicated to ensuring their own survival by ensuring that problems are never solved, but only “managed”.
FUCK THAT for a game of soldiers.