[Interview] An interview with Stephen Bax

[-JKP-]

Whatever he may have said to Nick about bigraphs and trigraphs is not relevant until it's established that they exist.

I find this point of view peculiar. If you think everything that is not established is irrelevant, we can resume our conversation when the manuscript is fully translated.

Oh goodness, this is way off track.

I meant in the context of Nick's criticism. Not in general. Of course I don't think that unestablished facts are irrelevant, you surely know me well enough by now to know that.


Bax responded to Nick with irrelevant arguments about things that Nick obviously already knows and which were NOT part of the system he explained in the video, RATHER THAN ANSWERING THE QUESTION.


I have no problem with Bax having any theory he wants. That's not the problem. The problem is whenever you ask him to explain something that doesn't compute, he turns it around into another question or throws it back at the person or makes a personal attack.

it's not a professional way to do things and undermines his credibility by making it look either like he doesn't believe in his own idea (or believes so strongly he feels he doesn't have to defend it, which is also not very professional).