*Update: 't Hooft removed overt references to Myron from his website in early October 2007. To see an older version to which this text below refers to, click here.
I think I was responsible for encouraging you to draft a careful scientific rebuttal of Hehl's paper Myron with the intent of putting the record straight (once again) and to give Hehl, 't Hooft etc the opportunity once more to judge your work on its merit in the objective and scientific way. To my knowledge, following your rebuttal that is posted on the AIAS website and is available for all to read (and is already well read), no further communication has been received from Professor Gerard 't Hooft and his office - even though your rebuttal was also formally submitted to the journal he edits ("Foundation of Physics") - to appear alongside Hehl's paper. This is an unacceptable situation made worse because Hehl has been given the opportunity to rewrite and resubmit a manuscript containing many flaws and misconceptions and showing a complete lack of understanding (by the author's own admission in parts of the critique) of the subject (ECE Theory) under review.
It can only be concluded, therefore, that your work is deliberately and unscientifically censored by a group of establishment figures.
This is a disgraceful and impossible situation and in continuing disbelief and despair I draft the following guidance:
"How to Become a Bad Theoretical Physicist - and Protect your own Interests":
- Censor the work of others who "dare to challenge" your ideas. Criticise but never allow right of reply.
- Encourage your own "followers" to discredit (with nonsense if necessary) the ideas that threaten your own views and perspectives.
- Spread the word that only a "crank" challenges the accepted writings of the Establishment (even if the limitations and problems with the standard approach are evident to all).
- Write essays of trivia on non-scientific matters ("How to become a bad Theoretical Physicist" is a good starting point [*] to "hurt" the opposition as much as possible (with the intent of destroying them).
- Don't say anything about the opposing views yourself though - just in case you are wrong and it all backfires.
- Abuse your own position and the respect and trust that others have placed in you to safeguard, at all costs, the established view (your view) and your own "standing" (and livelihood).
- Belittle the opposition in every way possible at every opportunity - if you can't see flaws in their arguments search for typos etc. Totally discredit those who give them support using phrases like "Chief Editor is asleep" (if someone has dared to publish one of their scientific papers).
- Believe in yourself and your own self importance and develop this in your essays - write with authority, don't worry about content.
- Live selfishly for today and don't think about tomorrow and advances (with benefits to mankind, the environment etc) that another person's work could make.
- Above all forget about scientific freedom and integrity - these are ideals that never existed and only encourage the development of new ideas to challenge your own.
Prof Gareth J. Evans in an email to Prof Myron W. Evans, 21 June 2007