So I shall leave you with both an apology and an education (of sorts).
Firstly, if you decide to take offence over the things I have to say about John Wanoa, then that is your privilege.
Offence is never given, it is always taken, and while I may have gone out of my way to ridicule the man (quite justifiably in my opinion), only you can decide how offensive you may find that personally.
As for you, I'm truly sorry to have caused you distress by calling into question your skills as a public speaker. To be honest, Matt, the story you relayed about your experience at school may have been the best thing you have ever written.
Don't get me wrong, you have neither won me over, nor do I find myself warming to you. I stand by my criticisms of you and your wonderfully self centred view of the political field. However, to call into question your intelligence was, I freely confess, in poor taste and I humbly apologise for the slur.
In the arena of professional debate, this would be referred to as an "ad-hominem" attack. Loosely put, it is a criticism on one's character over one's argument.
For me, it seemed the easiest foundation on which to build an argument against you. Especially when doing exactly what I requested you to do in my last response, namely take a transcript of one of your videos and type it out how you say it.
Stutter or no stutter. Average education or not, if you aspire to be part of the political institution, how on earth do you think you can legitimately put yourself forward as a candidate when this is what comes out of your mouth on camera:
"Now hear me, and hear me.......
The British Government were, had an involvement orchestrated de seven seven bommins
It goes so far as de Americans; day were orchestratin, day had an evolvement de inside job of da nine eleven." SOS Political Broadcast April 2011
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that not only was this a terrible way to frame your statements, I also strongly suspect that you were drunk. This may or may not be an issue that you might want to address?
And what is my opinion worth?
Well, not much to you, I can readily gather, but that may be because you know next to nothing about me (and believe me, I intend to keep it that way). However, I wish to offer you a few errata concerning some of the things you have declared about me, based on no evidence whatsoever:
1: My debut blog - my response to you was by no means my debut blog. I am and have been a contributing editor to many journals, published both online and in literature. My fields of study (for I am a scientist) are physics and cosmology.
2: I've never made a YouTube video - on the contrary. I don't any more, but a few years ago I was the lead developer and host of an online learning program which produced science education videos for college level students. We had over 40K subscribers and I still get recognised in the street (by a select nerdy few)
3: The ordinary mass of the Universe - I don't know whether it was a misunderstanding on your part, or perhaps you were being disingenuous when you quoted me as saying the ordinary mass of the known universe is "1053Kg", because that is just over the mass of your average car.
What I actually said was that the ordinary mass of the known universe is 1053 kg, which is something very, very different. That's ten 'to the power of fifty three' OR one with fifty three zeros after it.
I don't expect you to follow the data - I'm a cosmologist, and I'm constantly wrestling with these concepts, however that doesn't make them any less true.
I'm not an economist, so I can't claim to know every little thing about the financial sector and how economies operate. However, I am quite good with numbers, and my "Bullshit Detector" is fully operational.
You claim that the £970, Million, Trillion, Trillion is based upon 750, 000 tonnes of questionably extant gold.
Let's play with some numbers now, Matt.......
1 tonne of gold is currently worth USD $35,141,850. At current exchange rates that roughly equates to £23,500,873. That's twenty three million, five hundred thousand, eight hundred and seventy three pounds per tonne of gold
Now all we have to do is take your tonnage number of 750,000 and times it by £23,500,873 - that equals:
That's seventeen trillion, six hundred and twenty five billion, six hundred and fifty four million, seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
For the sake of argument, let's call that a flat eighteen trillion pounds.
That's what your fictitious gold is worth, Matt - £18,000,000,000,000
I say fictitious, because the latest figure drawn for estimating the world's current gold supply is a mere 171,300 tonnes -
That means that the total gold worth of the whole planet as far as we have discovered, amounts to just over four trillion pounds.
Can you see how ridiculous a number like £970 million, trillion, trillion is now? In mathematical shorthand, that number is expressed like this: 9.7 x 10
That may look like a small number Matt, but don't be fooled. It's worth bearing in mind that in comparison, the Earth only has approximately 7.5 x 10 grains of sand on it -
If John were to just 'add his own figures' with this amount of money, it wouldn't matter if there were 700,000, or 700,000,000 tonnes of gold - it would suddenly become less than worthless. It's an impossible amount of Money Matt.
Anyway, I'd better wrap this up - I don't think that there's much else that I can critique about your attempt to crack the world of politics that you haven't already underlined yourself, by just doing what you do.
It's been fun.