Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

[Rick Lockyer]

* * *


Well, Lockyer seems to have finally recognized his error. I hope he has the courage to admit his error in public (I expect no such decency from Gill and Moldoveanu).

[Cut obfuscation that demonstrates Joy is in denial]

In conclusion, a sign mistake has indeed been made for the past several years, but it is made by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer. They should go back to their schools.

You wish I have recognized my error. In your dreams only. Every bogus demonstration you present fails to explicitly include the basis elements. Why? Because you know they put the lie to your claims.

I DID explicitly include the basis elements in my response to Ben, and there are no math errors in my presentation. It is being way too kind to say you are just being disingenuous when you say this does not prove you wrong. When Florin brought this very same error up to you, your defense was he did not understand geometric algebra, and that was why he could not see his mistake. Joy, I know geometric algebra and have used it to prove you made a sign error. You are quite correct, it is simple math, so why can't you realize your continued claims that you have not made a mistake makes you look very foolish.

We are done. I have zero respect for you.

[Joy Christian]

* * *


Well, Lockyer seems to have finally recognized his error. I hope he has the courage to admit his error in public (I expect no such decency from Gill and Moldoveanu).

In conclusion, a sign mistake has indeed been made for the past several years, but it is made by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer. They should go back to their schools.

You wish I have recognized my error. In your dreams only.

Every ... demonstration you present fails to explicitly include the basis elements. Why? Because you know they put the lie to your claims.

The last statement by Lockyer is a blatant and shameless lie. It proves that Lockyer is no better in any respect than the habitual liars like Gill and Moldoveanu.

All three of them have amply demonstrated that they are dense, disingenuous, and incompetent. They do not want to admit that they have made a silly mistake.

I have presented my arguments in considerable detail using the correct basis elements routinely used in geometric algebra that Lockyer has either never bothered to read, or does not have the intellectual capacity to understand. This is in addition to the fact that he has absolutely no understanding of the physics involved in the EPR-Bohm type experiments, as the earlier comments by Michel Fodje in this thread made clear:

So you want Alice to map her results to Bob's basis in order to be able to do manipulate them together? Or you want Alice to map the result she gets for one particle, to the same basis as the result she got for the next particle in order to manipulate those outcomes? The outcomes are what they are, manipulating them as they are gives the correlations. Your arguments remind me of a proof that clockwise (+1) = counterclockwise(-1), because we are comparing readings of a single clock from two separate people Alice and Bob. And a third person Cindy, not privy to their bases, is calculating the correlation. A single person describing the clock can do so in two different bases, and both descriptions must agree with each other. In that case, you need a mapping between both. But once Alice and Bob are recording outcomes from their perspectives, and Cindy must calculate correlations from those outcomes without any knowledge of how the observation was made (cf HIDDEN VARIABLES), purists may indeed be so pedantic as to find that counterclockwise (+1) = clockwise (-1). Algebra does not help you in this situation without proper understanding of the physics that is going on.

As Paul Snively pointed out on his blog concerning the denial of Gill, Lockyer too is in denial of the computed demonstration of the correctness of my model.

As for anyone who wishes to verify, my detailed argument --- using the correct basis elements routinely used in geometric algebra --- can be found in the following papers, as I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393

It is most unfortunate that I have had to deal with the childish tantrums of incompetent amatuers and liars like Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer for so many years.

Fortunately there are well respected physicists and mathematicians who do understand my arguments perfectly well (in fact they are quite easy to understand):

In case anyone is wondering, the codes posted by Fred above inputs Eqs. (1) and (2) from the following one-page paper, and verifies Eqs. (5), (6), and (7):



Needless to say, any precocious schoolboy (apart from Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer) can verify this set of equations analytically in less than 20 minutes.

A similar set of equations are also discussed in my book, as well as in this preprint, which is now published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics:



These elementary set of equations are also verified, in great detail, by several prominent members of the foundations community, in particular by Lucien Hardy.

[FrediFizzx]

I DID explicitly include the basis elements in my response to Ben, and there are no math errors in my presentation.

Sorry, but there is a mistake in your presentation. You fail to realize that you are still looking at everything from one perspective or the other (left or right only) concerning the geometric product AB. Easily proven in GAViewer since it is in a fixed right hand basis. There is only one way out of that trap. Reverse the order of the geometric product when you have the left handed system. IOW, in order to correctly represent Joy's physics postulate in a fixed right handed only basis, you have to reverse the order of the product. If you don't, then you will just get (I.a)(I.b) = (-I.a)(-I.b). And that is not Joy's physics.

IOW, you are making the same idiotic mistake that Gill and Moldoveanu (and others) have done. All your presentation ends up showing is that (I.a)(I.b) = (-I.a)(-I.b) in one basis or the other only. For the last time, that is not Joy's model!

[DanielLBurnstein]

Insults and name calling, really? Are these the standards of intellectual discussions we are to expect on this board?

It is too easy to blame the intelligence of the person who doesn't understand one ideas than it is to question one's own understanding of the subject. To quote Einstein:

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

[Joy Christian]

To quote Einstein: “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

Einstein never said that. You have your "facts" wrong. Einstein was not as misguided and ignorant to say something as lame as that.

What Einstein did say about another man was: "the man can calculate, but he cannot think." This applies perfectly to Rick Lockyer, as one can see from his comments.

[DanielLBurnstein]

So the quote I mentioned was misquoted from very similar and distinct quotes by De Broglie, David Hilbert and Rutherford. How misguided and ignorant on their part.

I've been warned that bringing the use of insults and name calling is off topic even though the topic title itself is pretty much that. So that will be my last post on the standards of intellectual exchanges.

[Ben6993]

Hi Minkwe

Thank you for the very full reply.

Minkwe wrote:
I don't understand your statement that random chance is bad. Could you clarify?

I am not completely clear about the word "irreducible". I looked up "irreducible chance" on google and mostly found "irreducible complexity" in Intelligent Design articles. But I have heard Susskind in video lectures talking about what is assigned to chance being so assigned because we cannot keep track of all the variables involved. Too many degrees of freedom to handle, so all the effects get confounded into a chance effect. I presume that is what you mean by the lack of control with the pump photons.

So if one could tabulate all the variables all the time then there would be no chance. Or at least a minimum of chance, in the outcomes. I think this is a deterministic approach when all the outcomes follow on from their causes, and all could be calculated given the required variables and values.

If the 50-50 chance of a particular trivector is caused by such lack of information than I am not worried by it. I think my concern was caused more by the existence of irreducible outcomes in QM for singlet detections of spin. And a worry that there might have been a swapping of one spooky effect for a different spooky effect. And perhaps also my lack of insight as to how the trivectors come to be imposed onto the electrons. As I don't understand how a trivector gets to be associated with an electron it may be that I couldn't visualise variables which could cause the trivectors to be imposed and hence had difficulty in thinking of the trivectors as being the effects of causes which could potentially be quantified (except for them being hidden, or rather the cause of a hidden variable, which is even more removed from our grasp than the hidden variable itself).

[Joy Christian]

So the quote I mentioned was misquoted from very similar and distinct quotes by De Broglie, David Hilbert and Rutherford. How misguided and ignorant on their part.

Again, I question the sources of your information. You have to provide evidence that any of these distingused scientists said the lame things you claim they did.

I've been warned that bringing the use of insults and name calling is off topic even though the topic title itself is pretty much that. So that will be my last post on the standards of intellectual exchanges.

Here too you are jumping to conclusion about "the standard of intellectual exchange" and the "title" of this topic without knowing the full details. Let me quote myself from another thread on this forum to give you an example of "the standard of intellectual exchange" that I have been subjected to: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763:

You may wonder why anyone would have a problem with my hypothesis or my experimental proposal, but the fact is that the hostility, abuse, and suppression I have faced from some followers of Bell have been extraordinarily vicious and malicious. Some of the readers of this forum already know this, but let me summarize what I have had to endure for the past seven and a half years. It includes hostility and ostracism, not only from some unsavoury individuals, but also from some well known academic institutions. I have been called, for example, "a crank", "a hoaxer", "an obnoxious fraud", "a charlatan", "a c****pot", "an imbecile", and "a fringe lunatic" on various blogs and internet sites, not only by unprofessional characters like Moldoveanu and Vongehr, but also by professional scientists like Scott Aaronson, Richard Gill, Matt Leifer, and Dan Browne, with tacit support from other professional scientists like Adrian Kent. These were direct and personal attacks by those who should know better, with most of them never having read---let alone understood---a single line of my argument. Not surprisingly, the attacks have had quite a debilitating academic and financial consequences for me. But why such hostility, abuse, and suppression? Perhaps the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin has the right answer.

I think you may be aware of these high standards of intellectual exchange by people like Aaronson, but no one knows the full extent of what I have been subjected to by the incompetent amateurs like Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer. So I make no apology either for the title of this thread or any of my posts anywhere on the Internet.

[minkwe]

I am not completely clear about the word "irreducible". I looked up "irreducible chance" on google and mostly found "irreducible complexity" in Intelligent Design articles. But I have heard Susskind in video lectures talking about what is assigned to chance being so assigned because we cannot keep track of all the variables involved. Too many degrees of freedom to handle, so all the effects get confounded into a chance effect. I presume that is what you mean by the lack of control with the pump photons.

Indeed like Susskind, I believe all randomness is due to incomplete knowledge/specification. That is, randomness is not a property of the nature, but a property of our description of nature. This is the same sense in which Einstein meant that QM was incomplete. That is, the reason why QM only gives probabilities and not definite individual outcomes is because it is not a complete description of the system. Those who believe Einstein was wrong, have since concluded that the randomness in QM is irreducible (a fundamental ontological property of nature itself). In other words, that QM is complete and there is no way to have anything more than the randomness which QM predicts.

I think such conclusions are seriously misguided and you can find examples of it in:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.5103.pdf (Page 3 & 4)

In this way, we can keep quantum mechanics, locality and freedom. This position does entail taking quantum randomness very seriously: it becomes an irreducible feature of the physical world, a “primitive notion”; it is not “merely” an emergent feature.
...
However, there is no such explanation for quantum randomness. Quantum randomness is intrinsic, nonclassical, irreducible

http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0610115.pdf

According to Bell’s theorem, the randomness of quantum mechanics is truly ontological and not epistemological: it cannot be traced back to ignorance but is “for real.” It is curious that the quantum physics community is currently falling under the thrall of Bayesian ideas even though their science should be telling them that the probabilities are objective.

They are all completely wrong of course. It is sad that universities still allow such backward views to be taught to students in the 21st century, as Jaynes already explained many years ago. http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf

Many circumstances seem mysterious or paradoxical to one who thinks that probabilities are real physical properties existing in Nature
...
It is very difficult to get this point across to those who think that in doing probability calculations their equations are describing the real world. But that is claiming something that one could never know to be true; we call it the Mind Projection Fallacy. The analogy is to a movie projector, whereby things that exist only as marks on a tiny strip of film appear to be real objects moving across a large screen. Similarly, we are all under an ego-driven temptation to project our private thoughts out onto the real world, by supposing that the creations of one's own imagination are real
properties of Nature, or that one's own ignorance signifies some kind of indecision on the part of Nature.

Not surprising that there was also a deliberate attempt to lie and misrepresent Jaynes' views that is still going on years after his death. You can find examples of it on by searching for the word "Jaynes" on this wikipedia page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem". Complete misrepresentation about Jaynes views, which you can find in his paper above, on page (15) 3rd paragraph from the bottom. Contrary to the claims on that wikipedia page, Jaynes clearly recognized that the goal-post had been shifted and it would take time to find the error. Just to show you that there has been a concerted effort to misprepresent anyone who disagrees with the QM is irreducibly complete mantra. Going back well before Joy even stepped up.

So if one could tabulate all the variables all the time then there would be no chance.

Yes. A complete theory (in the sense intended by EPR) can predict individual outcomes, unlike QM. (Note a distinction between what we can predict or what is accounted for in the theory, vs what actually exists).

I think this is a deterministic approach when all the outcomes follow on from their causes, and all could be calculated given the required variables and values.

Yes it is. That does not mean a stochastic theory would not be appropriate to describe a deterministic world. Such a theory would be incomplete but still provide very useful predictions, just like QM does these days. However, if a theory is complete, it must be fully deterministic according to EPR.

Unfortunately, by insisting that QM is complete, and attacking everyone who dares to look for a deeper theory, Bell's followers have effectively frozen the progress of theoretical physics for 50 years. They are everywhere, on Journal editorial committees, funding agency boards and committees, etc etc. And they summarily reject everything which contradicts their views. Not only that, they have henchmen who go around making life difficult for their opponents as well. The only thing that will change it is if they all die and a new generation, who have hopefully not been indoctrinated, take over. That means another 50 years probably before the dark age is over.

Sorry about the rant but what they've done, and continue to do, to Joy and others who have questioned Bell is unconscionable.

[Joy Christian]

Although he is banned from this forum (just as he is banned from Paul Snively's blog), Richard Gill has "kindly" sent me the following admission in a private email:

I am delighted to admit that I had overlooked the intended interpretation of your two equations: the interpretation which makes them entirely consistent with one another. In retrospect, very obvious ...

This was sent to me in a private email after he saw my following earlier post in this thread:

* * *


Well, Lockyer seems to have finally recognized his error. I hope he has the courage to admit his error in public (I expect no such decency from Gill and Moldoveanu).

Let me spell out the key point explicitly here so there remains no doubt in anyone's mind. The mathematical demonstration is exceedingly simple and easy to follow.

What we want to show is that the first equation above (as written by me in these two papers) forms a right-handed system; and the second equation (again, as written by me in these two papers) forms a left-handed system. Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer falsely claim that I have made a sign error on the RHS of the second equation.

To check the handedness of these equations, let us set the angle between and to be 90 degrees and define for this case. Now multiply (using the geometric product) the first equation, on both sides, by , from the left. Since we have set and to be orthogonal to each other, and since all bivectors such as square to , the first equation (in this special case of orthogonal and ) reduces to



Now if we follow the same procedure for the second equation -- this time using the bivector , it also reduces to



So far so good. Both equations, as long as they remain "unaware" of each other, can be taken to represent a right-handed system, because their RHS equals to .

But now suppose we wish to compare the two systems, as done in the successive trials of EPR-B type experiments ( is the spin "up", or "down" in a given trial? ). Then we must find a functional mapping between the two equations. But that is a trivial task in the present set up, since we see that the respective bivectors are related as



for any directional vector . If we now substitute the above mapping in the second of the two equations we have derived, we obtain at once, for this second system,



Thus we see at once that the second equation represents a left-handed system with respect to the first system, because now the RHS of this equation equals to .

In conclusion, a sign mistake has indeed been made for the past several years, but it is made by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer. They should go back to their schools.

[Rick Lockyer]

Hi Rick

Thanks for your replies.
I have looked at them and do not see anything wrong with the algebra as purely maths.
I also checked with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

Going back to your first post and summarising;
Say x= a1b1 + a2b2
and y = a1b2 - a2b1

Then the quantity in RH mode was -x + y e1 e2
and in LH mode was -x + y f2 f1.
These quantities were calculated separately from first principles in the RH and LH bases.

I think your point was mainly that the sum is identical in both modes because one can rewrite the RH sum as -x - y e2 e1, because e1 e2 = -e2 e1.
But if you then switch to a LH basis, that becomes -x + y f2 f1, because e2 e1 = -f2 f1
So the sum is the same whichever basis it is calculated in.

I don't think Joy or Fred or Michel are disagreeing with your maths.

But Joy and I cannot both have things correct. Joy will either trot out his beta_x basis products as proof he has not made a sign error, or the cross product analysis to justify his claim he has not made a sign error. Both are flawed and demonstrate he has had a poor understanding of GA, and bigger issues not being able to admit it.

You will not see Joy demonstrate his beta basis product rules are correct by using the bivector identities for his betas which are GA wedge products of the vector bases: beta_k = e_i ^ e_j. Then you have for the products of unlike betas quad vector wedge products that reduce through simple GA rules back to bivectors. If a right handed basis element is e_i ^ e_j then it's left handed counterpart is e_j ^ e_i. But Joy does not have to do this himself, although I suspect he has, I did it for him in my response to you.

If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

[Joy Christian]

If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

Fred and Michel are anything but "incompetent." And they are certainly not disingenuous liars like Lockyer and his "friends." But I have already exposed his lies here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5045. Lockyer's pants are badly on fire.

[FrediFizzx]

Hi Rick

Thanks for your replies.
I have looked at them and do not see anything wrong with the algebra as purely maths.
I also checked with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

Going back to your first post and summarising;
Say x= a1b1 + a2b2
and y = a1b2 - a2b1

Then the quantity in RH mode was -x + y e1 e2
and in LH mode was -x + y f2 f1.
These quantities were calculated separately from first principles in the RH and LH bases.

I think your point was mainly that the sum is identical in both modes because one can rewrite the RH sum as -x - y e2 e1, because e1 e2 = -e2 e1.
But if you then switch to a LH basis, that becomes -x + y f2 f1, because e2 e1 = -f2 f1
So the sum is the same whichever basis it is calculated in.

I don't think Joy or Fred or Michel are disagreeing with your maths.

But Joy and I cannot both have things correct. Joy will either trot out his beta_x basis products as proof he has not made a sign error, or the cross product analysis to justify his claim he has not made a sign error. Both are flawed and demonstrate he has had a poor understanding of GA, and bigger issues not being able to admit it.

You will not see Joy demonstrate his beta basis product rules are correct by using the bivector identities for his betas which are GA wedge products of the vector bases: beta_k = e_i ^ e_j. Then you have for the products of unlike betas quad vector wedge products that reduce through simple GA rules back to bivectors. If a right handed basis element is e_i ^ e_j then it's left handed counterpart is e_j ^ e_i. But Joy does not have to do this himself, although I suspect he has, I did it for him in my response to you.

If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

All your presentation shows is that (I.a)(I.b) = (-I.a)(-I.b) in one basis or the other.

That is not Joy's model!

Joy's model is (-I.a)(-I.b) = (I.b)(I.a)! When you are in a fixed basis.

[Joy Christian]

All your presentation shows is that (I.a)(I.b) = (-I.a)(-I.b) in one basis or the other.

That is not Joy's model!

Joy's model is (-I.a)(-I.b) = (I.b)(I.a)! When you are in a fixed basis.

Lockyer has resorted to lying in order to protect his massive ego. His silly math errors have been repeatedly exposed, but he cannot bring himself to admitting defeat.

[minkwe]

If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

There is no sign error. If you do not see what has been explained to you yet then it is you who is incompetent. If you do see it but can't admit your error, then you are being disingenuous. Your arguments on this thread are not about Joy's model, but rather a figment of your imagination.

Let me end with some advice for Joy from Jaynes, quoted liberally from http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/backward.look.pdf:

Dealing with Critics
Looking back over the past forty years, I can see that the greatest mistake I made was to listen to the advice of people who were opposed to my efforts. Just at the peak of my powers I lost several irreplaceable years because I allowed myself to become discouraged by the constant stream of criticism from the Establishment, that descended upon everything I did. I have never -- except in the past few years -- had the slightest encouragement from others to pursue my work; the drive to do it had to come entirely from within me. The result was that my contributions to probability theory were delayed by about a decade, and my potential contributions to electrodynamics -- whatever they might have been -- are probably lost forever.

But I can now see that all of this criticism was based on misunderstanding or ideology. My perceived sin was not in my logic or mathematics; it was that I did not subscribe to the dogmas emanating from Copenhagen and Rothamsted. Yet I submit that breaking those dogmas was the necessary prerequisite to making any further progress in quantum theory and probability theory. If not in my way, then necessarily in some other.

In any field, the Establishment is not seeking the truth, because it is composed of those who, having found part of it yesterday, believe that they are in possession of all of it today. Progress requires the introduction, not just of new mathematics which is always tolerated by the Establishment; but new conceptual ideas which are necessarily different from those held by the Establishment (for, if the ideas of the Establishment were sufficient to lead to further progress, that progress would have been made).

Therefore, to anyone who has new ideas of a currently unconventional kind, I want to give this advice, in the strongest possible terms: Do not allow yourself to be discouraged or deflected from your course by negative criticisms -- particularly those that were invented for the sole purpose of discouraging you -- unless they exhibit some clear and specific error of reasoning or conflict with experiment. Unless they can do this, your critics are almost certainly wrong, but to reply by trying to show exactly where and why they are wrong would be wasted effort which would not convince your critics and would only keep you from the far more important, constructive things that you might have accomplished in the same time. Let others deal with them; if you allow your enemies to direct your work, then they have won after all.

Although the arguments of your critics are almost certainly wrong, they will retain just enough plausibility in the minds of some to maintain a place for them in the realm of controversy; that is just a fact of life that you must accept as the price of doing creative work. Take comfort in the historical record, which shows that no creative person has ever been able to escape this; the more fundamental the new idea, the more bitter the controversy it will stir up. Newton, Darwin, Boltzmann, Pasteur, Einstein, Wegener were all embroiled in this. Newton wrote in 1676: "I see a man must either resolve to put out nothing new, or become a slave to defend it." Throughout his lifetime, Alfred Wegener received nothing
but attacks on his ideas; yet he was right and today those ideas are the foundation of geophysics. We revere the names of James Clerk Maxwell and J. Willard Gibbs; yet their work was never fully appreciated in their lifetimes, and even today it is still, like that of Darwin, under attack by persons who, after a Century, have not yet comprehended their message (Atkins, 1986).

[Joy Christian]

Let me end with some advice for Joy from Jaynes, quoted liberally from http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/backward.look.pdf.

Thanks, Michel.

Easier said than done, but I will try to follow your (or Jaynes's) advice.

[Rick Lockyer]

Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.

With your self-stated superior knowledge, it should be easy for you. Why aren't you doing this? Answer: there are no issues, and this proves anyone believing Joy has not made a sign error wrong. Stop the b.s., just do it. You will see the errors of your ways if you have ANY skills in math. Once again, I think Joy, Fred and Michel already have, and they are just doing their best to save face. Too late, the damage has already been done.

If Joy wants to come out with a "clarification" that his beta algebra is NOT geometric algebra, well that is a horse of a different color. But then he needs to fully define it for all to scrutinize.

[Joy Christian]

If Fred and Michel still think Joy did not make a sign error, they are incompetent

There is no sign error. If you do not see what has been explained to you yet then it is you who is incompetent. If you do see it but can't admit your error, then you are being disingenuous. Your arguments on this thread are not about Joy's model, but rather a figment of your imagination.

I am delighted to admit that I had overlooked the intended interpretation of your two equations: the interpretation which makes them entirely consistent with one another. In retrospect, very obvious ...

All your presentation shows is that (I.a)(I.b) = (-I.a)(-I.b) in one basis or the other.

That is not Joy's model!

Joy's model is (-I.a)(-I.b) = (I.b)(I.a)! When you are in a fixed basis.

Fred and Michel are anything but "incompetent." And they are certainly not disingenuous liars like Lockyer and his "friends." But I have already exposed his lies here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5045. Lockyer's pants are badly on fire.

Lockyer has resorted to lying in order to protect his massive ego. His silly math errors have been repeatedly exposed, but he cannot bring himself to admitting defeat.

[DanielLBurnstein]

Taking about saying the truth, it seems that this quote from Richard Gill is taken out of context. Can you provide the context?

[Joy Christian]

Taking about saying the truth, it seems that this quote from Richard Gill is taken out of context. Can you provide the context?

The quote has not been taken out of context. It is the exact quote. The context is provided in the original post here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5064.