carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> 
> In sci.astro Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
> >  Spin-2 gravitons have problems  (so does the proposal)
> 
> This paper is wrong.  Motl gave a correct critique in sci.physics.strings.  See
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a.

Lubos has strong opinions that can flavor his analysis (e.g, his
evaluation of lattic quantum gravitation), but he is inarguably
technically proficient.  Point taken.

-- 
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf