> what’s up with Roy? My read is that he is disappointed that certain lines of research that could have come from his original publication of the black hole so

> what’s up with Roy? My read is that he is disappointed that certain lines of research that could have come from his original publication of the black hole solution that is named after him, did not actually get pursued by the community. He describes at least some of them in the paper. Unfortunately, for reasons that I have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, I don't think the kinds of models he appears to be interested in are actually viable physically, however interesting they might be mathematically.