Crack-Pot Ideas that still hold water

Late to the fray, but WTH. That this is a fallacy has been soundly determined by noted researcher Barbara Cartland B.B.S., T.U.V., L.A.T. etc., who has shown (many a time) that Love Hurts. Love Spurts. Love Blurts. Or something along those lines. In her seminal work, What Really,Really Is Love, p98, she(?) discloses that the evolution of Love was not hierarchical, but proceeded on parallel lines. Thus, Sexual (a.k.a. Got the Hots for You, Momma) Love, while traced to primeval times, has steadfastedly refused to expand laterally into other lines e.g. Puppy Love, Pop-star Love (not to be confused with a certain ”Pop’ Theory ”pushed’ by deluded individuals, or even Pappy Love. Money Love (a.k.a. Love of Money), while ”pushed’ (that word again) by introspectives as mainline, faces relegation to the lesser lanes thanks to the Beatles (I don`t care ”bout the money, money can`t buy you Love(insert musical note)).While Narcissistic Love was a late developer, having to await the invention of the mirror. Thus, the expression that Love Conquers All (whether the True or Not-So-True versions) carries its own death warrant as Love does not conquer Love as Bill Clinton so eloquently proved (ref: Lewinsky, Cigar, etc.).
Now where was I?

That was refuted by Croizat`s take on Gladyshev`s explanation of Gould`s polygod ploy at Cornell------Airy dismissal accepted.

Unconstant constants? What a novel idea.