Stuff I have already written on the bleeping multiverse, for which It, (Inc.) is suing me ...

So don't you bother.

Anyway, nothing is urgent. The writ went to zillions of wrong universes and will not be back here for, like, billions of years. I guess I have time to compose a reply.

Here are the articles for which I am charged:

Why science without God destroys itself: Because the alternative idea of a multiverse is a step into magic, that's why.

Here's my review of Frank Tipler's multiverse theories, which I treat with some affection because they are just bizarre enough to be fun - unlike the superserious duds I skewer.

Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder's look at the Science of God, including slams at the multiverse (which it was his JOB to support, no less, at one time!). Hey, how does it feel to be wiser now?

The large hadron collider: Gateway to other universes, or just another wicked-sass toy?

God is a cosmic computer? Yes, the universe looks fixed, but that doesn't mean that a god fixed it, says cosmologist Paul Davies, in a Guardian article, so titled. He dismisses both intelligent design and the idea that there are zillions of flopped universes: Davies is good at exploring all possible and impossible options. Good for cosmology, I guess, but I would NOT want him organizing the staff picnic.

My review of a film promoting the multiverse theory: What the Bleep Do We Know?: Well, somehow, I don't think we know this bleep, anyway , and here's why.

Also, why the bleep did they go and wreck it all? Sequels are the devil's dirty sox, surely?