Note also that the self reference pattern has to hold in the Quran otherwise, it
fails its own claim/hypothesis that is falsifiable regarding no
errors/contradictions. God cannot make errors of self reference, as
for the pattern of likes and unlikes in terms of successive verses
etc, that is not claimed by the Quran and is superfluous, if people want to dwell on that, it is their concern.

Mistakes are not "falsifications" when they are not accompanied by a particular hypothesis. The only hypothesis of the article was that the Quran does not make errors of self-reference. If the unlikes don't have a particular pattern of being one less than the likes but are UNLIKE then there is no falsification. Your main problem, and it is a problem, is that you are coming up with ad hominem attacks against the work I did, which involved many more counts compared to the ones you found "errors" in. I counted the items in all sincerity, and provided page numbers so that people could check, whether the readers would be LAZY or not, cannot be my motivation because I have no control over what the readers might do with the article. The work to you smacks of "tampering" because you pick one small detail and concentrate on it rather than the big "grandiose" claim made about the Quran which is about self-reference and this "mistake" does nothing to alter that. I suggest you do some work of your own, what is it that you have produced to further our understanding of the Quran? Other than motive monger on why other people did the work they did. What did I stand to gain from "tampering" which is an outrageous claim. Even if you take that entire article out, it does nothing to take away from the rest of the extensive work I have done on the Quran.

Further the claim of likes and unlikes, even though I composed the article and did work on the issue, in terms of counting and providing page numbers, it was not my original idea, Gary Miller came up with it and his counts matched my own. He specifically asked me not to associate his name with the findings that is why the acknowledgements to a particular name (not the source) were removed.

I do not have control over what other sites have done with the article but I have added a disclaimer to it on my site
http//rationalreality.50webs.com/godel.htm

Hi

First, falsification is based on preformed hypotheses since the Quran didn't claim such a counting system, you cannot talk of falsification.

Second, the counting errors were not deliberate otherwise I would not have provided pages and the source of count,

Third, the system of self reference does not collapse since the unlike are still unlike and not like even according to the critics count, the only thing that collapses is the sequence of occurrence which has nothing to do with self reference.

Finally, I have not revisited the objections to recount them, will do so when I get the time. Before you cry foul and try to discount the whole paper based on a couple of errors (if they are errors, yet to be verified) think about the work that goes into each of these papers.