Spuckblase, two things.

First, none of us are being as rude to you as you are to us in this comment alone. If you can't stand the abuse you're getting here, then quit commenting on this post.

Second, we've given this well more than a few minutes' discussion, and you've given us no reason to believe that we misunderstand your theory - you just object to our categorical dismissal of it. I am perfectly willing to believe that the philosophers you discussed this with gave you credit for making an interesting argument - philosophers are generous like that - and for all its faults, your theory is consistent. But around here, interesting is a matter of writing style, and consistent is a sub-minimal requirement: we demand useful. None of us are rationalists just for the lulz - if a theory doesn't help us get what we actually want, it really is of no use to us. And by that standard, any skeptical hypothesis is a waste of time, including your proposed Humeiform worldview, when other hypotheses actually work.

Edit circa 2014: the Slacktivist blog moved (mostly) to a new website - this is the new link to the "sub-minimal requirement" post.