Do you agree with the following quote about the electron's nature?

I don’t want to spam anyone, but this is a quote, meaning this is NOT MY OPINION AT ALL! I just post it in my thread because I obviously can’t contact LuckyGuy (he’s a little less active recently), and I love posting contradictory ideas to the foreknown notions of science, just to hear the explanations behind the contrary. :-) Well, here it goes:

“It is so very simple to understand that elemental nuclei conduct inductive energy, and there is a clear distinction between the two entities. We seem to have drifted into a sea of “vagueness” where we cannot distinguish between element and energy. If an electron is a particle, how can this solid particle whizz around inside its own solid confines? Where’s the practicality in that? How can a solid electron be “FREE” to carry a positive charge? Electrons are supposed to be “NEGATIVE”, in order to carry a positive charge it would have to change into a free positron, but if this positron is a solid, how can it transfer energetic force by jumping from one nucleus to the next nucleus? This is completely contrary to the inherent nature of how we understand the basic intrinsic nature of electron activity relative to our fundamental understanding of how electrons work relative to the atomic model. There is no experimental evidence to support solid electrons move or orbit at all, let alone carry a positive charge. How can a negative electron carry a positive charge? It is either positive or negative, free or captured, it cannot be both!! The reactive glows around all elemental nuclei that we recognise as electrons is the subject of a gross misinterpretation.”