I have been following Q's postings with interest. I don't agree with all his assertions by any means, but on the other hand he is not setting out to be a diplomat and pussyfoot around the topic. He does not need me to defend his approach. He is posting items from his many searches that he has judged to be relevant and interesting, even concerning. His style is succinct, even abrupt, and he has sometimes been wrong in his extrapolations. Were he one of my students I would say: "Explain that you are gathering information as part of a "thought experiment"; and the derivative information you find may be of limited value, inadequate or even be wrong. Explain why you find it relevant and interesting - give weight to your judgements. Give your sources and explain what the gaps are in the information." He probably assumes we will take all this as a given - and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong in my observations here.
I would go on to say that Q's efforts to find and present information are to be encouraged, same goes for all posters here. He need not trouble to butter them up with sweetness and light, or elegant prose, but it would be helpful to have a more critical interpretation of his data, and more of a sense of "But I can't be sure because..." and "I could be wrong", as we can all be confident there is a lot more of this story to emerge, not all of it positive. Were he to do that I believe a good deal of heated exasperation would evaporate from this thread.
Roger
Originally Posted by: Roger Parsons