The problem with this post is raving madness of its presentation, even if conclusions you presented are defensible. You can’t just state absurd things not clearly explained, it’s not a matter of not telling what you believe to be true, it’s a matter of a rational mode of communication. People shouldn’t believe absurd things, much less statements of confusing meaning, unless all steps are laid out (or unless they are willing to spend time on research).
It’s fine to discuss such things in comments with people who you know share the necessary background (as I did a few weeks ago on this same topic), but a top-level post requires much more background-building work.
Well, the question is, now that I have, in fact, presented the material, where are the largest gaps that need closing? Iteratively, such gaps can be closed by linking to the relevant material. I’d strongly appreciate suggestions.
The problem with this post is raving madness of its presentation, even if conclusions you presented are defensible. You can’t just state absurd things not clearly explained, it’s not a matter of not telling what you believe to be true, it’s a matter of a rational mode of communication. People shouldn’t believe absurd things, much less statements of confusing meaning, unless all steps are laid out (or unless they are willing to spend time on research).
It’s fine to discuss such things in comments with people who you know share the necessary background (as I did a few weeks ago on this same topic), but a top-level post requires much more background-building work.
Well, the question is, now that I have, in fact, presented the material, where are the largest gaps that need closing? Iteratively, such gaps can be closed by linking to the relevant material. I’d strongly appreciate suggestions.