I have had for many days a nagging suspicion that I might be one of the "ect ect" [sic] you refer to albeit I would likely be way down the list well below the 'totally insignificant demarcation zone', of any such list , but nevertheless therefore feel a little (strangely) obliged to make effort to comment.
However, firstly, how do I know that in responding /replying to you that I am not committing and exacerbating the undesirable error of potentially 'beating up' on low lying fringe fruit?
Is there a list of such? If so, could you post it in FULL.
Unfortunately, you will be disappointed to read I am not a fan of either; Kuhn ; or Celebrity TV science presenter Prof Brian Cox. These apparently are of "significant consequence" worthy of elaborate reply and attention. Perhaps that is just my good fortune?
I think your OP presumes far too much! The presumption that only fringe alternate theorists are attracted to GHMB and or that any original such notions that attracted such to GHMB are still held, passionately and clearly enough, to be worthy of current extensive presentation?
The ones who get 'beat up' are specifically those who constantly "beat up", their own unique beat up.
They are the dogmatic, self promotional, self important, self delusional, often specifically unique sensationalistic fantasisers lacking in complete knowledge of their subject or exhibit wilful ignorance with intention to deceive. Further their shear amount of persistent repetition finally after considerable effort to ignore, snap the "no reply - tolerance - circuit breaker" TM
(I assume you have one of these clever devices they are critical for the early detection of both "low lying fringe alt fruit-loops" and also highlight items of "significant consequence". Sadly, I cant source one here down under, and Amazon tells they are "not available" to me.
After several reads and inclusive of later development/comment I think I get what you are trying to suggest.
You go to extensive extraordinary effort to create interesting , informative, thought provoking threads which do not seem to attract the level of attention and particularly contribution, you believe they deserve and concurrently are fascinated that lesser loonies grab attention?
I think you ought be personally internally encouraged in that such contributions are not so mundane nor repetitive to be subject to hardly any ridicule by the rank and file wider audience, or subject to contra argument BUT RATHER -IS WIDELY RESPECTED AND VERY MUCH APPRECIATED by most (including the fringe fruit-loops)!!!
There is respect for the time, and research effort, it takes that others may not have to give nor required motivation.
Yes, it would be good if more did likewise, but that cannot be demanded or mandated, especially from largely anonymous strangers merely wanting to chat learn or uncommitted hobby passtime. (sympathy & personal apology offered).
Thanos5150 to eyeofhorus33
I appreciate that, but the point is not "me", however, not in the least, but rather why do credible subjects of consequence garner so little participation whereas fringe nonsense has such a hold not just on believers, but those who argue against them?
Surely, that is not really a question (of deep fascination or mystery) but rather a comment/statement?
Why does a 15sec video grab of a massive car accident at Indy 500 or one of the GrandPrixs get prime time news play around the world?
It is entertainment to mass audience, it is sensational, it provokes emotion... ect ect [sic]
If as merely a poor example - I was writing a well researched book on Mesopotamian influence on pre Dynastic Egypt AND I WANTED maximum reaction I would include some item that appealed toa wide disperse spectrum of people with emotional involvement in such and make it deliberately controversial. EG something like the Biblical story of the patriarch Abram Abraham was a mythical allegory of a long standing vage memory of the establishment of the AE dynasties by a Mesopotamian king.
They would be screaming the house down!!!
The religious nutters would issue one of those 'kill on site' orders or how a PC conference about the horrible disgraceful misrepresentation of "the truth"
Atheist's would pile in to say there WAS NOT ANY SUCH individual
ect ect [sic]
Footnote: Not to be a pRi ck but the correct abbreviation for et cetera is "etc"
Unfamiliar with American spelling of "reffering" , but tip , I doubt it has two "f"s
SEE -your stuff is (when time permits) read in absolute fine detail! But many of us are not worthy of adding or subtracting from it, other than a few hopefully helpful tips?