Mirwin writes:
I volunteer to try to help Ark find some substantiating data, opinion, suspicions, etc. for the controversial material while also attempting to discredit Ms. Hoffman's and others sources and materials .... not note, Ms. Hoffman.
Fun stuff! It is not often one acquires an opportunity to attack academia's material in one last desperate attempt to help truth triumph over the weight of historical neglect, outright revision or wishful thinking
Jules (whose middle name, not last name is Hofmann with one F, two Ns) says:
First, Steven Gilbert's suggestion is the tried and true one for dealing with rabid, one-sided, and inflammatory editors. At the moment, Ark is just acting irrationally and unpleasantly. Frankly, I think he's enough of an ass that he bothers me personally very little.
Second, and more importantly, Mirwin suggests "discrediting" sources and materials. Since when did this become a place to put primary research? Attacking the mainstream is definitely POV, Mirwin -- and in no way acceptable. Perhaps you meant you wanted to help Ark find sources that supported the outrageous claims he's been posting as truth. This is something we'd ALL like to see, I'm sure, since then we could have an article that said something along the lines of "Case X has long been accepted as the norm for this subject; however, many researchers now believe Case Y, based on sources 1,2,3." That type of article which resolves controversy not by taking sides, but by explaining the arguments and leaving the judgement to the reader, is what we've pretty much always done.
Jules