13-08-2017, 08:10 AM
Trying to make people understand why their theory doesn't work is a matter of personal preference. If you are very patient and like to teach and explain, you might spend a lot of time on this. Take stellar for example. Everybody knew that he was wrong, since his ciphers were always one way and at one point he said the devil wrote the VM. Yet various members, myself included, took the time to argue with him. This just depends on whether or not you want to spend your time on this kind of activity 
I personally don't agree with the "ignoring people altogether" approach. That's theory thinking. I'd like to shift this to argument thinking.
For example, I agree that the 15th century manufacture of the manuscript is a line in the sand. Yet someone who denies this, might still bring up valid points about other things. So if the argument is about for example the Marci letter, then my participating in the discussion will depend on whether I know enough about the subject or not. In this case I don't, so I don't participate.
Basically it's as follows. If a subject is being discussed and I have something to contribute (and the time to do so), I do. If I don't know enough about the subject and don't care to learn more about it, I stay out of the discussion.
This shifts the attention to the matter at hand: specific claims, specific arguments, about specific aspects of the manuscript. Away from personalities and grand theories - those get too much attention already.
I personally don't agree with the "ignoring people altogether" approach. That's theory thinking. I'd like to shift this to argument thinking.
For example, I agree that the 15th century manufacture of the manuscript is a line in the sand. Yet someone who denies this, might still bring up valid points about other things. So if the argument is about for example the Marci letter, then my participating in the discussion will depend on whether I know enough about the subject or not. In this case I don't, so I don't participate.
Basically it's as follows. If a subject is being discussed and I have something to contribute (and the time to do so), I do. If I don't know enough about the subject and don't care to learn more about it, I stay out of the discussion.
This shifts the attention to the matter at hand: specific claims, specific arguments, about specific aspects of the manuscript. Away from personalities and grand theories - those get too much attention already.