Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

[eggyk]

Regarding your point about not segmenting my thread may explain why others may not find and engage with my findings, I respectfully disagree, and your point to me demonstrates that you have not considered the very reason why I started this thread in “seeing the whole elephant (in the room).”

First of all, things can’t be so cleanly separated, and those who wish to find things, can find that a lot of times things have been mixed up, and that actually says a lot about why splitting the elephant does not help seeing the whole.

Okay, that's fine. The consequence of doing it this way is that the aspects of the elephant become harder to find and discuss. I'm not saying to split your theory, but I am saying that peer reviewing certain aspects of your theory will be far more likely to occur if you were to do so in some way. 

For example, if you made a thread to discuss whether the Pleiades-Botrus substitution stands up to scrutiny, you can discuss the specific details of that aspect there, and then state in the thread that what is being debated is part of your overall theory (with a link to this thread). In that sense, the theory isn't "split", but its more that the full elephant remains here, but the trunk, legs, ears and tail become visible elsewhere. If people find those parts of the elephant, they may be directed here to discuss to whole. 

If you don't want to do that, that is completely fine. It's just my opinion on how best to promote the theory and my reasoning for why some of the issues you face occur. We can agree to disagree on that. 

Let me just say here that, as far as I am concerned and the way I see it, I think the continual focus on labeling someone as “long-winded” and “verbose,” finding such excuses not to engage with the substance of what someone is saying, is an indication that some sort of ad hominem put down is going on in disguise, funny-faced icons used or not. I find it insulting, sorry to say, and those who continue to use them are displaying their own self-defeating ways of going about learning things.

Me saying "long-winded" was not said as an insult or as a critique! If you look at my threads, they tend to be long-winded. I was actually trying to be supportive by acknowledging the subject (the length of your posts, which was the subject of the quote I responded to) and showing that at least I do not have any issue with them. If the subject had never been raised, I would not have brought up the subject, similar to how you wouldn't for others. 

So, I have no problem at all with hearing reasonable critiques. But silences, I can’t do anything about and never ever will they mean to me as being proper peer reviews. How could they? Those who remain silently judgmental are not doing themselves a favor, since it is only expressing them that can subject their own assumed “peer review” judgments and abilities to the test of being peer reviewed. I mean, do you think that someone offering (or not) an opinion qualifies it as being correct and a “scientific peer review”! You think peer reviewers don't deserve being seriously peer reviewed themselves?

No, I don't think that. I will say though that in order to demand peer review for a theory, that theory must be as accessible as possible. Just as navigating the various styles of others is a skill, so is communicating to the various styles of listeners. 

Lets say that you want my peer review on your theory, where do I genuinely begin, and what do I peer review? So much has been said by so many people that I would struggle to summarise the whole thread, let alone critique it in whole. Something that I would be genuinely interested in seeing is a set of links to the posts you find important to show (like a contents), so me and others can parse the content more easily. 

Anyway, I don't mean to derail your thread. I just wanted to be supportive.