Upload & Sell: Off
This has got tedious. You say the following:
"whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?
As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.
How many times do I need to explain that's not what I meant and that you're misreading it and making something out of nothing?
Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and attack the author then IN MY OPINION you (or whoever does such a thing) has "a VERY low intellect". I feel and believe that people who personally attack others in forums and etc. FOR ANY REASON have an under-developed intellect. If you read back through this thread you will see people personally attacking Ken. When I wrote what I wrote those people blew a fuse because they were busted and weren't adult enough to apologize. Then they immediately turned it on me for expressing a fairly common sense moral principal - which convicted them. They took the conviction upon themselves. I stated a generality: People who personally attack others are often operating from a VERY low intellect; which they took personally I guess because they felt guilty of personally attacking others; Ken in this case.
The 50 messages attacking me PERSONALLY which followed just vindicated my feeling or belief in the axiom that people who attack others are weak minded and/or of a VERY low intellect.
I'm not abusing anyone. Not you, not Ken, not anyone. Whenever I read someone dogging him, [for] his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect.
Make sense yet?
I think you could have avoided argument by expressing yourself more clearly, rather than using a term which seems not to be in general use. I have searched online dictionaries and I find two meanings of 'dogging':
1) "relentless and indefatigable in pursuit or as if in pursuit"
2) "The sexual practice of having sex in public places, especially parks, deliberately taking the chance of being watched."
However, your post above indicates that you think it can mean "criticise", in which case you say yet again that anyone who criticises Ken is of "VERY low intellect". But then you go on to say something like:
"Criticising Ken's writing is fine, but anyone who verbally abuses Ken, such as calling him an idiot, is IMO of VERY low intellect".
Many might agree with the above. I don't, though it is a reasonable point of view. But I do agree that Tony Beach and others would do better to restrict their criticism of Ken to his writings, rather than engage in personal attacks.
I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ...