yes, I am very aware of that.
I have been working for +27 years in a technical and research department where it is common to freely comment on each other’s models and configuration parameters, etc.
I am used to working with people where errors and anomalies can be reported freely, corrected when confirmed as errors, and then everyone moves on to the next iteration.
no hostility, no personal attacks, no egos, no repercussions, etc., are involved: when I make a mistake or when someone else points out that something is wrong, it does not matter: we correct and move on.
the models we work on evolve with time and based on progressive insights.
in one of your previous posts you said that I am a (freely worded ) arrogant bastard who is incapable of working in a team or collaborating with colleagues…
well, I have coordinated several multi-million dollar long-term research and industrial projects with industry and government sharks without any significant problems or encounters…
the reason I sometimes seem a bit irritated is because when I discover something is wrong, and people react defensively and even extremely hostile, without any good reason, it means they defend a hidden agenda…
I will hold back a little in my defense
anyway. for the past 25+ years (overlapping with the 27+ years mentioned above), I have also worked as an auditor of complex systems and as a forensic expert witness for various prosecutors…
the reason why I know what I know is simply because I invest effort in researching and hands-on experience.
as you have noticed, I include references to almost everything I say, just because that is what I do when I build my case, and so far, none of the things I have been saying have been proven wrong: lots of opinions and allegations have come my way, but nobody showed me the receipts proving that I was wrong in, e.g., the elevation profiles that we have been discussing the past week or so…
the only thing that was pointed out was the numbering scheme of the AGR buildings. originally, I believed that the BCESU was authoritative in the numbering scheme. it turned out they were not, and I have adapted the scheme that seems to be more accurate. no egos involved whatsoever, a mistake is pointed out, we correct and move on…
this may give you some context as to why and how I communicate the way I do.
I am naturally very friendly and cooperative with everyone, as you must have noticed by now.
Many of the people I have worked with and I myself walk barefoot through hell and back to help each other, because they know I will help them when needed and because it is the right thing to do, but when I discover that someone is dodging bullets (hehe) when legitimately formulated questions or concerns are ignored and ridiculed, then alarm bells are ringing and we cannot let this go…
this analysis requires a combination of very advanced qualities and expertise to bring it to a successful conclusion, and I fear that some of the people who play a key role in this analysis are not qualified to do so…
my 2 cents…