Look at this guy. He actually thinks he's in a position to set conditions. 
I see you had the good grace to allow Tim to post his conditions. After our PM, I will ignore his posts until he has answered those questions. I think that sets the tone and makes it very crystal clear that he addresses outstanding issues that are relevant to his understanding of the radiation problem and his claim. The very idea that he thinks these questions are posed so he can carry out our research is insulting at the very least.
I am not your research boy or your pupil.
I would not mind seeing an apology to forum members general and specific for the multiple, direct, abrasive accusations of being mathematically illiterate and lacking in any degree of spacial reasoning. As well as both implied and implicit accusations of being unable to read and comprehend written material. (And a strong implication that no-one here could, say, find a pdf at NASA.gov on our own.)
I would add an apology for wasting time, a specific example being the manner in which he barely acknowledged Jason's model and various diagrams from other users, then persisted in a 'discussion' about 2D being a much better way to visualise complex spaces. As with the CRaTER data, his evidence that Orion and Apollo could be represented as a line into the VABs fell apart, and he had nothing to fall back on other than a gish gallop with his ridiculous claims about the merits of 2D over 3D, and cheap shots regarding our spatial awareness.
Also the various posts that suggest we had agreed on a position, when clearly we had not. I would like to see any condition of a return that he answers questions directly, cuts the obnoxious and condescending tone, and ceases with the aforementioned style of posts that I have described.
