Your blog doesn't need to look like it was written by hand in 1991.
<archer> But it doesn't
not have to look like it was written by hand in 1991, right? </archer>
I loved reading the debunking of that by Jay.
It's the very classic Jack-White crop-'n'-resize trick. I don't know if he ever managed to figure out why that doesn't work as an analysis technique. Really the man's apparent incompetence was so egregious that we constantly debated whether he were really that clueless or what. I tend to think he really believed it himself on some level, but was so enamored of the attention he got that he never strayed from the pattern of making sure he only wrote and spoke from behind carefully fortified trenches. It was very telling to hear him talk on Education Forum about how he consulted "for three days" with my friend John, a moderately well known documentary producer, about lunar surface photography when in fact it was less than half a day and, also in fact, he was actually being set up by John. It's telling because I think we get a sense of how White's ego was so very prominently inflated in his own mind.
But back to the matter at hand, it's obvious that our newcomer has put very little effort into his site, at least in the sense of advancing the argument. In fact he's stuck in the conspiracy claims of at least ten years ago, if not earlier. The fact that he is oblivious to long-standing answers to his challenges means there isn't much to notice.
