I think that it is best if you close down this "Golf by Jeff" forum.
You are trying to reconcile two conflicting desires without obvious success.
Your first desire is to teach TGM using Homer's work as the "final answer" and the "final decider" of the "truth" regarding the golf swing.
Your second desire is to create an aura that you are less autocratic, and more open-minded, than many TGM-golf website fourm owners and that you are willing to entertain alternative opinions - even if they contradict your personal opinions.
However, you, and the majority of your forum members, place a very high value on the fundamental idea of orthodoxy, and you/they do not like anybody to question the wisdom of Homer's work. For example, you get easily slighted when you think that I am misrepresenting Homer's work. You are also overly concerned that my misinterpretations are somehow damaging to your reputation and your website. If that is your major concern, then it makes no sense to allow me to express my opinions freely on your website.
I actually believe that my personal opinions expressed in this "Golf by Jeff M" forum, even if totally wrong, can never be damaging to true students of the golf swing. I believe that "truths" regarding the golf swing can never be damaged by "untruths". I, as forum moderator of this forum, have constantly expressed my belief that this forum should be "open" to all opinions - no matter how ridiculous or how contrarian. It is based on my sincere belief in the wisdom of Karl Popper's "falsification principle" and his idea that a theory becomes more true if it can constantly/successfully withstand all attempts at falsification. Regarding TGM theory, in the light of KP's "falsification principle", I believe that it becomes increasingly strengthened as a valid golf swing theory if it can withstand rigorous intellectual attacks.
I think that Homer would have been very sympathetic to my intellectual position as forum moderator and as a forum participant. If Homer had died after he wrote his first edition of TGM, then TGM-disciples would have regarded the first edition as the ultimate "orthodoxy" regarding golf swing theory. Then, we would have not have acquired new insights regarding the golf swing, that came with Homer's further insights, and further revisions of his TGM book. For all we know, if Homer had lived another 20 years, we could now be reading the 10th edition of TGM and we would have gained even more insights into "truths" regarding golf swing mechanics. physics and geometry. It is even theoretically possible that he may have revised his 2-F section to clarify certain points, based on further research and further thinking. I am certain that Homer would have wanted his followers to think deeply about the golf swing and come up new ideas and new revisions to his original TGM-ideas. I believe that you are actually sympathetic to the basic idea that Homer would have wanted people to question his ideas and expand on them, but I think that you cannot tolerate the "messiness" that accompanies the uncensored rigorous intellectual exploration of Homer's golf swing theories. You also have a strong autocratic streak that is in conflict with the idea of hosting an uncensored/open forum on your personal golf website. In that sense, you are in a "catch 22" situation, and your life will be much easier if you close down this forum.
I appreciate your temporary hosting of this "Golf by Jeff" forum. I have gained a great deal by reading criticisms of my personal opinions, because it has forced me to rethink my position, and revise/modulate my counterarguments. I understand golf swing theory issues much better when faced with a barrage of criticism, even when I think that the criticism is invalid, because it gives me greater insights into alternative ways of thinking about golf mechanics and golf biomechanics. My own knowledge reagrding the golf swing has been enhanced by participating in this forum and subjecting my personal opinions to "uncensored falsification attacks". I thank all those forum members who relentlessly questioned my personal opinions, because they forced to me to think more rigorously about the golf swing. I will certainly miss the intellectual challenge that their counterarguments presented.
Jeff.
Thanks, Jeff . . . you've done the right thing.
I sincerely appreciate your many positive contributions. Unfortunately, your stifling, adversarial approach with its Karl Popper "falsification principle" tactics strains our resources and diverts us from our mission. Hence, our inherent conflict and agreement that it is time for you to move on. The LBG bus has taken you as far as it can, and your end destination awaits. From here, you'll need another connecting line . . . maybe even your own.
Hybrid Mode
