Is inferring the intent of another person a point of this discussion? Is this not a discussion? Is not the theme "development methods
" -- as in plural? Is there not a discussion already ongoing as to being open to several perspectives without making prejudgments of supposed motive, rather than of substance -- whether to qualify, question or rebut the substance of the points raised ?
Is it "sabotage" to engage a genuinely civil and questioning criticism with some simple questions about the premises of the critique?
I don't mean to be harsh but nobody cares about what you think about Gleason's movement because 1) to repeat what everyone says: you're not speaking the same language as the guys who're familiar in internal power development methods (namely Rob, Mike, and Dan) 2) it doesn't say anything about comparing 'hard' methods vs. softer methods.
I actually take back the word 'sabotage' because the attention is no longer on you now and nobody is asking you to shut up and telling you that you don't know anything. That would be considered sabotage, because people would go from discussing something valuable like certain dynamics about internal training to useless things like kindly telling a person to shut their yappin and pappin.
But really, I am really genuinely curious why you out of nowhere chime in like that with your physics handbook in a discussion where people know that ou don' tknow anything and that they don't care about what you have to say, no matter how pretty your words might appear.