I think before addressing any of the specifics... the question to start with is "what if he is?" Are nutty crackpots something we need to worry about? Newton w

I think before addressing any of the specifics... the question to start with is "what if he is?" Are nutty crackpots something we need to worry about? Newton was a crackpot, when he wasn't revolutionizing physics and maths. I'm not suggesting that Weinstein or other potential crackpots are Newton, just that they can coexist. At the least, a crackpot mindset can lead down paths less trodden. That said... Weinstein. The most notable feature of Weinstein's headline appearances is his strident belligerence. No doubt he's conflicted with others in and around academia, been the thorn in a side, had "plots" against him. This is the office politics of academia. Like all office politics, it looms large. Weinstein, being who he is, tells the story from a "House of Cards" perspective, rather than a Dilbert perspective. That said, Weinstein's beyond the reach of the dreaded DISC now. No one can suppress your ideas now, but you also can't claim that they are. Be free Eric. Idea suppression is real, crackpottery is real and the grey area between them is real. "Weinstein does appear to have a higher degree of crackpottery than most people, but look at some parts of his psychology that drive it: he thinks his ideas are very important; he thinks he doesn’t get as much credit as he deserves (especially for those important ideas); he interprets in unflattering, even dark, terms the motivations of people who seem to keep him (or his relatives) from getting credit; he strains to see pattern where it may not exist. I could go on, but the point is this: Don’t pretty much all of us have these tendencies? Aren’t they just parts of human nature."