Well, I deleted my list of qualifications here as I feel uncomfortable doing a "who has what degrees" thing. As I've said before, I don't judge people's posts by the qualifications they have. I judge by the quality of posting - and yes, by "credentials" that are not necessarily formal in any way (thanks Ros, useful distinction). But what I've found positively offensive at times - although at others rather amusing - in some of Diane's posts include:
* Implications of holding a university post that it seems may not be the case (it's amazingly difficult to get Diane to answer a simple question about this).
* Implications of the work being done for a formal post-grad qualification that it seems may not be the case (it's amazingly difficult to get Diane to answer a simple question about this).
* These implications used to try to establish a credibility for the work which, when taken by itself, it does not appear to have. I don't care about the degrees and formality. I just find it reprehensible to imply that they exist in order to "talk up" the work and - I think - quell honest critique.
I'd add that protestations that we have to read the 1000-page manuscript to understand any of the ideas just make me ask why she then bothers to post so many scattered and disconnected notes? What's the point if she claims they can't be understood anyway?
I'd also add a couple of things that have made me, personally, lose respect for Diane here:
* Mistakes hardly ever acknowledged but rather ignored. I've seen many, many mistakes pointed out to Diane and only two rather grudging retractions (I haven't read all, so do tell me if there is something I missed). For example the "Lacan invented semiotics" howler in my exchange with her. This was not a typo, but a clear error (a major one for someone who claims semiotics as one of the areas she has studied - it would be a pretty major one for anyone who has done academic work in a Humanities dept in fact) which was then defended over a couple of posts. It was never acknowledged as an error (after I put up a simple link about the history of early semiotics.) Instead the inarguable evidence was totally ignored on the thread but the mistake was, I think, quietly edited out by Diane later. This is not a good way to go about things. It feels dishonest to me. Plus it lacks respect. We are all capable of making mistakes - but when you do, be polite and admit to them.
* Just about all counter arguments answered by patronising and very silly - in my opinion - accusations that people here don't know even the most basic stuff about reading imagery. All this from someone who seems to make basic mistake after basic mistake in her own reading of imagery (that "angels" thread was actually embarrassing, I swear I squirmed). Then followed up with weird accusations about our obvious fear of - er, something, I could not make out if we are supposed to be afraid of Islam, the East or what? - and our general terror of new ideas (yeh, people on this forum are indeed known for their terror of new ideas lol) etc, etc. Debra puts it better than I could on this thread:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=1264136#post1264136
All in all, when I first saw Diane's postings I was interested and open to these ideas. Why not? Star maps are interesting things and the history of astronomy/astrology is something that's very deeply intertwined with the history of this region so it tends to attract me.
But I've ended up instead being really quite amazed that anyone who claims any sort of academic background could enter a forum like this and behave in the way she's done. Wild speculations and disconnected lists of "things" (with all sorts of "mystery implications" that they are far, far more significant than any of us dolts here can possibly grasp) are absolutely fine. Though mostly silly and time-wasting. Misleading references, imagery deliberately presented out of context, accusations of prejudice any time anyone makes a perfectly ordinary comment or asks a question are just not tolerable.
All in all it seems to me that the hostility on this forum is something that Diane has entirely brought on herself, it's got nothing to do with any other forum or any "campaign" by anyone. It's completely self-inflicted.