The study is probably interesting for some reasonably distant hypothetical future where you have offshore AWE farms in deep waters. The rest of the comment is someone grandstanding though and doesn’t talk about the study itself. So which wins out? If you value not spreading misinformation and would like to increase the validity of the forum – which I assume to mean that you can have a basic trust that statements generally have been validated to some degree and are based on evidence – my vote goes to not allowing the comment.
There is now apparently a kite network community that apparently Dave is a part of or is able to speak for, and this community has apparently been waiting for convergence with research on marine mooring networks, so presumably that community has done research comparable in scope and impact as that done on marine mooring networks for it to be able to gel and not just get washed away. Fine, show us that research.
Again implying comparable research results from this kite network community to that on Floating Offshore Wind Turbines (FOWT). Fine, show us the research. And no, your jpegs aren’t that. What utter ridiculousness by the way to add them to the comment instead of actual research.
There are more examples.
The comment adds a link to perhaps interesting research, doesn’t add the abstract of what the research is about, doesn’t talk about results or conclusions from the research, and proceeds to instead do what it did, whatever that was.
It’s become a chimera of a comment and is unlikely to get interaction, as to comment you either have to ignore the grandstanding and with that validate the misinformation by your silence, or correct it, which no reasonable person has the time to do and would just derail the conversation anyway. So, deleting the topic is best. Shame about the linked research though, so I instead move it here, although in reality it wouldn’t matter if that got lost as by the time it becomes relevant to you, you can find it again or newer research has been done.
This not a charitable interpretation or reaction to the comment, but there is history to support that, where they for example consistently didn’t support their statements, even after being asked to.
I expect @AweEnthusiast in the future to do a better job as an editor.
That was the long version. The short version is that they’re suspended and allowing their comments is a grace that shouldn’t be expected. The style of writing here is also the root cause, or one of them, of the problems they are having on this forum so allowing it to continue would not help their possible or hypothetical reintegration.