That was not a personal insult. It was my viewpoint of your comments.
People may be what they eat, but they decidedly are not what they at any given moment say, or even believe.
When humans interact in a sharing such as these Q threads and one them believes he understands a truth more completely than the other, so as to be moved to share what he knows, both and all should amicably strive toward the best understanding. irrespective of who is eventually seen to have brought it.
One need not turn--and it is entirely unlovely to do so-- the interaction to be a competition to put others down, quickly resorting--nay, immediately harkening, without discussion--to derisive labels, such as "ultra kookdom."
If you have a better viewpoint, brother, edify us all with it in a gentle way. Should all not be given a chance to see and hear a better way based on better evidence, understood with sound reasoning, rather than using derisive terms such as the one above, even behind the back of the one being spoken about (a standard tenet of etiquette you chose to ignore, to which even HG generally adheres)?
I strive always to welcome greater learning and a more complete truth, no matter who may bring it. In so doing in the future, you may have the confidence that an "ultra kook" may be rescued from the error(s) of his ways, if you kindly also share your greater wisdom.
As Paul says, "Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade people" from the error of their ways. --2 Cor. 5:11a