Don't think I did, thanks. Would be interested in such contextualization of the subject matter -- also any analysis of the behavior of these scientists that explains their "shunning" and more general determinations not to include "unorthodox" theorists in their networks of acceptance and communication.
The behavior of the scientists is in this case perfectly appropriate. This fellow Mitra is a deep-fried crackpot whose work is replete with errors of the most trivial kind.
Right off the bat this article hits us with: "He proved black holes couldn't exist because their formation and existence flouted Einstein's general theory of relativity." Never mind that Schwarzschild's paper was the first published solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity. It was published in 1916, only a year after GR was published.
Later we are hit with: "Motivated by Mitra's work, American physicists Stanley Robertson and Darryl Leiter have confirmed in 2002 that BHCs have intense magnetic fields as predicted by Mitra and therefore are not real black holes which cannot have magnetic field." This sentence is ridiculous for a number of reasons, but it will suffice to point out that the Kerr-Newman solution to the Einstein Field Equations was published in 1965 (rotating, charged black holes must necessarily have intense magnetic fields).
There are plenty more howlers in this article, and if you follow the links AdmSmith posted, you'll see that Mitra's papers are veritable fountains of errors.
It is the shame of FreeRepublic that the rantings of crackpots are routinely posted in lieu of science, and accepted uncritically and to great applause by a certain segment of Freepers, who despite the pride they take in their ignorance of the topic, seem to have a politically motivated need for mainstream science and scientists to be discredited. It really reflects badly on all of us.