Really, what you're attempting to do is subvert what is being discussed by placing restrictions on who may say what for the simple and obvious reason that you don't like what you're hearing. Gee, that's too bad. But here's a novel idea: try framing your argument around something pertinent like, for example, what I've actually written. You tried that once, as follows:
..where my response, as follows, appears to have satisfied your curiosity:
Unfortunately, your flailing about now is wholly illogical since whether one publishes--or does not--is no indication as to whether one is qualified--or not--to make comments on a given matter. This is the level you've reduced yourself to...and we both know it.
But since you've raised the topic of publishing--and ethics, I might add--here are but a few questions for you to ponder: if I was to confirm that I placed an unsubstantiated and unsourced statement in a publication--without alerting the reader to that fact--would you consider that a questionable practice ? Likewise, if I admitted that I had no tapes, if I had no letters, if I had no documents--if I had nothing but my fabled memory to support my assertions...would you be so keen to accept that ? If your answer is yes, why would you accept such a practice ? If your answer is no, why aren't you questioning Raven over that very admission ?
The stench swirling around your nostrils is the result of your own hypocrisy because I'm quite certain you ain't stupid. And the steam coming out of your ears tells us both that I've got you dead to rights...and we both know that, too. That's why you pulled that old routine, 'what have you published ?' It's all you're left with.
So can the act, it's far too transparent; and your reasoning ain't cutting the mustard either.