And yet what he writes can be judged on its own merits. Only in issues of trust should character come into the question. I am most familiar with an attack on character being a technique that allows for a person to dismiss some writing without effort.

If someone with a mental illness writes a word salad, it can be dismissed as a word salad, not because the write has mental issues, but becasue the writing is a word salad.

That said, it takes time to read and judge the merits of a writing, and give a limit to our time we all develop heuristics to help us determine to help us avoid wasting time.

Some of his remarks are actually technical and relevant but invisible to most people (only accounts with the show-dead-threads flag active can see them). It would be nice if one could sponsor just those comments, I think would be a good thing for him too.

We're working on that.

As is true of anyone. Not seeing the point here.

That what he has written, complete with its oracle, and his communication style/content is directly a product of his unusual mental state.

It's notable because he writes the software in ways that someone without his condition would not consider. You can't separate the two.

The threads aren't full of sensitive analyses of the design of TempleOS. They're full of unseemly gossip and flamewars that are the same every time. That's what I'm calling off-topic. As moderation calls go, the distinction doesn't seem like a difficult one.

The guidelines already cover this when they say: "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."