Playing nice hasn't worked

Isn't that exactly GP's point?

She says: they decided to not invite me to the debate, therefore something of value is being taken away from society.

GP says: she has demonstrated that she keeps supporting pseudo-science that has been already debunked, the reason people stops wanting her to participate to debate is therefore most probably because she has demonstrated she does not bring anything of value.

Even if you argue that a specific pseudo-scientific theory she supports is not the specific point for one specific debate (which is itself arguable: in general, those pseudo-scientific theories are supporting pillar on which the rest of her work lies), this is still a red flag: defending pseudo-science even after the flaws were raised is not "just a mistake", it demonstrates that the individual is not able to do basic logic and to follow an unbiased approach. If part of what she said is correct, then there should be plenty of people who defend these correct parts while not at the same time defending the pseudo-science. If the large majority appears to also defend the pseudo-science, then it is a very good clue that these parts themselves are usually abandoned when considered by someone who has a rational approach.

The "their critics just did not understood/read the books" defense is usually a pretty bad sign.

In all subjects, the majority is always rather "moderate", and if few persons twist the words, there is even more persons to consider that these interpretations are unfair, and emit more nuanced positions. If you end up having to systematically say that all her words are always twisted all the time by the majority of people not agreeing with her, it's way more probable that she indeed said things that were indeed controversial. Sometimes, people like her will indeed say something that is objectively controversial, then say something different, and then will point to the something different thing to try to discredit their detractors. Again, this is a red flag that means this person is not bringing anything of value to the debate (and again, if some elements are indeed of value, these elements can be brought forward by people not having these counter-productive and anti-intellectual behaviors).

You say "her work is meticulously well researched and she takes a satisfyingly rational and critical approach in elucidating her viewpoints". But even looking at people who were rather positive about her books, the main critics that they had were that there was not much references, that there was a lot of anecdotal elements and that the view she brings is pretty one-sided. These elements from people who liked her books.

So, reading your comments, you, random person on the internet, it looks like that what you explain is less compatible from the reality I observe somewhere else than the other commentator that you pretend is misguided (it does not mean this other commentator is right, but at least I see less clues that they are biased than clues that you are biased). Thank you from your contribution, you just reenforce the idea that there are people who will depict her work and position in a misguided manner.

If you're going to comment critically on her work, maybe it would be best for you to read it yourself and form your own evaluation? Seems rather odd for you to be expressing this incuriously critical opinion from such a position of ignorance.

Not sure of your logic.

What I'm saying is not that I haven't read her work and made my own opinion on it. As a matter of fact, I have done so and I consider several elements of her reasoning as being pseudo-science (yeah, I know, you will say "then you did not understand", what a surprise).

But of course, if I say "I have read her and consider she does pseudo-science", you can answer "then you are just politically biased: you say it is pseudo-science because you ideologically don't like the truth she is telling" and we are not moving at all.

So, to avoid this impasse, my argument is rather: "you say 1) she never does pseudo-science, 2) her work is very rigorous, BUT even a bunch of people who are ideologically agreeing with her are saying that number 2 is incorrect".

My point is that, based on the fact that you demonstrably twist the reality on point number 2, I cannot really trust you, and you appear as being the one biased. If you are the one biased, of course you will say that she never does pseudo-science. If you are biased, I cannot trust you to present the robustness of her work realistically.

It does not mean it is the proof she is doing pseudo-science. The reason I think she is doing pseudo-science is because I have read her work.

Finally, I would like to point out that the "every critics can only be liars, you have to read by yourself" is itself is a big red flag.

In a normal, pro-intellectual world, an author will never say "you have read what my colleagues said about me, but this is worth nothing, you absolutely need to read yourself directly my work, every discussion about my work is somehow wrong" (this idea is obviously very stupid when one realises that the people that the author says don't know what they are talking about are people who read themselves directly the author's work in the first place). In a normal, pro-intellectual world, the best analysis of someone work is a mix of the author's work AND what other people think about it. Authors will be welcoming analysis of their work, because their work is of good quality, so these analyses have no reason to misrepresent the work.

As I was saying in my first comment: the majority of the people are "neutral", they don't have any reason to go in a crazy fantasy that she is pseudo-scientific just for fun. The fact that she has a bad reputation is not due to fringe extremists, it is due to the fact that the majority of neutral people sees how she behaves and what she says. So far, people who are judging that the robustness of her work is really good always end up, what a strange coincidence, also agreeing with her on her opinion. If her work is robust, people who disagree with her will recognize that her work is robust. But here, it is the opposite, even some of people who agree with her opinion admit that her work is not that robust.

I will not discuss that with you, you will just say "no she did not say that" or "no it's not pseudo-scientific" or ... It is just a very useless discussion: you've already lost your credibility to my eyes (based on something objective, not based on difference of opinions, cf. the next paragraph), so I will not change my mind based on random statement by some random guy who appears untrustworthy.

I would have happily discussed the pseudo-science aspect with someone who did not demonstrate that they are biased. You did demonstrate that you are biased: you did say that her work is thoroughly scientifically constructed. People who IDEOLOGICALLY AGREE WITH HER admit that it is not the case (that the references were thin, that when several hypotheses were possible, she jumps on the one she likes and rejects all the others, that a lot of elements look anecdotical). How is that possible? If her work is indeed thoroughly constructed, why people who have all interest in saying so say exactly the opposite. There is only one possible conclusion: their claim that there are holes in her work is just the result of the reality.

Ex falso quodlibet. You have demonstrated that you have a distorted view on the reality. So, no wonder you will think that pseudo-scientific elements are in fact totally scientific even when they are not. (and I'm sure you honestly believe you are right, this is how bias work: you honestly believe her work is very well constructed, despite the fact that it is not, as demonstrated by the fact that people who have no reason to do so admit it is the case)

And I know that now you will shout and cry that you have important things to say and that I am the bad guy for not listening to you. But don't worry, if what you have to say is indeed the reality, then there will be more people who will say it without at the same time demonstrating that they are biased (and if the majority of people who say the same thing also demonstrate that they are prone to see through pink glasses people who say what they like to hear, then it is probably that this thing is not real in the first place).