Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. It's disrespectful.
The argument you're trying to formulate here is that being uninvited as a speaker at the grammy's isn't a big deal because the person was able to give their speech somewhere else in front of a completely different audience eventually. That's not how that works, the talk he was uninvited from is considered an honor in his profession.
Then you try to imply he benefited from it, so why is everyone opposed to it? That's akin to arguing that the reasons for naming a boy Sue is valid parenting advice.
The argument you're trying to formulate here is that being uninvited as a speaker at the grammy's isn't a big deal because the person was able to give their speech somewhere else in front of a completely different audience eventually. That's not how that works, the talk he was uninvited from is considered an honor in his profession.
Then you try to imply he benefited from it, so why is everyone opposed to it? That's akin to arguing that the reasons for naming a boy Sue is valid parenting advice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE&t=146s
2:26 timestamp
listen to the end to understand the point fully.
per the link about naming, I'm not surprised you misunderstood what Feynman was saying, but that's not my problem.