After reading through the black hole thread in the Unexplained, which is probably where this will end up eventually, I'm not even going to bother responding to Harry anymore, except to say this: I don't need to do "more reading" to understand where you are coming from. Do you really think you are the only one who reads Arxiv? The difference between you and the people trying to address your arguments is that we are capable of recognizing a) when a paper should not be believed due to its author, or what it says, and b) when a paper relates to and more importantly, supports our argument. You lack both of those abilities. You literally just type in a word, such as dynamo, and just paste links that have that word in the abstract, or post the conclusions making it appear that you read the paper and understood it.
Regarding the moderator action mentioned throughout harry's other threads, I would contend that he is not following those instructions at all and this is nothing even close to resembling a scientific discussion. The only real discussion has been in the last couple pages, and not surprisingly harry is not involved in it.
Michael, while I wholeheartedly disagree with what you are contending, that a star could form around a stellar remnant, specifically a neutron star, at least you were able to make a point. Given that we see many pulsars and can measure their period and the derivative of the period w.r.t. time, one could do a calculation to see how long it would take a neutron star to reach the rotation periods of typical main sequence stars. If this time is significantly larger than the age of the oldest star(or is even on the order of a few Gyr) we know of, it doesn't bode well for your argument. I haven't done this, but I'm just throwing the idea out there. If we completely ignore the physics which, to me, would say that this is impossible, this would be an important piece of evidence.
edit: One would also need to take into consideration the fraction of high mass stars capable of producing neutron stars. To produce the numbers of main sequence sun-like stars we see, basically every single neutron star would have to turn into a MS star. If you are contending that star formation is a mixture of this and regular star formation, why is there a difference and how does it manifest itself?