Well yes it is repetitive, but that's because some statements are not addressed. In such  discussions one should speak about the facts (not about the individuals) but one should also listen

No I don't want to include the actor model in GR as you say (I have said this at least 3 times).Yes Hewitt sounds cranky at times, but as far as the category itself he's got a point.
My only comment was that the category relativistic information science is meaningful (see my comments above). Whether you or anybody else in GR doesn't like it, that's another matter. The category is called relativistic information science (not GR information science).
The only other person on WP who asked me about my credentials was a crank on a rather infamous discussion on Bell's theorem.
For whatever it's worth to you, I have a (not recent) PhD from Harvard. I do research in quantum information although I am pretty knowledgeable in PDE's and C*-algebras (of course without authentication there is no way to prove this so this somewhat pointless).
 Do you seriously think that I would be participating in this discussion if I didn't know about the difference between GR and SR?
 Anyway this irrelevant, since arguments should stand on their own.