Yeah, that's nonsensical. Sorry. No kinder way to put it.

You're saying that people shouldn't be able to discuss that episode of Cosmos about black holes unless they've read Kip Thorne's original research. This is a ridiculous standpoint. Stephen Hawking didn't write A Brief History of Time because he wanted to try something without a lot of math, he wrote it to popularize science.

The entire approach of science educators should be to demistify and broaden the appeal of exciting but not-necessarily-accessible research so that people can, say, support the Superconducting Supercollider over the ISS because the SSC would have actually done research. You don't need to read a scientific paper about the likely weight of the Higgs Boson to have an opinion as to whether or not it's worth spending $8b finding it.

Primary research is NOT intended for rhetorical pyrotechnics, nor is it intended for policy decisions. Primary research is intended to broaden the knowledge base of experts so that those experts can advise non-experts. Throwing original research into an internet pissing match simply shows that you don't know how to convince your audience - if you did, you'd explain why that original research makes your point instead of writing "RTFM n00b."