Yes Sam, with me it works because for one, I'm geek/nerd (dunno which one, maybe both?) enough to think it's great to read scientific literature and for another, I haven't seen some of the ones you posted.
I'm still of the mind that the one who posts literature (papers, books, internet articles, whatever) should have read them before and hence only post those he/she thinks are really good literature
. In this world of publish or perish (and often publish and still perish), we are overwhelmed with forced junk publications and an increasing amount of low budget literature borderline to pseudo-science often out of Africa and Asia. There's no point in motivating people to read scientific stuff if it isn't good but a pure waste of time and effort.
I did not read the first link of yours, I read others about terpene synthesis though, because I don't see any imminent application or use for me. It's interesting but really geek/nerd... there's better stuff out there to start with.
The second article is unfortunately not free (I no longer have an university access) but promises to be VERY interesting and I'd love to read it!
I've read the next one partially. I preferred to read the original publications and they're worth reading (hint at those who believe that Durban Poison is so electric because of THCV).
The fourth is already an oldie but goodie
. Very informative!
Next is that shady ethephon story....
The last one in post #1 is interesting (for me, cause I did stuff like that) but practical-wise... the new cannabinoids were present in the low ppm range. One would have to consume about a dozen kg weed to maybe feel any activity of those (don't forget that THC was present 'at high %' in their plant material).
And now passing the ball to someone else (got sore fingers and other excuses)...