http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08502 The reason too-large black holes cannot accrete via an accretion disk allegedly is said disks become unstable to self-gravity-caused "clumping" perturbations. Then the gas either forms stars or is expelled by such stars, instead of spiraling into the hole. I'm finding this all extremely unconvincing. King is just multiplying a few letters like a monkey, and the reasons it all is valid (if it is) are very deep and due to other people not King; just tosses all that off in like 1 sentence, intermixing magic numbers like "0.001" and 3*10^16 that come out of the woodwork, as convenient. If this is correct you will be unable to tell it is correct by reading King; you'd also have to read a LOT of other stuff which is way deeper than King. Also, a lot of the letters he multiplies like monkey, he does not even define, he just says stuff like "alpha is the standard viscosity parameter" and eta is "the standard accretion efficiency" whatever those meant. So not only is it impossible to convince yourself King is correct by just reading King -- you cannot even understand what it is saying by just reading King. And although this ought to be possible to express in terms of fundamental constants, that is not possible by just reading King alone, and he did not try. In my opinion this author behavior is unacceptable. But since his paper was already accepted, evidently the journal does not share my notion of what should be "acceptable."