<And typically Alex's response is: "If there isn't a peer reviewed published paper about it or it hasn't been brought up by an authority in the field at an LPI conference, then there is nothing to be said about it, shut up and go away."

You know, you really have an inate talent for putting words in people's mouths, especially with your use of quotation marks. Indeed, you don't even have the decency to paraphrase what someone says, or more accurately, what you think someone says. This borders on, if not crosses into, outright dishonesty.

Fortunately, others here can go back and read the threads to see if I uttered those words, or anything resembling them. Despite your dissembling, I have no problem with "amateur" research or discussion. In fact, that is one reason I peruse online groups. Sometimes, and even here of all places, I learn something new. What I do have a problem with, however, are thin skinned individuals like yourself who expect to come in hand waving and slinging insinuations, and then who have the gall to gripe about getting some heat in return. If you are merely expecting total agreement with your views, some of which (IMO) are ludicrous, then don't expect it from me. And if you can't take the heat, then I suggest you move away from the proverbial flame.

As to your obsession with (and willful misinterpretation of) my referencing peer-reviewed publications, I'm sorry. But not all science discussions are equal. I place a higher primacy on science results published in, say, science journals than those that are simply thrown out in cyberspace. I'm not saying the latter have no value, some actually do. But your seemingly casual dismissal of others' work (which adheres to the Scientific Method) without offering even the slightest bit of refutation (or even familiarity) of their results is almost comical. Why should I accept what you have to say? Moreover, why should you be immune to skepticism or criticism?