Okay, was the rhetoric supposed to be scathing? Not exactly an academic response. Nor am I fazed by it. But thanks for the ONE link you gave me. I'll try to read up on it a bit more. =oP

Now that I look at it, it's not even especially helpful. Was there any article in particular you wanted me to look at. Perhaps something to step my "feeble mind" through the basics...? </Sarcasm>

I guess I'm not seeing your "Rosetta Stone" of "why we know what we know and how we come to know it." Don't suppose there's perhaps a timeline of when the impact hypothesis goofiness started and why that approach was favored over other equally valid theories of crater formation, and other surface scarring?

Some of us don't take such things for granted. Despite my slightly venomous reaction to your slightly venomous reaction to my request for more information, I'd like to say that I would actually like to expand my mind and read up. Though, I'll admit I'm "new" to planetary sciences and need to get my feet wet, so any "layman's" references on current theory would be appreciated, so we're not going for the "win by academic elitism" argument which has so well confounded the sciences of late.

As Wikipedia puts it: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WP:BITE (Don't bite the newcomers. It's rude and pares down the number of interested and useful voices in the crowd. A vibrant community needs members, and to retain new members to offset any attrition.)

Do you have actual USEFUL links for me, or at least useful terms for me to look up as a primer? Perhaps CO2 sublimation (which I basically understand). I liked Greg Orme's pointer to "viscous fingering." Hadn't heard of it, but it was an interesting read. And I do enjoy new topics of interest. I'm also a pretty quick study. So, if there are specific topics you feel it would benfit me to learn, I'm all ears.

However, I'm not much of one for closed minds or venomous tongues, so that won't get you anywhere with me. All it show me is a lack of general respect and a bit of "Pride" (in the deadly sin, sort of way; despite my being atheist, I suppose we're all a product of the culture that rears us).

Is your opinion, in your opinion, more important that others' opinions, such that everyone should simply automatically know what you think and why and automatically agree with it? I prefer not to be a sheep. People eat sheep. Just point me in the right direction, and I'll read and make up my own mind.

But I can't promise to be swayed by falalcious arguments for fluid dynamics relating to features over which fluids would not flow (according to gravity), or the fallacy of "hidden water" or "hidden CO2" that we just can't see, but it MUST be there to support our water/CO2 theories. Just as Dark Matter "MUST" be there to support the Big Bang argument (despite the fact that we've never DIRECTLY observed it, only inferred it to to our mistaken preconceptions), and misplaced gravitational lensing MUST be used to explain away quasars that are "anomalous" to standard theory (high red shift objects around a low red-shift star or galaxy which torpedoes the luminosity/mass/distance/redshift relationship). And I'm also not a fan of "accepting without question" theories as facts. Since we haven't directly observed the causative processes of the channels, craters, spiders AS THEY'RE FORMING, all we have is a THEORY of how they formed in the past. And the hallmark of a good scientific theory is falsifiability.

Under what circumstance is fluid dynamic or CO2 dynamic falsifiable (granted the same could probably be said of electricity; just wondering)? How about if fluids defy gravity and flow "uphill?" That seems like a pretty stark contradiction to fluid theory. What if we can't FIND the water. What if it simply ISN'T there? Likewise with CO2 theory. What elements of the theory are falsifiable? And how do we TEST the falsifiable elements of the theory? Or are we entering the slippery slope of dogma? Whereby one theory is asserted over others despite contradictory evidence or at best only anecdotal evidence that neither confirms nor denies the process.

Just for my own edification of course...

And if we haven't observed the actual process in action or replicated it, we should be careful what we call theory and what we call fact. I don't like assertions that rest on shaky footing but are called fact. My thoughts on electrical arcing are theory, of course, but aren't the CO2 and fluid mechanical assertions just theories too? Points to ponder.

Anyway, hope you're having a good day. Always fun to chat. No hard feelings intended of course (seriously; not into flame wars). Just have to argue my point to the best of my ability. ;o]

As to your comments: "As they say, there's little point indulging in a battle of wits when one's opponent has come unarmed." You're right, so far you really haven't said much of note in answering my questions or backed up any of your statements with reliable specific sourced documents. (I've at least tried to provide examples of what I'm talking about in the course of dialogues with you and Greg Orme.) So, maybe when you're feeling a little more cooperative and less combative we can dialogue and you can "school me." Until then, tata! (Seriously though, if you have some basic/non-arcane resources you could point me to, I'd be grateful. I enjoy a good read. Moreso if it's understandable and even moreso if it actually TEACHES me something interesting.)