I completely agree -- flaming Sam serves no constructive purpose whatsoever. Mind you, I seem to recall doing it in the past, but now I regret that.

The possibilities I see regarding Sam are that:

1.) He's a troll. If so, his purpose is to sow dissention and chaos. Flaming him serves that purpose exactly, and will only encourage him.

2.) He's a kid -- perhaps not from the gifted class, but capable of learning. If so, the flaming him will only discourage him from learning, and drive him into the doubtlessly more "understanding" arms of pseudoscience types who are looking for converts.

3.) He's mentally ill, not capable of understanding much, and afflicted with grandious paranoias concerning the end of the world. In which case, flaming him is just despicably mean. People like that deserve compassion, and perhaps some medication, but never scorn.

In all three cases, I think one kind of response is appropriate: a lone, patient response to his question. I would encourage others to NOT respond to a Sam question if somebody else has already done so, in order to prevent Sam-related posts from overwhelming the Habitablezone.

If we respond to his posts this way, I can forsee the following results:

1.) If he is a troll, he'll become bored by the lack of drama that he's creating, and will go away.

2.) If he's a kid, he WILL learn -- however slowly.

3.) If he's mentally ill, the our explanations will probably bounce right off him, but at least we won't be acquiring bad karma in the process.

Cheers,

Nathan.