I reread Lindy's two posts on this thread, and they don't seem all that objectionable. Her first post is rather low-key; there's the playful language about exploring the mystery and the bait about the arrangement of stations around around the object; but she doesn't seem to be advocating an explanation. The point is reinfored by Lindy's second post, in which she not only accepts that there's likely to be a mundane explanation, but describes in great length Peter Ness's theory about ship masts.

Perhaps the "rule" that Tom alludes to isn't so much about subject as it is about attitude. Some people, James and Robert "Bob" Williams come to mind, are pure propagandists, interested only in winning and vindication. They don't come to a BBS to dicuss anything, or to learn. Any response is just a distraction to be brushed aside so they can get back to their argument.

Shouldn't we value the mysteries? Lindy posed a puzzler, Dan and Tom tried to solve it and got to exercize their debunking muscles, and it seems like a good time was had by all. Where's the beef?

--Robert