You have more integrity than that Andrew; don't put words in my mouth. "Poorly supported." By which I mean, "a noteworthy absence of observations that might lead to such a conclusion."
Strange? Sure. I'm all about strange. And there are many strange theories out there. Some of them, however, are more valid than others, by virtue of support from equally strange observations.
I have no problem with anyone who wants to float a new idea. As long as support and defense is part of the package. Are you willing to defend Medved's theories?
I apologize, if you feel I put words in your mouth, but the statement was illustrating my interpretation of your post. How else can I say it? I might have explicitly labeled it as an interpretation, but I assumed that it would be viewed as an interpretation.
Again the whole point of my statement is that every person has equal access to expression of whatever ideas come to their mind in something we call free debate. If it is not free debate, then fine, state so. The fact that one has freedom to express their views is not connected to the believability or acceptance of those ideas. But in order to have any chance at such acceptance or believability they must be expressed. Even ideas rejected as foolish and silly considering their "obvious" disharmony with observation, e.g. the sun does move and the earth doesn't, after quite a long period of rejection and ridicule may ultimately turn out to be the "truth". In any case I do not have to espouse any particular theory in order to support its expression.