[AndrewC]

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.

[Condorman]

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.

Medved did not engage in free debate. He was more interested in grandstanding and posturing than actual debate. Countless critiques and corrections of his work have been offered and ignored, dating back to (at least) 1995. Critics were "oppressors" and "censors," and the substance of the objections were almost uniformly disregarded.

The fact that one has freedom to express their views is not connected to the believability or acceptance of those ideas.

I agree.

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.

Here is where we diverge. I would amend your statement this way: "But in order to have any chance at such acceptance or believability they must be expressed supported, and defended." The mere expression of an idea is not enough. I submit that refrigerators work because tiny leprechauns run about the shelves waving hand-held fans at the food. They get their energy by drinking milk straight from the bottle, which is why I sometimes find empty milk cartons in the morning.

Silly and harmless, of course. But if I persisted in posting that theory over the course of a decade or so, refusing to provide any evidence in support of the theory, paying no heed to any evidence to the contrary, and refusing to alter the substance of that idea in any meaningful way, then one might rightly begin to suspect there was a pathology at work.

But enough about dear departed Ted. Your larger implication, that I seek to prevent the free expression of ideas, is nonsense. I would expect, however, that an idea stand up to fairly rigorous scrutiny or else be discarded. I come up with some pretty wacky thoughts in the course of a day. Some of 'em even work; the rest are tossed back. If you have a theory that fits the facts as well or better, throw it on the table, let's give it a once-over and beat it as brutally as we have the theory of evolution.