[Junior]

Libel can be defended through fair comment and criticism. If your writings, actions, whatnot, lend themselves to be commented upon or criticized, then you do not have a case for libel. Your rather unorthodox views lend themselves to fair comment and criticism right off the bat; hell, all scientific hypotheses must be open to criticism or the whole process collapses. Your tendency to call the folks who disagree with you "idiots," or in my case "mentally ill," automatically deprive you of using any instance of name calling in your legal case -- this is the "if you can dish it out, you've got to be able to take it" clause of the defense.

Now, you've put your views out for all to see, and that's good. You only started calling me mentally ill after I ran the numbers on moving Earth from its orbit around Saturn in the Asteroid Belt to its current, near-circular orbit around the Sun. You suppposedly have a BA in Mathematics from Old Dominion University (at least that's what your bios say in the several "odd phenomenon" magazines available on the net). I have a high-school physics class, a college-level astronomy class, and whatever I've picked up over the years in my failed career as science-fiction writer and game designer (you don't make money if you don't finish the project, and I'm a procrastinator extraordinaire). Instead of pointing out any errors in my mathematics, you simply started calling me "mentally ill" and publishing a series of out-of-context quotes (which I've already rectified, thank you). Now, I would think that I would have a case for libel against you, but personally, I like to settle my problems myself; I don't go whining to the judge or moderator every time someone takes a potshot at me, which happens quite often.

If you cannot answer my questions about your hypothesis which I raised just before you started calling me "mentally ill" the answer is not to call me names, but to show how your hypothesis can not only work within the parameters of the real world but explain everything far better and more simply than the current theories of planetary development and evolution. Evolutionists are not idiots or voodoo practitioners as you call them in your "God Hates Idiots Too!" spam (more libel, maybe?). They have looked at the available evidence, drawn conclusions, run those conclusions past their peers, who have promptly found or not found fault, revised their hypotheses in the light of new evidence, ad infinitum. The theory of evolution is the result of lots of observation, experimentation and downright hard work. Your hypothesis may also the the result of observation, experimentation and hard work, but that does not mean it is immune to criticism by fiat. If you cannot defend the current state of your hypothesis without resorting to calling critics "idiots" or "mentally ill" then your hypothesis isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[medved]

Instead of pointing out any errors in my mathematics...

The error is in assuming a solar system governed by newtonian mechanics and laws as is our present system (the ancient system was chiefly governed by electromagnetic forces) and in failing to recognize the kind of argument which Robert Bass put forward involving planetary orbit stability in making nonsensical claims.

The assumption that you are mentally ill arises from the personal attacks, calling people you don't know anything at all about liars and worse on a public forum etc. etc. I would still advise you to seek professional help.