[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. The only problem is a real meaningful discussion of these topics is not well suited to a message board format, IMO. I think it would dissolve into a swap of links, which happens here -- finding a respected article online >>> Joe Schmo's opinion on these subjects.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I tried to start that "ideas without faces" thread. There is a lot that could come from openly talking about various topics with people who have no clue as to what the current theories are saying. Links to articles from experts are definite discussion killers, but if even 1/100 of those "stupid" ideas that ignore the intellectual consensus provided any insight (possibly because it takes a completely new perspective on the issue), then we have value.

Once I was in NYC with my girlfriend and I got the idea for this hat that attaches to a jacket so you wouldn't have to carry the hat around. She says: "Oh, you mean a hood?" Then I got the lecture on how my idea was as dumb as some guy on American Inventor that apparently "invented" sleeves. That killed the discussion, but that's OK because it pointed out something that I was obviously missing and recreating.

When an idea gets killed via link to expert opinion, a lot of times it involves data interpretation that admittedly the expert would be better at. A fresh perspective, however, could provide an insight that the experts overlook based on their biases. Look no further than the Luminiferous Ether for that sort of thing. There is absolutely no reason why the dumbest guy on 2+2 couldn't offer up a contrarian view that spawns a slightly smarter but harder working guy to put the work into making a cohesive theory from the initial spark.