James R, I wonder how Geistkiesel would fare on this forum had he raised the issue oif "string Theory" , "Nonlocal forces" and 'interference amplitude" to name but three. topics? I am not assuming I would be 86's but certainly the chargs of "kook" etc would be frequent. This is more a guess on reactions. Basically your set of pseudo science rules seems somewhat restricting and do not offer that much to progress. To assign duities and obligations to a discourse that is subject to interpretation and rejection, a challenger has the onus to provide the proof.(If I am on track here.) In general you may be correct, but it would be choking to a procress to(too) so rigidly restrictive that filling out the forms becomes tyhe mowst simportatnt matter under discussion, that is the "procedure for arriving at the the truth". For isntance, on more than one occasion I have been charged to demonstrate proof of "gedanken" experiments fallibility when the contrary is widekly accepted. Other screams are directed at submitting mathematical proofs of the assertions when the mathematics would just get in the way. Or the most shrill comes from, those making general claims of "thousands of supporting experiments . . .". I am going somewhere with this which is to say that many of those acting as I've described might qualigfy by a strict reading of your words to demand what they demand from an innocvent "kook".. I recognize your post was directed at pseudopscience and pseudeo-scientists and not at those supporting a widely acceopted scientific point of view with a very minimum of scientific argument and inpute. It seems that "kook" is reserved for those assau8lting the ramparts of established dogma. What I cannot fathom is the intensity in which the many, most, established "prevailers" haven't the slightest interest in even exploring the matter of a challenge objectively and with true discourse and conscioous communication. The reaction is 'defend at the first whiff of some thing smelling different' with massive coordinaqted attacks. When some begin to circle the wagons with knee jerk sincerity me thinks the stability level of the topic as measured by the degreee of confidence in what is being defended is a clue to dogmatic weaknesses. Afterall , who challenges their graduate advisors anyway?. I didn't go to medical school because I didn't think I would have aenough payshunze.. Geistkiesel.