Ray Saintonge wrote:
The fact is that the history of science is strewn with these false steps and original ideas which led nowhere. Their historical value is what makes them encyclopedic, not their content and not their theories. Their dubious value to science needs to be remarked but not ridiculed, and not obsessively disproved. (Remember, the burden of proof for any scientific theory rests with its proponent; if he hasn't carried that burden it is sufficient to say that as simply as possible.) Most of these ideas can be adequately covered in a single page, and take much less space than what is used arguing about them. Why should contemporary crackpots be viewed with any less regard than those from the last century?
There is nothing wrong with us having articles on cutting-edge theories, *that have previously been published and subjected to some sort of peer review*
The problem is when a lone nut wants to make a mirror of his web page on WP