Did it not occur to you that perhaps I don't plough everything I think into every single post?
Odd as this may seem i actually have "quite a bit" to do. I don't have the time to spend mapping every possiblity out for every kid who comes along posting random madness they made up before they've bothered to learn about logic, deductive reasoning and scientific method.
This isn't about rigidity at all. I am actually possibly one of the most open-minded people you will meet - the fact that I don't always express it here is in no way relevant. This is not a "What If" forum, this is a Science forum. We discuss science here, in scientific terms, using universal concepts and established theory.
Since you have elected not to consider any of this as a possibility - or indeed a probability - then yes, you are judging me.
I don't have to justify the content I omit from posts or put into them, and I certainly don't have to prove to you that all of established theory is any more likely than whatever crap people can pull out of thin air.
Yes, there is a possibility we have made serious errors and don't fully understand everything we think we do, but that doesn't mean that all of the madness that has been posted here in the past is "as likely as" what we think is real. It's not difficult to spot an argument or model that can't stand under even its own weight.
That's because all the major established theories mesh together. Something that only meshes with one or two of them is highly likely to be wrong. I thought the point of your campaign was to laud doing this as "a good thing"?