No, just that Einstein may have come from outside the community, but he still worked within the scientific method. And that's why his ideas got accepted - he came up with something revolutionary and testable. And it got tested, and observation was found to match his hypotheses. And it predicted things that were observed too.

However, most of the preachers on the ATM board here wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit 'em on the backside.

I have nothing against ATM ideas that work within the scientific method (so m1omg can stop feeling so persecuted ). If they're testable and predictive then they're great. But most (if not all) of them aren't. And like I said, if they're genuine questions about alternative ideas (like, why doesn't X work this way, or whatever) then they're more in the realm of Q&A.

People have talked about "flecks of gold" and "saving the baby" etc, but again I have to ask - have any ATM ideas proposed or preached about on these boards ever been validated? Can someone point me to one that was?

Personally I suspect the reason that Moose and others suggested is closer to the truth - the ATM board is like flypaper, it attracts the "woo-woos" and means they don't pollute the rest of the board (or other boards) with their unsupported ideas.

If the rules were further tightened to say that any ATM ideas that didn't a priori have supporting evidence, testable results, and predictive behaviour would not be allowed then I bet the signal-to-noise ratio would shoot up (largely because only a handful at most would survive).