hope I'm commenting in the right place.

I think there's something seriously wrong with the ATM forum. Many if not most of the responders reply with the zeal of "defenders of the faith." This I think is the result of how the forum is moderated. Moderators try to be impartial but often do not seem to understand statements made by the OP which are sometimes plainly understood by those who know and agree with some, part, or the whole of the proposal. Of course moderators decisions can be challenged but I think the problem runs deeper than that.

In my opinion many good ATM proposals are made on this forum. In my judgment possible 5% of those proposals on the ATM forum have at least some merit. Often times it seems that the proposer does not know how to adequately explain or defend his proposal. If somebody else understands the details of the alternative theory/ hypothesis better, and chimes in to explain it better, he or she rightfully could be questioned further. After a couple of comments a moderator may jump in (usually based upon a complaint of somebody believing they are a defender of the faith) and says something like a "highjack of the thread" and "start your own thread".

I am often times in partial agreement with at least one thread being proposed on the ATM at any given time. I believe my comments and others in partial agreement with the OP could be very valuable for an improved discussion of ATM ideas or proposals. If the OP is in agreement concerning the help being offered and he or she continues to make their own comments I don't see the problem with others chiming in to help the OP with information and related links supporting the OP's proposal or the general idea of it.

I understand this process is supposed to be some sort of a preliminary peer review but those that only know mainstream theory sometimes have no more than a clue concerning the possibilities of some ATM proposals and sometimes cannot intelligently comment on the proposal without a greater in-depth understanding which such additional comments by others might provide. I find myself not commenting on many interesting ideas because I believe I will be chased away by the moderators and I believe many others feel the same way. I think many moderators also believe they are "defenders of the faith" which accordingly would be the mainstream theory on any particular subject.

I think there are many insurmountable problems with mainstream cosmology and related theory and would like to see more real discussion where those that agree to some extent with the OP can add valid comments/ information as long as any continuing discussion is done with the agreement of the OP. Most people don't have the time to argue an issue for a month even though in some cases such arguments are evidence-based and could go on intelligently for many years.

I agree with the 30 day limit but not with chasing off those agreeing with the OP who add completely valid comments directly related to the subject. It is my opinion that from such extended considerations more productive discussions can be made that will not necessarily be a joint effort to defeat the OP, instead alternative ideas will have a real voice and those that do not have time to argue for a month can add there related comments to discussions they are interested in.

Does anyone have comments or additional ideas on this matter.

respectfully, forrest