We are collectively trying to get to the protocol for how to do this. Here's the method I'd like us to try for a while (in this thread, which is perhaps our best example of one where several clear thinking people are working on both sides):

Let's have someone (most likely Nereid) pick a paper as dgruss23 has suggested, and let's go through it thoroughly. I will join in on to discuss/defend either of the two above topics if I think I have anything constructive to offer, but will mostly stay above the discussion except to try and keep things moving.

If no challenger (tester?) wants to pick a paper, I suggest dgruss23 do it and leads off the discussion.: -thanks TomT-. Just to clarify, the way it normally works here in the ATM section is that a BAUT member makes (an ATM) claim, which other members challenge. dgruss23, would you please present a case? Make sure it's one you are prepared to defend. You may choose one of the Arp systems, and claim that (for example) bridges are evidence of interaction, or that there is statistical evidence that quasars around AGNs do not have random redshifts. My hope is that we can start on a sufficiently narrow topic that is measurable.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak