Anyone who declines to talk about interesting material because it's in a blog post, or for that matter, a poem scrawled in blood on toilet paper, is not taking Science seriously.

Heh, if you find a poem scrawled in blood on toilet paper, you probably have a higher priority than Science at the moment -- like finding the psycho f---!

But anyway, you half-jest, but this is a problem I've run into myself. Stephan Kinsella has a widely-cited magnum opus opposing intellectual property rights. I have since presented a gaping hole in its logic, which he acknowledges isn't handled well, but doesn't feel the need to resolve this hole in something he's built his reputation around, merely because I didn't get it published in a journal.

Yes, peer review is good crackpot filter, but it can also be a filter from having to admit your errors. [/threadjack]