You may wonder why I use such harsh language to refer to the poor relativists. Isn't this unscientific of me? You bet! Wouldn't it be much more professional to carry out a calm discussion with peers in a scientific environ-ment, exchanging points of view, with everyone speaking their mind without fear of being intimidated? Wouldn't we brainstorm more freely, even if we are likely to be wrong 90% of the time? Yes. I've seen people bullied in meetings many times. It's not pretty. The Age of Chivalry died with Feudalism. So why use words such as stupid and idiot to refer to the noble professionals of Mathematical Physics, individuals who studied so hard to get their degrees, many of whom are respectable members of the scientific community? These scholars work selflessly to extract the secrets of nature in places like Jefferson Labs, KEK and CERN, and here I'm going to insult them and trivialize the fruits of their hard labor just like that? Actually, you wouldn't be saying anything new. When Hynek was investigating UFOs a while back, he was ridiculed so much by the establishment that he snapped:
" Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is." 
He is right, of course, although I will qualify his statement a little bit. I question whether Hynek’s work has anything to do with science. Does he presume to be following the scientific method when all he has done is compile a few statements, photographs, and interviews? His papers put him at the level of people who claim to have proven that there is life after death simply because they collected a handful of testimonials. But this is not the matter at hand. The instant topic is ridicule and insult, and my point is that it is the mainstream that has created the circus environment in science, laughing at every idea that does not fit its mold. I did not invent the habit of ridiculing and insulting those who do not agree with me. This unscientific climate was here before me. Relativists and mechanics were throwing mud pies at dissidents when I was born, and they continue to do so until this day. Go to any Physics forum on the Internet, take your pick. I dare you. Speak your mind out, not in any insulting way, but politely. Tell them what you really think about the universe. You won’t believe the backlash. You will think twice next time before writing in any forum ever again. Hynek confirms my argument with a similar experience. Apparently, when he went to collect data, a number of astronomers were worried about speaking their minds about UFOs for fear of being ridiculed, or worse, of losing their jobs. Irrespective of whether Hynek was a loony or whether he dealt with the highly suspect subject of UFOs, he should not be ridiculed in public, especially not by official institutions. It is the mathematical physicists who have created or continued with the tradition of belittling their opponents and who have institutionalized the practice. Now everyone has to live with it.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against having a little fun. Humor is a positive force in science, especially if it is done in a spirit of camaraderie and you lead the way by showing that you can take a punch first. There is really nothing wrong with exchanging jokes with colleagues or treating topics facetiously while investigating, brainstorming, researching, and theorizing. We find irony and cynicism in nature, and sometimes certain discoveries are so counter-intuitive or so contrary to experience that we laugh at how stupid we were in holding such traditional views only a minute ago. We smile and wonder how Mother Nature could have tricked us like that. A typical example of what I am referring to is Meyer’s discovery of Archaeopteryx . Politicians, religious leaders, and the press had a field day laughing at the thought of birds with teeth. The establishment had a ball with the topic because no one had ever seen a bird with teeth or could imagine such a creature. Perhaps, the same scientific community would have just as well laughed at a missionary or a safari hunter who came back with stories about trunks of elephants or horns of rhinos if they had no prior experience with such animals. Laughing at something you didn’t know could be true or existed is like laughing a bit at your own ignorance, and this serves as a pressure valve. Using a circus atmosphere as a tool to silence the opposition is a different matter. Ridicule as a deliberate mechanism and strategy to marginalize dissidents has a political agenda in mind, especially when coupled with the peer review system run by the same people. Relativists go beyond merely poking fun at their detractors. They attempt to destroy the life of the dissident and marginalize any who may have thoughts about joining the unfortunate soul. Sites such as Crank Dot Net or the Not The Crackpot files are famous for listing dissidents of Physics. The idea is to warn the public at large that these people are loonies. Many dissidents have consequently self-censored themselves and placed their websites under ‘Alternative Physics’, which to the seasoned researcher means that it is a waste of time to bother to visit unless you just want to have a good laugh. Some conspicuous dissidents have had to go underground because of the hostility against them. This doesn’t mean that the theories of these individuals are correct. The issue here is that those who are no closer to the truth have no right to marginalize brainstormers through heavy handed tactics simply because they disagree with them. There are at least three methods or strategies that relativists use to put down a dissident and isolate him. I will exemplify these methods with the following cases: