Yes, I'm what might be considered an 'overactive' contributor. And I challenge anyone within this forum who have already contributed to say to their friends: "Dig in. We want to have a say in the world. There are already major people who have had some input here. Is it not possible for those here to not only have a contribution in the world but are willing to share it publicly?"

Perhaps I am overestimating the ability for this forum to have a real effect. Perhaps I am waisting time better served to my own work. For some reason, that I don't quite understand, I don't think so.  I suppose part of that *un-understood* reason is the same effect I get when I mentor or advise someone I see of having promise.

And I *do* contribute locally - as either a mentor, a gadfly to my artistic friends, or a personal contributor. I don't live in this forum as a vacuous intellectual misanthrope. All of my contributions here are subsequent to and in accordance with my own philosophical system.

And I am making a rather broad assumption: that the majority of people here are contributing actively within their own particular part of the world at large, and not just showing up to throw a verbal nickel into the internet version of Ellis Island. One can only hope. 

Regular Web forums work better because they have all of the responses (re/re/re) displayed in a text-based branching map.  Bigthink pages could do this, but make it better with less text reliance and more graphic based design. 

I could not live with the thought that my ideas posted to BigThink thus far, might die with me. 

Big Thinker has suggested I canvas opinioins, perhaps as a precursor to running some kind of online-poll. The obvious question, regarding the next American election, has already been registered. "God" & "exists" also delivers a huge response from the search-engine.

Any other proposals?

These ideas run the full gamut from very-serious to somewhat-flippant. Without emoticons, it can sometimes be hard to flag when you are trying to be serious, and when not. They have become an essential part of our textual communication. Please implement as soon as possible. I can continue to use my outdated techniques, but I need to be able to interpret when to be serious with others.

Have you ever had the feeling of wishing you never said that? Luckily, I haven't, but because of taking night-classes in "Empathy", I can understand the problem. Where are all those obligatory warnings that anything we say can be used in evidence? Why aren't we advised that we are responsible for the actions of our own mouths? Unless you have White-House privileges, things put to the Internet can hang around for a very long time.

But on a positive note, I have observed a pleasant degree of civility in most contributions.

How would you evaluate the expertise of someone like Greg Mortenson who is exceptionally knowledgeable about Central Asia because of his personal interactions. Prior to his being on the cover of Parade magazine and the publication of his book, would his accomplishments have qualified him as an "expert?"

In the category of Faith and Beliefs or Life and Death, will the "experts" be only the Deepak Chopras, or will we hear from shamans and healers? Who will be your "experts" on poverty? on being a single mother? Is Gloria Steinem more of an "expert" on feminism than hundreds of other women who have experienced and thought about sexism, just because Steinem figured out 40 years ago how to get media coverage?

If this site is really about "thinking" and "ideas," then why do you feel "expertise" needs to be vetted through institutions that depend on popularity and peer review? Why not let the ideas speak for themselves? In fact, why have experts at all on a site like this, which seems to want to be about dialogue by thoughtful women and men?