The Net-Loon Index for UseNet Science Newsgroups and Science Mailing Lists
(A test that you can run to check the mental state of a discussion-group contributor).
Acknowledgements and Credits: My inspiration for the Net-Loon Index comes from an earlier iteration of a method of scoring net-loons (the "Crackpot Index", authored by John Baez, moderator of sci.physics.research). Therefore, much of the credit for this index should go to him. The "character traits" found in this score-card differ in more than a few ways from those in John's "Crackpot Index". For instance, Baez' original index was geared primarily toward posts made in physics newsgroups. In contrast, the new Net-Loon Index is oriented toward science posts in general, and should be applicable to any sci.* newsgroup or mailing list. In addition, the Net-loon Index has a "ratings" section at the bottom of the score-card to help the user facilitate the final determination of a poster's mental/psychological state. Character traits that I copied from John Baez' "Crackpot Index" have an " * " after them. Thanks to Lorenzo Love for alerting me to Baez' index. This new scorecard is presented with no copy restrictions. You are free to copy, alter, re-write, customize, and disseminate the Net-loon Index as you wish.
Krusty 
thought it would be a good idea if I wrote this disclaimer. Disclaimer: I am not a mental health worker, and I know nothing about diagnosing mental diseases, so please take the ratings (at the bottom of this page) with a large grain of salt! :-)
THE TEST
The poster to be tested is given a negative starting credit of (-)100 points.
1) Poster states that their hypothesis is as revolutionary as Darwin's/Huxley's/Einstein's/Newton's/Bohr's/Pauli's /etc.'s hypothesis (pick any famous dead scientist), but the poster cannot provide any concrete testable predictions of their own hypothesis (+ 20 points).*
2) Refuses to get involved in discussion threads that do not discuss their own hypothesis. (+ 20 points).
3) Commonly forces their hypothesis into discussion threads that are discussing other topics. (+ 40 points).
4) Claims to be an expert or a "specialist" on the subject but will not give their credentials when asked. (+ 40 points).
5) Claims that their hypothesis is too complex for some/many/most people to understand. (+ 20 points).
6) Makes a statement that is widely known to be a misrepresentation of a researcher's published conclusion. (+ 30 points).
7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (+10 points per statement)*
8) When asked, they subsequently cannot (or will not) provide a published reference that backs up their statement in #6 or #7. (+ 40 points).*
9) Over-use of big words (when a simpler word would have sufficed). (+ 5 points/word).
10) They create their own custom definitions for extant words or concepts. (+ 40 points).
11) They create a new term to describe a common phenomenon that could be (or is) described in a simpler way. (+40 points).
12) Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without content). (+10 points per statement)*
13) Statement that is logically inconsistent. (+10 points per statement)*
14) Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's previous work on the subject. (+ 40 points).
15) Prefaces (or ends) their statement with a comment about how misguided/shortsighted/brainwashed/delusional the professional scientific community is. (+ 40 points).
16) Consistently uses quotes from only one book/paper/article/TV-show as the sole external support for their theory. (+ 20 points).
17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points).
18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points).*
19) They persistently claim that their hypothesis is a new idea, even after being presented with overwhelming proof (in the form of published references) that show that it is not a new idea. (+30 points).
20) Commonly contradicts himself/herself from post to post (or alters his/her position while denying that he/she has done so). (+ 30 points).
21) Claims that their hypothesis will explain every aspect (or nearly every aspect) of possibly unrelated multiple subjects/phenomena. (+20 points)
22) Claims that the professional science community is trying to silence him/her because the professional science community is trying to cover up the "truth". (+40 points).*
23) Uses a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. (+20 points)*
24) Favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo; claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..(+40 points)*
NOTE: There are two scoring schemes. The first scheme is for short single posts, and because of this, the scheme is much more "rigorously applied". The second scoring scheme is for very long posts or for a long document on a web page. Where at all possible, using a very long post/lengthy web document will give a much more accurate score than would using a short post. It is not advisable to maintain a cumulative score on multiple posts, as this technique would, when applied in excess, eventually diagnose everybody as a Net-loon! (after all, everybody writes goofy things on occasion!)
:-)
SCORING (in cases where the poster has made numerous short responses to someone else, all within in a single post):
-100 - (-)80 points......Probably a normal individual.
-80 - (-70)......Either extremely unknowledgeable or is a borderline crackpot/net-loon.
Above -70.....A Delusional.
SCORING(in cases where the poster has written a significant amount of words in a single post, such as a very lengthy post, or a lengthy document on a web page):
-100 - (-)30 points.........Probably a normal individual.
-30 - +50 points..........Probably normal, but is not knowledgeable.
Read their posts with some skepticism.
+50 - +80 points.... Borderline crackpot/net-loon. Person is either
extremely ignorant, or is consciously giving out mis-information
(person probably has some delusional aspects). Definately an unreliable
source of information.
+80 - +480 points......A Delusional.
Above +480 points......An extremely delusional
Possibly mentally deranged.