This is a cynical and hopefully humorous analysis of how could such review come about. Of course, I hope to be wrong and I sent an email requesting clarification. In the event of a clear response, it will be clear to me that I didn't have any good reason to be so cynical...:)
I will keep you posted on my communications with Los Alamos.
I tried to imagine how such a vacuous review could have been written and started envisioning the events as follow:
Review of the "Review"
Let me make it very clear. I tried to present a non-orthodox view of science and that was censored without an appropriate justification.
Just in case you don't realized it, the argument below is a cynical or ironical consideration.
It is cynical because a conclusion of conspiracy//collusion can be easily derived from the obstacles Los Alamos (i.e. the moderators) place on the intellectual production of the people who doesn't review their grants or papers, see them in conferences etc...- the unafilliated people.
I have a hard time stating what I am stating, since I know crackpot literature... Half-backed ideas and I don't like them... On the other hand, it takes me just a few minutes to find some flaw in their argument and move on. So there is no need for censorship. Categorizing is enough.
I have to do the same for crackpot ideas from affiliated people (university affiliated people).
A simple solution to the problem can be easily achieved by providing a subsection on the site for speculative science by non-afilliated people. One can envision the same kind of reviewing protocol as in Philica.com and a larger and searcheable abstract. If necessary one might limit the volume of contribution to some arbitrary size, such that prolific people concentrate on their best ideas... but that should be larger than a large manuscript... Sometimes people have something interesting to say which requires lots of explanations...:)
This would eliminate the need for the horrendous barrier of finding an endorser. I tried to contact many potential endorsers and they certainly didn't give me the time of the day. This in itself is a tremendous censorship of new ideas.
Since I've just provided a simple solution to the problem, censorship has to be the goal of the moderators...Q.E.D.
In addition, the moderation process is not described in the submission protocol. I don't really understand how one can substitute the discussions I had with my endorser - who is a particle physicist and who published on the High Energy Physics section in the past - by a moderator's glance of my work.
Irony and Cynicism Below...:)