I'm possibly one of the most sceptical people around, but I'm well aware that there is much that is not understood by science. I'm therefore quite willing to entertain ideas from people who have something genuine to say and can present a reasonable argument to back it up (even if I don't agree with them).

What I dislike is when people present radical concepts as though they were fact, but provide nothing to substantiate them and then criticise others for not understanding/believing.

I also dislike the metaphorical use of scientific concepts to "explain" real or imagined phenomena. An example would be the use of the term "Earth Energy" along with concepts such as conductivity, resistance, earthing, etc, as though we were dealing with electricity. If it was electricity then we could measure it, but to use such analogies seems like an attempt to gain undeserved credibility.

Alignments (as opposed to leylines) are quite common and seem to have been deliberately created by ancient cultures. However, the term "leyline" implies something other than just a human desire to line things up and it's when we get into this area that problems arise, because real evidence seems to be conspicuously lacking.

I, and I think many others here, would be happy to debate what evidence there may be for leylines, but arguments that depend on a belief in them will not in general be well received.