Hi Matt, I know you are trying to adedsrs the masses, and do not know what your feelings are about other theoretical physicsts on this site (I know some other bloggers do not want others stealing their thunder), but as far as I am aware there is no real public forum for professionals, apart from conferences which are themselves very limited . Anyway if you do not wish that kind of thing, please tell me. In regards to the no Higgs scenario on your other page, my view is that you missed one very likely possibility no Higgs, no technicolor, no supersymmetry all that stuff being wrong. And this is now not as outlandish now as it sounds. A low width SM Higgs is now very unlikely. With no supersymmetric particles seen, by all previous standards in physics, that theory deserves to be called a speculation. It is really very unlikely. Technicolor it has really had a tough time to get it not to disagree with experimental facts as they are known now, in which process it has lost much of its appeal. Sure one can say there are many variants of the above two theories according to which nothing should yet be seen. But the point is that as old frontiers fall (a metaphor for a theory version) one can always twist and turn and introduce new parameters to put up a new bastion. Really Feynman was right, when presented with a variant of superstrings, its not the desire of agree with experiment that should tell you how many dimensions to compactify, but the theory itself.
More information about text formats