Again, good intentions and rhetorics, but you will not have "scientifically debated" SENS before we see your paper in rejres or elsewhere (med hypotheses?). I have confidence in your ideas and am sure the better ones of them will be publishable if you invest the effort to organize them better and mount a coherent defense.
While peer review has its perks, it also has some drawbacks too; namely, it is freakishly slow. While it is a judgement call what is deemed important enough to warrant a publication and review, for practical purposes it is better to express and debate many issues via less resource and time consuming media.
I think Aubrey is judging Prometheus' efforts undeservedly harshly. The discussion on GRG list was one the few debates aimed at critiqueing and improving SENS since I have been around, and the overall interest and participation it received among the very people we want to be interested (gerontologists) was surely net positive for SENS agenda. Aubrey must agree that scientific debate on specific issues of SENS is exactly what we want, especially if done through courteous (albeit perhaps repetitive) argumentation, unlike, say, any of the SENS Challenge submissions (and the follow-ups by Estep himself) which quite frankly were embarassing in their unsubstantiated ad hominem tone.