|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Topic Proposal Issues | |||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Yes, I am anxious to perform this kindness. Suppose he spouted his nonsense at a proper table?!
Inviting him in for a quiet word is the only decent thing to do. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Can I suggest that if it gets promoted it is as a Great Debate?
The poor kid is simply not ready for the pile on that would be the result of that thread being promoted without some protections. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
What makes you think he will actually stick around to debate anything? I've got a 20 spot that says he's a hit and run.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4918 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
SPAM, glorious spam!
Also, this is just a copy-paste job, with entirely no subject matter ripe for discussion (since it's a subject that was put to be decades ago: we now call it the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' IINM).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
I wonder if this rule could do with some clarification or revision. While the intent to remove plagiarism is clear it seems to have caused some confusion such as with Asyncritus posting material which he claims is his own. What I feel isn't clear is what should someone do when posting material which is their own but which isn't original when they post it to EvC. At the moment the only standard for accusing someone of plagiarism seems to be that the same words could be found somewhere on the internet with a google search not associated with the same user name. In some cases, such as Faith4flipper's recent post, this is clearly sufficient because we can trace his post to the abstract of an article by Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch. Clearly there is very little chance that Scott and Branch lifted text from a pseudonymous internet poster wholesale for their abstract, especially when the 2009 paper predates Faith4flipper's postings by a considerable time. In Asyncritus case though I don't see any reason to assume plagiarism. And if it is his own material then why should he have expected rule 7 to apply? I don't know offhand what would be a succinct and unambiguous replacement, 'non-original material' perhaps? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi WK,
People posting their own original compositions don't need to provide attribution, but if they've posted the same material elsewhere then they need to demonstrate that it is actually their material. And if they can't do that then that's their problem. Asyncritus doesn't seem particularly motivated or able to do this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Though Asyncritus would have been fun to play with, I think his silence since his original proposal shows that he probably was not the original creator and he was probably plagiarizing. I agree with Admins stand on this.
If all Asyncritus did was cut and paste, how would he be able to understand his position let alone defend it. I am a sportsman and shooting fish in a barrel is never fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I am a sportsman and shooting fish in a barrel is never fun. It is if you have a Minigun
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I don't have very much free time on my hands. I just logged on and saw this topic proposal. I have a well thought out, calm and simple explanation to why his objection to "macroevolution" is a result of his misunderstanding of evolution. From his very own words, I can tell that there are some very fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution on his part. But it hasn't been promoted yet so I can't reply.
By the next time that I can get on, there will already be half a dozen pages of dog-pile. The point is I ain't got time to sit around all day waiting for the topic proposal to be promoted so I can reply. And when I do finally get a chance to reply, I'm half a dozen to a dozen pages too late to have any meaningful reply. I say get rid of the topic proposal system and let Smith's invisible hand take over. Like I said, I don't have that much free time so I can't compete with the members who seem to be always on. This ain't the only time I've encountered a topic that I want to have a well thoughtout meaningful discussion but couldn't because it's still awaiting promotion. There have been many others and it's irritating to come back the next day to find half a dozen pages of the same damn things from the same damn members who seem to be stalking this forum all day long.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But if all topics were immediately open to discussion you would be at exactly the same disadvantage.
At least this way, you (being forewarned) have a chance to write up your post while you do have time free, and just have to press a couple of buttons when the topic is promoted --- which would seem to work to your advantage compared to the alternative. The only disadvantage, it seems, is that you get to feel frustrated before the dogpile ensues as well as after. But the absence of a promotion system wouldn't prevent the dogpile from (usually) getting there before you did, would it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The issue has been discussed here before, Message 1. Although the thesis under discussion appears slightly different, it must be noted that no significant evidence was produced for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It seems that the guy who proposed this specifically want to discuss the evolution of dinosaurs. If the thread title was amended to reflect this, it might make for an interesting thread. Mostly people want to discuss the evolution of things that are still here, you rarely hear anyone asking about the origin of stegosaurs and tyrannosaurs and so forth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Please reconsider the direction you are taking with frako in Make Your Own Conclusion Based on the Evidence at Hand. I dislike his posting style altogether and fully recognize that his op as it stands is unwieldy and inappropriate. But by taking the apparent easy way out and making him just stick to a couple of pictures, say just the first two, you seem to me to be taking away what little point there is to his proposal. He needs a least two and better three examples of nested species in human lineage, with the promise that he can provide as many more as are needed to hammer the point in the course of the thread. That would be 4 to 6 species.
Ideally I would like to see the first two plus the two I whined about, but that's just selfishness on my part. I want to know why the connection between crusafontia and plesiadapis is so much less obvious than that between whatever, megazastrodon and thrinaxodon or homo ergaster and homo erectus. Is it just sloppy research on his part or is there a real "missing link" there. But more importantly, if you are going to make him make a good op, saying "no more than two pictures" is a sorry schoolyard way of going at it. Make him summarize what he's really trying to prove instead of this crappy Draw Your Own Conclusions muddle. With the confused language about how none of these are older than (the oldest of) those, he's practically inviting the "c" side to say Well that's because they were all created at once on day 6! What if he summarized his actual point in a whole new op? A real, proper op, that didn't go on for a mile and required no pictures at all? Then he could do the examples two or three at a time whenever he wanted to advance his point From Shrew To You. I don't have much hope for this op, but I wanted to vent, making it into a whole different thing won't fix it. He should do the actual thing he's doing, just do it right. An op in the science forums shouldn't be some Things That Make You Go HMMMM crap, it should be a proper beginning to a thread, (I intend to show that, I will take the position that, etc) with extended examples and argument reserved for further posts. Thanks for your time!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm still interested in discussing John's Double Ending if any admins are up for promoting it or letting me know what needs fixing to make it promotable.
Thanks,Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr |
|||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It seems to be a bit of an abuse of power for a moderator to evade the normal pre-promotion review by promoting their own topic immediately, instead of waiting for someone else do it. In order to maintain the appearance of fairness (and to avoid serious abuses in the future) I'd recommend a formal policy forbidding the practice.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024