Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
44 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,416 Year: 18,452/19,786 Month: 872/1,705 Week: 124/518 Day: 50/74 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some thoughts on moderation & banning
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1725 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 1 of 29 (121481)
07-03-2004 1:06 AM


Greetings all,

I've been following this thread for some time, and it was with a great sense of relief that the moderator put us out of our misery by moving it, and WT, here.

I am fully in agreement with having WT limited here - his posts were nonsense and he was wasting people's time. In fact, I am rather surprised it was let go that long - and this leads me to argue fore more agressive aaction in future.

Now,
This is my favourite forum on the 'net. There are many smart people here from all sorts of fields and we see quality debates on varied subjects - from both the smart young people and the mature experts. (I recently heard that people in the industrialized West are currently gaining about 15% IQ per generation - fantastic go humans go!)

Honestly,
its a buzz to come here and see what the smart people are talking about - well done guys

And,
one of the strong points of this board is the moderation - typically most forums go off topic within a dozen posts or two - but not here. Even better, the moderation focuses on issues of substance - not silly issues of style like TWeb.

Anyway,
it was clear WT was a crackpot very early on in this post - yet very many of the smart people spent a great deal of time dealing with him. A lot of time and brains and patience - for very little result (although its true we did learn a bit about the pyramid along the way.)

The thing is,
its sad to see geniuses like Lam wasting time on total crap, or the avuncular Ned explaining the most basic principles over and over and over. I love to read Lam's stuff - but heck he needs all the time he can get to invent faster-than-light travel (or whatever). And seeing Ned's incredible patience and clear communication completely wasted on WT was like having teeth pulled. (Just picking two names at random - I don't know either of these people.)

Seriously,
I would support some mechanism whereby we shut this post down nearer 100 posts than 350.

So - how about a Crackpot Vote Mechanism?

After 100 posts in a thread, or a dozen from the potential Crackpot, or 6 un-corrected rule violations, any reader can ask the moderator to call for a Crackpot Vote. If the case is sound, a vote is so called.

After 3 days,
if at least 1 dozen readers (or some number or percentage maybe) cast their ostraka against the possible crackpot, then they are sent to Free for All for a month.

Any comments?

Iasion

{Originally at http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=15&t=242&m=384#384. Spun-off as its own topic by Adminnemooseus}


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 07-03-2004 2:30 AM Kapyong has not yet responded
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2004 2:39 AM Kapyong has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Lammy, posted 07-03-2004 2:50 AM Kapyong has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31458
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 29 (121535)
07-03-2004 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kapyong
07-03-2004 1:06 AM


I don't like the idea.
I believe that every member here has the right to believe any idea at all. They can espouse miraculous pyramids, floods that never happened, arks and animal craft or whatever. That is fine. It is the kind of thing a few will respond to and hopefully, everyone will come away learning at least one new fact from each thread. If that happens, then it is fine.

I do object to vulgarity and personal attacks. And once that happens I believe that the offender should first be warned and then sanctioned. There is no place in a discussion for calling someone a liar or worse.

Gentlemen (and gentlewomen) try to never be unintentionally rude.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kapyong, posted 07-03-2004 1:06 AM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 29 (121543)
07-03-2004 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kapyong
07-03-2004 1:06 AM


i quite enjoy crackpots. or at least the ones that make SOME sense.

the ones that ramble on senselessly and incoherrently can be a little annoying to try to figure out what the hell they're saying.

( http://www.timecube.com/ !! yeah ! )

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-03-2004 01:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kapyong, posted 07-03-2004 1:06 AM Kapyong has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Viv Pope, posted 11-25-2009 10:28 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 3611
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 4 of 29 (121546)
07-03-2004 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Kapyong
07-03-2004 1:06 AM


Unfortunately, people ask for the crackpot individual to continue on with his rants by responding to him. I generally stay out of nonsense threads for one, some, or all of the following reasons:

1- My troll alarm goes off
2- My spider sense tells me that the person is not serious about the topic
3- The topic is full of crap - like the former speed of light thread
4- Other people have already said what I wanted to say
5- The thread starter or one of the responders is so ignorant that I can't respond without reaching out of his monitor and grab him by the throat
6- I am not well educated in the topic (which includes but not limited to dates and dating - I'm single by the way)
7- Topic does not interest me

There are ways that we can tell the person that he's a crackpot. One is we voluntarily ignore the topic and let the thread slide to oblivion. Another that I can think of is we try to show him how rediculous his argument is. Take my word for it, crackpots can't really know they are crackpots anymore than people with bad breaths knowing their breaths stinks. It requires someone else to tell them their breaths stinks.

Anywho, if anyone ever invent a device that allow me to physically inflict pain on someone else who is participating with the forum, I am willing to buy the device for any price offered.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Kapyong, posted 07-03-2004 1:06 AM Kapyong has not yet responded

    
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1725 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 5 of 29 (121560)
07-03-2004 4:44 AM


A Dozen Ostraca and you're Out !
Greetings all,

Thanks for your replies

Indeed, everyone may believe what they want, and of course they must also be free to express their beliefs - I would never argue otherwise.

WT is most welcome to believe all that stuff,
WT is most welcome to argue all that stuff.

But
no-one is welcome to waste our time with silly stories while playing us all for fools.

So,
my argument is this -

* This forum has a critical mass of smart, educated people who can communicate the good stuff.

* Posts here are RESOURCES - intelligent people spend their time for free here.

* One of the strengths of this forum is its moderation.

* Good moderation ensures the debates stay on-topic and get to the bottom of the issue.

* When a post goes bad we have rules to handle this - as happened with "Proof of God"

Now -

I argue that the "Proof of God" was an obvious train-wreck LONG BEFORE we reached 350 posts.

I argue that this post was an example of moderation practices that are a little loose. (*)

I suggest that after about 100 posts we could see WT was in crackpot mode (and that maybe a dozen posters would agree, and that he broke maybe a handful of rules)

So,
I propose a mechanism by which we self-regulate such time-wasting posts - by ostracising the crackpot.

Ostracism

If -
* a thread reaches 100 posts, or
* the OP reaches 10 posts, or
* the OP breaks a rule 6 times
then
any reader may call for an Ostracism.

If the Moderators agree a requirement above was met,
then an Ostracism is called, and is open for 3 days.

After 3 days,
if 12 or more have cast ostraca against the crackpot,
then the crackpot is ejected for a time.

First offense - for 1 day,
2nd - a week,
3rd - a month,
4th - a season,
5th - a year.

Iasion

P.S.
(*) What's happening with "lose" and "loose" in the US? They seem to be merging in usage - very odd.


    
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 3246 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 6 of 29 (536833)
11-25-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by arachnophilia
07-03-2004 2:39 AM


Banning of dangerous ideas.
Talking of banning, take a look at this:

NASA Asks Questions: Blocks Answers.

NASA reports a serious anomaly in the physics they use to track their satellites. The anomaly, they say, has proved insoluble. This is to the extent that they have had to consider the possible need for ‘new physics’.

This chronically unsolved problem has become known as ‘the Pioneer Anomaly. It is that over the decades that NASA’s space-probes, such as, for instance, Pioneers 10 and 11, have been travelling through the solar system on their way out towards interstellar space, their orbital trajectories have veered inexplicably towards the sun, as if by some altogether unknown and unguessed accelerating force. To explain this anomaly, NASA have invited suggestions from all sectors, and the suggestions they have received are listed on their website. One such listed suggestion was that Newton’s gravitational theory which they statedly use to track their probes, typically takes no account of the spin of those bodies, so that the anomaly lies in the Newtonian theory of gravitation, and that the Newtonian theory needs to be updated to include any spin angular momenta of orbiting bodies.

Listed at first as one of the suggested solutions, this was gradually cut down by the controllers towards the point of extinction, at which point it eventually disappeared off the list. All further attempts to get this suggested solution tabled and considered have been met with silence. Indeed, it is fair to say that the lack of response, even from those sources requesting such suggestions, is monumental. For a long while one assumed that this might have been due to some fault with the communications system, but gradually, one’s suspicions became aroused that this idea was actually being obstructed. Then. to test this suspicion, having pressed the button for acknowledgement of receipt of the e-mail, the automatic response from one of the leading NASA officials who is centrally concerned with the anomaly was: ‘Your message was deleted without being read’.

Other suggestions that were listed at the same time remain on the list, some of them quite bizarre and completely implausible. So what was one to conclude from the removal of this particular suggestion from the list and the continued lack of response regarding it, other than that for some strange reason it has been blocked? But what can be so heinous about this suggestion that it should be blocked in this way? Here is that suggestion. Let the reader judge it for himself.

All orbiting bodies have angular momentum, and the textbooks of Physics say that angular momentum is a quantity that is conserved in both magnitude and direction. This means that a space-probe to which an amount of angular momentum is imparted at launch, so long as it is not interfered with from then on, will retain that same amount and direction of angular momentum thereafter.

Now let it be emphasised, here, that this is not some new theory but just standard textbook physics. Standard physics also is that the total amount of angular momentum of an orbiting body must include all forms of angular momentum it might have, such as, for instance, spin, also that the distance of an orbiting body from its centre of balance with a countermass, such as in this case, the sun is directly proportional to the amount of orbital angular momentum. That is to say, a body with a smaller amount of orbital angular momentum orbits nearer to the sun than one which has a larger amount. (Note, again, that this has nothing to do with higher mathematics or exotic theories such as relativity and quantum theory. It is no more than ordinary ‘grocery-level’ logic and accountancy, which is perfectly sufficient for present purposes.)

This being the case, it follows that for any given total amount of angular momentum imparted to a space-probe, the more there is of spin angular momentum the less there has to be of orbital angular momentum, and the less there is of orbital angular momentum the more the trajectory of the probe veers, predictably, towards the sun, which is precisely the phenomenon which NASA regards as an anomaly.

So, since this is so logically predictable in terms of standard physics, where’s the problem? Why is it regarded as an ‘anomaly’? Plainly, the solution to this ‘anomaly’ is that the orbital dynamics which NASA uses to track its spinning space-probes takes no significant account of the spins of those orbiting bodies. But practically all orbiting bodies spin, from satellites, to planets, stars and – not least – the hosts if spiral galaxies, and if those spins are not included in the orbital equations, then there will be ‘anomalies’ throughout – such as, for instance the notorious so-called ‘Missing Mass’ anomaly whereby the measured total mass of the universe of stars, galaxies and so on turns out to be much larger than can be accounted for by Newtonian gravitation.

What, then, can be so abhorrent about this suggested solution to NASA’s stated Pioneer Problem that it should be banned from the list of possible solutions? First, a technical point. Some might judge this suggestion to be too simplistic, pointing out that as well as having magnitude (amount) angular momentum is a vector quantity, which makes it much more complicated. However, compared to the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum of a space-probe in solar orbit, any change in the ratio of spin to orbital angular momentum due to the composition of vectors is altogether negligible. Also, any such difference in the spin-to-orbit ratio will be set at the start of the motion and retained throughout, so that it has no bearing on the in-flight condition of the probe hence can be discounted. But in any case, if there were some fault in this reasoning, then it would surely have been pointed out in response to the invited suggestion. So this cannot account for the conspicuous silence with which this honest and sensible suggestion has been met.

What else, then, can be the reason for this ominous silence? Let’s put it in a historical context, say in the era of Copernicus and Galileo. Supposing that a committee of pre-Copernican astronomers agreed that their explanations of the motions of the planets in terms of their postulated wheels-within-wheels-within wheels theories of circular motion as epicycles, equants, deferents and so on had become too complicated, and that there had to be some ‘new physics’ to make sense of it. We may imagine that all sorts of suggestions as to what this ‘new physics’ might be in terms of, say, some mathematically unified, all-inclusive Wheel. Preparedness to consider all such suggestions, so long as they were rational, respectably written and clearly presented would not be hampered by any overriding authoritarian precept. Since they were invited in the first place these suggestions would hardly be summarily dismissed as ‘deleted without being read’.

But now suppose that one in particular of those invited suggestions was to take the centre of motion of those planetary cycles away from the earth and fix it on the sun. This simple sensible suggestion would, of course, relegate our earth to the status of just one of many such rocks orbiting the sun This would be intolerable to the religious belief of the time, that God had made our earth the centre of the universe and all creation. So, what would happen to that new and unique suggestion? Much as did happen, in fact. Once that implication of decentralising God’s creation away from our earth and setting it in space was realised, it would, at first, be dismissed out of hand. And then, if it became more persistent, it would be condemned as a heresy, and those who were a party to it would be persecuted, as, in our science history, Giordano Bruno and Galileo were, in fact – because, of course, that uniquely different idea was a danger to the whole authoritarian mindset of that era.

Now ,let us return to the present time and the contemporary call for ‘new physics’ and the suggested solution of NASA’s problem that the anomalies NASA and our astrophysicists report are due to Newton’s neglect of spin in orbital motion. More than just a few commentators have expressed the view that this suggestion that Newton’s ‘gravitation may be wrong is a heresy of ‘Copernican proportions’, because Newton is to NASA nowadays as the Pope was to Medieval science. Professor Alan Winfield describes it on his blog (see below) as ‘the most dangerous idea’ and. Prof, Robert Trail lists is one of the top five modern heresies. Meanwhile, science editor and researcher, the late Professor Honig, has declared it ‘immoral’.

But why? How can such a simple suggestion of the omission of spin in orbital motion be such a threat to the Establishment as to be blocked in this altogether conspicuous way?. Why has it not been responded to?. Why have there been no comments on it, either positive or negative, or any attempts whatsoever at refutation or to engage in rational discussion? Why has all mention of this proposed simple solution been removed? The situation invites careful analysis.

One is always wary of seeming paranoid or as being party to popular conspiracy theory and suchlike. Having said that, objectivity demands an examination of the real possibility that this simple suggestion threatens today’s Establishment in some way that might be on a par with what was presented to Medieval science by the shift from earth centred to a decentralised, earth-independent cosmology.

First, then, we have to discern the present Establishment position. The current prevailing dogma is, of course, that of the Big Bang theory of cosmic creation, which, although it is a theory is now taken as fact by most mainline physicists. This whole notion of an ‘expanding universe created in a primordial ‘Big Bang’ is based on the phenomenon known as the Hubble redshift, which is taken as irrefutable evidence that the distant galaxies are receding. But this is the same as saying that because all ferrets are quadrupeds, seeing a quadruped is the same as seeing a ferret. This fallacy underlying the Big Bang dogma and all its supporting theoretical paraphernalia, has been pointed out and published by this present author over some years, which makes nonsense of the current search for the Higgs Boson, or ‘God Particle’, which is supposed to have been created in the first nanoseconds after the ‘Big Bang’. At a cost approaching five billion pounds. the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which is designed to recreate that ‘God Particle’. would be seen as so much pure waste of money. Together with this, all the other associated, heavily funded searches for ‘gravity waves’, ‘gravitons’, ‘dark matter’, etc., would be wiped out if this simple, unique solution of replacing ‘gravity’ with angular momentum were generally accepted. For these priests of Modern Mathematical Physics and Cosmology, it would be, a complete and utter disaster.

Seen in this way, it is scarcely likely that this simple solution would be properly considered and evaluated, If it were to be accepted, then at the very least, it would make the moguls of modern Theoretical Physics look pretty silly. Moreover, from the fact that it has for so long remained unrefuted – that although sufficiently well disseminated it hasn’t even been taken up and argued against – one might reasonably suppose that it has been found irrefutable, hence what Professor Winfield has judged to be a real danger to the current Physics Establishment.

However, as someone has pointed out, for the latest e-mail to NASA to have been ‘deleted without being read’, something of the message must have been read for that decision to have been taken, and if it was not the message that had been read, then it must have been the name of he sender with which that Simple Solution is well enough associated.

It seems to have been unwise, therefore, to have assumed that over the years during which this uniquely ‘dangerous idea’ has been presented it has been just passively ignored. After a while there comes a time when what might have seemed like just passive ignorance begins to appear active and deliberate, especially when it ends-up being virtually expunged from the record.

However, here at least, is one reference to this ‘most dangerous idea’ that has, so far survived. It is on the blog of Professor Alan F. T. Winfield, of the Electronic Engineering Department UWE, Bristol:

(FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2006
I came across the Edge website last week, whose home page declares the rather grand aim:

To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.

It appears that the Edge asks an Annual Question, "What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything", that sort of thing, and then publishes the answers by the contributing illuminati.

The 2006 question is "What is your dangerous idea?".
So it was with some excitement that I started to read the assembled responses of the great and the good. Very interesting and well worth reading but, I have to say, the ideas expressed are, er, not very dangerous. Quite dangerous, one might say, but by and large not the sort of ideas that had me rushing to hide behind the sofa.

So, I hear you say, "what's your dangerous idea?".
Ok then, here goes.

I think that Newton's interpretation of his first law of motion was wrong and that there is no such thing as a force of gravity. Let me say right away that this is not my idea: it is the result of a lifetime's work by my friend Science Philosopher Viv Pope. But I have played a part in the development of this work, so I feel justified in evangelising about it.

Recall your school physics. Newton's first law of motion states that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. In other words, that the 'natural' state of motion is in a straight line. Of course in an abstract sort of way this feels as if it is right. Perhaps that is why it has not been seriously challenged for the best part of 400 years (or it could be because Newton's first law has become so embedded in the way we think about the world that we simply accept it unquestioningly).

Consider an alternative first law of motion: the natural (force less) state of motion is orbital. I.e. that bodies continue to orbit unless an external force is applied. Now the Universe is full of orbital motion. From the micro-scale - electrons in orbit around nuclei, to the macro-scale - moons around planets, planets around stars, rotating galaxies etc. If this alternative first law is true, it would mean that we don't need to invent gravity to account for orbital motion. This appeals to me, not least because it leads to a simpler and more elegant explanation (and I like Occam's Razor). It would also explain why - despite vast effort and millions of dollars worth of research - no empirical evidence (gravity waves or gravity particles) has yet been found for how gravity propagates or acts at-a-distance. A common-sense objection to this idea is "well if there's no such thing as gravity what is it that sticks us to the surface of the earth - why don't we just float off?". The answer is (and you can show this with some pretty simple maths), that the natural (force less) orbital radius for you (given the mass of your body), is quite a long way towards the centre of the earth from where you now sit. So there is a force that means that you weigh something, it's just not a mysterious force of gravity but the real force exerted by the thing that restrains you from orbiting freely, i.e. the ground under your feet.

This has all been worked out in a good deal of detail by Viv Pope and mathematician Anthony Osborne, and its called the Pope Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis, or POAMS.

Now that's what I call a dangerous idea.

For those who, like Winfield and many others who are not steeped in this new religious dogma that Modern Physics is a ‘search for God’, it is plain that those priests involved in this highly expensive research, funded as it is largely by the Catholic Church, cannot afford to let it be revealed, however simply and logically, that like its medieval predecessor, this scientific departure of theirs is just a new kind of religious nonsense. Only by being allowed to present its case without doctrinal interference can Commonsense prove that it is now high time that Physics dropped all this nonsense about searching for ‘God Particles’, equations revealing the ‘Mind of God’ and so on, so as to recover its original integrity as a secular search for just plain and simple commonsense-logical truth. This is being done but is so far not seen being done. If it were allowed, what would be seen is that over the last half century, following a short correspondence between this present writer (then a young telephone lineman) and Albert Einstein there has been developed a whole new physics since known as the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis, or POAMS. Based on the neo-Machian philosophy of Normal Realism, this Synthesis answers not only the Pioneer and ‘missing mass’ anomalies but also the notorious ‘EPR paradox’ and the mismatch between relativistic time-delay and quantum instantaneity in distant action.
Neville Vivian (Viv) Pope
Website www.poams.org

This article was subscribed to Sounding Circle: the “Big Bang” and now appears in Sounding Circle: The "Big Bang" Is Just Religion Disguised As Science. It has also been sentto one of the NASA officals centrally concerned with gthge Pioneer Anomaly. Let's see if he answers (will keep you posted on this).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2004 2:39 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 11-25-2009 10:52 AM Viv Pope has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 7 of 29 (536843)
11-25-2009 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Viv Pope
11-25-2009 10:28 AM


Re: Banning of dangerous ideas.
Hi Viv,

I've suspended you because you're posting very lengthy messages that don't seem to be part of any discussion, but rather are just presenting your own ideas. In the case of this thread about the use of banning by moderators you've posted a very lengthy message about the Pioneer anomaly. The thread is wrong, even the forum is wrong. You need to post messages like this somewhere in the science forums.

If you'd like to propose your own thread then you should do that over at Proposed New Topics.

If you want to push your book then you should begin a thread in The Book Nook.

But if you're going to join ongoing discussions then please discuss what is already being discussed.

I'll set your suspension to be one day.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Viv Pope, posted 11-25-2009 10:28 AM Viv Pope has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Viv Pope, posted 08-26-2010 2:45 PM Admin has responded

    
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 3246 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 8 of 29 (576935)
08-26-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Admin
11-25-2009 10:52 AM


Re: Banning of dangerous ideas.
Dear Percy,
Thanks for your advice.

The fact is that not all scientific issues, or philosophical concerns pertaining to them, can be encapsulated in the space of a simple slogan.

Anway, sorry for the disturbance. I shall not be troubling you again. If you have any intrinsic concern for this issue I have raised, I invite you to visit the website www.poams.org - or is his to be banned, too?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 11-25-2009 10:52 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 08-26-2010 8:37 PM Viv Pope has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 9 of 29 (577010)
08-26-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Viv Pope
08-26-2010 2:45 PM


Re: Banning of dangerous ideas.
Hi Viv,

If you'd like to participate in discussions then please follow the Forum Guidelines. The rules you were having the most problems with were related to staying on topic, and you often ignored most of what others said in their replies to you.

We understand you feel you were treated unfairly by the physics community, but you can't complain about that in every thread you participate in. Each thread has a topic, and you're expected to stay on topic, something you were having great difficulty doing. Let it go, Viv. Talk about the science and stop talking about the people. You're not going to convince anyone you're right by convincing them that the other physicists were meanies. They could very well be meanies, but that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of your science. You'll only convince people you're right by talking about the science.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Viv Pope, posted 08-26-2010 2:45 PM Viv Pope has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-27-2010 6:34 AM Admin has responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1913 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 10 of 29 (577086)
08-27-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Admin
08-26-2010 8:37 PM


Re: Banning of dangerous ideas.
Well, I am glad you haven't suspended him for more than a day at least.

I don't really know why you can't just let him talk and leave him alone. He is going on towards the end of his life, he obviously is very educated, more than most on this site, and he just has some intriguing, and unorthodox ideas he likes to share. If you feel the way he has posted them is a little contrary to your guidelines, well, so what. His posts are no where near as contrary to the rules as what Dr. A posts every day, but you just happen to like him, so you let him do whatever he wants.

I don't think it would kill you to just leave the guy alone and let him talk if he wants. He is not destroying your website, he is adding some entertainment and food for thought. Who is he hurting? He is an old guy who has spent a great deal of his life studying a serious matter. I say have some compassion, let him be.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 08-26-2010 8:37 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 08-27-2010 6:43 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 11 of 29 (577088)
08-27-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Bolder-dash
08-27-2010 6:34 AM


Re: Banning of dangerous ideas.
Bolder-dash writes:

His posts are no where near as contrary to the rules as what Dr. A posts every day, but you just happen to like him, so you let him do whatever he wants.

Dr Adequate gets suspended regularly.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-27-2010 6:34 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 29 (577253)
08-27-2010 7:15 PM


NOT SURE where to place this
Hiding unsupported assertions. --Admin

i want to protest this action as I am NOT in the science forums andmy understanding of the rules means i do not have to provide scientific evidence to support my points.

i have noticed i am the only one who has been targeted while the atheists have made many unsupported assertions throughout the threads i participate in down there and they do not get such action taken against them.

if you think it is unsupported then ask me to clarify.


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Admin, posted 08-27-2010 8:17 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-28-2010 7:47 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12630
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 13 of 29 (577264)
08-27-2010 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 7:15 PM


Re: NOT SURE where to place this
archaeologist writes:

i want to protest this action as I am NOT in the science forums andmy understanding of the rules means i do not have to provide scientific evidence to support my points.

I don't know why you think this. That's not what the Forum Guidelines say.

Points should be supported by evidence and argument. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

What I have observed is that you keep repeating the same points over and over again without providing any evidence or argument. You've made very clear what you believe. Now you need to help people understand why you believe it. In case you missed it, be sure you read Message 63.

In the future, queries like this should be posted to Report discussion problems here: No.2. I've posted this link to you several times before, you might want to bookmark it this time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 7:15 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1913 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 14 of 29 (577427)
08-28-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 7:15 PM


Re: NOT SURE where to place this
Hi Bolder-Dash,

I'm sorry you're not happy with the way this site is moderated, but if you're having problems with discussion then you should be posting to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. Please be specific.

--Admin

Get used to it.

They have already stated here that their goal is to try to convince the fence sitters to convert to their religion of atheism with whatever type of scheming works best, so forcing critics on evolution into virtually impossible debate parameters is one of the ways they try to do that. They have no interest in science or truth.

For instance, Dr. A can just vomit on his typewriter, over and and over that "You are wrong, and I am right, so go read a book stupid.", whereas if you respond by saying something like, "Well, no actually that experiment only shows that some type of mutation may have occured, it provides no evidence whatsoever for the complex interplay of a series of mutations, which gradually brought about a macro-evolutionary change, much less providing evidence for the mechanisms of that mutation"- and they can respond by saying-

"Provide evidence for your nonsense, you have continually been warned not to veer off topic, your positions are unsupported, we only do science here, if you can't understand biology don't comment here...you have been warned."

They feel that constantly proclaiming their superiority is one way to fool suckers who aren't paying attention. They have no respect for the intelligence of the fence sitters they need to convince (even though polls in America repeatedly show that most people aren't convinced.)

Of course you can't win here, but what you can do is make it obvious how unsupported their own positions are, by showing the fence sitters they are trying so desperately to convince the ridiculous standards they apply here; and that's worth something.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Add hide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 7:15 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 7:43 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1913 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 15 of 29 (577625)
08-29-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Bolder-dash
08-28-2010 7:47 PM


Re: NOT SURE where to place this
I thought this topic was about thoughts on moderation and bannings? My remarks were ONLY about thoughts on moderation and banning, and yet you censored them.

I also thought this board doesn't erase posts? I guess that is also a lie, because what I wrote was not contrary to any of your rules. It simply was critical of your moderation. Have you now decided to start censoring any posts that are critical? If you think my post was against the rules-repost my comments and let others judge if they were in any way against any rules.

Am I now going to be suspended for talking about your moderation on a topic about moderation?

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-28-2010 7:47 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Admin, posted 08-29-2010 8:41 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 22 by archaeologist, posted 09-14-2010 5:28 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019