Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 496

Thread: Over moderation

  1. #331
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Jim,

    He said that in response to pzkpfw, who in post #24 required
    Solon to explain why he was asking.
    Because by post #24, it was quite obvious why he was asking.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Should he have refused to answer? Should he have lied? Should he never ask a
    question in Q&A unless his motives are mainstream?
    None of the above. But I think you should read post #15 again, if you think Solon didn't have and ulterior motive prior to pzkpfw asking about it in post #24.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Just because the reasons for asking his questions are absurd
    doesn't mean they should be shunted off into the garbage pit.
    No, but if he rejects the mainstream answers, then yes, it should be put into CT or ATM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Everyone has absurd ideas, at least occasionally. If Solon
    wants to research his absurd idea, he should be able to do so
    in the main library with everyone else who isn't posing a
    physical danger to others.
    Except the CT and ATM fora are there(partly) to contain CT and ATM ideas in their own fora. It's like someone going to Q and A and continues asking why photons can't go faster than c, and when told they don't and given a list of experiments, they tell you they don't accept those experiments, and then ask again why photons can't go faster than c.

  2. #332
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,672
    As often is the case, Tensor gets it exactly right.

    Any member is perfectly allowed to ask Questions in Q&A. But if they can't help putting in (some or all of) the ATM or CT reasons or context for their question, then that question will tend to be shifted to the ATM or CT forum. (For this thread there was some debate about which was best).

    It's a base-line standard of BAUT that the Q&A forum stays "pure".
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  3. #333
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    ... but the library isn't obliged to give him a soapbox to
    preach his absurd idea from.
    You are right, and he didn't come here to preach anything.
    He came here to ask a question. He tried to avoid saying
    why he was asking, and managed not to say until after he
    was required by moderators to say it.

    The soapbox was forced under his feet by the moderators.

    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    And if he isn't willing to entertain the idea that his absurd
    idea might actually be absurd, he's wasting everyone's time
    by asking us to be his research librarians because then
    what he's doing has nothing to do with research, since a
    requirement for that is a willingness to learn.
    Anyone who doesn't want to respond to absurd questions
    has all kinds of options of other things to do.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .

  4. #334
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    He said that in response to pzkpfw, who in post #24 required
    Solon to explain why he was asking.
    Because by post #24, it was quite obvious why he was asking.
    No it wasn't.

    We didn't learn what he had in mind until post #30.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Should he have refused to answer? Should he have lied?
    Should he never ask a question in Q&A unless his motives
    are mainstream?
    None of the above. But I think you should read post #15 again,
    if you think Solon didn't have an ulterior motive prior to pzkpfw
    asking about it in post #24.
    Of course he had a motive beyond what he was revealing.
    And of course that became obvious early on.

    If you have a motive for asking a question that you haven't
    said, should you be required to say what the motive is?
    If others suspect that the motive for your question is based
    on beliefs which conflict with theirs, should you be required
    to say what your motive is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Just because the reasons for asking his questions are absurd
    doesn't mean they should be shunted off into the garbage pit.
    No, but if he rejects the mainstream answers, then yes, it
    should be put into CT or ATM.
    Possibly, but I find the idea troubling. It comes very close to
    ostracizing anyone who questions the validity of information
    you give them, if you believe the information is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Everyone has absurd ideas, at least occasionally. If Solon
    wants to research his absurd idea, he should be able to do so
    in the main library with everyone else who isn't posing a
    physical danger to others.
    Except the CT and ATM fora are there(partly) to contain CT
    and ATM ideas in their own fora. It's like someone going to
    Q and A and continues asking why photons can't go faster
    than c, and when told they don't and given a list of experiments,
    they tell you they don't accept those experiments, and then ask
    again why photons can't go faster than c.
    I don't see anything wrong with that, though it does show a
    weakness in my argument. I would be inclined to ask the
    questioner why he doesn't accept the experiments, which
    could result in a presentation of an ATM theory.

    But is that such a bad thing? Wanting answers to his nagging
    questions, the questioner is required to defend his views.
    Is that really how it should work?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .

  5. #335
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    It's a base-line standard of BAUT that the Q&A forum stays "pure".
    As Jay Utah said upthread, that has only developed recently.
    I'd say it first became noticeable 2-3 years ago, and became
    quite stringent within the last year.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .

  6. #336
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Of course, he didn't come here to present his beliefs.
    I disagree. He has presented ATM beliefs.

    He came here to ask a question. He is still trying to get an answer.
    He asked questions in the thread about ISS images, then when those were provided, he shifted goalposts to exclude them. When images were provided that conformed to his additional requirements, he shifted goalposts again to exclude them. I have requested clarification, and asked him to state exactly what he would accept, but he hasn't done that. On the contrary, he has added more vague parameters.

    At this point, the original thread question doesn't even make sense given his exclusions. It does not appear to have been an honest request.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #337
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,638
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    As often is the case, Tensor gets it exactly right.

    Any member is perfectly allowed to ask Questions in Q&A. But if they can't help putting in (some or all of) the ATM or CT reasons or context for their question, then that question will tend to be shifted to the ATM or CT forum. (For this thread there was some debate about which was best).

    It's a base-line standard of BAUT that the Q&A forum stays "pure".
    Please note that we even "protected" Solon when Astromark wrote down his suspicion of him having a "hidden agenda." We warned Astromark about that. However, in the end he was right and the hidden agenda was revealed. And ofcourse we already knew about Solon's ATM ideas about stars. but gave him leeway ANYWAY in Q&A.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  8. #338
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    with some amusement... I was not granted my due... and still feel a little aggravation as to my treatment.. I was right...

    but as often said.. moved on.. and still trying to get 'Solon' to come round.. It's still fun here.

  9. #339
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,408
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    with some amusement... I was not granted my due... and still feel a little aggravation as to my treatment.. I was right...
    I think what happened here is that airing those suspicions without sufficiently evidence is considered inappropriate. If such evidence later comes to light, though it confirms that the suspicion was correct, it doesn't make that specific post less inappropriate or any censure done in response to it less correct.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  10. #340
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,672
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    with some amusement... I was not granted my due... and still feel a little aggravation as to my treatment.. I was right...

    ...
    Yes: right or wrong isn't the point. You don't make those kinds of accusation in-thread. Make a report. Only.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  11. #341
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Wanting answers to his nagging
    questions, the questioner is required to defend his views.
    Is that really how it should work?
    When he continually dismisses the answers he is given in direct response to his questions, yes. When he demonstrates his own lack of understanding (for example, as he has now twice done, by 'imagining' that some piece of equipment worked in a totally different way that rendered it invalid as a response to his question) yet maintains it as a reason for dismissing answers, yes.

    When someone asks me a question, I devote time and effort into answering him to the best of my ability, and he dismisses my answer, yes I want an explanation for that.

  12. #342
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    He's still trying to get an answer
    he can use.
    Use for what? He just finds ways of shifting the goalposts and rejecting any answers that might contradict his world view. Typical behavior of an ATM/CT proponent. And that was abundantly clear before the thread got moved (and is the reason it was moved).

    I find it interesting
    that it never occurred to me to report Solon's post, or that anyone
    else might report it. I'm sure you find that interesting, too.
    I don't find it the least bit interesting. I came very close to reporting the thread several times before it got moved - and I hardly ever report posts however egregious.

  13. #343
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Of course, he didn't come here to present his beliefs.
    I disagree. He has presented ATM beliefs.
    Obviously. How is that disagreeing with what I said?
    People don't always do what they try to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    He asked questions in the thread about ISS images, then
    when those were provided, he shifted goalposts to exclude
    them. When images were provided that conformed to his
    additional requirements, he shifted goalposts again to
    exclude them.
    ...
    It does not appear to have been an honest request.
    It does to me. People frequently discover that what they
    asked for was not what they really wanted. It happens
    when their idea of what they are asking for is wrong.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .

  14. #344
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    <snip>

    Just because the reasons for asking his questions are absurd
    doesn't mean they should be shunted off into the garbage pit.
    So, ATM and CT are garbage pits? Well, being the good environmentalist I am, I should see to shutting those down immediately.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #345
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    People frequently discover that what they
    asked for was not what they really wanted. It happens
    when their idea of what they are asking for is wrong.
    So are you suggesting we let people turn ANY thread into garbage, as long as they didn't do so knowingly?

    Basically - are you saying we should turn a blind eye to the rules and how they're enforced based on peoples intentions, rather than their actual forum activity?

    "Sorry officer, I didn't MEAN to do 125mph down the freeway"

  16. #346
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    People frequently discover that what they
    asked for was not what they really wanted. It happens
    when their idea of what they are asking for is wrong.
    That is not what Solon is doing. He has asked for specific things, been offered them, told us they are not what he asked for (given a whole bunch of images he claimed never existed in the first place, he dismisses them because 'Earth is most likely just out of shot', so he's dismissing them based on something he can't even see!), shifted the definition to make it impossible to meet, and disregarded any and all examples offered to him that met his criteria in other ways.

    Solon is not discovering that what he asked for is not what he wanted, he is sticking to demanding exactly what he asked for and ignoring everything else, despite everything else being highly relevant even if they are not exactly what he asked for.

  17. #347
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Thompson View Post
    That is not what Solon is doing. He has asked for specific things, been offered them, told us they are not what he asked for (given a whole bunch of images he claimed never existed in the first place, he dismisses them because 'Earth is most likely just out of shot', so he's dismissing them based on something he can't even see!), shifted the definition to make it impossible to meet, and disregarded any and all examples offered to him that met his criteria in other ways.
    Solon is not discovering that what he asked for is not what he wanted, he is sticking to demanding exactly what he asked for and ignoring everything else, despite everything else being highly relevant even if they are not exactly what he asked for.

  18. #348
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Because by post #24, it was quite obvious why he was asking.
    No it wasn't.

    We didn't learn what he had in mind until post #30.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    But I think you should read post #15 again,
    if you think Solon didn't have an ulterior motive prior to pzkpfw
    asking about it in post #24.Of course he had a motive beyond what he was revealing.
    And of course that became obvious early on.
    You want to explain the two comments in bold? I say it was obvious what he was asking, you say, "No, it wasn't". Then a few lines further down, you say "Of course it became obvious early on.". Why is it that my statement wasn't obvious, buy your statement is?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    If you have a motive for asking a question that you haven't
    said, should you be required to say what the motive is?
    If others suspect that the motive for your question is based
    on beliefs which conflict with theirs, should you be required
    to say what your motive is?
    Again, no. But if anyone continually rejects evidence and answers given and/or changes the evidence they say they will accept, then yeah, they need to specify quite a few things. Not just their motive.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Possibly, but I find the idea troubling. It comes very close to
    ostracizing anyone who questions the validity of information
    you give them, if you believe the information is correct.
    Which is bogus. You won't find many answers in Q and A that have major differences from poster to poster, for mainstream answers. And if there is a major difference, you can be sure one of them is wrong and will be corrected by other posters shortly. Either that or one of the posters will say, 'Oh, never knew that, thanks".


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I don't see anything wrong with that, though it does show a
    weakness in my argument. I would be inclined to ask the
    questioner why he doesn't accept the experiments, which
    could result in a presentation of an ATM theory.
    Isn't that basically what pzkpfw was doing? Asking Solon to explain his questioning in his very next post? To quote "It starts to look like you are gaming the Q&A forum, rather than simply asking a question. In your next post please clearly explain exactly what it is you think is going on, and what led to your question."

    Note, pzkpfw didn't say he was gaming it, he said it looks like Solon was. Then he asked that in his next post, he clarify. If Solon had simply provided an innocent reason and quit rejecting the explanations given, I'm quite sure the thread would have returned to Q and A.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    But is that such a bad thing? Wanting answers to his nagging
    questions, the questioner is required to defend his views.
    Is that really how it should work?
    Well, in Salon's very next post, the one where he was asked for clarification, there was this, "Those shots serve to reinforce my BELIEF. The stars are only visible within the ionosphere." Which wasn't even addressed to pzkpfw and put the thread into ATM. And then, within another two sentences, it goes into CT, by Solon's own admission: " Now we are in CT land, I will say I think all NASA images are carefully orchestrated."

  19. #349
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    Because by post #24, it was quite obvious why he was asking.
    No it wasn't.
    We didn't learn what he had in mind until post #30.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor
    But I think you should read post #15 again, if you think Solon
    didn't have an ulterior motive prior to pzkpfw asking about it in
    post #24.
    Of course he had a motive beyond what he was revealing.
    And of course that became obvious early on.
    You want to explain the two comments in bold? I say it was
    obvious what he was asking, you say, "No, it wasn't". Then a
    few lines further down, you say "Of course it became obvious
    early on.". Why is it that my statement wasn't obvious, but your
    statement is?
    Heh. Sorry. My last statement above was ambiguous.

    It became obvious early on that he had a motive beyond what
    he was revealing. We didn't learn what that motive was until
    he told us in post #30.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .

  20. #350
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    So I have learned... That to see something that NASA has published. I am being corrupted.. They are telling porkpies..

    Yet when I told what I suspected in forum... and you know the rest. It's wrong and it was dealt with wrong..

    So when I 'see' or think I see a rat.. I will call it a very large mouse. and I might just report it... and slip away quietly..

    And THAT namby pamby soft as butter, is so childish its churlish.. and sad.

    That you gifted 'Solon' that nice attitude has come back at you's.

    YOUR credibility has been hurt. Damaged. and still you woffle...

    You moved his post... you should have just closed it. Hindsight is a easy option..

    I am seeing unfair attitudes...and it like cancer is spreading... look inward and fix this..

  21. #351
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,408
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    You moved his post... you should have just closed it. Hindsight is a easy option..
    I am seeing unfair attitudes...and it like cancer is spreading... look inward and fix this..
    So is that one vote for harsher moderation as long as it's against wooists?
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  22. #352
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Obviously. How is that disagreeing with what I said? People don't always do what they try to do.
    You said he didn't come here to present ATM beliefs, but he did present ATM beliefs, and clearly he knew they were ATM beliefs.

    It does to me. People frequently discover that what they
    asked for was not what they really wanted.
    This is just getting silly. There are multiple examples of goalpost shifting to reject requested evidence, and there have been repeated requests for clarification that he has not answered. Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't expect others to agree with you.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #353
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    How is that disagreeing with what I said? People don't
    always do what they try to do.
    You said he didn't come here to present ATM beliefs, but
    he did present ATM beliefs, and clearly he knew they were
    ATM beliefs.
    Yes. I agree completely with each of those assertions.

    I still say that he did not come here to present any ATM ideas.
    He was pushed into doing so. That may have been inevitable,
    nomatter whether Mark had said anything or not. But he was
    pushed into it. He did not bring up the ATM ideas until he was
    asked to by pzkpfw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    People frequently discover that what they asked for was not
    what they really wanted.
    This is just getting silly. There are multiple examples of
    goalpost shifting to reject requested evidence, and there
    have been repeated requests for clarification that he has
    not answered.
    Yes. Obviously. But what I said is correct, and applies to
    Solon. He asked for something, was given more or less what
    he asked for, and found that it wasn't what he wants after all.
    There is nothing unusual about that. If he knew exactly what
    photography was available, and all the particulars about how
    and where it was taken and what it shows, he might be able
    to craft his question so as to include only what he wants.
    But of course he doesn't know, and if he did, he wouldn't
    need to ask.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .

  24. #354
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Thompson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Wanting answers to his nagging questions, the questioner is
    required to defend his views. Is that really how it should work?
    When he continually dismisses the answers he is given in
    direct response to his questions, yes. When he demonstrates
    his own lack of understanding (for example, as he has now
    twice done, by 'imagining' that some piece of equipment
    worked in a totally different way that rendered it invalid as a
    response to his question) yet maintains it as a reason for
    dismissing answers, yes.
    First, let me point out, in case you have forgotten, that the
    thread being discussed began in Q&A. My statement and
    question above refer to Q&A, not to the ATM or CT areas.

    Suppose you ask a question about Alzheimer's disease.
    You are given several good answers, but you reject them
    all and request new answers. This happens again and
    again, and the other posters suspect your motives. Your
    ulterior motive, which you want to keep to yourself, is that
    you are afraid that you have Alzheimer's disease and are
    trying to find proof that you do not. Should the question
    answerers insist that you defend your views?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .

  25. #355
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I still say that he did not come here to present any ATM ideas.
    He was pushed into doing so.
    He was not pushed into doing it. He did implicitly from the start by the way he rejected the answers provided. He and many others have been warned publicly about introducing ATM ideas into Q&A in this way.

    If someone doesn't accept the standard answers for reasons they know are ATM then they should just shut up. It is not as if he didn't understand the answers; he was rejecting them for a very specific reason and he knew that reason is ATM. In that sense he was introducing doubt about the answers and spreading ATM ideas into the Q&A forum.

  26. #356
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Suppose you ask a question about Alzheimer's disease.
    You are given several good answers, but you reject them
    all and request new answers. This happens again and
    again, and the other posters suspect your motives. Your
    ulterior motive, which you want to keep to yourself, is that
    you are afraid that you have Alzheimer's disease and are
    trying to find proof that you do not. Should the question
    answerers insist that you defend your views?
    .
    In that case you should stop asking the questions. If you are secretly asking the board to do something made impossible by beliefs you will not let go of then you have to stop asking them endless questions and rejecting the answers. If someone is nice enough to try to answer your question then politeness dictates that you listen to them and, if you do disagree, present them with more than just an irrational dismissal.

    Less emotive subject: If I were afraid of spiders and lived in the UK.
    Q Are spiders dangerous
    A No
    Q But they induce fight or flight responses in some people
    A That is a phobia
    Q There has to be a reason for that, how could spiders be dangerous?
    A There are venomous ones in other parts of the world
    Q Right! So spiders are dangerous, you should be scared of them
    A No, around here there is no danger from them
    Q But there could be
    A Not really, the poisonous ones tend to die in our climate
    Q How well tested is that?
    A Fairly
    Q Only I read about some in a box of bananas
    A That was an unusual set of conditions
    Q But look, it happened. So you should be scared of all spiders
    A ...

  27. #357
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    People frequently discover that what they
    asked for was not what they really wanted. It happens
    when their idea of what they are asking for is wrong.
    So are you suggesting we let people turn ANY thread into
    garbage, as long as they didn't do so knowingly?
    No, I'm suggesting that a poster should not be considered
    dishonest because he starts a thread to try to get answers to
    his questions, but doesn't ask the questions he thinks he is
    asking and therefore gets answers that don't suit his needs.

    Quote Originally Posted by djellison View Post
    Basically - are you saying we should turn a blind eye to the
    rules and how they're enforced based on peoples intentions,
    rather than their actual forum activity?
    No.

    I'm saying that being dissatisfied with answers to questions
    should not be against the forum rules. Being persistent should
    not be against the forum rules. I don't believe they are.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

    .

  28. #358
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I'm saying that being dissatisfied with answers to questions
    should not be against the forum rules. Being persistent should
    not be against the forum rules. I don't believe they are.
    If that is because you don't understand or because you think people have misunderstood the question, then that is OK.

    But when, as was obvious from the start in this case (1), it is because you are looking for support for an ATM idea - which you know is ATM (2) - then it is absolutely against the rules.

    (1) I groaned inwardly when I saw the question and thought, "here we go again". But I assumed the overwhelming evidence might "cure" solon....
    (2) and is non-scientific garbage involving a conspiracy of thousands, possibly millions, from dozens of countries over decades if not centuries.

  29. #359
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,086
    And the latest response to solon shows how incredibly lenient, flexible, generous and generally easy going the moderators are. (One might even say "soft" ... )

  30. #360
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I'm saying that being dissatisfied with answers to questions
    should not be against the forum rules. Being persistent should
    not be against the forum rules. I don't believe they are.
    They are. If someone is not making a proper attempt to answer peoples questions in ATM - they're breaking the rules. If they persistently promote that ATM theory without bringing data to the table - that's against the rules.

    Why do you want to see that changed?

Similar Threads

  1. Quality of moderation - ATM/CT
    By kamaz in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2010-Nov-29, 05:57 PM
  2. ATM moderation...
    By gzhpcu in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-23, 04:47 PM
  3. Self moderation of ATM
    By aastrotech in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-27, 07:06 PM
  4. Over-Moderation
    By crosscountry in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 323
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-21, 05:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: