Rules discussion

[Fram]

cl14, smearing theories (which can't be proven, even though some are probably basically correct, e.g. evolution) is allowed and isn't ad hominem, ever. Still, you are supposed on this board to back up any attack on a mainstream theory with facts, or admit that it is just a hunch and you have no serious arguments.
Furthermore, not all attacks on a person are ad hominems. If someone can show why he thinks that Einstein has conned us (e.g. a letter from him stating that "haha, I fooled them all"), then it isn't an ad hominem attack to do so. Similarly, if someone tells a blatant lie (like saying (I never claimed X or Y), then pointing that out isn't an ad hominem attack either, if you can show where and how the person lied.
On the other hand, saying "Einstein conned us" and then only trying to show that his theory is wrong, but not that he willingly or knowingly misled us, is indeed an ad hominem.

Another point: I don't think it is allowed to put a link to your own website, and then putting on that website "The BA stinks" (sorry BA, just giving an example). But linking to a third party website that contains ad hominems (say, Hoagland's website, or GLP) is something else. Although in the latter case it is best to warn people that the link can cause permanent brain damage, it can hardly be forbidden to link to that site, if it is pertinent to a discussion.
Of course, linking to shock sites, porn, or other unacceptable sites (for this board) is still forbidden, and has resulted in warnings yet. So basically I see no double standard.
To give one more example: if you would write :"Neil Armstrong is a nitwit", then you would use an ad hominem and have to face the repercussions. On the other hand, if you report on Bart Sibrel and quote him saying "Neil Armstrong is a nitwit", then you are not using an ad hominem (unless you continue with 'and I agree' of course).
The line between the acceptable and the unacceptable is of course not that clear as I try to show here, but I do think that most people know when they have gone too far and crossed it. And when in doubt, ask a moderator.

[Moose]

Moose, I think that you are not getting it:
I am AGAINST personal attacks. What gets me is the double-standard exhibited by this site when it comes to calling the attackers on what they are doing.

Ah. Gotcha. My apologies.

If I were to believe what you are saying, it is perfectly ok to smear recognized scientists and proven theories with impunity.

It's okay to criticize recognized scientists and proven theories so long as you can back up what you're saying.

Take Richard Feynman, for example. The man is undoubtedly brilliant, but perhaps at least somewhat naive. He uses metaphysical terms when describing evolution that I feel contributes to the layperson's confusion and plays right into the hands of the anti-science crowd.

During the Dover trial, Michael Behe tried to play on Feynman's metaphor (by selectively interpreting Feynman's words literally). That it ended up having no signficant impact on the trial was more a reflection of Behe's dismal performance as an "expert" witness than it was of how much or little opportunity for mischief was opened by Feynman's words.

Now. In those two paragraphs, it could be said (by the dishonest) that I've ad-hommed Behe and even Feynman. I didn't. Criticism is fine, so long as you're describing the argument/behavior, and not the person.

"01101001" got it right. Thank you for your help in setting Moose right.

I'm glad for the correction.

As an aside, what got me suspended was calling a guy who was soliciting funds for a phony experiment (one that would prove how "wrong" special relativity is) a crook.

Right. Whether or not it's accurate (and I don't have a horse in that race), that's a fairly clear ad-hom.

[clj4]

OK, so do we adjust the rules or not? Where is this discussion leading?

For example , should the thread listed below be closed?

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36020

Note the:
-offensive title and content
-indefinite circular argument

[Moose]

*shrug* It's up to the admin, but I don't really see any reason to amend the rules. It's pretty much all covered, both in writing and in practice.

The rules are there. They just need to be followed.

As for the thread you've brought up, I don't see that wisp has done anything wrong. He's mistaken, as others have shown, and that's fine in itself. It's never been about shouting down people with alternative ideas.

Again, it's up to the admin, but I don't really see that they'd have any reason to close the thread at this point.

[clj4]

Well, I guess that it is ok to put up a thread entitled (for example): "Are we being Conned by the Bad Astronomer", right? Follows the same logic. Should not result into any punishment , correct?.

Especially if we argue indefinitely that the ridiculous statement in the title is true by throwing in every conceivable argument together with the kitchen sink.

[Moose]

Well, I guess that it is ok to put up a thread entitled (for example): "Are we being Conned by the Bad Astronomer", right? Follows the same logic. Should not result into any punishment , correct?.

There's one sure way to find out.

Such a claim would be easily refuted anyway, considering that BA is in no way asking us for money or material goods.

[Wolverine]

*shrug* It's up to the admin, but I don't really see any reason to amend the rules. It's pretty much all covered, both in writing and in practice.

The rules are there. They just need to be followed.

As for the thread you've brought up, I don't see that wisp has done anything wrong. He's mistaken, as others have shown, and that's fine in itself. It's never been about shouting down people with alternative ideas.

Again, it's up to the admin, but I don't really see that they'd have any reason to close the thread at this point.

Agreed.

[HenrikOlsen]

OK, so do we adjust the rules or not? Where is this discussion leading?

For example , should the thread listed below be closed?

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36020

Note the:
-offensive title and content
-indefinite circular argument

If I remember correctly, and I'm not going to read the entier thread again, the original poster has explained that english isn't his first language and he used "conned" without knowing that it implied malicious intent, so the title wasn't intentionally offensive.
If you start a thread titled "Are we being Conned by the Bad Astronomer", it's going to be difficult to argue that offense wasn't intended, which makes the two situations very different.

[clj4]

If I remember correctly, and I'm not going to read the entier thread again, the original poster has explained that english isn't his first language and he used "conned" without knowing that it implied malicious intent, so the title wasn't intentionally offensive.

Excuse me? He is an Englishman.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]If I remember correctly, and I'm not going to read the entire thread again, the original poster has explained that English isn't his first language and he used "conned" without knowing that it implied malicious intent, so the title wasn't intentionally offensive.[Snip!]

It was Relmuis who felt that the choice of the word "conned" was an unhappy one in post #22 of that thread. In post #26 Relmuis admits that English is not his first language. Of course Relmuis is absolutely correct about the word "conned" having negative connotations.

If you check wisp's profile I think you will infer that English is very probably wisp's primary language; he knew exactly what word he wanted and used it.

[Wolverine]

The most productive, reasonable course of action in this case consists of demonstrating why the poster's arguments are incorrect. While I'm not very fond of the OP's choice of terms in the thread title, there's really nothing actionable in that regard.

[clj4]

The most productive, reasonable course of action in this case consists of demonstrating why the poster's arguments are incorrect.

Several of us did so, for about 3 weeks now. Only to be given circular arguments.

While I'm not very fond of the OP's choice of terms in the thread title, there's really nothing actionable in that regard.

Why not? It is an ad hominem attack.Not against a forum member but against a respected scientist (one of the most respected scientists?). Why allow this ? You've been very quick to warn me, suspend me, etc. You must have received some complaints against these types of threads and against this type of language.....I know of at least one.

[SolusLupus]

At least change the thread title to something less objectionable.

[ToSeek]

It is an ad hominem attack.Not against a forum member but against a respected scientist (one of the most respected scientists?).

No, it's not. An ad hominem attack is along the lines of, "You're an idiot, therefore you must be wrong." That doesn't remotely resemble either the title or the presentation in that thread.

[Wolverine]

Several of us did so, for about 3 weeks now. Only to be given circular arguments.

And the discussion is most helpful in addressing the poster's misconceptions. Most often in these sorts of interactions that's something that cannot be accomplished overnight. The administrators' outlook reflects a position of latitude -- care is taken to ensure that participants follow the forum rules, while leeway is extended to ATM proponents... up to a certain point, at which the mods and admins will intervene, in keeping with the FAQ.

What you're asking us to do isn't reasonable. We encourage participation, not censorship. It is not our aim to go about quelling the discussion of ideas, whether we like them or not.

Why not? It is an ad hominem attack.Not against a forum member but against a respected scientist (one of the most respected scientists?). Why allow this ?

As ToSeek has pointed out above, your assessment isn't correct. While the thread title may be in poor form, it is not actionable.

You've been very quick to warn me, suspend me, etc.

Only because you violated the forum rules. Those apply to everyone here. Had wisp or anyone else behaved in an equally impolite fashion, they too would have been warned and/or suspended accordingly.

Being rude to someone with whom you disagree will not help them understand why their arguments are incorrect; it only serves to exacerbate the situation. Needless to say, we strongly frown on that.

You must have received some complaints against these types of threads and against this type of language.....I know of at least one.

Aside from your report, the only others I've received pertaining to the thread in question concerned your violations of our civility & decorum rules.

The presentation of circular arguments will not be allowed indefinitely. We will review the situation based upon its content and intervene as necessary. In the meantime, I'd place a strong emphasis on patience.

If you objectively examine our actions (look through the banned posters log, for example), you will see we evenly enforce the forum guidelines. I think perhaps you've taken this instance too personally.

[clj4]

The presentation of circular arguments will not be allowed indefinitely. We will review the situation based upon its content and intervene as necessary. In the meantime, I'd place a strong emphasis on patience.

we will see... let's talk 3 months and hundreds of circular arguments from now....

[Galactic2000]

Hi Administrators and Moderators,

I've been on this group for a couple of years now, posting casually.......I must say this is my first time I actually went and read all the forum rules....including some of the banned stuff....WOW!!!

I had no clue how much you all have to deal with on a daily basis.........
This is why the forums are so great...........its you all working hard in the background making it a great place to frequent for all, including myself and my kids.

I have a whole new respect for your efforts...............Keep up the good work! You will always have my support.............

Best Regards,
John

[Thomas(believer)]

When I read the posts in the ATM section and also the special rules for posting in this section, I notice that there is much emphasis on attacking the weak parts of these theories. I don't have the feeling this is a good basis for a constructive discussion.

Maybe the tone should be a different. Something like this:
We will attack all the flaws in your theory with fervour, but you also can be sure that we take the good and interesting elements in your theory very serious, will examine it thoroughly, discuss it with our colleges, etcetera

This sounds more freindly, but also shows the will to build on something.
I agree that it is important to let the people know, you are not going to make it easy for them.

Another point, I mentioned here on this board.
Sometimes it needs controversal ideas to make breakthroughs.
When it is a good contrversal idea, it won't be easy to prove it nor to disprove it. If it could be proven easily from observed data, it would not be a controversal idea, but probably a mainstream idea already.

Maybe you should keep this somewhere in your mind:
Wouldn't it be great if a new meanstream theory was born on this board in the ATM section.

I hope my comments are of any use to this board.

Thomas.

[peter eldergill]

The problem with that occurs when there are many problems....the weakest is the easiest to attack. There need be only 1 error and your whole argument falls apart.

There is a story about a contest to prove Fermat's Last Theorem (it has since been proved). There was prize money to prove it and the reviewers had a form saying something like "Thank you for your submission. Your first error is on page ___ line____. We are returning your transcript without further review after that point"

I suppose they would get thousands of submissions which were not so good

Pete

[01101001]

When I read the posts in the ATM section and also the special rules for posting in this section, I notice that there is much emphasis on attacking the weak parts of these theories. I don't have the feeling this is a good basis for a constructive discussion.

Maybe the tone should be a different. Something like this:
We will attack all the flaws in your theory with fervour, but you also can be sure that we take the good and interesting elements in your theory very serious, will examine it thoroughly, discuss it with our colleges, etcetera

It seems to me like you might have a low opinion of the durability of advocates in Against the Mainstream. How much hand-holding do you think they need?

Anyone who spends a little time here reading some threads should discover that novel good ideas are warmly accepted -- even if they don't inspire expressed affirmative attaboys. If an idea is of high quality, rest assured its audience will use it to our own personal advantage, and share it with others if we see fit -- just like any good idea encountered anywhere. Is that not sufficient?

I just don't see why the official rules should require us to do so, or even give vague promises that we will.

This sounds more freindly, but also shows the will to build on something.

It's a friendly board. It is. No extra friendliness is due to ATM advocates. They are not more fragile than any other participants.

[Thomas(believer)]

There is a story about a contest to prove Fermat's Last Theorem (it has since been proved). There was prize money to prove it and the reviewers had a form saying something like "Thank you for your submission. Your first error is on page ___ line____. We are returning your transcript without further review after that point"
Pete

I think there is a difference between mathematics and physics in ths aspect.
Mathemics is very black and white. Something is proven right or wrong.
In physics you often can speak of a good or a better model. More complete if you like.

It's a friendly board. It is. No extra friendliness is due to ATM advocates. They are not more fragile than any other participants.

I know this is a friendly board, that's why I like to visit it.
It was not my intention to make the people more friendly.
Just the rules.

[Nivag]

I should have known better. Sorry.

This is an interesting area of grammar evolution/devolution. "They" or "them" or "their" are being used in place of the singular he (him, his) or she (her, hers) because some writers are attempting to be gender neutral.

I se it more as being "gender apropriate", with the additional benfit that "they, their, & them" apply to one or more people while words like "he, she, him, her, his, & hers" not only specify a particular gender but forces the singular.

Actually I was using "they, their, & them" long before the PC craze came about.


-Nivag

[frogesque]

If in doubt, leave it out.

The sense of it would carry more dynamic weight if it were broken and re-written:

"Since this rule is perforce general, we will attempt to correct the problem by warning the violator (via PM, email, or posting in the thread), giving them a chance to explain. We will take further action only if proven necessary."

However, since this could be construed as disruptive I will simply say, "Good rule!"

[Sleepy]

I always feel so pedantic when I point out errors like that, and I have a tendency to make dumb errors in the process

Tis one of the fundamental rules of the intenet: when pointing out a grammatical error in anothers posts, you must make an error in yours.

[Kesh]

Good rule.

I bit worried that it can open the door to punishing someone for just being human and correcting someone's misstep even if it is off topic.

Another problem I can see is moderators being too subjective in what is thought of as "off topic".

Things could be taken too far end evolve into someone taking action against someone because of personal preference. But I will have faith that this will not happen.

There is an obvious joke I could make here about worrying what I just said now was off topic, but I won't tell it.

I have a feeling the mods will be looking closely at posts to see if they violate the other 13 rules, and warning the poster in question, before resorting to Rule 14.

It's one of those painfully necessary rules. There's always the person who subtly runs threads off-track without trolling, multi-posts to unrelated threads on a common subject, or generally posts nonsense for their own amusement. Plus, there are other tricks I've seen, such as incredibly huge signature lines (to force people to scroll far too much), or posting copy & paste replies to multiple threads. None of those directly violate the other rules, but are quite disruptive to the community in general.

This rule will help curtail that kind of behavior and, judging from the mods behavior on this board, it will not be used lightly.

[Halcyon Dayz]

It is always convenient to have a Rule #14.

[nokton]

Folks-

The admins and moderators, after a lengthy discussion, have added a new rule to the board. It is Rule 14, "Disruptive Behavior":



If you haven't read the rules in a while, maybe now is a good time to re-familiarize yourself with them.

Thanks,

Phil (on behalf of the BAUT Admin team)

Read, and as a contributor to this site, think it a wise decision.
Chaos rules in the absence of a formal statement of intent, and the
power to carry out that intent. So is order realised.
Nokton.

[Enzp]

... give violators a chance to explain themselves...

...give a violator the chance to explain...

...give a violator the chance to make an explanation...

etc.

It is rarely difficult to rewrite the sentence in the plural wihtout losing the sense. And if it just has to be in the singular, again it can be restructured without a lot of effort to eliminate the need for a non- specific pronoun.

[nokton]

No worries. I'm finally going to be learning about the Big Bang theory next semester. I'm sure there's lots you'll be able to catch me on then.



Indeed. It's a shame we must be so politically correct. It would be nice if someone could come up with a method that sounded less awkward.

Friend, learning next?, learn now, draw on your current knowledge.
Read and evaluate, your brain is yours for the thinking.
Sorry Scifi If I offend you, politically correct? Give me a prayer.
Is truth denied because of denial of true expression.
God me strength here.
Nokton.

[maydaynm]

OK, Phil - I have detected two errors of your today. First of all, on KMOX radio, you called the Law of Gravity a "theory." That would be a pretty big change from my days of scientific study if you were correct in your reference. How about that?

Secondly, in your verbiage for Rule #14, you used "themself." Ugg - could that possibly be a word? I thought it was themselves or himself or herself or maybe for sake of space him/herself.

I like many of your ideas, but you don't have to bash the faith people in order to do good science. Please remember how often strong scientific evidence has been thoroughly wrong and maybe it will help you with any scientific arrogance with which you might struggle.