Originally Posted by
forrest noble
This does not happen often but the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes three of four long postings of quotations, to keep the reader away from relevant/ valuable comments by the OP, pushing their reply to the top of the page or to a prior page.
And, of course, you have evidence for this declaration of motive.
Repeated questions by the same person: Many questions were asked over and over again even when the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody. This was a very big problem and I feel certain that those doing it understood what they were doing, i.e wasting my time to reply to unanswered questions. I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question. It was easier to answer the same question multiple times when asked by the same person, rather than get warned to answer the questions by the moderator -- a strategy of intimidation by the questioner.
And, of course, you have evidence that it was understandable and clear to almost anybody and that the question had been answered--instead of, as often seems to be the case, an answer to some question which hadn't been asked.
Lack of understanding: Many of those asking questions could not understand sometimes simple concepts and answers. This, in some cases, may have been a reason why the same questions were repeatedly asked. In frustration I suggested that maybe somebody else reading my answers could help explain them to the questioner, after my answering the same question using different wording. The questioner complained to the moderator and I was warned concerning suspension. For this problem I don't know how new rules could help. But maybe somebody else might have an idea.
And, of course, you have evidence that it was their lack of understanding that was the issue, not yours. And that you did your best to put it in the simplest terms possible. And that your terms were being used in a standard fashion.
Several persons had favorable comments concerning the OP and gave, what I considered very valuable comments. They were told not to partake in meta-discussions, and warned of suspension.
Yeah, I have no problem there, honestly. The ATM thread is supposed to be about the quality of the evidence, not the positive comments of the people reading it. I've always reported what I consider to be superfluous negative comments, too.
Moderators seemingly are biased against the OP, regardless of what the subject is. Some moderators, I believe, think they are doing a service by favoring opponents of the OP. This favoritism is based upon presuming some commentators know what they are talking about, and the OP does not. Other moderators may not even be aware of their own bias. I also feel that moderators seldom recognize those deceitful tactics described above. I'm not sure anything can be done about some of these tactics and the rules other than this posting, and moderators becoming aware of some of these unwanted/ deceitful tactics.
In many cases, it is not a presumption that certain commentators know what they're talking about. It is established fact through prior discussion and, sometimes, knowledge of the person's profession. If someone who works in aerospace tells you that your idea on that subject is wrong, it gives a stronger presumption that your idea actually is wrong. There are other people where that isn't true--you shouldn't take my word about science as gospel, for starters! However, there are also times when the OP's ignorance is so apparent that even I know it--and have since elementary school.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
