PDA

View Full Version : im criticizing how the ATM boards are policed



sabianq
2010-Feb-04, 03:16 AM
hi all,
under Forum Introductions and Feedback forum heading it says to "Introduce yourself, then criticize, compliment, or discuss how we do things."

so i would like to point out some things that i see as not quite fair..

this thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/99993-what-times-now.html
has been running around in circles with out a shred of math.
the poster is obviously ill prepared..
not only that, he clearly states

I would like to read the ideas of some of the imtrellectual free thinking members of this forum in these regards.



but he was given a chance and that chance is still being given. people are still asking the same questions and are allowed critique his observations regardless of how incoherent or coherent they are..
I am sure that it will last the obligatory 30 days before it gets shut down..

OK
here
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/99512-another-black-hole-proposal.html

this thread was given a few chances for its defense

first it was hijacked
then he said

I would appreciate if others could help in the form of critique and finding evidence for this theory.

for which he was given a warning.
but the thread was allowed to continue.
not a shred of math rather a statement by the op the math given from mainstream was wrong..
yet, this nonsense thread was/ still is given 237 chances.

what about this one?
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/99989-scientific-nonsense-myths.html
Scientific nonsense and myths
the title should have caused it to be shut down
alas, it was given 130 chances to make a non-point.

here is an interesting one.
Astrology debunking [has] FAIL [ed]?
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/100145-astrology-debunk-fail.html
astrology?
at least it was given 16 tries and 13 hours before it was shut down..

then there is mine
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/100204-dark-energy-another-alternative.html
speculation about dark matter
at least i am proposing something that breaks no laws of conservation
and may be verifiable or completely debunked given the right direction..

i start by asking


Dark Energy, what is it?
what is it effects?
why was it proposed in the first place?

and give links to mainstream answers to the questions.

i suggest that a solution cannot break any laws of conservation
and that they must follow current understanding..


well, i don't want to break any laws so my idea should be consistent with the conservation of energy thing...


and i like Einsteins ideas on gravity warping spacetime so "dark energy" should [fit] in nicely with GR...

the word "fit" was left out because of a simple typo.

the only reply allowed is

You can say what ever you want about Dark Energy. There isn't enough information on what it is to make any sort of judgment on what it actually is.

I will point out tho that General Relativity handles Dark Energy perfectly fine.
which i already pointed out in my initial statement.
not to mention the fact that i really wanted to (and still do) dive into the math.
i would really like to know if there is something to my speculation or if it is really not a viable solution (so i can think about something else)

then after only 2 hours and 4 tries (3 if you don't include the moderators statement saying that it will be closed)

far less time given to an astrology thread..
it was abruptly shut down..

looking at the examples noted above, plus many more on the ATM, i would have to conclude that the threads are not being given equal latitude.

astrology?
really?

tommac
2010-Feb-04, 03:47 AM
Hah! i would have been banned 10 posts ago.

korjik
2010-Feb-04, 04:49 AM
What exactly are you hoping for here? The mods to beg for your forgiveness?

You ask a very broad question with the seeming intent to go ATM, without even knowing background, and you are suprised your thread was closed?

If you want to discuss something, learn the background first. then come here and make a thread. It isnt rocket science.

astromark
2010-Feb-04, 09:49 AM
Questions and answers;
I saw a question.
I watched some responses.
Even found some informative and entertaining...
Contributed and went off to read some more.
I thought I might come back with some more regarding what dark energy is and,
why we have fallen into this trap of calling it Dark Energy when we know little more than nothing of it.
Other than... something is accelerating that apparent expansion.

Are we not allowed to talk of this ?

You have lost me... I do not understand your view.
I think unreasonably judgmental bulling is apparent here. I see shouting and table banging... Tolerance and understanding gone...
We are not all children. I think unreasonable actions have resulted in a injustice. Not proper. Not right. WRONG !
But then what I think has no weight here.

Advise. Redirect. Inform. Question and Answer... No its not rocket science.
Its something else.

NB. Do not PM me... I do not care for the attitude I see...A disappointed Mark.

Veeger
2010-Feb-04, 01:35 PM
Questions and answers;
I saw a question.
I watched some responses.
Even found some informative and entertaining...
Contributed and went off to read some more.
I thought I might come back with some more regarding what dark energy is and,
why we have fallen into this trap of calling it Dark Energy when we know little more than nothing of it.
Other than... something is accelerating that apparent expansion.

Are we not allowed to talk of this ?

You have lost me... I do not understand your view.
I think unreasonably judgmental bulling is apparent here. I see shouting and table banging... Tolerance and understanding gone...
We are not all children. I think unreasonable actions have resulted in a injustice. Not proper. Not right. WRONG !
But then what I think has no weight here.

Advise. Redirect. Inform. Question and Answer... No its not rocket science.
Its something else.

NB. Do not PM me... I do not care for the attitude I see...A disappointed Mark.

What...? I am not following you at all.
Do you agree with the OP?

01101001
2010-Feb-04, 03:07 PM
so i would like to point out some things that i see as not quite fair..

I don't see how different topics and different posters using different methods and different particpants with different agendas and different moderators having different views are ever going to produce results deemed uniformly fair by all involved.

Take this for what it's worth: Some long time ago, I eventually stopped turning to the it's-not-fair argument, finding more profit in the how-can-we-work-together-to-solve-our-common-problem approach to problem solving. Give it a shot.

I'm curious though about your other tack in the article in now-closed topic of where does "Dark Energy" come from? (is there a mainstream idea as to it's origin) (http://www.bautforum.com/1674025-post11.html), where you asked:


so where exactly is the right place in the forums for such ATM speculation?

I gotta ask: What is "ATM speculation"?

As I saw it there in Q&A you were asking about dark energy, and receiving some background on its likely nature, some ideas and some pointers to surveys that fit with what is known about the curious place-holder concept that is by its nature and name an unknown mechanism.

Much of that was ordinary speculation as I understand the word -- conjecture, possibilities, imaginative descriptions that fit with what is known. It's the sort of thing one might encounter on a science-oriented forum. I presumed that was what you were after. But maybe not.

So, what is ATM speculation in your mind? What sort of thing weren't you getting in that Q&A topic?

Thanks.

Buttercup
2010-Feb-04, 03:32 PM
I avoid ATM like the plague. It's confusing to me as well. Some people begin threads in sincerity, I think. Of course the know-it-alls who swagger in with "believe me or else!" attitudes are easy to ignore.

BAUT is generally well moderated imo, though occasionally there does seem to be impatience by the Mods in ATM. But I'll admit I haven't followed enough ATM threads closely to know the subtle nuances and expectations...aside from "make your claim and back it up."

tommac
2010-Feb-04, 08:15 PM
I agree with you fully. I always thought this board needs a forum ( it can be ATM ) that allows discussion of unknowns or questions that may seem ATM but without having all of the other requirements that the current ATM forum has.


Questions and answers;
I saw a question.
I watched some responses.
Even found some informative and entertaining...
Contributed and went off to read some more.
I thought I might come back with some more regarding what dark energy is and,
why we have fallen into this trap of calling it Dark Energy when we know little more than nothing of it.
Other than... something is accelerating that apparent expansion.

Are we not allowed to talk of this ?

You have lost me... I do not understand your view.
I think unreasonably judgmental bulling is apparent here. I see shouting and table banging... Tolerance and understanding gone...
We are not all children. I think unreasonable actions have resulted in a injustice. Not proper. Not right. WRONG !
But then what I think has no weight here.

Advise. Redirect. Inform. Question and Answer... No its not rocket science.
Its something else.

NB. Do not PM me... I do not care for the attitude I see...A disappointed Mark.

tommac
2010-Feb-04, 08:18 PM
Can we have a "Debate" forum .... as a place where things can be debated? Not mainstream questions and not ATM proposals ... but just things that are up for debate.

It will be noted that the answers in the forum may be good, medeocre or poor.

Like if we want to debate about red shift or about dark energy and we have people on this board with different opinions ... why not let people state them, even if they are not sure.





I don't see how different topics and different posters using different methods and different particpants with different agendas and different moderators having different views are ever going to produce results deemed uniformly fair by all involved.

Take this for what it's worth: Some long time ago, I eventually stopped turning to the it's-not-fair argument, finding more profit in the how-can-we-work-together-to-solve-our-common-problem approach to problem solving. Give it a shot.

I'm curious though about your other tack in the article in now-closed topic of where does "Dark Energy" come from? (is there a mainstream idea as to it's origin) (http://www.bautforum.com/1674025-post11.html), where you asked:



I gotta ask: What is "ATM speculation"?

As I saw it there in Q&A you were asking about dark energy, and receiving some background on its likely nature, some ideas and some pointers to surveys that fit with what is known about the curious place-holder concept that is by its nature and name an unknown mechanism.

Much of that was ordinary speculation as I understand the word -- conjecture, possibilities, imaginative descriptions that fit with what is known. It's the sort of thing one might encounter on a science-oriented forum. I presumed that was what you were after. But maybe not.

So, what is ATM speculation in your mind? What sort of thing weren't you getting in that Q&A topic?

Thanks.

01101001
2010-Feb-04, 08:20 PM
I always thought this board needs a forum ( it can be ATM ) that allows discussion of unknowns or questions that may seem ATM but without having all of the other requirements that the current ATM forum has.

How would it be different from the way that you use Q&A?

tommac
2010-Feb-04, 08:21 PM
I avoid ATM like the plague. It's confusing to me as well. Some people begin threads in sincerity, I think. Of course the know-it-alls who swagger in with "believe me or else!" attitudes are easy to ignore.

BAUT is generally well moderated imo, though occasionally there does seem to be impatience by the Mods in ATM. But I'll admit I haven't followed enough ATM threads closely to know the subtle nuances and expectations...aside from "make your claim and back it up."

Hah ... the best is when:

You ask a question in questions, then a mod deems your "question" to be ATM and moves it to the ATM forum, then someone asks you to answer your own question and show all of the math involved with solving your question as well as showing the math for something random and unrelated to the question you are asking, then you get banned for not answering that question ... or if you are lucky your thread will just get closed without answer.

sabianq
2010-Feb-04, 08:41 PM
What exactly are you hoping for here? The mods to beg for your forgiveness?
Absolutly not,
i am simply trying to suggest that there is a descrempency in the way different threads are moderated. the examples i referenced show that moderation within the ATM forum is not well balanced.



You ask a very broad question with the seeming intent to go ATM, without even knowing background, and you are suprised your thread was closed?


it was not a broad question, rather quite pointed.. (could dark energy be the same thing as gravity?)
and then suggested a reason that it may be the same..




If you want to discuss something, learn the background first. then come here and make a thread. It isnt rocket science.

i did exacty that,
i stated the background of the subject, why it was proposed, and the different theories on the matter [pardon the pun]...

exactly, it aint rocket science..

pzkpfw
2010-Feb-04, 08:47 PM
In summary...

This forum exists due to two people (whose forums BA [Bad Astronomy] and UT [Universe Today] were combined into BAUT).

For both, the drive is mainstream science, focussed on astronomy.

That is why the Q&A forum, for example, is pretty strongly moderated and why ATM musing are not permitted there. It is supposed to be a resource where people can go to to get current science, without getting sidetracked.

The ATM forum, in contrast, exists almost as an aside. It's largely there, really, to keep ATM out of the other areas of the board. Fraser (I believe) is on record as writing that it would be great if some new science did come out of the ATM area - but it's still not a major aim of BAUT.

Long experience shows that ATM needs to be controlled. If claimants are not held to the kinds of requirements we have, the discussions just become a mess. The owners of the site do not want the site used to "advertise" non mainstream claims. Without controls (such as the 30 day lock-down) that's exactly what the ATM forum gets used for.

If we had another forum for "just discussion", the problem is that it would just become a secondary ATM forum - but without the controls that keep it sustainable. Who would post in ATM if they could just post somewhere else and not be asked to back-up their claims?

So the basics are:

1. If you have a question, ask it in Q&A. [If you answer a question, make sure you have at least a basic understanding of the mainstream, and don't give a non-mainstream answer.] An answer can be followed up with by further questions, but don't argue against the answers - that is in essence an ATM claim.

2. If you have an alternate view on how things work, go to the ATM forum to make your claim. You should be prepared to back up your claim. You need to be ready in advance.

3. If you have a vague notion, or half an idea, and you wish to "just discuss" it, to develop that idea further; well, there isn't so much of a place for that here. There are plenty of places uncontrolled discussions can be held.

sabianq
2010-Feb-04, 08:52 PM
Can we have a "Debate" forum .... as a place where things can be debated? Not mainstream questions and not ATM proposals ... but just things that are up for debate.

It will be noted that the answers in the forum may be good, medeocre or poor.

Like if we want to debate about red shift or about dark energy and we have people on this board with different opinions ... why not let people state them, even if they are not sure.


or a forum called "Speculations on the Mysterious Universe'

the issues is then it opend the flood gates on talk about religion and other topics this whole forums is not designed to address.

secular discussions crop up and worm their way out of the cracks and crevices when people start talking about unknown reasons for observations.
and such banter easily leads to anger management issues, derogatory statments, argumentum ad hominem and other flame... such a thread would probably not be in the best interest for the forum...

PetersCreek
2010-Feb-04, 08:55 PM
Hah ... the best is when:

You ask a question in questions, then a mod deems your "question" to be ATM and moves it to the ATM forum, then someone asks you to answer your own question and show all of the math involved with solving your question as well as showing the math for something random and unrelated to the question you are asking, then you get banned for not answering that question ... or if you are lucky your thread will just get closed without answer.

I think this is a hefty mischaracterization, tommac and I think you should know it. It's not the question alone that gets a post moved out of Q&A. The problem is when you include ATM musings and/or assertions ...or worse, when you argue about the answers because they don't fit your ATM ideas on the subject.

Even then, when your posts are moved to ATM, no one is twisting your arm to continue the discussion there. You can simply state that you're not ready, willing, or able to defend it as an ATM proposition...end of thread. But if you continue the discussion in the ATM forum and fail to do so according to the rules, it's only reasonable to expect moderator action.

Swift
2010-Feb-04, 09:22 PM
I agree with you fully. I always thought this board needs a forum ( it can be ATM ) that allows discussion of unknowns or questions that may seem ATM but without having all of the other requirements that the current ATM forum has.
As pzkpfw said, this board is owned by the Bad Astronomer and Fraser, and their desires are the primary guide for governing this board. On many issues they give the moderation team (administrators and moderators) a lot of freedom of action. But not on this.

Fraser has very explicitly stated he does not want a wholly speculative version of ATM, nor an ATM development forum. He only allows ATM in by the current mechanism - in the ATM forum, modeled on a peer-review system (but without formal referees). (see A Very Brief History of the ATM forum (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/91853-very-brief-history-atm-forum.html) for more information).

If you would like to try to convince Fraser to change this, please, be my guest. I would suggest you try to contact him directly, since I see little evidence that he reads threads like this.

sabianq
2010-Feb-04, 09:38 PM
In summary...

This forum exists due to two people (whose forums BA [Bad Astronomy] and UT [Universe Today] were combined into BAUT).

For both, the drive is mainstream science, focussed on astronomy.

That is why the Q&A forum, for example, is pretty strongly moderated and why ATM musing are not permitted there. It is supposed to be a resource where people can go to to get current science, without getting sidetracked.

The ATM forum, in contrast, exists almost as an aside. It's largely there, really, to keep ATM out of the other areas of the board. Fraser (I believe) is on record as writing that it would be great if some new science did come out of the ATM area - but it's still not a major aim of BAUT.

Long experience shows that ATM needs to be controlled. If claimants are not held to the kinds of requirements we have, the discussions just become a mess. The owners of the site do not want the site used to "advertise" non mainstream claims. Without controls (such as the 30 day lock-down) that's exactly what the ATM forum gets used for.

If we had another forum for "just discussion", the problem is that it would just become a secondary ATM forum - but without the controls that keep it sustainable. Who would post in ATM if they could just post somewhere else and not be asked to back-up their claims?

So the basics are:

1. If you have a question, ask it in Q&A. [If you answer a question, make sure you have at least a basic understanding of the mainstream, and don't give a non-mainstream answer.] An answer can be followed up with by further questions, but don't argue against the answers - that is in essence an ATM claim.

2. If you have an alternate view on how things work, go to the ATM forum to make your claim. You should be prepared to back up your claim. You need to be ready in advance.

3. If you have a vague notion, or half an idea, and you wish to "just discuss" it, to develop that idea further; well, there isn't so much of a place for that here. There are plenty of places uncontrolled discussions can be held.

absolutly,
however, there is the issue of unknowns...
within mainstram science and theories, there are unanswered questions. questions that cannot be answered because the observational evidence does not follow mainstream predictions. like planets found around pulsars..
as such, using current understanding and theories, some of the unexplained observations cannot have concrete solutions.

yet such questions are begging to be answered by everyone. speculation with coherent plausable solutions only needing to be modeled for verification to incoherent diatribe on quantum elfs, solar pixies and other such thought provoking... well yea..

such speculation about the unknown questions can ONLY lead to ATM theories, as mainstream paradigm cannot quantify as yet a solution to such mysteries.

maybe BAUT does need a place for such speculation as you pointed out in point #3.
however, it is apparent that such a place can as said earlier, open the gates to [insert here]...

so is there a [real] solution?

01101001
2010-Feb-05, 12:10 AM
so is there a [real] solution?

Um... first you need to get buy-in that there is a problem.

For instance, I don't think there is. So, you might understand if I'm not real interested in knowing if there are solutions.

sabianq
2010-Feb-05, 12:12 AM
yea...
that is true...

cheers!

sabianq
2010-Feb-05, 12:16 AM
There are plenty of places uncontrolled discussions can be held.

so where on these forums can "uncontrolled" discussions take place?
or does he mean elsewhere on the internet?

thanks

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 12:17 AM
Outside of this forum, yes.

On the Steve Jackson Games Forums, some people wanted to continue to talk to people about subjects that were not allowed on the SJ Games Forums. SO they found their own place; through Livejournals or free forum boards.

You're perfectly free to go that route if you want to. Several already have, in fact; the Illuminati-r-us and "From Where I Stand" are set up for just that function.

Moose
2010-Feb-05, 12:32 AM
The JREF forums are also reputed to host ATM topics in some form or another. I don't know how well such topics are received, but I've heard they will accommodate them to some degree.

GLP may be a friendlier environment for ATM (in the double-edged sword sense), although I'm not sure I'd be willing to rely on them if I was looking for help sorting out my math.

astromark
2010-Feb-05, 04:00 AM
Well... thats clear.

and stupid.

So if Tommac and I want to question, test, challenge., or even just understand it. the mainstream view...
We are being told to go find some place else to do it... SHAME on you all. This is NOT science.
Which is odd as you all claim to be so scientific...

Not all of us have doctorates in astronomy and at times struggle to understand the conclusions reached.
Surly your education and knowledge can stretch to inform and broaden understanding.
I do not enjoy being slapped down. That is how this has been conducted...
Shame its become a sham.
So enough... back to the Q and A pages I shall go, carefully...Looking over ones sholder for to avoid the wrath of pzkpfw.
Has he a sense of humar ?
Can we organize a discussions page... ? please. or its Off Topic Babling...

korjik
2010-Feb-05, 05:40 AM
Hah ... the best is when:

You ask a question in questions, then a mod deems your "question" to be ATM and moves it to the ATM forum, then someone asks you to answer your own question and show all of the math involved with solving your question as well as showing the math for something random and unrelated to the question you are asking, then you get banned for not answering that question ... or if you are lucky your thread will just get closed without answer.

You get banned when you dont answer. You dont get banned if you answer 'I dont know.' It isnt hard.

No thread gets moved to ATM until the OP starts to advocate. Then one of several of us who hang around the Q&A forum report the post for the advocacy. That is what has happened with every thread of yours that has ended up in ATM.

Once you go to ATM, you have to prove or withdraw. Avoiding one or the other of those choices gets you a ban.

01101001
2010-Feb-05, 06:11 AM
Well... thats clear.

and stupid.

So if Tommac and I want to question, test, challenge., or even just understand it. the mainstream view...
We are being told to go find some place else to do it... SHAME on you all. This is NOT science.
Which is odd as you all claim to be so scientific...\

Shame back at ya. That's not what I read.

Ask what you want. Ask. Just avoid asserting stuff you've just made up. You'll do fine.

astromark
2010-Feb-05, 07:16 AM
:)the voice of reason lives on...thanks...:naughty: :)but maybe the case for a discussions only page... Sort of on topic babbling... (astronomicle).

01101001
2010-Feb-05, 09:05 AM
And, of course, likewise, don't expect or encourage other members to assert stuff they've just made up.

It's why I was trying to figure out what "ATM speculation" could mean. A possibility, is that it was conjecture that had no relation to what is known, making statements that wouldn't jibe with existing data. Is it? OK. That's not science. That is unwelcome here. Or, do I still not understand the phrase?

I don't see that sort of fantasy has any value and I can't see why people would seek it out -- except as thrill-ride creative fiction. Yeah, for that, there are plenty of other outlets on the Web. Here, we use facts to inspire us, and try not to make statements based upon falsehoods, or just making stuff up, and we are expected to be able to explain the data and reasoning that is behind what we say.

So ask about what you don't understand, and in return you'll get the best of what people here think matches existing reality, and they'll be able to explain what led them to think as they do. If they just pulled their assertions out of thin air, or it's something they just feel, or it's only the repetition of someone else's fantasy stylings, or otherwise as flimsily constructed, they may have violated the spirit of BAUT and will be asked to fix it and will be held accountable.

That's no sham. That's sham prevention.

sabianq
2010-Feb-05, 09:23 AM
It's why I was trying to figure out what "ATM speculation" could mean. A possibility, is that it was conjecture that had no relation to what is known, making statements that wouldn't jibe with existing data. Is it? OK. That's not science. That is unwelcome here. Or, do I still not understand the phrase?



i thought i was clear..
ATM Speculation:

where there are issue of unknowns...


within mainstram science and theories, there are unanswered questions. questions that cannot be answered because the observational evidence does not follow mainstream predictions. like planets found around pulsars..
and dark energy and dark matter and the higgs particle/field/boson, what happened before the big bang, are there other universes, what "exactly" is gravity, do elves live on neptune...


as such, using current understanding and theories, some of the unexplained observations cannot have concrete solutions.

except for the elves thing..

but here is the thing..


such questions are begging to be answered by everyone.

and as such that answers to things that are not explained is speculation only

and that speculation since it cannot be confirmed without serious work, breakthroughs, working models etc will always be ATM or aginst the main stream

such speculation about the unknown questions can ONLY lead to ATM theories, as mainstream paradigm cannot quantify as yet a solution to such mysteries.

hense "ATM Speculation"

that is what i meant, nothing more, no deep uncovered meaning, simply speculating on things that are real and observed but cannot be explained by "main stream" science..

Luckmeister
2010-Feb-05, 09:38 AM
I understand the evolution of BAUT and can see why it has become what it is, but it can be frustrating. I see a lot of people come here and quickly post that it's great to discover a board like this one that can have such civil and informative discussions. That comes with a price, which is a strict set of rules that can have a thought-squelching result. Treading the compromise between control and freedom is tough, be it in business, courtrooms or internet forums.

Here's what I consider the ATM catch-22. Someone with what is considered to be a non-mainstream idea, even if mainstream theory is not yet that solid on the subject, is told to take it to ATM where the requirements are so strict that, to qualify, the idea must be backed up to a point close to where one could write a paper for peer revue.

But, people with ideas that well developed won't choose this board as the place to introduce them. That makes ATM a forum of little or no use. It looks like it has become a place to put people you don't want to listen to. In other words, it's either, ask politely in Q&A for an education on mainstream theory or be banished to the ATM wasteland.

This is the way I've seen ATM for some time now. I've never started a thread there and probably never will, but that's okay. I've spent 95% of my time here reading, with little posting, because I follow the adage that it's often better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. :lol:

The bottom line is, this place isn't designed as a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules, and we're free to go somewhere else if we don't like them. But even if it's not Utopia, I haven't found another science board I like as much as this one.

Mike

Strange
2010-Feb-05, 09:45 AM
yet such questions are begging to be answered by everyone. speculation with coherent plausable solutions only needing to be modeled for verification to incoherent diatribe on quantum elfs, solar pixies and other such thought provoking... well yea..

I disagree. Progress towards understanding these unknowns can only be made if you already have a solid understanding of the problem - which usually includes some pretty serious mathematics. Having "amateurs" (people with a keen interest but no understanding beyond popular science articles and books) propose ideas, which are usually no more credible than "pink fairies", doesn't help anyone.

And what frustrates those with some understanding is the certainty with which people advance their idea even when all the reasons it doesn't make sense are explained. The usual response is along the lines of "I don't know anything about cosmology/the standard model/math [delete as appropriate] but I am sure I am right".

It is one thing to ask in Q&A something like "Is it possible that neutrons are tiny black holes?", maybe have some discussion, and then accept the answer. But to start arguing back that mainstream physics must be wrong because you believe they are anyway... That way madness and ATM lie.

A science-based forum is no place for discussing scientifically meaningless ideas with people who don't understand the science they are trying to overthrow. But it can be a brilliant place to inform, educate and inspire people.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-05, 12:34 PM
But, people with ideas that well developed won't choose this board as the place to introduce them. That makes ATM a forum of little or no use. It looks like it has become a place to put people you don't want to listen to. In other words, it's either, ask politely in Q&A for an education on mainstream theory or be banished to the ATM wasteland.

This is the way I've seen ATM for some time now. I've never started a thread there and probably never will, but that's okay. I've spent 95% of my time here reading, with little posting, because I follow the adage that it's often better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. :lol:
One of its very important purposes is exactly to have a place to dump the rubbish.
The alternative if the board was to continue as a site devoted to science would be to ban-delete when people posted ATM which is the approach taken by several other forums around the net, I consider the current situation superior to that. Stifling though it may seem to the ATM people, it's vastly more open to their self promotion than many of the alternatives.

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-05, 02:22 PM
One of its very important purposes is exactly to have a place to dump the rubbish."Rubbish" may be a little strong, but yeah, the worth of the material is not judged before the move to ATM (if it is moved by moderators rather than the OP themselves).

The alternative if the board was to continue as a site devoted to science would be to ban-delete when people posted ATM which is the approach taken by several other forums around the net, I consider the current situation superior to that. Stifling though it may seem to the ATM people, it's vastly more open to their self promotion than many of the alternatives.Anything short of full-out acclamation and acceptance is oppressive. Sometimes, successful ATMs don't achieve that level in the lifetime of the proposer.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 02:39 PM
You get banned when you dont answer. You dont get banned if you answer 'I dont know.' It isnt hard.

No thread gets moved to ATM until the OP starts to advocate. Then one of several of us who hang around the Q&A forum report the post for the advocacy. That is what has happened with every thread of yours that has ended up in ATM.

Once you go to ATM, you have to prove or withdraw. Avoiding one or the other of those choices gets you a ban.

You get banned when you dont answer. You dont get banned if you answer 'I dont know.' It isnt hard.

garbage..

you get banned whatever you do these days

the ut boys have taken over

even the people that are `technically' on the bauts side arent anymore-purely because anyone asking any question gets a bashing then a banning- thats what i see anyway over a `few' years of sometimes posting and mostly lurkin..

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 02:45 PM
funny how threads worded exactly the same as the b.a. did in his `younger days' get deleted- apparently the ba part of baut isnt too important these days

(not surprising as he doesnt spend any time here anymore- wonder why??)

he'd get the bannin stick within minutes if he ever posted here anymore'
i lurv the ignore function- i can play games with it - i bet so and so posts with 3....2....1....NOW

;-)

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 02:45 PM
garbage..Excpt that no, it isn't. What he said was perfectly true.


you get banned whatever you do these daysYou get banned for breaking the rules, yes.


the ut boys have taken over

even the people that are `technically' on the bauts side arent anymore-purely because anyone asking any question gets a bashing then a banning- thats what i see anyway over a `few' years of sometimes posting and mostly lurkin..

There are no "sides".

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 02:47 PM
funny how threads worded exactly the same as the b.a. did in his `younger days' get deleted- apparently the ba part of baut isnt too important these days

Things change. ATM grew. So did some drama.


(not surprising as he doesnt spend any time here anymore- wonder why??)
You're saying that the BA left because he doesn't like the way this forum operates? Then why did he agree to the combination in the first place? And why doesn't he demand a change?


he'd get the bannin stick within minutes if he ever posted here anymore

No, he'd be smart enough to change the way he behaves and follow the rules for consistency.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 02:57 PM
be interesting to post `something' in the next few days or weeks- just to see how `intolerant' the ut part of baut has indeed become...

remember that the ba part of baut came over to australia and met some of the then ba members- so we `can' tell..

;-)

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 03:05 PM
ignores a good thing these days ;-)

DrRocket
2010-Feb-05, 03:19 PM
It's why I was trying to figure out what "ATM speculation" could mean. A possibility, is that it was conjecture that had no relation to what is known, making statements that wouldn't jibe with existing data. Is it? OK. That's not science. That is unwelcome here. Or, do I still not understand the phrase?

I don't see that sort of fantasy has any value and I can't see why people would seek it out -- except as thrill-ride creative fiction. Yeah, for that, there are plenty of other outlets on the Web. Here, we use facts to inspire us, and try not to make statements based upon falsehoods, or just making stuff up, and we are expected to be able to explain the data and reasoning that is behind what we say.

It seems to me that the Against in ATM is important. Vital.

There is speculation in research physics all the time. String theory, for instance is speculative at this juncture. But it is not ATM. It is not ATM because the objective is an extension, not a contradiction, of theories that are supported by a mountain of experimental data. One can say the same for quantum loop gravity, supersymmetry, etc.

What makes an ATM idea ATM is the advocacy of a position that contradicts known science in a fundamental way. So, for instance statements that special relativity is just plain wrong are ATM. But alternate formulations and alternate interpretations that produce the same predictions are not ATM.

It is important to recognize that the issue is not that some idea is voted down by the opinion of a majority or is different from concensus, but whether or not it is supported by the body of experimental evidence. Special relativity, in its day was revolutionary. It was never ATM. That it because, in ordinary situations, the predictions of special relativity reduce to the predictions of Newtonian mechanics -- the correspondence principle.

Conjecture, clearly labeled as conjecture and not as fact, in and of itself is not ATM. Any viable extension of existing theory starts as conjecture, but not as ATM. What is lacking is the "against" part. A valid conjecture would be unproven and therefore not yet accepted, but it would not contradict existing theories within known domains of validity of those theories. ALL of research in theoretical physics is conjecture. NONE of it is ATM.

Science is not ultimately deteremined by majority vote, but rather by consistency with experimental data and ability to accurately predict the outcome of future experiments. ATM vs mainstream is not a popularity contest. But science does have rules -- theories require clear definition, and in physics that means that the relevant mathematics is required, and the theory must be consistent with what is already known and supported by experiment.

Ken G
2010-Feb-05, 03:37 PM
I agree completely-- remember that a key element of science is to always challenge itself. That can get tricky-- people get set in their ways, they like a certain way of thinking of things, they like theories that work. Even when theories show cracks, the first reaction is to spackle them, as you would in your home. It's hard to know when to just get a new house-- but science does need people willing to do that, willing to look for what the alternatives are that are not just equivalent ways of thinking of things (those are also valuable, but not ATM-- moderators are you listening?). So to be against the mainstream means to fundamentally argue that the mainstream is doing something wrong, they've made a wrong turn. Most such claims are themselves going to be wrong, the mainstream is the mainstream for a reason. But they are still important to science.

So I think the spirit and atmosphere of the ATM forum should be, let's hear your attack on the mainstream, and let's see if it has any merit, knowing that even if it doesn't, it was a worthy effort, and much can actually be learned about some mainstream theory in the process of meeting an attack on that theory. What should not be the spirit of the ATM forum is either, you don't know physics so why are you wasting our time (why are you wasting your own, you mean), nor should we automatically imagine that any buzz-word that does not fit directly into the popular vernacular is an example of something against the mainstream-- that stream has its eddies.

Nereid
2010-Feb-05, 03:42 PM
The JREF forums are also reputed to host ATM topics in some form or another. I don't know how well such topics are received, but I've heard they will accommodate them to some degree.

[...]
I would strongly recommend folk reading this who are interested in the kind of thing the OP seems to be pointing to to go check the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the JREF out!

At least in astrophysics (etc), there are several regulars there who are very au fait with the field, patient, and tolerant.

There is also no 30-day limit on threads.

However, the standards for civility there, while still high, are lower than those here.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 03:43 PM
theories require clear definition, and in physics that means that the relevant mathematics is required, and the theory must be consistent with what is already known and supported by experiment.

we already played this game drrocket...

dark matter...

clear definition- relevant mathematics IS required...

magical `stuff' that does whatever you want- is not science..

see i do sparky stuff- as you know

still not once have I ever seen a single post showing `dark matter'

not once have I ever seen a single post that can even explain dark matter or even links to where i can look it up myself

I HAVE seen lots of `look it up yourself'
and similar

ie i'm too lazy to google it but I expect you to dot and cross every post YOU make.....

I'm NOT a c.t- but IMHO- when the c.t. say baut is full of people wanting to ban people just on appearance- well for the last 2-3 years- yes I have to agree with them

the atm has gone almost 180 deg from what it was when the b.a board first appeared to what it is now..

i went for a `wander' up net history- funny what old threads a mr phil himself started....

yes the new posting rules ban them..
hmmm one of the now board owners threads would get him banned...

who would have thunk it....

;-)

sabianq
2010-Feb-05, 03:49 PM
I disagree. Progress towards understanding these unknowns can only be made if you already have a solid understanding of the problem - which usually includes some pretty serious mathematics.


hi!
I cant agree with that and here is why..
if we fully understood any problem, then it would not be a problem,
Problems that are fully understood have concrete solutions exactly like mathematical proofs.

if progress could not be made without fully understanding the "problem" then we would never ever get anywhere.
it is through experimentation and trial and error that leads us to understanding the "problem"
and once we can fully understand the problem, then and only then can a balanced solution be realized.




Having "amateurs" (people with a keen interest but no understanding beyond popular science articles and books) propose ideas, which are usually no more credible than "pink fairies", doesn't help anyone.

no it does not, and i was actually advocating against such speculation..
(i just could have worded it better in retrospect)
i said:

yet such questions are begging to be answered by everyone. Speculation with coherent plausible solutions only needing to be modeled for verification to incoherent diatribe on quantum elfs, solar pixies and other such thought provoking... well yea..

that did not come out the way i wanted it to... at all. ^^^^^
i was trying to say that
yet such questions are begging to be answered by everyone.
all speculation, from speculation with coherent plausible solutions only needing to be modeled for verification to incoherent diatribe on quantum elfs, solar pixies and other such thought provoking... all such ideas will be put forth when people try to answer such questions that are truly unknown.

So, when any such speculation arises that is based on an unknown,
any answer other than "we don’t know the real answer, but the observations are this... and suggest that.." is only uhh... speculation and such speculation of an unknown is always ATM...there is a pretty good example, I think..


Light that leads to special relativity was purely speculation by an "amateur" patent office clerk until he got help to formulate proof of the conjecture.
David Hume and Ernst Mach. (yes, Mach 1, Mach 2 etc...)
Nobody had a fundamental understanding of relativity at the time, there was a space time paradox, it was totally against the mainstream paradigm.
Especially since Mach’s works are known for their critical analyses of the "notions" of space and time.

the critique from Mach reads:
[Einstein's] concepts are dependent entirely on our sense impressions or sensations;
they are inapplicable as representations of reality, that is, fictional, in so far as they extend beyond our sense experience.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf

sounds like a lot of what is said to people on the ATM boards trying to present their idea eh?




And what frustrates those with some understanding is the certainty with which people advance their idea even when all the reasons it doesn't make sense are explained. The usual response is along the lines of "I don't know anything about cosmology/the standard model/math [delete as appropriate] but I am sure I am right".

Yes I agree, it is frustrating,
Nobody can say "I am sure I am right" when there is an unknown.

I get frustrated when members say something is correct and it can be demonstrated that they are wrong and nobody points it out.

but simply not understanding anything about cosmology/the standard model/math does not by any means preclude someone from trying to make a serious effort to and eventually understanding such philosophy...

it makes no sense to me that ATM ideas, like the one Mach was criticizing way back in 1905 to current ATM ideas today can be chastised when the presenter is trying to formulate a solution to an unknown by learning and using conventional ways, theorems, and observations.


It is one thing to ask in Q&A something like "Is it possible that neutrons are tiny black holes?", maybe have some discussion, and then accept the answer. But to start arguing back that mainstream physics must be wrong because you believe they are anyway... That way madness and ATM lie.

Any answer to the question other than, the observations about neutrons and what we know about quantum physics and particle physics say they can be described as... , is speculation and should go into the category of ATM..
(Besides, i know what paper you are referring to... lol)



A science-based forum is no place for discussing scientifically meaningless ideas with people who don't understand the science they are trying to overthrow. But it can be a brilliant place to inform, educate and inspire people.

i don’t know that people are trying so much to overthrow current understanding rather suggesting that a particular idea about [insert theory here] could be better explained if it were another way...
i don’t think people are consciously trying to "overthrow" mainstream paradigm when they are suggesting a current accepted idea may be wrong.

the problem arises when a person speculates on an unknown or a mystery in the universe, a mystery where there is no solution and someone comes in and says, "you are ill prepared and have nothing to back up your proposal, dont know what you are talking about, so Thread Closed end of story, deal with it.."

here when the proposal is about something that is truly unknown like "what happened before the big bang?" any ascertains, even ones based on conventional physics like laws of conservation of energy and such still have no accepted way of getting to the answer because all of the paths to the solution are unknown. it is only by speculation, reason, experimentation, and trial and error that a true understanding of the problem can have a final and balanced solution.

And even then, the solution is still ATM as it needs to be peer reviewed and embraced by the community before it is truly accepted by the "main Stream"..

<sigh>

Nereid
2010-Feb-05, 03:50 PM
I understand the evolution of BAUT and can see why it has become what it is, but it can be frustrating. I see a lot of people come here and quickly post that it's great to discover a board like this one that can have such civil and informative discussions. That comes with a price, which is a strict set of rules that can have a thought-squelching result. Treading the compromise between control and freedom is tough, be it in business, courtrooms or internet forums.

Here's what I consider the ATM catch-22. Someone with what is considered to be a non-mainstream idea, even if mainstream theory is not yet that solid on the subject, is told to take it to ATM where the requirements are so strict that, to qualify, the idea must be backed up to a point close to where one could write a paper for peer revue.

But, people with ideas that well developed won't choose this board as the place to introduce them. That makes ATM a forum of little or no use. It looks like it has become a place to put people you don't want to listen to. In other words, it's either, ask politely in Q&A for an education on mainstream theory or be banished to the ATM wasteland.

This is the way I've seen ATM for some time now. I've never started a thread there and probably never will, but that's okay. I've spent 95% of my time here reading, with little posting, because I follow the adage that it's often better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. :lol:

The bottom line is, this place isn't designed as a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules, and we're free to go somewhere else if we don't like them. But even if it's not Utopia, I haven't found another science board I like as much as this one.

Mike(bold added)

I think this is a serious misunderstanding.

If you start a thread in the ATM section, presenting your ATM idea, there is no requirement that it be fully developed, that it contain math, etc.

The only requirement is that you, the presenter, must answer all direct, pertinent questions in a timely fashion. How you choose to so answer is entirely up to you.

Now if you genuinely *do* have a great astrophysics idea that you are seriously interested in developing, then there is likely no better place on the internet than BAUT's ATM section for doing so ... provided that you put in the hard work to present it well, and take to heart the feedback you get. In almost every case, sooner or later, someone will offer you this, serious advice: get thee to a library! (to quote Celestial Mechanics' line).

Tucson_Tim
2010-Feb-05, 03:57 PM
If you start a thread in the ATM section, presenting your ATM idea, there is no requirement that it be fully developed, that it contain math, etc.


(my bold)

But usually the first thing that is asked of the ATM thread starter is to provide the mathematics.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 03:57 PM
(bold added)

I think this is a serious misunderstanding.

If you start a thread in the ATM section, presenting your ATM idea, there is no requirement that it be fully developed, that it contain math, etc.


I would say a word equivalent to garbage... with much emphasis...throwing of murd @ neroid

thats almost the first post in ANY atm thread- `show me the maths!!

some are so obnoxious about it they get themselves on ignore lists even...

;-)

Nereid
2010-Feb-05, 04:00 PM
be interesting to post `something' in the next few days or weeks- just to see how `intolerant' the ut part of baut has indeed become...

[...]
What BAUT has, or has not, become is surely irrelevant, isn't it?

There's been little change in the rules, concerning ATM, for a long time now.

In the meantime, the discussion forum associated with Astronomy Picture of the Day (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html) - surely the most widely viewed astronomy website in the world, by far - has recently implemented new rules (http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=18054). Guess what? They are modelled on those here (with the BA's and Fraser's blessing)! And do you know what it says about ATM? Here:

15. Alternative Theories and Conspiracy Theories
This board concentrates on the mainstream or consensus view of cosmology. Alternative theories and conspiracy theories are not discussed here. We may decide to allow limited discussion of these at some later date. For now, however, we ask that you take these discussions to other boards that allow such discussions, such as The BAUT Forum.
But, as has been said a great many times already, if you don't like the rules here, you are totally, totally free to go join any other internet discussion forum you wish, or set up your own.

Nereid
2010-Feb-05, 04:06 PM
I think this is a serious misunderstanding.

If you start a thread in the ATM section, presenting your ATM idea, there is no requirement that it be fully developed, that it contain math, etc.I weould say a word equivilant to garbage... with much emphasis...

thats almost the first post in ANY atm thread- `show me the maths!!
And you, the presenter of the ATM idea, are not required to so show!

All you are required to do is answer direct, pertinent questions (in a timely fashion)!!


some are so obnoxious about it they get themselves on ignore lists even...

;-)
So? If posts are uncivil to the point of violating a BAUT rule, report them!

Now it is true that the ATM rule mentions attacking, with glee and fervour ... but that refers to the ATM ideas, not the person. If you are seriously interested in developing your ATM idea, wouldn't you welcome all such attacks?

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 04:09 PM
What BAUT has, or has not, become is surely irrelevant, isn't it?

There's been little change in the rules, concerning ATM, for a long time now.

In the meantime, the discussion forum associated with Astronomy Picture of the Day (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html) - surely the most widely viewed astronomy website in the world, by far - has recently implemented new rules (http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=18054). Guess what? They are modelled on those here (with the BA's and Fraser's blessing)! And do you know what it says about ATM? Here:

But, as has been said a great many times already, if you don't like the rules here, you are totally, totally free to go join any other internet discussion forum you wish, or set up your own.
a well worn excuse trotted out many times.. but what if....


the person saying `do it my way or hit the highway...'

is a `newbie ie newcomer ie johncome lately....'

to put it in plain language- they came in AFTER the people COMPLAINING- then say do it my way or hit the highway...


well IMHO- the people that were here ORIGINALLY that find the `newbies' `offensive'- well what you gunna do about it???

(remember that many of the oldies actually KNOW each other in person...)

:-O

Strange
2010-Feb-05, 04:11 PM
if we fully understood any problem, then it would not be a problem,
Problems that are fully understood have concrete solutions exactly like mathematical proofs.

No. There is a huge difference between understanding the problem, and having a solution.

For example, quantum gravity. The problem is very well understood; both in terms of why our two main theories don't mesh and why it is important that they should. Only someone who has a really good grasp of both SR and quantum theory is going to be able to come up with a solution.

I have only the most general (layman's) understanding of why it is not currently possible to produce a quantum theory of gravity. But there are people with even less knowledge who come along and claim to have "the answer".

Many ATM ideas aren't attempting to address any of the real known problems in modern physics or cosmology anyway. They are sometimes just an individual's own "crazy" idea; or they are addressing non-problems: the ATMer just doesn't like the big bang theory, or time dilation, or black holes, or the standard model or ...

Swift
2010-Feb-05, 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by Luckmeister
Here's what I consider the ATM catch-22. Someone with what is considered to be a non-mainstream idea, even if mainstream theory is not yet that solid on the subject, is told to take it to ATM where the requirements are so strict that, to qualify, the idea must be backed up to a point close to where one could write a paper for peer revue.(bold added)

I think this is a serious misunderstanding.

If you start a thread in the ATM section, presenting your ATM idea, there is no requirement that it be fully developed, that it contain math, etc.

The only requirement is that you, the presenter, must answer all direct, pertinent questions in a timely fashion. How you choose to so answer is entirely up to you.

<snipped both quotes>

Here is my take on it. I think the truth is between these two.

Yes Luckmeister, the requirements for ATM approach that of a peer-reviewed paper. As I've explained, that is the way owners of this board want it. I'm sorry if some people don't like that, but that's the way it is. I will say that "approaches" is key, and we are a little less stringent than an actual journal or PhD defense.

And no, we don't require that the ATM idea be fully developed, but it does need to be more than wild speculation (which is true for a lot of stuff that gets posted). And no, you don't have to have math. But you do need some evidence, something more than "I think this is a cool idea".

I would be quite content where someone based their idea on actual data. It doesn't mean you have to build your own telescope, a lot of raw data is out there.

But it needs to be based on some sort of evidence: equations, data, something. Speculation along the lines of "well atoms look like balloons to me" or "well, I don't like dark energy" is not going to fly.

And much of astronomy and physics is very mathematical (part of the reason I'm a chemist ;)). Thus, the evidence of choice (but not the only choice) is often math.

Swift
2010-Feb-05, 04:23 PM
<snip>
to put it in plain language- they came in AFTER the people COMPLAINING- then say do it my way or hit the highway...

well IMHO- the people that were here ORIGINALLY that find the `newbies' `offensive'- well what you gunna do about it???

(remember that many of the oldies actually KNOW each other in person...)

:-O
boppa,

I'm honestly struggling to understand what you are saying or what your point is. We do not have different rules for newbies and old-timers, other than we try to give newbies a little time to learn our ways.

I think part of you complaint was how things were in the "good old days", before the merger (I don't know if you were a member of BABB or UT or what). That may or may not be. Well, the reality is this is the way things are now, and have been for years. If you have specific suggestions on changes, make them - we have demonstrated multiple times that we are open to make changes. If you have specific problems with specific threads or moderation actions, report them.

sabianq
2010-Feb-05, 04:31 PM
I think this is a serious misunderstanding.

If you start a thread in the ATM section, presenting your ATM idea, there is no requirement that it be fully developed, that it contain math, etc.

The only requirement is that you, the presenter, must answer all direct, pertinent questions in a timely fashion. How you choose to so answer is entirely up to you.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/100204-dark-energy-another-alternative.html#post1671749

...The OP does not seem in a position to argue for the correctness of their idea...

Thus, thread closed.

lol

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 04:34 PM
<snipped both quotes>

Here is my take on it. I think the truth is between these two.

Yes Luckmeister, the requirements for ATM approach that of a peer-reviewed paper. As I've explained, that is the way owners of this board want it. I'm sorry if some people don't like that, but that's the way it is. I will say that "approaches" is key, and we are a little less stringent than an actual journal or PhD defense.

And no, we don't require that the ATM idea be fully developed, but it does need to be more than wild speculation (which is true for a lot of stuff that gets posted). And no, you don't have to have math. But you do need some evidence, something more than "I think this is a cool idea".

I would be quite content where someone based there idea on actual data. It doesn't mean you have to build your own telescope, a lot of raw data is out there.

But it needs to be based on some sort of evidence: equations, data, something. Speculation along the lines of "well atoms look like balloons to me" or "well, I don't like dark energy" is not going to fly.

And much of astronomy and physics is very mathematical (part of the reason I'm a chemist ;)). Thus, the evidence of choice (but not the only choice) is often math.

so even if I show evidence that you are incorrect- I am still wrong then...
(or do you deny that phil himself started threads about `bad astronomy' `bashing' the bad astronomy people like nancy???)

bah its really not worth it- when the `debunkers' have to justify themselves to the debunker websites and get banned- it only shows that the bunkers are more right than wrong..

:-(


prove me wrong LOL

it only not only marginalized baut, even more not only in the `bunkers' eyes- but even as a `debunkers' source- what is the point of a debunkers source when even the debunkers find it sus???
its why you rarely find any `debunkers' referancing baut- because its a languagefight..

these days baut comes a major 2nd to apollo hoax (even jay is more well known than phill...)

why????

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 04:47 PM
boppa,

I'm honestly struggling to understand what you are saying or what your point is. We do not have different rules for newbies and old-timers, other than we try to give newbies a little time to learn our ways.

I think part of you complaint was how things were in the "good old days", before the merger (I don't know if you were a member of BABB or UT or what). That may or may not be. Well, the reality is this is the way things are now, and have been for years. If you have specific suggestions on changes, make them - we have demonstrated multiple times that we are open to make changes. If you have specific problems with specific threads or moderation actions, report them.
Swift- you are trying to `hold the hand of friendship' out- its way too late for that-

the b.a people are now extremely sus of the newcomers...i know a few of the ones i know offboard are `not happy' with the way the baut is going

you may be suspicious of just my word for it- thats your prerogative

I am equally suspicious of any of the `baut' mods and equally of the way that the `baut' merger has taken us that have been around a long time before this `.u.t. ' lot even were around...

this is the way things are....

;-)

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 04:49 PM
How would it be different from the way that you use Q&A?

hah ... it would get me out of posting to Q&A. Or when the discussion goes sideways then it can be moved to Debate rather than to ATM with all of the ATM restrictions ...

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 04:52 PM
No thread gets moved to ATM until the OP starts to advocate. .

This is absolutely NOT TRUE.

My thread about negative energy ( which was just questions about how negative energy/ mass would behave in the EFE if it did exist ) got moved when someone else posted some links that were considered ATM.

sabianq
2010-Feb-05, 04:53 PM
No. There is a huge difference between understanding the problem, and having a solution.

if you understand the problem, then you have a path to a solution.
if you do not understand the problem, then a solution can only be found by first trying to understand the fundamentals of the problem so a solution can be reconized..



Many ATM ideas aren't attempting to address any of the real known problems in modern physics or cosmology anyway. They are sometimes just an individual's own "crazy" idea; or they are addressing non-problems: the ATMer just doesn't like the big bang theory, or time dilation, or black holes, or the standard model or ...


universaly true; addressing non-problems with different aproaches and non sense wordings can and usually do lead to confusion. unless such stances can be proven to be a better solution to current understanding, such speculation can be distractive...

although, "crazy" ideas do come in all forms and are not always illogical when studied further.. like "spooky action at a distance", "lightening may be caused by high energy gamma rays" (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071011-lightning-rays.html), schrodinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat), where is all of the anti-matter?, assertions on what exactly gravity. etc... some are verifiable, some are not, all were crazy when they were first suggested, seem illogical on the surface but are rooted in fundamental understanding of basic principals..

ATM is always speculation, however, Speculation is not always ATM..

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-05, 04:54 PM
Well I've been around since the BA days and I'm perfectly happy with the current set-up.

boppa may have a point, but it's difficult to tell. His last few posts seem to me like the textual equivalent of drunken slurring - I can tell he's angry about something, but I can't work out what he's actually saying. This is not ad hom - merely an observation about what has been posted.

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 04:58 PM
In summary...

This forum exists due to two people (whose forums BA [Bad Astronomy] and UT [Universe Today] were combined into BAUT).

For both, the drive is mainstream science, focussed on astronomy..

Do you think everything is so black and white?
I mean somethings are more mainstream than others.
Look at Hawking Radiation. That is mainstream right? But if you search the internet there are MANY papers discussing that it may not exist, many of these papers are done by respected physisists.

So could that discussion be had on Q&A? It is really hard to have that discussion on ATM ... as someone can always ask a question that is either very difficult to answer or that has not yet been answered.

I dont know why this board is so against debate? Lets have a forum for it ... people and just make sure that it is noted that people making statements in that forum may not always represent the mainstream ideas and that the forum is meant to discuss and debate either mainstream physics or new proposals.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 04:59 PM
hah ... it would get me out of posting to Q&A. Or when the discussion goes sideways then it can be moved to Debate rather than to ATM with all of the ATM restrictions ...

Q&A the sky is blue
(mod)shifts to ATM the sky is red
atm- its blue- look outside
atm 1 to 30 billion- explain why the sky is red

atm- its not its blue!!-

atm 1- 30billion answer now why the sky is red!!!


imho this is what any atm thread in baut looks like these days...

im expecting a banning since i am expecting that as usual the baut mods will ban any poster thats not toeing the new(for me that is ) baUT line...

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 05:00 PM
the issues is then it opend the flood gates on talk about religion and other topics this whole forums is not designed to address.



Same rules ... no religion or politics

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 05:06 PM
Let me pose another example here.

Negative energy/Negative Mass

It seems that it cant be discussed anywhere on this forum, although it seems that other physicists have papers on it.

How anti-mainstream is this if there are papers on the subject?

Now as someone who is not that knowledgable about anything ... can I prove that it exists? No Can I answer questions on the math of how it would react in EFE and GR ... No

Do I want to learn more about it and could some people on this board ( if they wanted to ) shed some light on the subject? Yes

It is funny because, this board does not allow religious talk but on the other hand uses similar tactics as anti-evolutionists about topics that they dont wish to discuss. WHy cant we discuss some things that may either be a mistake/misunderstanding by the poster or things that are not so clear cut mainstream.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-05, 05:07 PM
This is absolutely NOT TRUE.

My thread about negative energy ( which was just questions about how negative energy/ mass would behave in the EFE if it did exist ) got moved when someone else posted some links that were considered ATM.
So; did you report that post, or just keep arguing the post?

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 05:09 PM
One of its very important purposes is exactly to have a place to dump the rubbish..


If it is a place to dump the rubbish ... then let it be that ... and dont have all of the ATM restrictions.

Call the forum the "Rubbish Bin" or in propper English the "trash can"

send posts that arent mainstream there ... let them be debated and disucssed by anyone willing to sift through the rubbish.

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 05:09 PM
So; did you report that post, or just keep arguing the post?


Before I could post or agree it was moved.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-05, 05:11 PM
Call the forum the "Rubbish Bin" or in propper English the "trash can"
What does "propper" mean? It doesn't look like proper English to me!

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 05:14 PM
calling anyones trash can propper from a country that cant spell colour right well...

LOL

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 05:16 PM
calling anyones trash can propper from a country that cant spell colour right well...

LOL

yes lets dump the trash there

;-)

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-05, 05:16 PM
Before I could post or agree it was moved.
Are we looking at the same thread?
The one I see (http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/98200-negative-energy-mathmatically-possible-4.html) was closed after 6 consecutive posts by yourself, and closed because of your comment.
And; It still seems to be in Q&A.
What post had the ATM links, and where was the moderator comment about that post?

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 05:18 PM
btw paul- sorry about the double post..

i was not taking a dig at you btw

i was thunkin about a new jersey poster...

korjik
2010-Feb-05, 05:22 PM
This is absolutely NOT TRUE.

My thread about negative energy ( which was just questions about how negative energy/ mass would behave in the EFE if it did exist ) got moved when someone else posted some links that were considered ATM.

Did you report those posts and explain that the ideas were not yours, and that you did not want discussion of an ATM topic in your thread? Did you ask for those post to be split out of your thread to keep the thread from becoming ATM?

The above is really a guide for others who actually have this happen to them. I was one of the first people who responded to your negative mass thread, and I thought you had an axe to grind the whole time.

01101001
2010-Feb-05, 05:22 PM
Call the forum the "Rubbish Bin" or in propper English the "trash can"

send posts that arent mainstream there ... let them be debated and disucssed by anyone willing to sift through the rubbish.

Call it Godlike Productions (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/).

Have at it.

Or do you demand that the activity consumes the resources of Phil and Fraser?

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 05:27 PM
Are we looking at the same thread?
The one I see was closed after 6 consecutive posts by yourself, and closed because of your comment.
And; It still seems to be in Q&A.
What post had the ATM links, and where was the moderator comment about that post?

yes i did see the newbie mods snide side comments - which IMHO were unjustified- he even said himself that `Like I said there was no real point for my point 'but dont let that stop a UT mod from jumping in and saying its offtopic..'

is there ANY so called mods from the b.a board at all???

so far I haven't seen any.

korjik
2010-Feb-05, 05:30 PM
theories require clear definition, and in physics that means that the relevant mathematics is required, and the theory must be consistent with what is already known and supported by experiment.

we already played this game drrocket...

dark matter...

clear definition- relevant mathematics IS required...

magical `stuff' that does whatever you want- is not science..

see i do sparky stuff- as you know

still not once have I ever seen a single post showing `dark matter'

not once have I ever seen a single post that can even explain dark matter or even links to where i can look it up myself

I HAVE seen lots of `look it up yourself'
and similar

ie i'm too lazy to google it but I expect you to dot and cross every post YOU make.....

I'm NOT a c.t- but IMHO- when the c.t. say baut is full of people wanting to ban people just on appearance- well for the last 2-3 years- yes I have to agree with them

the atm has gone almost 180 deg from what it was when the b.a board first appeared to what it is now..

i went for a `wander' up net history- funny what old threads a mr phil himself started....

yes the new posting rules ban them..
hmmm one of the now board owners threads would get him banned...

who would have thunk it....

;-)

Well, since I have explained at least three times what dark matter and dark energy are, here on BAUT, I would have to say that you are probably a bit off.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-05, 05:37 PM
you get banned whatever you do these days
You do realize that your own continued existence here is disproof of your statement, right?

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 05:40 PM
Call it Godlike Productions (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/).

Have at it.

Or do you demand that the activity consumes the resources of Phil and Fraser?

no but I DO expect that the activity relates to their original purpose until they say otherwise

and as dr plait has remarked on http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/lieder.html
which was first brought me to bad astronomy in the first place

and I still see many (former) b.a. mambers that no longer post at BAUT but still post about such `bad astronomy' about nancy `****te'

hmmmm- wonder how such posts got `THAT' B.A. name.....???????
I have NEVER seen phil say he would ban people for posting such stuff...


now UT mods- `THATS a different story...

even mention it and thats a bannin....

nancy...
thats a bannin
zetatalk-.....

thats a bannin...

nancy is more tolerant than the baUT mods- as has been mentioned many times...


sad thing is- zetatalk- for the first time ever- is right....

:-(

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 05:43 PM
even mention it and thats a bannin....

nancy...
thats a bannin
zetatalk-.....

thats a bannin...


Please, wise boppa! Show us all of your evidences for this huge list of people that have been banned for just mentioning Nancy or zetatalk!

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 05:49 PM
This message is hidden
;-)

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 05:52 PM
So nothing, then. Got it.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 06:04 PM
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/balogo_450x100.jpg


The Planet X Saga: Nancy Lieder

Back to the main Planet X page

New! (May 12, 2003):
Nancy Lieder has lied about me to try to make me look bad. I don't think it'll work though. :-)

Ms. Lieder runs the website ZetaTalk, where you can find her story in detail (though perhaps not in complete detail; many interesting aspects of her history appear to be missing). She claims to be channeling aliens, called "Zetans" (short for Zeta Reticulans, aliens from the star Zeta Reticuli). These aliens are telling her that a large planet will sweep by the Earth next year, flipping the Earth's axis and killing about 90% of the human population.

As usual, it's difficult to know where to start with such a statement. First, I am no big believer in channeling. This, for those not in the know, is when spirits, aliens, or whoever, are telepathically communicating with a living human. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that that this is actually happening. I will simply send you to James Randi's website where he debunks quite firmly people who claim to speak with the dead, and other dearly and nearly departed entities.

Second, I have a difficult time believing that benign aliens are communicating with us, trying to warn us of impending disaster. If they really cared about us, how about taking a few humans to safety? Or doing something to divert the disaster?

Third, I don't see any evidence for a planet coming by in May 2003. More on that below. Fourth, I don't see how a nearby passage of a planet can flip the Earth's axis. We'll see more about that below as well.


many of us came here because phil was a good guy that explained himself

many of us are leaving because phil cant explain why his site has been taken over by a bunch of abusive a.h......mods from the ut part of the new baut..

as debunkers the `ut' part sux badly- when even the debunkers think `u r a.h.ole's- well

dont expect much from the web- or from the site members..
:-(

Gillianren
2010-Feb-05, 06:06 PM
You know, I've been around since BABB and was never a member on UT. I know one of our admins was once a member of BABB, too; did you miss ToSeek, Boppa? Or is it that you don't like what he says, so he must be part of the UT "conspiracy"?

ATM is a place to dump the rubbish as often as not, and people do come in demanding that we accept, unquestioned, that they are right and the mainstream is wrong. It's one of the reasons I don't even look at ATM anymore. The arguments are tiresome and repetitive, and many proponents crash and burn out of sheer arrogance. Though after all, it is in and of itself arrogant to claim that your idea is likely valid even though you don't understand the mainstream.

Further, to understand that there is a problem, and why our information doesn't answer it, doesn't mean we're in sight of a solution. It means we might have a grasp of where a solution might be.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 06:08 PM
the other ignore person just posted...

;-)

whats the odds on that??

the ONLY 2 people on ignore BOTH post in this thread- AFTER i do....

:-O

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 06:16 PM
And yet, both of us are originally from the Bad Astronomy board.

So was Jay Utah, one of the most respected members of this forum.

Can someone quote my post so that boppa can see it, please?

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 06:16 PM
because SolusLupus is on your ignore list.
#79 (permalink) Report Post
Old Today, 05:49 PM
boppa's Avatar
boppa boppa is online now
Established Member

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: we got kangaroos hopping down the main street of sidenee you knows...
Posts: 419
Default
This message is hidden
;-)
__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)
Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
boppa
View Public Profile
Send a private message to boppa
Find all posts by boppa
View Post Old Today, 05:52 PM
Remove user from ignore list
SolusLupus
This message is hidden because SolusLupus is on your ignore list.
#81 (permalink) Report Post
Old Today, 06:04 PM
boppa's Avatar
boppa boppa is online now
Established Member

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: we got kangaroos hopping down the main street of sidenee you knows...
Posts: 419
Default
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/balogo_450x100.jpg


The Planet X Saga: Nancy Lieder

Back to the main Planet X page

New! (May 12, 2003):
Nancy Lieder has lied about me to try to make me look bad. I don't think it'll work though. :-)

Ms. Lieder runs the website ZetaTalk, where you can find her story in detail (though perhaps not in complete detail; many interesting aspects of her history appear to be missing). She claims to be channeling aliens, called "Zetans" (short for Zeta Reticulans, aliens from the star Zeta Reticuli). These aliens are telling her that a large planet will sweep by the Earth next year, flipping the Earth's axis and killing about 90% of the human population.

As usual, it's difficult to know where to start with such a statement. First, I am no big believer in channeling. This, for those not in the know, is when spirits, aliens, or whoever, are telepathically communicating with a living human. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that that this is actually happening. I will simply send you to James Randi's website where he debunks quite firmly people who claim to speak with the dead, and other dearly and nearly departed entities.

Second, I have a difficult time believing that benign aliens are communicating with us, trying to warn us of impending disaster. If they really cared about us, how about taking a few humans to safety? Or doing something to divert the disaster?

Third, I don't see any evidence for a planet coming by in May 2003. More on that below. Fourth, I don't see how a nearby passage of a planet can flip the Earth's axis. We'll see more about that below as well.


many of us came here because phil was a good guy that explained himself

many of us are leaving because phil cant explain why his site has been taken over by a bunch of abusive a.h......mods from the ut part of the new baut..

as debunkers the `ut' part sux badly- when even the debunkers think `u r a.h.ole's- well

dont expect much from the web- or from the site members..
:-(
__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)
Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
boppa
View Public Profile
Send a private message to boppa
Find all posts by boppa
View Post Old Today, 06:06 PM
Remove user from ignore list
Gillianren
This message is hidden because Gillianren is on your ignore list.
#83 (permalink) Report Post
Old Today, 06:08 PM
boppa's Avatar
boppa boppa is online now
Established Member

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 06:17 PM
Yes, we get it. You're quite proud of your ignore list.

I can see why you would be so resistant from having to substantiate your claims, though.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 06:19 PM
I'm SOOOO honoured- I got all the `dewunkers' posting on my thread!!

(they aren't debunkers- at best they are delanguages...)

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 06:23 PM
I wonder what things boppa would say about ToSeek, another person from the BA boards.

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 06:23 PM
sad part is the sunny wollf (if thats the same name he uses there)

is one of the people i look up to....

for the same reason b.a i went to...


and the same reason baut i DONT go to.....

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 06:25 PM
"Solus" means "alone, solitary" in Latin, not "Sunny".

Arneb
2010-Feb-05, 06:27 PM
"Solus" means "alone, solitary" in Latin, not "Sunny".
most welcome, SolusLupus ;)

boppa
2010-Feb-05, 06:28 PM
This message is hidden because

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 06:30 PM
Keep going. Pretty soon the only people on this forum you'll have to hear is your own voice.

ToSeek
2010-Feb-05, 06:34 PM
boppa has been suspended for three days for using thinly disguised profanity after being warned not to do so, not to mention it was being used to describe the moderators. Note that this is coming from the administrator who hails from the BABB.

Swift
2010-Feb-05, 06:34 PM
OK, time out.

boppa is going to take a little break. Maybe he can take the time to figure out how to behave on BAUT.

If you see **** you are posting things you should not. And listing who is on your ignore list is the equivalent of a personal attack (as has been discussed in other threads).

Now, no more responses to or about boppa. If anyone has thoughts about the OP, stick to that.

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 07:00 PM
Are we looking at the same thread?
The one I see (http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/98200-negative-energy-mathmatically-possible-4.html) was closed after 6 consecutive posts by yourself, and closed because of your comment.
And; It still seems to be in Q&A.
What post had the ATM links, and where was the moderator comment about that post?


No that is not the one ... that is the one I created after it since the other was sent to ATM ... I tried to reword my question so that it was not ATMish.

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 07:06 PM
Can we test run a debates/trash can/rubbish bin forum just to see how it goes? Lets say a 30 day trial of "Rubish Bin"

Forum Name: Rubish Bin
Forum Description:
A dump for posts that either have drifted too far away from mainstream or have been lackluster proposals at ATM theories. Posts will move here for 30 days then be closed. Note: the discussions in these forums may or may not be backed by mainstream theories.


Actually instead of moving posts to ATM move them here and then if someone wants to fully defend it they can request a move to ATM as a theater for defense.

Thoughts?

grant hutchison
2010-Feb-05, 07:10 PM
Can we test run a debates/trash can/rubbish bin forum just to see how it goes? Lets say a 30 day trial of "Rubish Bin"
...
Thoughts?You've got the rest of the Internet for that.

Grant Hutchison

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-05, 07:15 PM
No that is not the one ... that is the one I created after it since the other was sent to ATM ... I tried to reword my question so that it was not ATMish.
This one? (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/98999-negative-mass-time-dilation.html)
I can try guessing all day, or you can point out where this issue is.
If this is the one, I still don't see the ATM by someone else, or a mod comment mentioning it.
What I do see is a question that is attempting to back up an ATM concept. While the question itself could be considered an innocent question, it is framed in context of an ATM suggestion.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-05, 07:25 PM
Can we test run a debates/trash can/rubbish bin forum just to see how it goes?

No; Fraser's opposed?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-05, 08:08 PM
We did, it was what ATM was before the 30 day limit.
It wasn't pretty.

Tensor
2010-Feb-05, 08:37 PM
Tommac, if you want an example of the problems the ATM forum had and why the rules are what they are, I can think of no better example than this (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/8552-twin-paradox-definitive-proof-its-sr.html) thread (it sticks in my mind, only because I was involved, along with several of our, now, moderators). I warn you that the whole thing is 53 pages long (in the old format, it was 82 pages). The problems start on the very first page.

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 09:03 PM
Tommac, if you want an example of the problems the ATM forum had and why the rules are what they are, I can think of no better example than this (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/8552-twin-paradox-definitive-proof-its-sr.html) thread (it sticks in my mind, only because I was involved, along with several of our, now, moderators). I warn you that the whole thing is 53 pages long (in the old format, it was 82 pages). The problems start on the very first page.

I see the point ... however I think it can be managed for the one offs.
I see a huge gap for discussing ideas that are based on mainstream physics but result in ATM ideas.

Maybe some simple rules would limit bickering. Maybe a locking after a certain post count. Maybe allowing mods to lock if there is no progression of the idea on either front ... Maybe attach a POLL to each of these threads for who is "winning" the debate if either side gets over 75% the thread gets closed ... something ...

Also why is it so bad that the thread you posted existed if it existed in the forum "Rubbish Bin" ? As long as no insults or name calling happens ... it seems that the people that stuck with that thread for 75 pages must still of had a vested interest in the thread. Even I would have given up by that point.

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 09:13 PM
Let me MOD the "Rubbish Bin" for a 30 day test drive.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-05, 09:14 PM
Maybe attach a POLL to each of these threads for who is "winning" the debate if either side gets over 75% the thread gets closed ...

That's not how science works. Science is neither a popularity contest nor a debate; "winning" is irrelevant. And, again, since Fraser has specifically gone on record as saying that these things aren't going to happen, whining in threads like these will not change anything. Maybe a one-on-one discussion with Fraser will, but I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

Tensor
2010-Feb-05, 09:19 PM
I see the point ... however I think it can be managed for the one offs.

That was not a one off, that was just one example of many that was occurring. That one just happened to scar me, so I remember it better than the others.



I see a huge gap for discussing ideas that are based on mainstream physics but result in ATM ideas.

Maybe some simple rules would limit bickering. Maybe a locking after a certain post count. Maybe allowing mods to lock if there is no progression of the idea on either front ... Maybe attach a POLL to each of these threads for who is "winning" the debate if either side gets over 75% the thread gets closed ... something ...

All of the above puts more of a load on the moderators. All of who have lives beyond this board. You want to put a greater load on them, just so people can discuss ideas that can be discussed at other forums. I don't follow the reasoning.


Also why is it so bad that the thread you posted existed if it existed in the forum "Rubbish Bin" ? As long as no insults or name calling happens ... it seems that the people that stuck with that thread for 75 pages must still of had a vested interest in the thread. Even I would have given up by that point.

Well, some of us have a feeling that this forum is recognized as providing good information on astronomy and space sciences. And we don't want bad information going out. Hence the attempts at keeping the information correct. And again, the moderators would still have to check in, increasing their already heavy load.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-05, 09:20 PM
As Gilianren points out Science isn't a popularity contest. What you are proposing is exactly the opposite of what BAUT is about.

If you want to see what things were like before the current ATM rules just look back through the archive.

Just for Boppa I want to point out that I am from the old BA board, since when does length of membership act as an exemption from the rules?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-05, 09:33 PM
Let me MOD the "Rubbish Bin" for a 30 day test drive.
Ok deal, put it on your forum and we'll see how it rolls.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-05, 09:35 PM
Ok deal, put it on your forum and we'll see how it rolls.

Winner!

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 09:36 PM
That's not how science works. Science is neither a popularity contest nor a debate; "winning" is irrelevant. And, again, since Fraser has specifically gone on record as saying that these things aren't going to happen, whining in threads like these will not change anything. Maybe a one-on-one discussion with Fraser will, but I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

Well it sort of is ... What makes something ATM? It means that the popular vote from scientist dont agree with the idea. Doesnt mean that it doesnt have merrit.

It seems that on this board if you even question something like Hawking Radiation that you will imediately be thrown to ATM or thread closed ( in my oinion a worse fate ). However it seems that there are many scientists ( maybe not enough for a popular vote ) that believe that Hawking Radiation does not happen.

That was just one of the proposed alternatives to kill run away posts anyway.

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 09:38 PM
Ok deal, put it on your forum and we'll see how it rolls.

Would you mind if I created that forum on my forum and added a link in my sig? Certainly it would be cool if you could even send people that wish to continue that type of dialog to my forum.

Admins would that be OK?

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-05, 09:43 PM
Well it sort of is ... What makes something ATM? It means that the popular vote from scientist dont agree with the idea. Doesnt mean that it doesnt have merrit.

Hmm, there's a word that's conspicuous by its absence here.

(Snaps fingers.) Evidence! That's the one!

Swift
2010-Feb-05, 09:44 PM
Would you mind if I created that forum on my forum and added a link in my sig? Certainly it would be cool if you could even send people that wish to continue that type of dialog to my forum.

Admins would that be OK?
If you have your own forum somewhere, and you want to put a link to it in your signature, I'm fine with that.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 09:47 PM
Just for Boppa I want to point out that I am from the old BA board, since when does length of membership act as an exemption from the rules?

I'd point out that he wasn't arguing about length of membership, but that the "new rules" are inferior because they're from "That Other Board".

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 09:50 PM
If you have your own forum somewhere, and you want to put a link to it in your signature, I'm fine with that.

Added ... please let me know if it is OK.

The first link in my signature is a site for discussion of ATM, Space-Time and Science Fiction.

If you want ... and it would be very appreciated actually ... is send all of the trouble people over to that board ... for example upon closing their thread ... include somethign like ... if you want to discuss ATM withoutt showing the math please post to : http://www.againstthemainstream.com and not on this board.

tommac
2010-Feb-05, 09:51 PM
Hmm, there's a word that's conspicuous by its absence here.

(Snaps fingers.) Evidence! That's the one!

What is the evidence of hawking radiation?

01101001
2010-Feb-05, 09:53 PM
If you want ... and it would be very appreciated actually ... is send all of the trouble people over to that board ... for example upon closing their thread ... include somethign like ... if you want to discuss ATM withoutt showing the math please post to : http://www.againstthemainstream.com and not on this board.

Call it Godlike Productions Junior Auxiliary.

Please.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-05, 10:01 PM
Guys, I think tommac has something here. At the very least, he's provided a kind of digital zoo to peer at these strange creatures in their natural habitat.


Okay, perhaps that was insulting. I was just being silly. I actually don't find this an entirely horrible compromise, myself. If they're off the BAUT, and you add the note that there's no real scientific supervision in that area, I say it's fine.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-05, 10:39 PM
What is the evidence of hawking radiation?
There is none, which is why it's still hypothetical.
However, it's a direct consequence and falsifiable prediction of the mathematical formulae of quantum mechanics, for which there are already massive1 amounts of evidence.

1) pun accidental.

DrRocket
2010-Feb-05, 10:56 PM
There is none, which is why it's still hypothetical.
However, it's a direct consequence and falsifiable prediction of the mathematical formulae of quantum mechanics, for which there are already massive1 amounts of evidence.

1) pun accidental.

Not quite.

Hawking radiation is a prediction of quantum field theory in curved spacetime. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved_spacetime) That is not so well-established or well-defined as ordinary quantum mechanics or quantum field theories, which are formulated in flat spacetime.

It is in principle falsifiable, but I don't think anyone has any good ideas on how to detect it for a large black hole. However, if the LHC does manage to produce microscopic black holes (remember that is a big "if") they are expected to decay very quickly due to Hawking radiation and perhaps that would be readily detected.

Note that here we have a good example of a mainstream idea that is conjectural. It is neither proven nor ATM.

Swift
2010-Feb-05, 10:58 PM
Please, let's not get into a discussion about any single mainstream or ATM idea, unless the example has direct relevance to the OP (and then only use it as it relates to that).

tommac
2010-Feb-06, 12:56 AM
Please, let's not get into a discussion about any single mainstream or ATM idea, unless the example has direct relevance to the OP (and then only use it as it relates to that).

OK lets just say that there are mainstream ideas that have little to no evidence. They are neither proven nor ATM ... I feel that they are open for debate / discussion.

tommac
2010-Feb-06, 01:24 AM
I changed my sig slightly by adding: http://www.againstthemainstream.com <- Too ATM for Baut? or did you just get Suspended? Visit us.

If that is not OK ... please PM me and I will remove/change any part of my sig that is requested. Just trying to help out.

astromark
2010-Feb-06, 01:56 AM
It will be interesting... Good on you tomac.

cosmopaul67
2010-Feb-06, 03:05 AM
Gee whiz ... Sorry about the elves thing everybody ... I didn’t realize it was such a serious bone of contention ! :) :lol: !

... Honestly, did anybody mistake my elves commentary as serious speculation? :lol: !

... I just use those colourful euphemisms to show my frustration with complicated concepts like 11 dimensional string theory, warped open architecture of space-time, “negative Newtonian pressure”, etc. that I, as a mathematically challenged layman, am perplexed by.

I was just trying (weakly) to evoke a sense of spirituous humor , evident from such luminary geniuses like Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, George Gamow, Richard Feynman, etc, etc, etc... like “Black Holes have no hair” or “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” and “Yes God DOES play dice ... and sometimes ... he cheats” ... not that I consider myself even remotely anywhere near the same league with any of them ! I just think it’s sometimes good to gently inject a little levity into discussion that’s all.
You know ... to dissipate some of the gravity in the forum ... (what ... too soon ? :doh: )

So I am now reading Michio Kaku’s work and then I’ll move on to Brian Greene’s book, and no doubt have to shell out for Andrew Zimmerman Jones’ “String Theory for Dummies”. lol
... Oh, and I’m re-reading Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” for the 7th time.

Sometimes I just think scientists like Kaku “dumbs” concepts down too much for the typical CNN Friday-physicist. And History Channel’s “The Universe” gives inordinate weight to concepts that are more visually impressive (i.e. the Big Rip vs. The Big Freeze ... it’s way easier to show stars and planets disintegrating than to represent the deep, black, frigid cosmological aeons of the degenerate, Black Hole, and Dark eras).

... But I digress ...
I guess even I have noticed somewhat of a quick-draw dynamic between some moderators and certain members, But I don’t want to speculate or cast aspersions on any of that ... it wouldn't be constructive. I certainly don’t believe that I’ve been unfairly treated by any means.

I think this particular thread is helpful in illuminating some of the reasoning behind the stringent rules regarding the Q & A and ATM forums .

OH ! ...
P.S. :
DON’T RISK BUILDING A SUPERCOLLIDER THAT WILL “BLOW A HOLE INTO ANOTHER DIMENSION” !
THERE MIGHT JUST BE THE CHANCE THAT YOU’LL INITIATE AN AVALANCHE FROM OUR POSSIBLE FALSE VACUUM UNIVERSE INTO A LOWER VACUUM STATE ! ! !

... whew ... I think I said it just in time. :)

sabianq
2010-Feb-06, 06:38 AM
hmmm. thanks guys, lotsa info to consider..

BTW, i would hope someone would tell me at anytime if i am demonstratively incorrect in any of my postings about anything..

i have tried very hard to always provide a link to back up my contention..

and i hope i didn't step on anyone by posting this thread.

01101001..
did i answer your question about my "ATM Speculation" comment suggesting that all ATM is speculation...?

All Seeing Eye
2010-Feb-06, 04:06 PM
If you see **** you are posting things you should not.

This post is its own counterexample.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-06, 04:11 PM
He's referring to asterisks. He's not cursing. If he was cursing, his sentence would be grammatically correct.

All Seeing Eye
2010-Feb-06, 04:17 PM
He's referring to asterisks. He's not cursing.

That's what makes it a counterexample.

grant hutchison
2010-Feb-06, 04:17 PM
He's referring to asterisks.Oh, that's a relief.
I thought BAUT had installed some sinister migraine-inducing code to provide feedback and discouragement for rule-breakers: "If you see stars, you are posting things you should not."
The black helicopters are bad enough, in my opinion.

Grant Hutchison

01101001
2010-Feb-06, 06:23 PM
01101001..
did i answer your question about my "ATM Speculation" comment suggesting that all ATM is speculation...?

Not really. Maybe it will have to do.

But if you thought that everything in the ATM section was ATM speculation, then why did you ask where ATM speculation could be conducted?

And I don't think it's fair to the ATM theorists, the serious and disciplined idea-promoters and their audience, to label what they hold to be possible results of sound logic applied to good data, to be speculation, mere suggestions of possibilities based on incomplete evidence. That most times, almost always, their data isn't so good or logic so sound means that their assertions were in error, not that they were speculating.

Those who go to the ATM section just to announce stuff they've made up, or ask others to do likewise, stuff that isn't based on what is known, that maybe ignores the tools of reasoning, are not in the right section, and hopefully quickly get discovered and directed elsewhere, outside of BAUT. Maybe kind of like what happened to you once. But that's not ATM speculation. That's unfounded wild speculation that someone tried to accomplish in the ATM section.

Finally, as I said before, if it's regular speculation that does mesh with what's known, doesn't bump up against mainstream science, then that is the sort of thing discussed in many parts of BAUT forum already, enthusiastically, in the advancement of science, in the exploration of what could be. Good stuff.

Robert Tulip
2010-Feb-06, 07:03 PM
My two cents - BAUT is a well run board. Mainstream science has a wonderful and powerful vision of the nature of reality, and it should be made very tough for anyone who wants to argue differently.

I think it was in the book Consilience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience)by EO Wilson that a gradation is discussed for new ideas from possible to plausible and compelling. For starters an ATM idea has to be possible to even get discussed. The proponent may think the claim is compelling, but convincing others is another story entirely, requiring that all those pesky leaps of logic be joined up. Just getting from 'possible' to 'plausible' is a major and rare achievement.

Tensor
2010-Feb-07, 03:57 AM
Hmmmm, since I don't see anything in the banned posters thread, I would guess that All Seeing Eye was a sock puppet?

Tobin Dax
2010-Feb-07, 04:17 AM
Hmmmm, since I don't see anything in the banned posters thread, I would guess that All Seeing Eye was a sock puppet?
Probably, but we may want to leave it at that. We shouldn't discuss Lamb Chop (http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/1781-cnn-headlines.html#post1674467) either.

antoniseb
2010-Feb-07, 04:32 AM
Hmmmm, since I don't see anything in the banned posters thread, I would guess that All Seeing Eye was a sock puppet?

My fault. He/she was a sock puppet. I banned him, but I was on the edge of falling asleep and forgot to follow through.

Tensor
2010-Feb-07, 04:49 AM
My fault. He/she was a sock puppet. I banned him, but I was on the edge of falling asleep and forgot to follow through.

I know the mods have a lot going on between their lives and moderating the board. No blame or fault to place. I just happen to have way too much time on my hands now and I am spending much of it here, noticing irrelevant things. :)

sabianq
2010-Feb-07, 07:40 AM
Ohhh... OK i think i see..
said the blind man..

i have always understood that ATM "Against The Mainstream" is a thread that is by its own definition supports ideas and theories that do not mesh with "Main Stream" ideology..

it was suggested:


ATM theorists, the serious and disciplined idea-promoters and their audience, to label what they hold to be possible results of sound logic applied to good data,

see, here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^&^^^^
I don't see that this definition can fit with ideas posted in the "against the mainstream at all../ rather this is how science is supposed to work and is not what i would call "fringe" or ATM,

rather such a theorist using sound logic with good data will produce a result that mainstream will whole heartedly agree with...

if i or anybody actually has good data, and sound logic, any results gained from such tools (logic) and building blocks (data) (assuming there are no calculation or data errors) will produce results that are not speculation at all..
these results will be verifiable and reproducible..



such science by nature or definition cannot be "against the mainstream,"

because as what was said in previous posts, Main Stream science is not a popularity contest, rather a rigid frame work of rules (sound logic) is is followed to work data into quantifiable results.


if speculation is
mere suggestions of possibilities based on incomplete evidence.
or data..

then that definition by nature would be "against the mainstream" as mainstream ideology does not allow for conclusions based on incomplete evidence or (un-sound logic)..

however, you can speculate on a solution to a problem with incomplete data based on observational behavior or past examples...

i can think of many examples but i have a real problem i am speculating on right now.

My neighbors gas generator will not start.. (we lost power in Virgina here)
i can speculate that it is either out of gas, has a bad spark plug, is not turned on, clogged air filter, low oil trip switch is tripped, or a dozen other possibilities.

the mainstream thinking of how to solve this issue is to start at the top of the list of things that might be wrong and check off what is functioning correctly until i have isolated the problem. that is my solution. when the problem is solved, (added gas, had a corroded spark plug and the oil trip was tripped) the thing started fine...


I could use an Against the "Mainstream" approach and throw away the list and try something else that my gut tells me is right... i have researched for yeas and found that if i put my hat on back-wards, and yell START while pulling on the starter cord until my arm falls off, sometimes in my past experience, the engine starts.

i guess it is like saying that if something is correlated to an event, that something is the cause of an event.

was it me turning my hat around that made the engine start?
i mean i pulled and pulled and pulled, a hundred times on that dam pull so i stood up, wiped the sweat from my head and turned my hat around, i reached for the cord and gave it one last pull getting ready to give up. all of a sudden to my astonishment, the engine roared to life..

obviously, the starting of the engine was a result of me turning my hat around...
in reality, the two are absolutely correlated.. but my speculation that turning my hat around was what caused the engine to start is based on my personal observation. and the correlation of the events can lead me to speculate that they are related and the repositioning of the hat caused the engine to start.

of course it is absurd...

both solutions worked for me in the end..

but my solution based on the working knowledge of the system. by understanding how the system is built, and having all of the data, i have created a path to the solution of the problem that will be reproducible. (the other way, the "hat" trick, may not be so reliably reproducible.)

this path is what "mainstream" ideas actually are. the mainstream idea seems not so much the answer, rather the path one takes to get to the answer.

kinda like "show your math" in algebra.

01101001
2010-Feb-07, 10:03 AM
Yes, I think you see.


Against the Mainstream
Post here if you want to discuss a theory that goes against the astronomical mainstream. Have a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang? This is the place.

That word "theory" in the description is very much used in its scientific, not popular sense.

The ATM section is about observations, data, and assertions about phenomena that are superior to the existing ones. Sound ideas will become part of the new mainstream.

So far, science hasn't been revolutionized by an idea introduced in the ATM section. But it could happen. It's very unlikely, but possible.

I expect that if the owners ever despair that it could happen, they'll just close the section and give the revolutionary ideas no home at BAUT. I think they've come close to doing that.

agingjb
2010-Feb-07, 11:04 AM
It's easy enough to abide by the BAUT rules for ATM and conspiracy, but several posters have not, and have as a result been expelled.

I'd speculate that these ex-posters came roughly into two groups - the resolutely contrarian and the hopelessly naive. I think there might have been a case for treating the naiviety with lenience - but I can see that this would have been difficult for the hard pressed moderators.

I do wonder how the board would work without the ATM section - would the moderators delete and warn immediately anything judged to be ATM? Would the grey area on the edge of ATM have to be much more sharply divided?

astromark
2010-Feb-07, 11:19 AM
So the next time I am confronted by unsurmountable odds., or am about to give up in despair...

just turn my hat round:) Hmmm...( but I do understand you.)

and then line up the elves and gallery style, bang bang bang...

and then separating or even understanding there is a difference between Fiction, Possible, Plausible, and reality.

A very helpful moderator once after taking me out of Q/A for being a little keen on a ATM idea and later this same thread

ended up in Off Topic Babbling because it looked like it was going some where. Does not get shut there.

Oddly enough I agreed with all of that and understood him perfectly...

That on reflection is the only issue I see here. Is that...

That when you think you want to share your wisdom with us fellow astronomicle minded people.

Little or none of the ramafacations are considered...

Have you seen how well a dobsonian telescope rolls down a grassy bank. ?

Only interrupted by the small child clinging to it... It took days to get the mirror right.

Nereid
2010-Feb-08, 07:40 PM
Here's what I consider the ATM catch-22. Someone with what is considered to be a non-mainstream idea, even if mainstream theory is not yet that solid on the subject, is told to take it to ATM where the requirements are so strict that, to qualify, the idea must be backed up to a point close to where one could write a paper for peer revue.I think this is a serious misunderstanding.

If you start a thread in the ATM section, presenting your ATM idea, there is no requirement that it be fully developed, that it contain math, etc.

The only requirement is that you, the presenter, must answer all direct, pertinent questions in a timely fashion. How you choose to so answer is entirely up to you.<snipped both quotes>

Here is my take on it. I think the truth is between these two.

Yes Luckmeister, the requirements for ATM approach that of a peer-reviewed paper. As I've explained, that is the way owners of this board want it. I'm sorry if some people don't like that, but that's the way it is. I will say that "approaches" is key, and we are a little less stringent than an actual journal or PhD defense.

And no, we don't require that the ATM idea be fully developed, but it does need to be more than wild speculation (which is true for a lot of stuff that gets posted). And no, you don't have to have math. But you do need some evidence, something more than "I think this is a cool idea".

I would be quite content where someone based their idea on actual data. It doesn't mean you have to build your own telescope, a lot of raw data is out there.

But it needs to be based on some sort of evidence: equations, data, something. Speculation along the lines of "well atoms look like balloons to me" or "well, I don't like dark energy" is not going to fly.

And much of astronomy and physics is very mathematical (part of the reason I'm a chemist ;)). Thus, the evidence of choice (but not the only choice) is often math.
There's two (at least!) different meanings of 'requirement' at work here! :)

From the perspective of the BAUT ATM rule, the sole requirement is that you answer all direct, pertinent questions in a timely fashion.

From the perspective of presenting a viable ATM idea, within the scope of contemporary astrophysics, there is a near-certain requirement that you start introducing math, quantitative reasoning, etc by about the end of the first day (or page).

If your ATM idea is purely empirical, and concerns only astronomy*, then I guess it's possible for you to avoid math, equations, etc, and simply stick to presenting astronomical data. At some point you'd almost certainly have to start doing some statistics, but that point may not be reached within 30 days.

* note that there are very few such ATM ideas, at least as presented in BAUT's ATM section ... but not none!

Nereid
2010-Feb-08, 07:50 PM
It's easy enough to abide by the BAUT rules for ATM and conspiracy, but several posters have not, and have as a result been expelled.

I'd speculate that these ex-posters came roughly into two groups - the resolutely contrarian and the hopelessly naive. I think there might have been a case for treating the naiviety with lenience - but I can see that this would have been difficult for the hard pressed moderators.

I do wonder how the board would work without the ATM section - would the moderators delete and warn immediately anything judged to be ATM? Would the grey area on the edge of ATM have to be much more sharply divided?
There are several examples out there, in the wide world of the internet, of how this sort of thing is handled.

One approach, for example, is for mods to warn newbies about posting ATM stuff (and the most blatant posts are deleted), followed by thread locking and/or banning if the warning is not heeded. Rules, for fora with longish histories and largish memberships, would be written sufficiently clearly to make recognising ATM stuff easy (with the unspoken rule that newbies are generally given considerable latitude).

sabianq
2010-Feb-08, 07:59 PM
i guess the thing that really kinda irked me was the thread on Astrology lasted far longer and was given more chances then my real honest to good question on the nature and speculation on what dark energy may be.


Astrology?
Really??

I would have at least liked to hear at least one reason as to why my speculation was not correct..

like i said, the question was and still is running through the back of my head and having some discussion would have been nice, at least fo as long as a thread on astrology would last..
thanks

sabianq
2010-Feb-08, 08:09 PM
i was thinking that i could disprove my rational
if (G) the gravitational constant would not fall out formula with the rate of acceleration (as observed from astronomical data) of any given galaxy and its (the galaxys) total mass are used as functions.

if i could show that "G" could not be derived from the data, then my speculation on dark energy would obviously be in error.

but alas, astrology..
:(

Swift
2010-Feb-08, 08:19 PM
<snip>

From the perspective of the BAUT ATM rule, the sole requirement is that you answer all direct, pertinent questions in a timely fashion.

Actually, I do not agree that this is the sole requirement. Here is part of Rule 13 (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html#post564845):

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

In addition, the Advice for ATM theory supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/16242-advice-atm-theory-supporters.html) is taken, for all practical purposes as a set of rules for ATM. And here is item 1 from that list (my bold):

1. You’re going to be challenged to defend your statements with evidence.

Nereid
2010-Feb-08, 08:38 PM
You're right Swift; the answers you give to direct, pertinent questions on your ATM ideas (as presented) do need to meet certain minimum standards (beyond simply avoiding violation of rules on civility, copyright, etc); I should have made that clear.

The status of the Advice is a bit grey, IMHO. The BA (who wrote the original rule) clearly intended that you not only read the Advice thread, but also take it to heart. However, that thread contains a rather large number of posts, and it is not always so obvious which advice is all-but-mandatory, and which merely sage.

Swift
2010-Feb-08, 08:52 PM
The status of the Advice is a bit grey, IMHO. The BA (who wrote the original rule) clearly intended that you not only read the Advice thread, but also take it to heart. However, that thread contains a rather large number of posts, and it is not always so obvious which advice is all-but-mandatory, and which merely sage.
Yes.

I have it on my BAUT to-do list to propose an "upgrade" of it, to deal exactly with this problem, but life keeps interfering.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-08, 09:10 PM
i guess the thing that really kinda irked me was the thread on Astrology lasted far longer and was given more chances then my real honest to good question on the nature and speculation on what dark energy may be.


What astrology thread are you referring to? I remember this recent one:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/99295-quantum-entanglement-astrology.html

. . . which, if I'm reading it right, lasted about five hours. Are you thinking of another? That doesn't seem like a particularly long lived thread.

01101001
2010-Feb-08, 09:28 PM
From the OP:


here is an interesting one.
Astrology debunking [has] FAIL [ed]?
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/100145-astrology-debunk-fail.html
astrology?
at least it was given 16 tries and 13 hours before it was shut down..

That seems to have been shut down pretty nearly on schedule, within hours of its start, without knowing details of whether it was reported, how busy the mods were with other work, and what mods were on and interested in doing.

I've certainly seen astrology threads go much longer, but some astrology proponents are pretty slippery.

Luckmeister
2010-Feb-08, 09:45 PM
I've certainly seen astrology threads go much longer, but some astrology proponents are pretty slippery.

Yeah, especially if they're Leos.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :lol:)

Swift
2010-Feb-08, 10:00 PM
Yeah, especially if they're Leos.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :lol:)
http://www.buffettworld.com/forum/images/smilies/rimshot.gif

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-09, 01:41 AM
From the OP:



That seems to have been shut down pretty nearly on schedule, within hours of its start, without knowing details of whether it was reported, how busy the mods were with other work, and what mods were on and interested in doing.

I've certainly seen astrology threads go much longer, but some astrology proponents are pretty slippery.

Ah, thanks, I missed that. That's still a short run.

Tensor
2010-Feb-09, 03:14 AM
Yes.

I have it on my BAUT to-do list to propose an "upgrade" of it, to deal exactly with this problem, but life keeps interfering.

Hey, wait a minute, who authorized you a life? I thought that was on the list of things you had to give up when you signed on as a moderator, or is that when you become an admin? ;-)

Moose
2010-Feb-09, 10:51 AM
Hey, wait a minute, who authorized you a life? I thought that was on the list of things you had to give up when you signed on as a moderator, or is that when you become an admin? ;-)

Apparently not, all four admin are known to have pretty lively ones.