PDA

View Full Version : ATM Rules Discussion



Pages : [1] 2

forrest noble
2009-Oct-25, 04:31 AM
ATM abuses:

I just finished a very long ATM thread and these were the very clear abuses that I experienced. I believe some changes in the rules could stop some of the abuses which I and others experienced on this and other threads, as described both above and below.

Question Flooding discussed above. One person asking 10 to 15 questions all in one day (as many as 40), sometimes on just one posting. Some of these questions individually required very long answers allowing much less time for other questions.

Thread Flooding also discussed above. This does not happen often but the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes three of four long postings of quotations, to keep the reader away from relevant/ valuable comments by the OP, pushing their reply to the top of the page or to a prior page.

Based upon my experiences I feel that those asking the questions do not really want to hear answers and often do not even read them since they keep asking the same questions over again repeatedly. It would seem that their sole purpose is to defeat the OP without having any real interest in their own questions or the answers given.

Repeated questions by the same person: Many questions were asked over and over again even when the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody. This was a very big problem and I feel certain that those doing it understood what they were doing, i.e wasting my time to reply to unanswered questions. I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question. It was easier to answer the same question multiple times when asked by the same person, rather than get warned to answer the questions by the moderator -- a strategy of intimidation by the questioner.

False Accusations and Insults were the order of the day and continued on an ongoing basis rather than addressing the answer, I was repeatedly attacked personally. This of course is the worst problem and should be stopped in its tracts every time, by the moderators without hesitation. There could never be an excuse for allowing such behavior. If this abuse is not stopped it always escalates. I made a number of complaints to moderators on this matter but none were answered. One time the moderator warned a poster concerning rule #1 but I don't know if it was in response to my complaint or not. When I commented online concerning continuous insults, I was told to push the triangle and warned concerning such online discussions-- whereby nobody ever answered my complaints, a catch 22.

Lack of understanding: Many of those asking questions could not understand sometimes simple concepts and answers. This, in some cases, may have been a reason why the same questions were repeatedly asked. In frustration I suggested that maybe somebody else reading my answers could help explain them to the questioner, after my answering the same question using different wording. The questioner complained to the moderator and I was warned concerning suspension. For this problem I don't know how new rules could help. But maybe somebody else might have an idea.

A number of questions were unrelated to the OP. Some involved how this or that experimenter performed his analysis. I told the questioner to ask this in the Q & A section since it did not involve any ATM idea or assertion. I was warned by the moderator to stop trying to moderate the thread myself and to answer the questions. I answered the questions by simply saying I don't know -- which was true unless I would have looked up the answers. Upon seeing my response somebody watching the thread looked up the answer and provided them online. They were warned not to do so thereafter.

Several persons had favorable comments concerning the OP and gave, what I considered very valuable comments. They were told not to partake in meta-discussions, and warned of suspension.

Moderators seemingly are biased against the OP, regardless of what the subject is. Some moderators, I believe, think they are doing a service by favoring opponents of the OP. This favoritism is based upon presuming some commentators know what they are talking about, and the OP does not. Other moderators may not even be aware of their own bias. I also feel that moderators seldom recognize those deceitful tactics described above. I'm not sure anything can be done about some of these tactics and the rules other than this posting, and moderators becoming aware of some of these unwanted/ deceitful tactics.

On a positive note: maybe it's just my imagination but it appears to me that some moderators may be improving to some extent concerning obvious favoritism.

mugaliens
2009-Oct-25, 09:53 AM
Nice compilation across all fronts, Forest!

I concur wholeheartedly with both your analysis, as well as your recommendation for a change in the ATM/CT rules, and especially the last two paragraphs. I think there's been some progress, which is a good sign. For this progress to continue, however, some rule modifications are in order.

RussT
2009-Oct-25, 11:50 AM
Nice compilation across all fronts, Forest!

I concur wholeheartedly with both your analysis, as well as your recommendation for a change in the ATM/CT rules, and especially the last two paragraphs. I think there's been some progress, which is a good sign. For this progress to continue, however, some rule modifications are in order.

I agree as well. Actually I think it is really pretty simple...Just get everyone, mainstreamer's included, to just cover the material presented, and stop all the 'name calling' and 'charactor degrading' tactics, and everything would go much smoother...;)

hhEb09'1
2009-Oct-25, 02:29 PM
False Accusations and Insults were the order of the day and continued on an ongoing basis rather than addressing the answer, I was repeatedly attacked personally. This of course is the worst problem and should be stopped in its tracts every time, by the moderators without hesitation. There could never be an excuse for allowing such behavior. If this abuse is not stopped it always escalates. I made a number of complaints to moderators on this matter but none were answered. One time the moderator warned a poster concerning rule #1 but I don't know if it was in response to my complaint or not. When I commented online concerning continuous insults, I was told to push the triangle and warned concerning such online discussions-- whereby nobody ever answered my complaints, a catch 22.We don't have a policy of responding directly to a report. A moderator will handle it if they think it is appropriate, and sometimes they respond to the reporter if they feel there is some sort of misunderstanding. Sometimes, they will express their appreciation for the report, but I think that is rare.

I looked over your reports, for that thread. It would take me some time to analyze everything (even though there are less than a dozen reports), but I do seem to recognize the moderator response you refer to . I'm pretty sure it was in direct response to your complaint. If you want, PM me and I can furnish a couple more details.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-25, 07:49 PM
This does not happen often but the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes three of four long postings of quotations, to keep the reader away from relevant/ valuable comments by the OP, pushing their reply to the top of the page or to a prior page.

And, of course, you have evidence for this declaration of motive.


Repeated questions by the same person: Many questions were asked over and over again even when the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody. This was a very big problem and I feel certain that those doing it understood what they were doing, i.e wasting my time to reply to unanswered questions. I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question. It was easier to answer the same question multiple times when asked by the same person, rather than get warned to answer the questions by the moderator -- a strategy of intimidation by the questioner.

And, of course, you have evidence that it was understandable and clear to almost anybody and that the question had been answered--instead of, as often seems to be the case, an answer to some question which hadn't been asked.


Lack of understanding: Many of those asking questions could not understand sometimes simple concepts and answers. This, in some cases, may have been a reason why the same questions were repeatedly asked. In frustration I suggested that maybe somebody else reading my answers could help explain them to the questioner, after my answering the same question using different wording. The questioner complained to the moderator and I was warned concerning suspension. For this problem I don't know how new rules could help. But maybe somebody else might have an idea.

And, of course, you have evidence that it was their lack of understanding that was the issue, not yours. And that you did your best to put it in the simplest terms possible. And that your terms were being used in a standard fashion.


Several persons had favorable comments concerning the OP and gave, what I considered very valuable comments. They were told not to partake in meta-discussions, and warned of suspension.

Yeah, I have no problem there, honestly. The ATM thread is supposed to be about the quality of the evidence, not the positive comments of the people reading it. I've always reported what I consider to be superfluous negative comments, too.


Moderators seemingly are biased against the OP, regardless of what the subject is. Some moderators, I believe, think they are doing a service by favoring opponents of the OP. This favoritism is based upon presuming some commentators know what they are talking about, and the OP does not. Other moderators may not even be aware of their own bias. I also feel that moderators seldom recognize those deceitful tactics described above. I'm not sure anything can be done about some of these tactics and the rules other than this posting, and moderators becoming aware of some of these unwanted/ deceitful tactics.

In many cases, it is not a presumption that certain commentators know what they're talking about. It is established fact through prior discussion and, sometimes, knowledge of the person's profession. If someone who works in aerospace tells you that your idea on that subject is wrong, it gives a stronger presumption that your idea actually is wrong. There are other people where that isn't true--you shouldn't take my word about science as gospel, for starters! However, there are also times when the OP's ignorance is so apparent that even I know it--and have since elementary school.

agingjb
2009-Oct-25, 08:12 PM
I do wonder; if I were intelligent enough and knew enough to challenge the mainstream (I'm not and I don't), would I come here? Would I need to?

kleindoofy
2009-Oct-25, 08:25 PM
I do wonder; if I were intelligent enough and knew enough to challenge the mainstream (I'm not and I don't), would I come here? Would I need to?
Being intelligent enough and knowing enough are not the necessary criteria.

You can be as dumb as a loaf of bread, but your theory/proposition/model/etc. has to be valid upon scrutiny and defendable.

That's all.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-25, 08:32 PM
I do wonder; if I were intelligent enough and knew enough to challenge the mainstream (I'm not and I don't), would I come here? Would I need to?

You know, I would. It would be a good place to start. I would learn what the flaws in my work were and what I needed to work on. There's also a pretty good chance that, if I'd forgotten something obvious, someone would point that out, and that's of invaluable assistance.

agingjb
2009-Oct-25, 10:09 PM
Hmm. I just find it hard to imagine what it would be like to have the capacity to make a serious proposal of something that would overturn, for instance, general relativity or quantum physics.

But yes, I suppose those that do have that capacity may be happy to come here - and I suppose this place should make the experience no harder than stringent scientific examination would entail.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-25, 10:11 PM
It would be a good initial exercise to come here to go through a nicer version of what's going to happen later.
To start gently.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 12:04 AM
hhEb09'1,


We don't have a policy of responding directly to a report. A moderator will handle it if they think it is appropriate, and sometimes they respond to the reporter if they feel there is some sort of misunderstanding. Sometimes, they will express their appreciation for the report, but I think that is rare.

I looked over your reports, for that thread. It would take me some time to analyze everything (even though there are less than a dozen reports), but I do seem to recognize the moderator response you refer to. I'm pretty sure it was in direct response to your complaint. If you want, PM me and I can furnish a couple more details.

I appreciate your interest and effort. Instead if you wish, just look at the postings of 'GK' on that thread concerning rule #1. Some of the other posters violated the rule many times but he by far had almost continuous violations of rule #1. I don't get it. Why not just attack what is being said. Several asserted that I was lying, which were all false accusations with no basis. I cannot conceive of a reason to attack a person's character for any reason at all. Of course if they are very rude, nasty, and falsely accusatory one feels like insulting their motives and argument skills which I did on one occasion and was warned of suspension because of it. Of course one well-known strategy is to make someone mad enough to say something that will get them suspended.

Any ideas?

Spoons
2009-Oct-26, 12:20 AM
It's probably silly of me to chime in here, as I am not familiar with the case in point, but I would have to agree that in some cases people do seem intent on shooting down the ATM proponents rather than just assessing the merit of the ideas.

That said, I have been guilty of posting one or two snarky comments in the past.

And it happens on both sides.

One problem is, when people get frustrated in those sections they may not feel at liberty to walk away for a while, particularly the supporting sides, as rules state they must respond to questions in a timely fashion.

It would be reasonable for the person to state they need to cool off before getting suspended, but if someone did that to me in the middle of a discussion I'd be annoyed that they'd "just walked away from the table", in my view.

I don't know if there's a clean solution to that.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 12:23 AM
The evidence for my assertions are the thread itself. I don't expect anyone to read such a long thread but peruse it or just read the last dozen pages and you will see what is there and draw your own conclusion and opinion. I stated mine.


In many cases, it is not a presumption that certain commentators know what they're talking about. It is established fact through prior discussion and, sometimes, knowledge of the person's profession. If someone who works in aerospace tells you that your idea on that subject is wrong, it gives a stronger presumption that your idea actually is wrong. There are other people where that isn't true--you shouldn't take my word about science as gospel, for starters! However, there are also times when the OP's ignorance is so apparent that even I know it--and have since elementary school.

To me, science and logic are gospel! In fact it has been my life, spending maybe 25 years working in aerospace and all of my adult life studying and writing theory.

To me theories are just theories and need to be at sometime proven, such as the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, heat is based upon molecular/ atomic vibration, atomic fusion and nuclear synthesis -- just a few of many more "proven" theories.

Until that time all theories should be continuously analyzed and criticized by both advocates and opponents, in my opinion.

regards

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 12:39 AM
Nice compilation across all fronts, Forrest!

I concur wholeheartedly with both your analysis, as well as your recommendation for a change in the ATM/CT rules, and especially the last two paragraphs. I think there's been some progress, which is a good sign. For this progress to continue, however, some rule modifications are in order.

Thanks Mugaliens for your comment. I believe this Rules posting thread has remained open for a good reason. It provides a forum for those that believe the BAUT is a cool place to visit, but can also improve concerning the intent of its owners, operators, and users. I've followed Phil's blogs, read his book, and think he is a Bad Astronomer in the best slang sense of the words.

Moose
2009-Oct-26, 12:41 AM
One problem is, when people get frustrated in those sections they may not feel at liberty to walk away for a while, particularly the supporting sides, as rules state they must respond to questions in a timely fashion.

I'll point out that "timely" should never be interpreted to mean that the clock is running; tick tick tick. (Other than the 30-day timer, that is.) The intent of the "timely" rule is to prevent a less-than-ethical proponent from ignoring pertinent questions.

Generally speaking, so long as the pertinent questions are (well) answered (or at least acknowledged) in a reasonably sequential manner, the mod team isn't going to have a problem with slower response times. Whatever works best for the proponent, so long as it's done transparently and in good faith.

Participation is always voluntary. Contribute the time you have to contribute.


It would be reasonable for the person to state they need to cool off before getting suspended, but if someone did that to me in the middle of a discussion I'd be annoyed that they'd "just walked away from the table", in my view.

We _definitely_ want people to walk away for a breather if they feel like they're about to overheat.

It's okay for the proponent to say "I'm overheating. I'm going to walk away for a while until I cool off." It's also okay for a proponent to request a temporary thread closure if they're feeling overwhelmed or over-frustrated.

Ultimately, we want to give a well-prepared ATM proponent every reasonable chance to succeed within the format of a simulated (but decorous) peer-defense.


I don't know if there's a clean solution to that.

As that is something the mod team actively encourages to reduce decorum-related suspensions, you may be out of luck on that score.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 12:53 AM
agingjb,


I do wonder; if I were intelligent enough and knew enough to challenge the mainstream (I'm not and I don't), would I come here? Would I need to?

(bold added)

I have written a long book on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, entirely my own theories. The book itself is directed toward science minded independent thinkers. In general, except for the equations, it requires only a solid science/ math high school education, or Junior College/ college eduction in a science related field. This, I think, is the common readership of BAUT in general, there being exceptions concerning both more education and less education.

By coming here I hope to hear questions that I haven't thought of or where a different twist, angle or perspective might be realized concerning explanations to improve the book.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 01:07 AM
kleindoofy,


Being intelligent enough and knowing enough are not the necessary criteria.

You can be as dumb as a loaf of bread, but your theory/proposition/model/etc. has to be valid upon scrutiny and defendable.

That's all.

The way that I see some of these ATM proposals is that they are neither right nor wrong. They may contain some good points/ ideas that need to be explored rather than concentrating on those parts which may not make sense. This is what I do. I think more good might be gleaned from the proposal and future science interests by those involved.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 01:18 AM
HenrikOlsen,


It would be a good initial exercise to come here to go through a nicer version of what's going to happen later.
To start gently.

I don't think this Forum is a gentle start for a serious proposal. Few here have the ability to properly propose or respond to a scientific proposal and therefore insults happen frequently. Although this happens in the real world of proposals it generally occurs as a response to a paper and is on a one on one basis, not just an overall persecution/ inquisition of the OP.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 01:36 AM
Hi Spoons,


........but I would have to agree that in some cases people do seem intent on shooting down the ATM proponents rather than just assessing the merit of the ideas.

Re. snarky comments

....it happens on both sides.


One problem is, when people get frustrated in those sections they may not feel at liberty to walk away for a while, particularly the supporting sides, as rules state they must respond to questions in a timely fashion.


It would be reasonable for the person to state they need to cool off before getting suspended, but if someone did that to me in the middle of a discussion I'd be annoyed that they'd "just walked away from the table", in my view.

I don't know if there's a clean solution to that.

My experience is that at least 95% of the snarky comments come from ATM opponents. Those coming from the ATMers are almost entirely provoked by similar or worse comments by the opponent. In my opinion it is almost entirely an ATM Opponent problem

Gillianren
2009-Oct-26, 01:39 AM
To me, science and logic are gospel! [snip] To me theories are just theories and need to be at sometime proven . . . .

No true scientist would make such a statement. Surely you know that "just a theory" is a foolish statement regarding the scientific meaning of the word and that theories are never proven.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 01:42 AM
Gillianren,
Re: ATM posting to try out an idea


You know, I would. It would be a good place to start. I would learn what the flaws in my work were and what I needed to work on. There's also a pretty good chance that, if I'd forgotten something obvious, someone would point that out, and that's of invaluable assistance.

This is this positive side to it, but does the positive outweigh the negative abuse and insults,

I think in most cases, not.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 02:00 AM
Gillianren,

my quotation:


To me, science and logic are gospel! [snip] To me theories are just theories and need to be at sometime proven . . . .


No true scientist would make such a statement. Surely you know that "just a theory" is a foolish statement regarding the scientific meaning of the word and that theories are never proven.

I agree that your statement is the scientific consensus in today's world concerning theories. It is my opinion, on the other hand, that every theory today will someday be either improved, disproved, or simply lose favor based upon evidence and be replaced. Maybe some may even be proven.

My few examples of proven theories were these: the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, heat is based upon molecular/ atomic vibration, the causes of atomic fusion and nuclear synthesis are generally xyz -- just a few of many more what I consider "proven" theories.

I think your example is a good one concerning how the rules should work concerning peripheral discussions. On this matter we can agree to disagree and move on to the subject at hand, in this case a discussion of the rules and how they might be improved.

Tensor
2009-Oct-26, 03:48 AM
In my opinion it is almost entirely an ATM Opponent problem

Then I suggest you do some research in the ATM forum. Look up quite a few of those ATM proposals and see exactly where the snarky comments started. Did they start right off the bat? Did they start after repeated requests for answers were ignored? Did they start after the ATM poster continued to claim their idea correct, even after it had been shown to be wrong? Did it start after the ATM poster decided to use standard terms in non-standard ways, only to criticized those who were using it in the standard ways? Did they start after the ATM poster started making snarky comments? While it may be your opinion, (based possibly on your experience here) as long as I've been around here (and based on my experience here), it's more the ATM posters who provoke it. Now, there can be individuals (on both sides) who can skew the experience here.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-26, 04:58 AM
I agree that your statement is the scientific consensus in today's world concerning theories. It is my opinion, on the other hand, that every theory today will someday be either improved, disproved, or simply lose favor based upon evidence and be replaced.

Right.


Maybe some may even be proven.

Wrong.


My few examples of proven theories were these: the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, heat is based upon molecular/ atomic vibration, the causes of atomic fusion and nuclear synthesis are generally xyz -- just a few of many more what I consider "proven" theories.

Look, the fact that the world is round is not actually a theory. It is a measurable fact. (Technically, of course, the idea of the world being round is wrong, but let's not be pedantic.) Why the Earth is roundish is not a fact; it is a theory. It's an important difference.


I think your example is a good one concerning how the rules should work concerning peripheral discussions. On this matter we can agree to disagree and move on to the subject at hand, in this case a discussion of the rules and how they might be improved.

You know, we can't, because what you're saying is exactly where the problem in ATM almost always comes from. You are using terminology incorrectly. I have explained to you that it's incorrect. You have said that your use is just as valid, and why don't we agree to disagree about it? The fact is, until people stop trying to make words mean what they want them to, not what they do, there are going to be issues of the sort you're describing, and all the rules in the world won't change that.

Jeff Root
2009-Oct-26, 10:10 AM
My few examples of proven theories were these: the world is round ...
-- just a few of many more what I consider "proven" theories.
Look, the fact that the world is round is not actually a theory. It is
a measurable fact.
I'm tempted to agree with Forrest. Some time in the distant past,
it had not yet occurred to anyone that the Earth must be finite in
extent, or the stars and planets could not go underneath it. When
it was realized that the heavenly bodies circle under the world,
the theory began to develop that the Earth might be a sphere. The
observations that Earth's shadow on the Moon is always circular,
and that the angle of the Sun varies with latitude on a given day
were strong confirmation that the theory was correct. Nowadays we
can consider the theory that the Earth is roundish to be a fact,
but it wasn't always so.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2009-Oct-26, 10:11 AM
Question Flooding discussed above. One person asking 10 to 15 questions
all in one day (as many as 40), sometimes on just one posting. Some of
these questions individually required very long answers allowing much
less time for other questions.
I agree that that is a problem. It is just something ATM proponents
must deal with. Answer the questions as you can, without generating
new questions. When you need to, say that you do not have an answer
to some particular question, or will have to answer it later.



Thread Flooding also discussed above. This does not happen often but
the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes
three of four long postings of quotations, to keep the reader away from
relevant/ valuable comments by the OP, pushing their reply to the top
of the page or to a prior page.
The interpretation of such posting as a "strategy" with the intentions
you assert is paranoid. It is disconnected from reality.

Generally, such postings are clearly intended to support the poster's
assertions and counter the assertions of the person to whom the poster
is responding.



Repeated questions by the same person: Many questions were asked over
and over again even when the answers seemed quite understandable and
clear to almost anybody. This was a very big problem ...
I agree that this is a very big problem. However, in my experience,
it is virtually always caused by the poster being questioned not
realizing that he has failed to answer the question he thinks he has
answered. The answers he gives seem completely sensible and to the
point to him, but to those who actually understand the subject, they
are not. I have seen this over and over and over, with many dozens
of different posters here on BAUT, on sci.astro, on the Fidonet
ASTRONOMY and SCIENCE echoes, and elsewhere.

If the person answering the questions would make the effort to learn
why his answers are not satisfactory, this problem would be avoided.



False Accusations and Insults were the order of the day ...
I have not read the thread in question.

From considerable experience, the accusations are usually pretty
accurate. The ATM proponet generally fails to understand his idea
as well as his critics do. When the proponent fails to respond
rationally to the criticism, the critics get angry at him, and call
him "stupid", "deluded", "deranged", or whatever equivalent fits
the particular case. Those insults are hurtful, but are often
true, and could even be constructive if taken to heart.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-26, 10:16 AM
When the proponent fails to respond
rationally to the criticism, the critics get angry at him, and call
him "stupid", "deluded", "deranged", or whatever equivalent fits
the particular case.
And if this happens it should be reported immediately.

Swift
2009-Oct-26, 01:16 PM
HenrikOlsen,

It would be a good initial exercise to come here to go through a nicer version of what's going to happen later.
To start gently.
I don't think this Forum is a gentle start for a serious proposal. Few here have the ability to properly propose or respond to a scientific proposal and therefore insults happen frequently. Although this happens in the real world of proposals it generally occurs as a response to a paper and is on a one on one basis, not just an overall persecution/ inquisition of the OP.
Have you ever done a thesis or dissertation defense, where you have two or three people from your committee grill you about details of your work? Have you ever submitted a paper to a refereed jounral and had two or three reviewers tear it apart?

BAUT is relatively gentle.

Nereid
2009-Oct-26, 01:56 PM
ATM abuses:

I just finished a very long ATM thread and these were the very clear abuses that I experienced. I believe some changes in the rules could stop some of the abuses which I and others experienced on this and other threads, as described both above and below.

Question Flooding discussed above. One person asking 10 to 15 questions all in one day (as many as 40), sometimes on just one posting. Some of these questions individually required very long answers allowing much less time for other questions.
Surely the only concern here should be: are the questions valid?

The intent of the ATM section, with its rules, is very clear; if you are aware of the intent, and familiar with the rules and how they apply, then in preparing for the day when you post the OP of a new ATM idea presumably you will have considered the likely questions and have already addressed them (in the OP) or be prepared to do so.

I'm not sure about questions such as "are you sure you want to present this ATM idea? are you prepared to address challenges to it" - asked out of concern for the ATM proponent, and politeness - perhaps everyone should just assume every ATM idea presented is open (and that the proponent is prepared).

IMHO, there are four ordered criteria for judging whether a question - one that must be answered in a timely fashion - is valid or not:

* is it direct?

* does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?

* can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?

* is the question pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented?

If the question unambiguously meets all four criteria, then answer the question you must.

Of course, you can always answer something like any of these: "I don't know", or "I acknowledge the question, but it will take me some time to answer it", or "I don't understand the question, could you please clarify?", or "I can't see how the question relates to the ATM idea I have presented, as I presented it; could you elaborate please?".

One important thing many ATM proponents fail to realise is that every ATM presented, by them, in the ATM thread, is automatically open to being questioned and challenged (it seems some feel that only those ATM ideas presented in the OP are 'on the table').


Thread Flooding also discussed above. This does not happen often but the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes three of four long postings of quotations, to keep the reader away from relevant/ valuable comments by the OP, pushing their reply to the top of the page or to a prior page.
As has already been noted, it is extremely hard to unambiguously determine intent; have you considered the possibility that what you discern to be strategy X may not, in fact, exist (at least in the mind of the relevant BAUT member)?


Based upon my experiences I feel that those asking the questions do not really want to hear answers and often do not even read them since they keep asking the same questions over again repeatedly. It would seem that their sole purpose is to defeat the OP without having any real interest in their own questions or the answers given.
Ditto, re intent.

Also, again as has already been noted several times, perhaps a repeated question indicates a failure to communicate? Perhaps your readers did not understand your answer? Perhaps you did not understand the question? Perhaps you answered a question quite different from the one asked?

Since you are - presumably - trying to make a strong case for the ATM presented, why not take the opportunity to dig deeper and try to find out why communication seems to have failed?


Repeated questions by the same person: Many questions were asked over and over again even when the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody.
As above ... and also: how did you determine - objectively and verifiably - that "the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody"? In my own experience, this is an extremely difficult thing to do.


This was a very big problem and I feel certain that those doing it understood what they were doing, i.e wasting my time to reply to unanswered questions. I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question. It was easier to answer the same question multiple times when asked by the same person, rather than get warned to answer the questions by the moderator -- a strategy of intimidation by the questioner.
Nothing new here ... except that if you don't go back and check your earlier answers, and if you do answer in a different way, and if the challenger does their own homework and discovers the inconsistency, haven't you just made a rod for your own back?

You seem to be saying that BAUT members who challenge ATM ideas, as presented, should not take those ideas seriously ... and/or not challenge them seriously.


False Accusations and Insults were the order of the day and continued on an ongoing basis rather than addressing the answer, I was repeatedly attacked personally. This of course is the worst problem and should be stopped in its tracts every time, by the moderators without hesitation. There could never be an excuse for allowing such behavior. If this abuse is not stopped it always escalates. I made a number of complaints to moderators on this matter but none were answered. One time the moderator warned a poster concerning rule #1 but I don't know if it was in response to my complaint or not. When I commented online concerning continuous insults, I was told to push the triangle and warned concerning such online discussions-- whereby nobody ever answered my complaints, a catch 22.
Again, as has been pointed out several times, there is a process for reporting rule violations ... the moment you see one, you should report it.


Lack of understanding: Many of those asking questions could not understand sometimes simple concepts and answers. This, in some cases, may have been a reason why the same questions were repeatedly asked. In frustration I suggested that maybe somebody else reading my answers could help explain them to the questioner, after my answering the same question using different wording. The questioner complained to the moderator and I was warned concerning suspension. For this problem I don't know how new rules could help. But maybe somebody else might have an idea.
As above, this seems more like a case of communication failure ... which I suggest you might like to consider as an opportunity rather than a burden ...


A number of questions were unrelated to the OP. Some involved how this or that experimenter performed his analysis. I told the questioner to ask this in the Q & A section since it did not involve any ATM idea or assertion. I was warned by the moderator to stop trying to moderate the thread myself and to answer the questions. I answered the questions by simply saying I don't know -- which was true unless I would have looked up the answers.
If you yourself had presented the work of "this or that experimenter" in support of the ATM ideas presented, then surely it is perfectly legitimate* to ask about the details?

If you answer "I don't know", then as night follows day the next question will be something like "well, if you don't know, why did you mention it in support of the ATM idea?"


Upon seeing my response somebody watching the thread looked up the answer and provided them online. They were warned not to do so thereafter.
This gets to one of the most frustrating aspects of a not uncommon behaviour in the ATM section (see below).


Several persons had favorable comments concerning the OP and gave, what I considered very valuable comments. They were told not to partake in meta-discussions, and warned of suspension.
Unless there is extensive material cited in support of the ATM idea presented, no one but the BAUT member presenting the ATM idea knows what it is.

It is then - I contend - highly discourteous, presumptive, and worse for any other BAUT member to jump in and 'help defend' (or present) the ATM idea, as presented.

Of course, sometimes this intervention is good - the comment spot-on, the reasoning sound, and the support apt - but sometimes it is bad. The trouble is, no one knows - ahead of time - which is which; worse, challengers cannot tell which among the (usually quite many) new ATM ideas presented in this way are ones the primary ATM presenter is willing to address challenges on (or even knows about!).


Moderators seemingly are biased against the OP, regardless of what the subject is. Some moderators, I believe, think they are doing a service by favoring opponents of the OP. This favoritism is based upon presuming some commentators know what they are talking about, and the OP does not. Other moderators may not even be aware of their own bias. I also feel that moderators seldom recognize those deceitful tactics described above. I'm not sure anything can be done about some of these tactics and the rules other than this posting, and moderators becoming aware of some of these unwanted/ deceitful tactics.
In concrete, practical terms, how would you suggest a mod could go about determining if there were "unwanted/ deceitful tactics" in play?


On a positive note: maybe it's just my imagination but it appears to me that some moderators may be improving to some extent concerning obvious favoritism.
To what extent do you think "favoritism" resembles beauty (existing in the eye of the beholder)?

* direct question, pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented.

Nereid
2009-Oct-26, 02:01 PM
Nice compilation across all fronts, Forest!

I concur wholeheartedly with both your analysis, as well as your recommendation for a change in the ATM/CT rules, and especially the last two paragraphs. I think there's been some progress, which is a good sign. For this progress to continue, however, some rule modifications are in order.
I'm not sure which you consider to the "the last two paragraphs"; perhaps you could elaborate?

In any case, I'm quite curious to know what you think of my point about uninvited defenders*.

In fact, any reactions to the points in my last post would be most welcome! :)

* per my last post: "Unless there is extensive material cited in support of the ATM idea presented, no one but the BAUT member presenting the ATM idea knows what it is. It is then - I contend - highly discourteous, presumptive, and worse for any other BAUT member to jump in and 'help defend' (or present) the ATM idea, as presented. Of course, sometimes this intervention is good - the comment spot-on, the reasoning sound, and the support apt - but sometimes it is bad. The trouble is, no one knows - ahead of time - which is which; worse, challengers cannot tell which among the (usually quite many) new ATM ideas presented in this way are ones the primary ATM presenter is willing to address challenges on (or even knows about!)."

Nereid
2009-Oct-26, 02:17 PM
HenrikOlsen,


It would be a good initial exercise to come here to go through a nicer version of what's going to happen later.
To start gently.

I don't think this Forum is a gentle start for a serious proposal. Few here have the ability to properly propose or respond to a scientific proposal and therefore insults happen frequently. Although this happens in the real world of proposals it generally occurs as a response to a paper and is on a one on one basis, not just an overall persecution/ inquisition of the OP.
I'm sure this has been said before - many times - and will be said again - also many times - in future: however intense the heat an ATM proponent may sometimes feel they are getting in an ATM thread where they are presenting (and addressing challenges to) an ATM idea, it is but a gentle spring day compared to the blast furnace, real world of science.

To give just one example: if it is discovered that you are using a key term in a non-standard way, and have not acknowledged that (and provided a clear definition), then you don't get to even continue ... the process of examination stops right there (and you are told - in no uncertain terms - to go away to re-do your submission, and come back only when you have addressed this gross fault, and any others like it). However, here in BAUT's ATM section, not only are you allowed to continue, but you are not even required to re-present the ATM idea, no matter how messed up and inconsistent it is now revealed to be.

Perhaps an example might help: in a recent thread, an ATM proponent defined "current" (as in electrical current) in a radically different, utterly non-standard way; this made almost every post (by him, on the ATM idea; "current" is central to this ATM idea) at best vague (and at worst completely meaningless) ... yet instead of locking the thread immediately, the mods allowed several more pages of nonsense*.

* to be clear: I do not doubt that the thread - post the discovery of this incredible non-standard definition - was highly educational to many readers ... and that is, perhaps, a very good thing in and of itself.

Nereid
2009-Oct-26, 02:25 PM
Gillianren,

my quotation:


To me, science and logic are gospel! [snip] To me theories are just theories and need to be at sometime proven . . . .


No true scientist would make such a statement. Surely you know that "just a theory" is a foolish statement regarding the scientific meaning of the word and that theories are never proven.

I agree that your statement is the scientific consensus in today's world concerning theories. It is my opinion, on the other hand, that every theory today will someday be either improved, disproved, or simply lose favor based upon evidence and be replaced. Maybe some may even be proven.

My few examples of proven theories were these: the world is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, heat is based upon molecular/ atomic vibration, the causes of atomic fusion and nuclear synthesis are generally xyz -- just a few of many more what I consider "proven" theories.

I think your example is a good one concerning how the rules should work concerning peripheral discussions. On this matter we can agree to disagree and move on to the subject at hand, in this case a discussion of the rules and how they might be improved.
Follow the logic: even if something which is, today, ATM were "proven" in future, it would then be merely a matter of time before that new "theory" were "proven" to be wrong.

IOW, followed to its logical conclusion, everything in science is always wrong.

But haven't we just provided a perfect example of exactly what the mods came down purple on us for? Don't we now have a mini-discussion on your ATM ideas on the nature of science, thinly disguised as a meta-discussion of the nature of the ATM rule? And would it be appropriate for someone to now write comments about strategies, unwanted and deceitful tactics, sole purpose, etc?

Nereid
2009-Oct-26, 02:52 PM
The ATM thread fn is referring to was also educational for me, in terms of how the rules might be amended, or guidelines amplified.

For example, I realise - now - that not everyone works from the same convention that I (and a great many others, including all scientists I hope) do; namely, that if you quote something, you need to provide the source. Perhaps not always in the same post which contains the quote, but certainly always ASAP if asked for it.

Then there's the nature of the evidence presented in support of the ATM idea presented, as presented. I continue to be surprised at how often the logical fallacy of appeal to authority is used ("renowned astronomer X", for example; why not "patent clerk Zhang"?), ditto the false dichotomy ("X is wrong, therefore Y is right").

One aspect that I think is in need of attention: the use of press releases (PRs) as evidence.

In the thread in question, a PR was cited as evidence in support of a particular ATM idea. Yet the PR itself contained factual errors, and the paper on which it was based had a far more restricted scope than the hype in the PR*.

Nothing wrong with citing PRs as evidence, of course, but what happens when they are challenged - successfully - is important ... I think we need a way of making it crystal clear that continuing to rely upon such evidence is exactly the kind of thing the following para in the ATM rule is intended for (esp the bold part): "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."

* it also turned out that this particular paper - and its v1 preprint - was the topic of an older BAUT thread too, not in the ATM section

pipedream
2009-Oct-26, 03:04 PM
I've been looking at quite a few past ATM threads, but there is a difference between reading a completed thread which takes maybe an hour or so (or whatever) and reading one as it develops day by day, or even hour by hour.

The 'Forrest Noble ATM ideas' thread split off from another in which FN was replying to a post of mine, so I followed the new thread to the ATM forum resolving that, as I had a small personal interest, come what may, I would follow this ATM thread from start to finish, click on every link offered and attempt to follow as much of the argument as I could.

So here are my thoughts, JMO, from a layman and relative newb, by right of a 10-20 hour time investment.

The main proponent (there were others) of the mainstream position argued strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but was also ruthless, vicious, and relentless. At times it was akin to watching a shoal of piranah fish stripping an animal to the bone. You think I exaggerate? I was there, man. Some mornings I would have a knot in my stomach as I opened the thread, expecting to see blood dripping from the walls. I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.

FN was unlucky in coming up against such an awesomely strong opponent, and at times, he should have been given more protection by the mods. I thought a few of his ideas were interesting, one or two might possibly have merit, but for the record FN failed to prove anything and did not come near to proving anything. There are two glaring reasons as to why.

The first, and most problematic, is failure to cite relevant papers correctly and accurately, and give the correct citing so others can refer to them. There is also more than a suspicion that on occasion FN would delibrately mislead with links to papers that did not in fact support his position or that he had not otherwise read. This is a serious and grave error and one that FN needs to address as otherwise it undermines everything he is trying to achieve. FN's second major failing was in not 'answering direct questions in a timely manner'. This is an ongoing issue with every ATM thread, so suffice to merely say that FN must expect some frustration from other posters and is not entirely blameless in that matter.

My suggestions for rule changes (not changes, really) always seem to come back to the moderators, but it's honestly not intended like that, it's just they are the ones who have the power in these matters. For the FN thread, I felt the moderators should have protected FN more, that they should have insisted harder on his answering questions, and should have dealt with the issue of question-flooding sooner. But, that's easy to say from my comfortable armchair.

Nereid
2009-Oct-26, 03:23 PM
I've been looking at quite a few past ATM threads, but there is a difference between reading a completed thread which takes maybe an hour or so (or whatever) and reading one as it develops day by day, or even hour by hour.

The 'Forrest Noble ATM ideas' thread split off from another in which FN was replying to a post of mine, so I followed the new thread to the ATM forum resolving that, as I had a small personal interest, come what may, I would follow this ATM thread from start to finish, click on every link offered and attempt to follow as much of the argument as I could.

So here are my thoughts, JMO, from a layman and relative newb, by right of a 10-20 hour time investment.

The main proponent (there were others) of the mainstream position argued strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but was also ruthless, vicious, and relentless. At times it was akin to watching a shoal of piranah fish stripping an animal to the bone. You think I exaggerate? I was there, man. Some mornings I would have a knot in my stomach as I opened the thread, expecting to see blood dripping from the walls. I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.

FN was unlucky in coming up against such an awesomely strong opponent, and at times, he should have been given more protection by the mods. I thought a few of his ideas were interesting, one or two might possibly have merit, but for the record FN failed to prove anything and did not come near to proving anything. There are two glaring reasons as to why.

The first, and most problematic, is failure to cite relevant papers correctly and accurately, and give the correct citing so others can refer to them. There is also more than a suspicion that on occasion FN would delibrately mislead with links to papers that did not in fact support his position or that he had not otherwise read. This is a serious and grave error and one that FN needs to address as otherwise it undermines everything he is trying to achieve. FN's second major failing was in not 'answering direct questions in a timely manner'. This is an ongoing issue with every ATM thread, so suffice to merely say that FN must expect some frustration from other posters and is not entirely blameless in that matter.

My suggestions for rule changes (not changes, really) always seem to come back to the moderators, but it's honestly not intended like that, it's just they are the ones who have the power in these matters. For the FN thread, I felt the moderators should have protected FN more, that they should have insisted harder on his answering questions, and should have dealt with the issue of question-flooding sooner. But, that's easy to say from my comfortable armchair.
Very interesting perspective, PD, thanks for taking the time to write it. :)

Out of curiousity, what percentage of the questions asked of fn do you think meet the four criteria I gave in an earlier post*? To what extent is there a difference in this percentage when questions are broken down by questioner?

Finally, what do you consider the root cause of "question flooding" - in general, not just in that thread - to be?

Also, by PM (NOT in this thread!) I'd be curious to hear from you whether a) I am "[t]he main proponent", and if so, I'm even more curious to know b) how you formed the "ruthless, vicious" opinion (for the record, I am proud to wear a "relentless" badge).

* "direct, pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented" is my nutshell summary

pipedream
2009-Oct-26, 03:55 PM
I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.

Of course I wasn't referring to you, Nereid, I had no idea you were even involved in that thread! ;)

Re: your questions - let me have a ponder and I'll get back to you.

slang
2009-Oct-26, 05:28 PM
The evidence for my assertions are the thread itself.


I just finished a very long ATM thread

If you provide no evidence except pointing to the thread in question, you should include a link to the thread. Right now everything is fresh in the minds of everyone who read or participated, but to someone reading this months later, it won't be. It would be nice if you would edit the below x code into that post (or ask a moderator to, if you don't know how).

Forrest Noble ATM ideas (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas.html)


Thread Flooding also discussed above. This does not happen often but the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes three of four long postings of quotations,
[...]
I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question.

There is no way to make you happy, is there? You ask for clarification. As a courtesy to you (and other readers) the entire context that lead up to the question is provided, so you (and other readers) won't have to go back hundreds of postings. Yet, when you receive such a courtesy, you complain about "thread flooding". reference (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-5.html#post1583715) (and single post #127 (http://www.bautforum.com/1583715-post127.html) link for those who can't follow full thread links)

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 07:01 PM
Swift,


........... Have you ever submitted a paper to a refereed journal and had two or three reviewers tear it apart?


I understand your point. I've submitted some papers to refereed journals. Those refused were done so politely. Answers like "too theoretical," "too broad in scope," "We do not publish papers concerning alternative cosmologies."

I believe I am dealing with one now which will accept my paper concerning an alternative formulation for the Hubble distance formula. They are requiring changes in the paper that I think I can abide by, but negotiations have all been civil.

I understand there can be a grilling from a committee but I'm sure there's no personal insults and hopefully little sarcasm involved unlike my experience and observations on BAUT.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 07:29 PM
Tensor,


Then I suggest you do some research in the ATM forum. Look up quite a few of those ATM proposals and see exactly where the snarky comments started. Did they start right off the bat? Did they start after repeated requests for answers were ignored? Did they start after the ATM poster continued to claim their idea correct, even after it had been shown to be wrong? Did it start after the ATM poster decided to use standard terms in non-standard ways, only to criticized those who were using it in the standard ways? Did they start after the ATM poster started making snarky comments? While it may be your opinion, (based possibly on your experience here) as long as I've been around here (and based on my experience here), it's more the ATM posters who provoke it. Now, there can be individuals (on both sides) who can skew the experience here.

You are one of the exceptions concerning knowledge and behavior. Everything you say, that I recall, concerning an ATM proposal has relevance, is insightful, and you generally respond with a respectful demeanor. If everybody had your knowledge and social skills the ATM forum would be a far better, and more productive forum, in my opinion.

Regarding the rules: That being said, I disagree with your opinion concerning snarky, rude, insulting comments. I certainly have not been a part of BAUT as long as you have but for the 1 1/2 years that I have it appears to me that almost all of the abuses concerning the rules, in the present day, come from the ATM opponents.

I understand that there are different perspectives involved but as a primary example, it seems to me that few are ever polite to the OP which is rule #1. On the other hand, politeness from the OP is commonplace.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-26, 09:49 PM
I understand that there are different perspectives involved but as a primary example, it seems to me that few are ever polite to the OP which is rule #1. On the other hand, politeness from the OP is commonplace.

I think the issue is, indeed, your perspective. Not to be rude, but I think you're seeing what you want to see. I can point you to a ton of examples of a rude OP. Yes, I can point to examples of a rude responder, too, and I can point to a ton of responses from mods that they should knock it off.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 09:55 PM
Nereid,


Surely the only concern here should be: are the questions valid?

As you know by my comments above valid questions are great, but too many at one time by one person is an abuse of the system.


The intent of the ATM section, with its rules, is very clear; if you are aware of the intent, and familiar with the rules and how they apply, then in preparing for the day when you post the OP of a new ATM idea presumably you will have considered the likely questions and have already addressed them (in the OP) or be prepared to do so.

Concerning your comments above: On my last thread, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas which is still on the board, there was not one question that I recall that challenged my understandings or knowledge. In prior threads there have been such questions. This was a thread concerning what's wrong/ problems with the standard models in Physics (mostly the standard model of cosmology) and is something that anybody can research if they are interested. I did not think that this was even a valid ATM proposal, but Nereid (you) did since it was her (your) idea to post it, right or wrong.

Concerning the Rules: The definition of a valid ATM proposal might be addressed in the rules also to eliminate the most foolish ones or the ones that are not really Alternative Proposals to the mainstream in the first place -- which this one was certainly not. The words "Alternative Proposal" might be at least one of several definitions of an ATM idea.
That the mainstream is asserted to be wrong, for example, is not an alternative proposal unless details are also initially proposed (based upon the definition of alternative in my opinion).


I'm not sure about questions such as "are you sure you want to present this ATM idea? are you prepared to address challenges to it" - asked out of concern for the ATM proponent, and politeness - perhaps everyone should just assume every ATM idea presented is open (and that the proponent is prepared).

I don't think that any of those questions you gave as an example above are valid questions or that they are polite. I don't even think they should be answered since they do not concern the OP. I consider them an attempt at intimidation if they are repeated. It should be presumed that everybody who themselves propose an ATM idea, thinks they are prepared to answer questions. And to ask these questions, I think, are redundant or worse.

ATM ideas often require ATM explanations which are not separate ATM proposals and I think it is ridiculous to think that they are. Of course they might be proposed as a separate ATM idea in the future but it should be a given that ATM proposals sometimes require ATM answers, otherwise it would be impossible in many cases to get through an ATM idea without it being bogged down in generally unrelated detail.


IMHO, there are four ordered criteria for judging whether a question - one that must be answered in a timely fashion - is valid or not:
* is it direct?
* does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?
can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?
* is the question pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented?

If the question unambiguously meets all four criteria, then answer the question you must.

Concerning the rules:

A direct question must have a question mark otherwise it may be considered rhetorical requiring no answer.


does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?
can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?

I think the question should only be valid if it is related to the OP, not some peripheral ATM idea. If an answer is unclear because it involves other ATM ideas say simply that you do not understand the answer, and ask that the question by answered in a different way or ask for a clarification of meaning, etc.


Of course, you can always answer something like any of these: "I don't know", or "I acknowledge the question, but it will take me some time to answer it", or "I don't understand the question, could you please clarify?", or "I can't see how the question relates to the ATM idea I have presented, as I presented it; could you elaborate please?".

I agree that this is part of the rules and should be.



One important thing many ATM proponents fail to realise is that every ATM presented, by them, in the ATM thread, is automatically open to being questioned and challenged (it seems some feel that only those ATM ideas presented in the OP are 'on the table').


This point I think should also be clarified by the rules. Often ATM ideas cannot be explained without the use of other ATM concepts. The only point should be whether the answer has consistency of logic. If not then those questioning could point out that logic may be missing or some other statement that does not insult the ATMer personally. The thread should then move on without belaboring peripheral ideas. If not, as I said above, many ATM ideas could never be properly presented, or good questions even answered.

Re: Thread Flooding

As has already been noted, it is extremely hard to unambiguously determine intent; have you considered the possibility that what you discern to be strategy X may not, in fact, exist (at least in the mind of the relevant BAUT member)?

On this we agree. Intent is impossible to know, but moderators, I think, should be aware of the possible abuse here.

Re. Repeated Questions


Also, again as has already been noted several times, perhaps a repeated question indicates a failure to communicate? Perhaps your readers did not understand your answer? Perhaps you did not understand the question? Perhaps you answered a question quite different from the one asked?


I agree that often it is a failure to communicate but in other cases I feel that it is a dishonest strategy to frustrate and stop the ATMer, especially on very long threads which it takes a great deal of time to look back through the thread and find the previous answers.

I agree that it an almost impossible task for moderators to control -- repeating previously answered questions -- when OP complaints come in unless the previous posting is pointed out which takes a great deal of the ATMer's time to find. But moderators should be aware of the potential abuse.


Since you are - presumably - trying to make a strong case for the ATM presented, why not take the opportunity to dig deeper and try to find out why communication seems to have failed?


I have written a large book on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology. My editors read through it and for the most part there were few misunderstandings of meaning based upon their questions. They all have the necessary education to understand what I am saying. When they have problems concerning my meanings they ask relevant questions and clarification of the text by wording or expansion often results. My primary editor, 25 years old, has never asked a meaningless or non-relevant question. On BAUT as much as 1/3 the questions are either not relevant, meaningless or trivial. On my last thread maybe only 20% of all the postings contained good questions partly because there were so many repeats of the same questions by the same person of by others.


As above ... and also: how did you determine - objectively and verifiably - that "the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody"? In my own experience, this is an extremely difficult thing to do.

In many cases I think you are right. Even though an ATMer thinks his answer is clear and simple, others may not understand what he is saying, often for good reason.

In other cases on my own thread and on others, It's hard to believe that someone could not understand the answer given based upon the question asked. These are the cases I'm referring to. It's my opinion that sometimes there is no real effort to try to understand a simple, valid answer. It is difficult to get moderators involved with what's a valid answer. In some cases I resort to saying that I've tried my best to explain your question, if you cannot understand my answer, which I've now explained in several different ways, I do know what else I can do.

Repeating questions that the questioner knows have been answered


Nothing new here ... except that if you don't go back and check your earlier answers, and if you do answer in a different way, and if the challenger does their own homework and discovers the inconsistency, haven't you just made a rod for your own back?

You seem to be saying that BAUT members who challenge ATM ideas, as presented, should not take those ideas seriously ... and/or not challenge them seriously.

I'm only questioning the dishonest ethics of some opponents which I hope some moderators might become aware of from time to time, as I have.

Re: False Accusations

Again, as has been pointed out several times, there is a process for reporting rule violations ... the moment you see one, you should report it.


Good in principle but moderators rarely or ever respond to such complaints, at least by me. Maybe only once did a moderator ever respond to my complaints concerning personal insults. And never for my complaints of Question Flooding by one person and thread Flooding. That's why I'm here in the rules section

Lack of understanding:


As above, this seems more like a case of communication failure ... which I suggest you might like to consider as an opportunity rather than a burden ...


This was discussed above.

Non-related questions


If you answer "I don't know", then as night follows day the next question will be something like "well, if you don't know, why did you mention it in support of the ATM idea?"

The methods somebody used are often not relevant. Instead of asking questions concerning methods, questionable methods should be explained by the questioner so that the OP can understand the possible relevance of the "methods" question.



It is then - I contend - highly discourteous, presumptive, and worse for any other BAUT member to jump in and 'help defend' (or present) the ATM idea, as presented.

Of course, sometimes this intervention is good - the comment spot-on, the reasoning sound, and the support apt - but sometimes it is bad. The trouble is, no one knows - ahead of time - which is which; worse, challengers cannot tell which among the (usually quite many) new ATM ideas presented in this way are ones the primary ATM presenter is willing to address challenges on (or even knows about!).


I have some agreement with you on this matter. But I think if the comment adds clarification, which it often does, then it should be acceptable. Often peripheral ideas are added which I think should be ignored by commentators.
Moderators may not be so generous. The real problem is when commentators respond to non-related ATM ideas by other commentators, not the fact that these other ideas were mentioned. I think that rules could clarify the extent that commentators could help defend the OP which could help make the ATM section a better place and not a simple duck shoot, which is what it is thought of by most opponents, in my opinion.


In concrete, practical terms, how would you suggest a mod could go about determining if there were "unwanted/ deceitful tactics" in play?


In most cases it's not possible as you imply. But to keep their eyes open to these possibilities I think is all that they can do, or should be expected to do.
Quote:

As to favoritism

To what extent do you think "favoritism" resembles beauty (existing in the eye of the beholder)?

Ah philosophy. Moderators themselves might become more introspective on this matter and judge themselves individually or collectively. But not as a matter of Rule.

R.A.F.
2009-Oct-26, 10:33 PM
I have written a large book on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology.

Really?... and might you tell us the name of that book so we could read it?

Nereid
2009-Oct-26, 10:47 PM
Nereid,


Surely the only concern here should be: are the questions valid?

As you know by my comments above valid questions are great, but too many at one time by one person is an abuse of the system.
In terms of making for a better - more efficient, more effective - ATM section, what practical suggestions do you have wrt deciding how many valid questions are too many?

You say potato, I say potato ... you say an abuse of the system, I say that's precisely what the system encourages. Impasse? If so, how to proceed?



The intent of the ATM section, with its rules, is very clear; if you are aware of the intent, and familiar with the rules and how they apply, then in preparing for the day when you post the OP of a new ATM idea presumably you will have considered the likely questions and have already addressed them (in the OP) or be prepared to do so.

Concerning your comments above: On my last thread, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas which is still on the board, there was not one question that I recall that challenged my understandings or knowledge.
Without wishing to re-open the content of that thread, there is an abundance of objective, verifiable evidence that questions challenging your understanding or knowledge exist, in that thread, in great numbers. Impasse? If so, how to proceed?


In prior threads there have been such questions. This was a thread concerning what's wrong/ problems with the standard models in Physics (mostly the standard model of cosmology) and is something that anybody can research if they are interested. I did not think that this was even a valid ATM proposal, but Nereid (you) did since it was her (your) idea to post it, right or wrong.

Concerning the Rules: The definition of a valid ATM proposal might be addressed in the rules also to eliminate the most foolish ones or the ones that are not really Alternative Proposals to the mainstream in the first place -- which this one was certainly not. The words "Alternative Proposal" might be at least one of several definitions of an ATM idea.
That the mainstream is asserted to be wrong, for example, is not an alternative proposal unless details are also initially proposed (based upon the definition of alternative in my opinion).

[...]
The devil, surely, is in the details?

For example, who gets to make decisions regarding what proposals are "most foolish"?

A concrete case: spiral galaxies get their shape because the nucleus is disgorging matter and spinning, creating a catherine wheel-line shape (or, if you prefer, a garden hose). Now this has got to be one of most foolish ATM ideas ... because it is utterly inconsistent with the observed "rotation curves". However, if the level of understanding of basic astronomy (of the BAUT member seriously proposing this nonsense) is so low that they have no clue about rotation curves, it doesn't seem like foolish nonsense. Yet these sorts of ideas - in one form or another - infest the ATM section at least once a month.

And regardless of who would make such decisions, surely you'd want their decisions to be based on objective, verifiable criteria, wouldn't you? I mean, if someone were to decide - 'judges decision is final' - that your own, cherished ATM idea is one of the "most foolish", you'd be incensed, wouldn't you?

Oh, and "the big bang never happened", or "dark matter doesn't exist" (and similar) are ATM proposals, pure and simple; you propose any such, you will surely be asked to address challenges to them.

(to be continued)

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 10:49 PM
Pipedream, nice to talk to you again and thanks for you comments.


I've been looking at quite a few past ATM threads, but there is a difference between reading a completed thread which takes maybe an hour or so (or whatever) and reading one as it develops day by day, or even hour by hour.


The 'Forrest Noble ATM ideas' thread split off from another in which FN was replying to a post of mine, so I followed the new thread to the ATM forum resolving that, as I had a small personal interest, come what may, I would follow this ATM thread from start to finish, click on every link offered and attempt to follow as much of the argument as I could.

So here are my thoughts, JMO, from a layman and relative newb, by right of a 10-20 hour time investment.


The main proponent (there were others) of the mainstream position argued strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of,

There were many good questions asked, but more trivial ones and repeated ones. The level of science knowledge presented was nothing above ordinary. Essentially it was a reverse position where they were the ones having to defend the mainstream position. The arguments were generally the standard ones, sometimes well presented but often not.


but was also ruthless, vicious, and relentless. At times it was akin to watching a shoal of piranah fish stripping an animal to the bone. You think I exaggerate? I was there, man. Some mornings I would have a knot in my stomach as I opened the thread, expecting to see blood dripping from the walls. I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.
FN was unlucky in coming up against such an awesomely strong opponent, and at times, he should have been given more protection by the mods.

Ruthlessness and Viciousness could have been addressed by the moderators in answer to my many complaints. This was generally not done. There were two warnings given. Maybe one was in response to my complaint. Relentless is just fine by me as long as there is no question flooding, and other abuses described above in other postings.

I thought a few of his ideas were interesting, one or two might possibly have merit, but for the record FN failed to prove anything and did not come near to proving anything. There are two glaring reasons as to why.

You must realize I cannot prove the mainstream is wrong. I only said the I assert that it is wrong for those theories involved. This is a difficult proposition to defend but that does not mean it is not true. If the mainstream were proven wrong it wouldn't be the mainstream. My assertions concerning mainstream cosmology were summed up by Michael Disney which I think is the best short argument against the mainstream model. I don't think all my efforts improved upon his original summation. Remember, I did not even think this was a valid ATM proposal, Nereid did.

The first, and most problematic, is failure to cite relevant papers correctly and accurately, and give the correct citing so others can refer to them.

There are few papers published concerning what's wrong with the standard models. One of the main reasons is they cannot get published unless they at least offer an alternative. So for the most part there are many websites but few if any relevant papers. My alternative theories is a book 350 pages long, whereby anyone who has not read it could not possibly ask many insightful questions concerning its content or theory. This would be also true of any textbook concerning an unknown subject.


There is also more than a suspicion that on occasion FN would deliberately mislead with links to papers that did not in fact support his position or that he had not otherwise read. This is a serious and grave error and one that FN needs to address as otherwise it undermines everything he is trying to achieve. FN's second major failing was in not 'answering direct questions in a timely manner'. This is an ongoing issue with every ATM thread, so suffice to merely say that FN must expect some frustration from other posters and is not entirely blameless in that matter.
[/QUOTE]

You are wrong on this matter. I am entirely blameless and those were just completely false accusations. I do not have to invent falsehoods or use deceitfulness tactics that I have accused others of doing. I'm 66 years old. Like Michael Disney I'm just trying to point of the flaws of theory so that better ones can take their place, not necessarily my own theories. These accusation were either dishonest or simply wrong


My suggestions for rule changes (not changes, really) always seem to come back to the moderators, but it's honestly not intended like that, it's just they are the ones who have the power in these matters. For the FN thread, I felt the moderators should have protected FN more, that they should have insisted harder on his answering questions, and should have dealt with the issue of question-flooding sooner. But, that's easy to say from my comfortable armchair.
(bold mine)

I think you are wrong on the matter of answering questions. In a thread of hundreds of postings the moderator cannot know which questions have been answered before or not. Only the OP can know, or anyone who understands what is being said and has read every posting. Every question was answered on that thread to my knowledge. I asked questioners to list any unanswered questions, in several instances most listings of question were all, or nearly all, previously answered questions -- some which had been answered two or more times.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 11:06 PM
Nereid,


For example, who gets to make decisions regarding what proposals are "most foolish"?

Now the moderators make such decisions based upon common sense. A simple statement in the rules such as defining an ATM proposal might help: -- such as an alternative hypothesis/ theory to explain reality or a conundrum or similar type wording of a definition might help in such a decision.

Van Rijn
2009-Oct-26, 11:10 PM
On my last thread, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas which is still on the board, there was not one question that I recall that challenged my understandings or knowledge.


Really? As a (for the most part) lurker to that thread, I thought a great many questions challenged your understanding and knowledge.



ATM ideas often require ATM explanations which are not separate ATM proposals and I think it is ridiculous to think that they are. Of course they might be proposed as a separate ATM idea in the future but it should be a given that ATM proposals sometimes require ATM answers, otherwise it would be impossible in many cases to get through an ATM idea without it being bogged down in generally unrelated detail.


How does that work? If you make additional ATM claims, you should expect additional questions. Answering questions with more ATM claims will likely result in more questions and repeated questions.

At some point, you need to show you can properly support your claims with evidence. If you're just going to make a series of ATM claims, there isn't much point in starting a thread in the first place.



I think the question should only be valid if it is related to the OP, not some peripheral ATM idea.


What do you mean by "peripheral ATM idea"? The OP shouldn't need to answer questions about ATM ideas they aren't supporting, or unrelated ATM ideas they presented in another ATM thread, but if an ATM proponent makes additional ATM claims in their current thread, why should they not be expected to answer questions about them? After all, if they don't want the questions, it is easy enough to avoid them by not making the claims.

If others weren't allowed to ask questions about additional ATM claims, an OP could respond to questions about their initial ATM claim with more ATM claims, and refuse to answer questions about their additional claims. Of course, that would be ridiculous.

Nereid
2009-Oct-26, 11:20 PM
(continued)
[...]


I'm not sure about questions such as "are you sure you want to present this ATM idea? are you prepared to address challenges to it" - asked out of concern for the ATM proponent, and politeness - perhaps everyone should just assume every ATM idea presented is open (and that the proponent is prepared).

I don't think that any of those questions you gave as an example above are valid questions or that they are polite. I don't even think they should be answered since they do not concern the OP. I consider them an attempt at intimidation if they are repeated. It should be presumed that everybody who themselves propose an ATM idea, thinks they are prepared to answer questions. And to ask these questions, I think, are redundant or worse.
Here, then, we have a concrete case of diametrically opposed interpretations of "intent".

My intent - which of course is not independently verifiable (at least, not easily) - was, and always is, to give the BAUT member proposing a new ATM idea the opportunity to re-consider, to think of the enormous number of valid questions that will surely follow (if they do not retract the claims), to check whether they have the time and energy to do justice to a defence of these ATM ideas, etc, etc, etc. Why? Because I am fully aware of how extraordinarily difficult it is to adequately respond to challenges (in the ATM section), if one is not fully prepared.

You perceived - and still perceive - my intent quite differently; so be it.

BTW, one consequence of not asking these sorts of questions - out of politeness and concern for the ATM proponent - is that there is no excuse for not answering - promptly and adequately - the wall of questions which will surely follow.


ATM ideas often require ATM explanations which are not separate ATM proposals and I think it is ridiculous to think that they are. Of course they might be proposed as a separate ATM idea in the future but it should be a given that ATM proposals sometimes require ATM answers, otherwise it would be impossible in many cases to get through an ATM idea without it being bogged down in generally unrelated detail.

[...]
This proposed approach is well worth exploring further ... up till now it has certainly been the case that any, and every, ATM idea presented is open to questioning and challenge (whether in the OP or not) ... to me this suggestion, if adopted, would make the ATM section a kind of 'ATM idea developers' forum', which has been proposed many times before (in one form or another), and rejected just as many times.

(to be continued)

forrest noble
2009-Oct-26, 11:38 PM
Slang,


If you provide no evidence except pointing to the thread in question, you should include a link to the thread. Right now everything is fresh in the minds of everyone who read or participated, but to someone reading this months later, it won't be. It would be nice if you would edit the below x code into that post (or ask a moderator to, if you don't know how).


Sorry, I try my best to be considerate but wished to talk in generalities which I thought would be best for the rules section.


There is no way to make you happy, is there? You ask for clarification. As a courtesy to you (and other readers) the entire context that lead up to the question is provided, so you (and other readers) won't have to go back hundreds of postings. Yet, when you receive such a courtesy, you complain about "thread flooding". reference (and single post #127 link for those who can't follow full thread links)

Others have suggested, on this thread, that I'm paranoid on this matter. The postings preceding my comments that you listed are a good example, postings #123-126. Four postings that could have been trimmed down to one or two concerning their content, in my opinion. If I am wrong in this particular case I apologize but I have presented my suspicions here because I have seen it before and wish moderators to be aware of the possibility of this mischievous behavior by intent.

captain swoop
2009-Oct-26, 11:58 PM
As Van Rijn and Nereid point out, if you answer a question on an ATM idea with another ATM idea then you will certainly get questioned on it. How could you expect anything else? If the 'peripheroal' as you term in ATM idea is not allowed to be challenged then that's the end of the thread isn't it? You might as well just answer questions with 'Because I say so'

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 12:19 AM
(continued)
[...]

IMHO, there are four ordered criteria for judging whether a question - one that must be answered in a timely fashion - is valid or not:
* is it direct?
* does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?
can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?
* is the question pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented?

If the question unambiguously meets all four criteria, then answer the question you must.

Concerning the rules:

A direct question must have a question mark otherwise it may be considered rhetorical requiring no answer.
You know, in all my time here at BAUT, and my involvement in the ATM section, I've not come across this suggestion before.

Frankly, I think it's silly. Why? Because a) if you're not sure if a question is rhetorical or not, then you can ask for clarification; and b) if you pay so little attention to others' posts (in a thread focussed exclusively on an ATM idea, or ideas, you yourself proposed) that you miss a valid question simply because it's phrased without a question mark, then why bother to propose the ATM idea in the first place?

I mean, what's the difference, in terms of content, between:

-> Please explain how {X, from ATM idea presented, as presented} is consistent with {Y, from ATM idea presented, as presented}.

-> how is {X, from ATM idea presented, as presented} consistent with {Y, from ATM idea presented, as presented}?



does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?
can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?

I think the question should only be valid if it is related to the OP, not some peripheral ATM idea. If an answer is unclear because it involves other ATM ideas say simply that you do not understand the answer, and ask that the question by answered in a different way or ask for a clarification of meaning, etc.
This is, indeed, a fundamentally new proposal ... at least wrt what constitutes "ATM" in a particular thread in that section.

The current situation (status quo) is that all ATM idea presented, as presented, in a thread in the ATM section are open to be questioned and challenged ... and that if the BAUT member presenting any such wishes to not answer questions on it (or address challenges to it), then they must explicitly retract it.

Part of my own view on this suggestion is that it is inherently a-scientific, if not downright anti-science. Why? Because a core aspect of science is its overall consistency ...



Of course, you can always answer something like any of these: "I don't know", or "I acknowledge the question, but it will take me some time to answer it", or "I don't understand the question, could you please clarify?", or "I can't see how the question relates to the ATM idea I have presented, as I presented it; could you elaborate please?".

I agree that this is part of the rules and should be.

[...]
Good. This is the status quo (it has always been thus, AFAIK).

(to be continued)

slang
2009-Oct-27, 12:36 AM
Thank you, forrest,


Sorry, I try my best to be considerate but wished to talk in generalities which I thought would be best for the rules section.

A good idea I'm sure, but you make many claims of unwanted behaviour, without giving evidence. You definitely lost your prerogative to talk in generalities when you said "The evidence for my assertions are the thread itself." without providing a link to the thread.


Others have suggested, on this thread, that I'm paranoid on this matter. The postings preceding my comments that you listed are a good example, postings #123-126. Four postings that could have been trimmed down to one or two concerning their content, in my opinion.

But the thread before those posts made it very clear that simple, short, concise, to the point posts with questions seemed to lead to miscommunications (ignoring the possibility of maliciously feigning misunderstanding). If a concise posting style leads to misunderstanding, and a request for clarification is made, what is the incentive to "trim posts down" to the bare minimum needed? IMHO most, if not all, questions were clear the first time they were asked. How can a challenger decide how much context or explanation is necessary to add, so the ATM proponent has enough to understand the question? I don't see how such a choice can be made, and thus an explanation that is as complete as possible seems best. How can more explanation or quoting then be a bad thing?


If I am wrong in this particular case I apologize but I have presented my suspicions here because I have seen it before and wish moderators to be aware of the possibility of this mischievous behavior by intent.

You know, the moderators here are no dummies. I've even caught them being smarter than me(!!!), by not acting on Reports from me, that later turned out not to need any action. They are, after many years of BAUT, well aware of many, many different types of abuse. But hiding OP's comments by employing walls of quote seems, to me, to be one of the silliest arguments ever raised against ATM challengers.

Several reasons: anyone following the thread closely will recognize the quotes, and skip over that part of the post (unless of course the post was directed at them). Anyone specifically interested in the ideas of the OP will likely pay less attention to challengers, and instead specifically look out more for responses and come-backs from OP. (No, I have no idea how I can support this claim with numbers or facts.)

The reader chooses which replies to read with which amount of attention. To think that those really interested in the OP's ideas will be intimidated by some large posts seems just... wrong. And then there's the possibility that someone posting large amounts of challenges might end up on some ignore lists (not advisable when presenting an ATM thread, of course!).

Finally, and this, of course, is a very subjective argument, some posters asking lots of questions, with proper background quoting, have over the years here shown to be genuinely interested in getting the most useful answers possible, rather then using "tactics" to kill a conversation. This, BAUT, is after all a forum, not some gamezone to get someone evicted as quick as possible.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-27, 12:37 AM
Van Rign


Really? As a (for the most part) lurker to that thread, I thought a great many questions challenged your understanding and knowledge.


This is the rules discussion area so I will be brief in my answers to anything else.

Remember this was completely different from a normal ATM thread. I proposed nothing. My task was to present what was wrong with the standard models that I discussed. As far as the standard model of cosmology was concerned I quoted the summation of Michael Disney, concerning what's wrong with the standard model, which was far better than anything that I presented. But I pointed out many of the details that such a short summary could not address.

Every question asked me were simple ones, most of which required no research except to provide a link for what I was saying. Other questions involving my own theory were only courtesy answers since they did not involve the OP. How to express yourself in such a way that your answers are clear and unambiguous, always takes effort.


How does that work? If you make additional ATM claims, you should expect additional questions. Answering questions with more ATM claims will likely result in more questions and repeated questions.

At some point, you need to show you can properly support your claims with evidence. If you're just going to make a series of ATM claims, there isn't much point in starting a thread in the first place.


No claims were made concerning any detail other than "some mainstream theories are probably wrong for the most part." When I was answering a question out of courtesy, which I did not have to answer since it was unrelated to the OP, in this case concerning my own theories -- then repeated questions concerning the ATM answers are also unrelated to the OP. This is all they wanted to talk about since most questions did not involve the OP directly.


What do you mean by "peripheral ATM idea"? The OP shouldn't need to answer questions about ATM ideas they aren't supporting, or unrelated ATM ideas they presented in another ATM thread, but if an ATM proponent makes additional ATM claims in their current thread, why should they not be expected to answer questions about them? After all, if they don't want the questions, it is easy enough to avoid them by not making the claims.

If others weren't allowed to ask questions about additional ATM claims, an OP could respond to questions about their initial ATM claim with more ATM claims, and refuse to answer questions about their additional claims. Of course, that would be ridiculous.

All of your comments have been good ones. But this was a very different ATM proposal. I don't think it was an ATM proposal at all, at least by my definition, and should not have been in the ATM section in the first place if proper definitions of what an ATM proposal is, according to the rules. That being said, peripheral questions in this case involved my own theories which were not part of the OP and which I did not volunteer except by direct questions and therefore should not be an avenue of unending questions -- whereby my book is 350 pages long, entirely my own theory. Questions could be asked without repetition for years.

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 01:03 AM
(continued)
[...]

One important thing many ATM proponents fail to realise is that every ATM presented, by them, in the ATM thread, is automatically open to being questioned and challenged (it seems some feel that only those ATM ideas presented in the OP are 'on the table').
This point I think should also be clarified by the rules. Often ATM ideas cannot be explained without the use of other ATM concepts. The only point should be whether the answer has consistency of logic. If not then those questioning could point out that logic may be missing or some other statement that does not insult the ATMer personally. The thread should then move on without belaboring peripheral ideas. If not, as I said above, many ATM ideas could never be properly presented, or good questions even answered.
To repeat: this suggestion is well worth exploring in more detail, IMHO.

To expand a bit on my own view: if each and every piece in the logic and evidence chains upon which an ATM idea being proposed depends is not well-founded, then what's the point of considering the ATM idea any further?

For example, if you include an assumption (today an ATM, a century or so ago not) that the speed of light is observer dependent in your ATM claim (that the age of the universe is 100 billion years, say), what's the point of challenging the conclusion ('100 billion years')? I mean, if the assumption can be shown to be critical to the conclusion, the focus of the thread should shift - immediately - to the anti-relativity assumption, shouldn't it?

There are, of course, ways of side-stepping examination of such a vital, new ATM idea, but they need to be very carefully crafted. A good example: MOND, in its original, non-relativistic form.


Re: Thread Flooding

As has already been noted, it is extremely hard to unambiguously determine intent; have you considered the possibility that what you discern to be strategy X may not, in fact, exist (at least in the mind of the relevant BAUT member)?

On this we agree. Intent is impossible to know, but moderators, I think, should be aware of the possible abuse here.
No doubt they are ... but, just to be clear, you're not making any suggestions re rule (or guideline) changes, are you?


Re. Repeated Questions

Also, again as has already been noted several times, perhaps a repeated question indicates a failure to communicate? Perhaps your readers did not understand your answer? Perhaps you did not understand the question? Perhaps you answered a question quite different from the one asked?
I agree that often it is a failure to communicate but in other cases I feel that it is a dishonest strategy to frustrate and stop the ATMer, especially on very long threads which it takes a great deal of time to look back through the thread and find the previous answers.
Consider a standard textbook on a major part of contemporary astrophysics, spiral galaxies say.

It is unlikely to be less than many hundred pages long.

If understood in its entirety, one needs to have an excellent grasp of how the thousands of parts come together to form a more-or-less complete whole ... and this involves an acceptance of a need to spend a great deal of time looking back through the book, to find where a particular concept has been employed earlier (to take just one example).

Consider, next, that a great many ATM ideas have scopes which vastly exceed that of a contemporary astrophysics textbook on spiral galaxies (say) ... surely with such a mind-blowing scope, it is inevitable that a) the thread will be extremely long, and b) a great deal of time will need to be spent looking back through it (to find some particular specific)?

Consider one alternative: that the BAUT member proposing the staggeringly broad ATM idea has no clue of how enormous the time (and effort) commitment they have signed up for, by proposing it in a thread in BAUT's ATM section.

In short, why should any ATM proponent expect to spend anything other than a great deal of time answering questions and addressing challenges?


I agree that it an almost impossible task for moderators to control -- repeating previously answered questions -- when OP complaints come in unless the previous posting is pointed out which takes a great deal of the ATMer's time to find. But moderators should be aware of the potential abuse.
Aside from the 'the only direct questions are ones with question marks', my guess is that there's nothing new in this recent ATM thread ... mods have seen, and successfully dealt with, every one of your points, dozens of times over (and I should know, as my own record as a mod who was very active in the ATM section can objectively attest).



Since you are - presumably - trying to make a strong case for the ATM presented, why not take the opportunity to dig deeper and try to find out why communication seems to have failed?I have written a large book on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology. My editors read through it and for the most part there were few misunderstandings of meaning based upon their questions. They all have the necessary education to understand what I am saying. When they have problems concerning my meanings they ask relevant questions and clarification of the text by wording or expansion often results. My primary editor, 25 years old, has never asked a meaningless or non-relevant question. On BAUT as much as 1/3 the questions are either not relevant, meaningless or trivial. On my last thread maybe only 20% of all the postings contained good questions partly because there were so many repeats of the same questions by the same person of by others.

[...]
There's a critical difference ... the editors have a multi-hundred page manuscript to consult; BAUT members reading that ATM thread in question had (and still have) a mere dozen or paragraphs.

Remember the four criteria I mentioned? The one about "as presented" in particular!

If you a) choose to not reference much material beyond the thread itself, b) not cite sources of the quotes you do give, and c) have clearly not understood (and perhaps not even read) the few sources you do cite, how can any BAUT member read your mind wrt what you - subjectively - consider to be "not relevant, meaningless or trivial"?

It gets worse.

Consider the example I gave earlier, about a wildly idiosyncratic, non-standard definition of "current" (as in electrical current).

It was by exactly such a "not relevant, meaningless or trivial" question that this hidden gem (shall we say) was brought to light ... and once out in the open, rendered almost the entire thread meaningless.

Surely the burden is on you - the proponent of some pretty extreme ATM ideas - to provide evidence, in as much detail as required, that the questions are, in fact, "not relevant, meaningless or trivial"?

(to be continued)

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 01:19 AM
(continued)
[...]

As above ... and also: how did you determine - objectively and verifiably - that "the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody"? In my own experience, this is an extremely difficult thing to do.
In many cases I think you are right. Even though an ATMer thinks his answer is clear and simple, others may not understand what he is saying, often for good reason.

In other cases on my own thread and on others, It's hard to believe that someone could not understand the answer given based upon the question asked.
Try this: consider things from the point of view of the BAUT member asking the repeat questions (as they seem to you).

It takes but a few minutes to find other posts by this member, in other ATM threads (if any), and but a few more minutes to learn if the behaviour you've experienced - yourself, directly - has occurred before. Perhaps this simple exercise will confirm your belief (that your questioner is being obtuse, or worse), perhaps you will discover something surprising (and disturbing) ... that you truly have failed at successfully communicating your thoughts (and that you should try again, and harder)?


These are the cases I'm referring to. It's my opinion that sometimes there is no real effort to try to understand a simple, valid answer. It is difficult to get moderators involved with what's a valid answer. In some cases I resort to saying that I've tried my best to explain your question, if you cannot understand my answer, which I've now explained in several different ways, I do know what else I can do.
Try this: you believe your ATM idea is revolutionary, and will dramatically change a large part of contemporary astrophysics. Yet you cannot answer what seem like simple questions, about what you feel are quite straight-forward parts of that idea, to BAUT members who you have established - objectively, and verifiably - are extremely knowledgeable (wrt astrophysics), honest, and sincere.

What's wrong with this picture?


Repeating questions that the questioner knows have been answered

Nothing new here ... except that if you don't go back and check your earlier answers, and if you do answer in a different way, and if the challenger does their own homework and discovers the inconsistency, haven't you just made a rod for your own back?

You seem to be saying that BAUT members who challenge ATM ideas, as presented, should not take those ideas seriously ... and/or not challenge them seriously.
I'm only questioning the dishonest ethics of some opponents which I hope some moderators might become aware of from time to time, as I have.

[...]
And how, pray tell, did you determine that these opponents' ethics were (and still are?) "dishonest"?

And - more important - how do you suggest that mods should go about making such determinations?

(to be continued)

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 01:41 AM
(continued, and concluded)
[...]

If you answer "I don't know", then as night follows day the next question will be something like "well, if you don't know, why did you mention it in support of the ATM idea?"
The methods somebody used are often not relevant. Instead of asking questions concerning methods, questionable methods should be explained by the questioner so that the OP can understand the possible relevance of the "methods" question.
Two things:

Perhaps it's worth considering why the questioner feels it is relevant (when you do not)?

Rather than answer "I don't know", why not ask for clarification?



It is then - I contend - highly discourteous, presumptive, and worse for any other BAUT member to jump in and 'help defend' (or present) the ATM idea, as presented.

Of course, sometimes this intervention is good - the comment spot-on, the reasoning sound, and the support apt - but sometimes it is bad. The trouble is, no one knows - ahead of time - which is which; worse, challengers cannot tell which among the (usually quite many) new ATM ideas presented in this way are ones the primary ATM presenter is willing to address challenges on (or even knows about!).
I have some agreement with you on this matter. But I think if the comment adds clarification, which it often does, then it should be acceptable.
Again, only the ATM proponent truly knows if it "adds clarification" ... and no one questioning (and challenging) the ATM idea can assume it does (or does not), until the ATM proponent weighs in.


Often peripheral ideas are added which I think should be ignored by commentators.
But who decides if it's peripheral or not?

And how can BAUT members - who are supposed to attack the ATM idea with glee and fervour, remember - work out what should be ignored?

Worse, if the "peripheral ideas" are themselves (new) ATM ideas, don't all BAUT members reading the post have an obligation to report it, as a case of thread-jacking?


Moderators may not be so generous. The real problem is when commentators respond to non-related ATM ideas by other commentators, not the fact that these other ideas were mentioned. I think that rules could clarify the extent that commentators could help defend the OP which could help make the ATM section a better place and not a simple duck shoot, which is what it is thought of by most opponents, in my opinion.

[...]
Assume - for now - that this is a good idea; how could it be implemented, practically?

forrest noble
2009-Oct-27, 02:20 AM
Nereid,


Try this: consider things from the point of view of the BAUT member asking the repeat questions (as they seem to you).

....... ... that you truly have failed at successfully communicating your thoughts (and that you should try again, and harder)?


As I said before that the Chief Editor of my book, who is well versed in the mainstream model, can paraphrase anything that I write indicating he understands nearly everything I write. Some editors have had more problems but all are unpaid editors because they relate to the theories and generally have no problem understanding any part of it upon study. For this reason I don't think that my writing skills or theory are the main problem.

One problem, I think, is that many of those who reply are not knowledgeable about many things that they are discussing based upon their short-term research. Another problem may be that all of my comments and theories are based upon logic where mainstream theory may not be. I believe I have observed this to be a big stumbling block for some questioners. Those asking for links obviously don't understand a logical proposal, which is often simple.

Although the mainstream keeps changing I usually know the latest since I have read many mainstream papers, articles, and news reports concerning the latest interpretations. Not tooting my horn here but this may be another problem of discussion -- a difference in knowledge level. When somebody is talking at high levels nobody asks for confirmation of background info since everyone knows what your talking about. I make no such assumptions in the ATM section but expect that the simplest explanations should be readily understood.

Swift
2009-Oct-27, 02:27 AM
<snip>
Another problem may be that all of my comments and theories are based upon logic where mainstream theory may not be.
This is an aside from a discussion of the rules of this forum, but maybe some of the problem you have with ATM is right in that sentence.

I might be wrong, but I suspect you think it is sufficient that your theory be logical. It is not, at least not in the real world of science (as opposed to a debate on BAUT). A new theory has to do a better job of explaining the physical evidence, the actual data, then the old theory. There is no other test that really counts.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-27, 02:55 AM
Thanks Slang, posting #699

All of your comments are well thought out and in some cases valid counter arguments. Question Flooding limits by one person, based upon my experience is the biggest problem that I can think of which could be improved by a new rule for the ATM section. A limit in the number and extent of the questions should be generally determined. When a limit to the number of questions is given, the questioner then asks questions that are multi-faceted and can take as much time as 20 shorter questions. So both the quantity and type of questions must be addressed. For those interested, PM me for posting examples of what I am saying concerning abuses.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-27, 03:09 AM
On an ongoing basis strict enforcement of rule #1 should be upheld by the moderators, in my opinion. Any allegations by anyone about the OP or anyone else should be a complaint to a moderator and kept off the thread otherwise warning or suspension should immediately follow. Any allegations, involving personal attack, must be stopped. In my case it involved completely false allegations and personal attacks of many types. If it can be done to me it can be done to anyone and everyone in the ATM section. Is this the kind of ATM forum BAUT wants?

forrest noble
2009-Oct-27, 03:16 AM
Swift,


This is an aside from a discussion of the rules of this forum, but maybe some of the problem you have with ATM is right in that sentence.

I might be wrong, but I suspect you think it is sufficient that your theory be logical. It is not, at least not in the real world of science (as opposed to a debate on BAUT). A new theory has to do a better job of explaining the physical evidence, the actual data, then the old theory. There is no other test that really counts.

I completely agree with your comments.

The process of theory creation, I believe, should involve as much logic as possible. If this is the case, then the resulting theory may not only better explain reality, it may also be more logical than its predecessor.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-27, 06:14 AM
Is this the kind of ATM forum BAUT wants?

You know what kind of ATM forum I want? I want one where the proponents actually think in advance about the sort of questions which might be asked and have answers ready. I want one where the theory is able to be presented clearly and with all appropriate math already in place. I want one that doesn't degenerate into complaints that the people questioning the theory aren't being fair because they're questioning the theory.

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 06:38 AM
Van Rign


Really? As a (for the most part) lurker to that thread, I thought a great many questions challenged your understanding and knowledge.

This is the rules discussion area so I will be brief in my answers to anything else.

Remember this was completely different from a normal ATM thread. I proposed nothing. [...]
If so, then how does your experience inform us wrt possible rule (and guideline) changes?

Btw, the ATM thread you referred to is 'about' two quite distinct constellation of ATM ideas, only the first of which is different* ... from around post #279 (or perhaps #286) onward it is much more normal (that's just under 65% of all posts in the thread, and a similar proportion of its total 30-day life). FWIW, I have been considering your comments - and suggestions - more wrt the latter part.

Oh, and it's Rijn (not Rign).


Other questions involving my own theory were only courtesy answers since they did not involve the OP. How to express yourself in such a way that your answers are clear and unambiguous, always takes effort.
I think you've put your finger on a key aspect: the status quo (which you seem to have been unaware of until very recently) is that all ATM ideas introduced are open to being questioned and challenged.




How does that work? If you make additional ATM claims, you should expect additional questions. Answering questions with more ATM claims will likely result in more questions and repeated questions.

At some point, you need to show you can properly support your claims with evidence. If you're just going to make a series of ATM claims, there isn't much point in starting a thread in the first place.

No claims were made concerning any detail other than "some mainstream theories are probably wrong for the most part." When I was answering a question out of courtesy, which I did not have to answer since it was unrelated to the OP, in this case concerning my own theories -- then repeated questions concerning the ATM answers are also unrelated to the OP. This is all they wanted to talk about since most questions did not involve the OP directly.


What do you mean by "peripheral ATM idea"? The OP shouldn't need to answer questions about ATM ideas they aren't supporting, or unrelated ATM ideas they presented in another ATM thread, but if an ATM proponent makes additional ATM claims in their current thread, why should they not be expected to answer questions about them? After all, if they don't want the questions, it is easy enough to avoid them by not making the claims.

If others weren't allowed to ask questions about additional ATM claims, an OP could respond to questions about their initial ATM claim with more ATM claims, and refuse to answer questions about their additional claims. Of course, that would be ridiculous.

All of your comments have been good ones. But this was a very different ATM proposal. I don't think it was an ATM proposal at all, at least by my definition, and should not have been in the ATM section in the first place if proper definitions of what an ATM proposal is, according to the rules. That being said, peripheral questions in this case involved my own theories which were not part of the OP and which I did not volunteer except by direct questions and therefore should not be an avenue of unending questions -- whereby my book is 350 pages long, entirely my own theory. Questions could be asked without repetition for years.
So Van Rijn's comments are pertinent to the second part of that particular ATM thread then?

* there have been other 'nature of science' ATM ideas, and threads, so the first part was not unique (but certainly unusual)

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 06:58 AM
Nereid,


Try this: consider things from the point of view of the BAUT member asking the repeat questions (as they seem to you).

....... ... that you truly have failed at successfully communicating your thoughts (and that you should try again, and harder)?

As I said before that the Chief Editor of my book, who is well versed in the mainstream model, can paraphrase anything that I write indicating he understands nearly everything I write. Some editors have had more problems but all are unpaid editors because they relate to the theories and generally have no problem understanding any part of it upon study. For this reason I don't think that my writing skills or theory are the main problem.
That may be so ... but it is also irrelevant (to the point I'm trying hard to make here).

If one accepts that the four criteria I described can be used to determine if a question (about an ATM idea, in the ATM section) is valid or not (for the purposes of deciding if it must be answered in a timely fashion), then - logically - the only material any such valid question can use is that presented by the BAUT member proposing the ATM idea.


One problem, I think, is that many of those who reply are not knowledgeable about many things that they are discussing based upon their short-term research.
That's a quite general problem, and one that will always be with us I suspect.


Another problem may be that all of my comments and theories are based upon logic where mainstream theory may not be.
As already noted - by others - this points to a possible, extremely deep, disconnect; namely, that your worldview is so radically different from that of contemporary astrophysics as to make almost all ATM threads on ATM ideas you propose extremely frustrating. FWIW, towards the end of the second part of the ATM thread you refer to some of those aspects seemed to begin to come into the open ...


I believe I have observed this to be a big stumbling block for some questioners. Those asking for links obviously don't understand a logical proposal, which is often simple.
Judging by at least some of the examples of this in the ATM thread referenced, what no doubt seems like a simple, logical proposal to you is an extremely confused, highly idiosyncratic mess of badly understood (and/or applied) physics to others.


Although the mainstream keeps changing I usually know the latest since I have read many mainstream papers, articles, and news reports concerning the latest interpretations. Not tooting my horn here but this may be another problem of discussion -- a difference in knowledge level. When somebody is talking at high levels nobody asks for confirmation of background info since everyone knows what your talking about. I make no such assumptions in the ATM section but expect that the simplest explanations should be readily understood.
FWIW, this - to me - is surreal (for a specific example, I suggest any interested reader look up the posts, in the referenced ATM thread, on Verschuur/Verchuur).

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 07:00 AM
You know what kind of ATM forum I want? I want one where the proponents actually think in advance about the sort of questions which might be asked and have answers ready. I want one where the theory is able to be presented clearly and with all appropriate math already in place. I want one that doesn't degenerate into complaints that the people questioning the theory aren't being fair because they're questioning the theory.
:clap: :clap:

Well said! :)

slang
2009-Oct-27, 09:00 AM
Question Flooding limits by one person, based upon my experience is the biggest problem that I can think of which could be improved by a new rule for the ATM section. A limit in the number and extent of the questions should be generally determined.

And once again, I'll say that I see no need for such a rule change at all. You control how quickly you answer the questions, and you control how many new claims you add in your response. You decide which and whose questions you answer first. You decide when you answer them, as long as it's in a timely manner. There is no requirement to answer questions immediately, and nobody will mind if a careful, well thought out, adequate response takes more than a few hours, or a day.

BUT... when you do decide to engage a question, read it carefully, and answer what is asked, not what you think may be implied, and not what might be the reason for asking. Do not just respond with conversation on the same topic as the question, at least not without actually answering the question.

A frustrating example of this, (and it's in the last pages of the thread, that you suggested people should read) is the claim you raised in post #662 (http://www.bautforum.com/1601666-post662.html) in response to me, that someone has published two more papers on a certain topic. Being published has a very specific meaning in science, it means the paper is accepted and published by a respected, peer reviewed, journal. This distinction was made clear almost immediately.

Thus in #663 you were asked "Please give the title, journal, and journal reference (e.g. year, volume/issue, page number) of each (of at least two papers).". At no point in the thread did you give the information asked for, nor did you retract the claim that there were two more published papers on the topic mentioned. The only answer we got was that a paper was no longer available online.. which is irrelevant, since if it is published in a journal, it will still be listed in the index of that journal, and other indexes (even online), and that journal itself is always available through the proper channels.

Despite several replies, at NO point did you actually answer the question, leading to the question needing to be repeated, at least in: S #712, S #718, GK #720, S #722, GK #731, S #740, N #747, GK #768, and N #772. In at least five of those posts an explanation was given why answers up to then were not acceptable. It was not just three posters repeating the questions, there were also FOUR warnings/remarks from a moderator (in mod color) to answer this question properly (#719, #752, #762, #777). At no point did you ask for clarification why the answers given were not adequate (unless I missed it). It remains unanswered.

You call it flooding, I call it not answering a direct question. And as mentioned so often: the valid answer "I don't know" (perhaps somewhat rephrased) would have prevented all those repeats.

Swift
2009-Oct-27, 12:48 PM
I'm going to call a general timeout here.

This thread is for the purpose of a general discussion of the rules. It is turning into another debate about how specifically ATM should be run, and even more specifically, forrest noble's use of ATM.

I think everyone has more than said their piece. I personally think there is no more to discuss. I suspect I will shortly be proved wrong.

I'm not going to close this thread, but if this discussion does continue, I'm going to split it off into a separate thread.

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 01:39 PM
While waiting for PipeDream's comments on what the root cause(s) of question flooding are, I'd like to suggest this: READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

And what is "THIS THREAD"? Why it's Advice for ATM theory supporters. (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/16242-advice-atm-theory-supporters.html)

Now many will recognise these words, and the thread ... yep, this is exactly what the BA wrote, many years ago, and which form a key part of 'the ATM rule'.

My take on this: it is the responsibility of those who choose to present an ATM idea to do their homework before they put fingers to keyboard and write the OP of a new thread in the ATM section.

In almost all cases, the preparation will take many, many, many hours.

In addition to a lot of work on the content of the ATM idea, the preparation will include a lot of work on its format, how it is structured, etc.

Key parts of the preparation include things such as:
* preparing references
* checking the accuracy of references, their pertinence, whether links work, etc
* anticipating likely questions
* planning how to deal with likely questions (e.g. address them in the OP, prepare boilerplate to be used if they arise).

Some corollaries:

- if a post of yours containing an ATM idea is split from an existing thread, forming the OP of a new thread in the ATM section, you should ask for at least a week's grace (i.e. have the thread closed for that long), or abandon it entirely ... why? because you almost surely will not be prepared, and will likely be hit with a flood of questions which you are totally unprepared for

- if, within the first page of the new ATM thread, you face a flood of questions, this is an almost certain sign that you have done a poor job of preparation ... why? you should have anticipated exactly such a flood

- even if you are well-prepared, you will almost certainly have to devote dozens, if not hundreds, of hours to answering questions and addressing challenges to the ATM ideas you have presented, over the 30-day life of the thread ... if you cannot make such a time commitment, your ATM idea is not ready for BAUT time (much less prime time).

Bottom line: pace forrest noble, "question flooding" is not an abuse (or a bug), it is a symptom of inadequate preparation (i.e. a feature).

There is one caveat: a flood of invalid questions is an abuse ... but the abuse is that the questions are not valid (per my suggested four criteria).

Jeff Root
2009-Oct-27, 01:52 PM
I have not read the thread that prompted the current discussion.

Having been involved in many other threads on ATM subjects, I am very
familiar with both the problem of the ATM proponent being overloaded with
questions, and the problem of the ATM proponent responding to questions
without answering them, but believing that he has answered them.

The example of the latter problem that slang provided in post #713 just
above is exactly what was needed to answer the complaint about question
overload made in this thread. Very good work and entirely appropriate and
helpful, in my opinion.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Edit: This thread was just extracted from a much longer thread.
My reference to post #713 is now a reference to post #65.

.

pipedream
2009-Oct-27, 03:52 PM
Out of curiousity, what percentage of the questions asked of fn do you think meet the four criteria I gave in an earlier post*? To what extent is there a difference in this percentage when questions are broken down by questioner?

Finally, what do you consider the root cause of "question flooding" - in general, not just in that thread - to be?


I didn't see a problem with irrelevant questions in this thread, so I'll throw out 80% relevant. There were some comedy turns from certain well-known posters but I didn't mind that as I felt it was a welcome diversion from the grim intensity of the main event. As to breaking it down by questioner, I think that's best answered by reading the thread and making one's own mind up. Each poster knows how much s/he conributed to the discussion, there were some who contributed much, some, not so much, and yes, there was a marked difference in the quality (by your four criteria) of individual posters output.

As to question-flooding, in most ATM threads, almost entirely due to evasion by the OP. In FN's thread, do we agree in the first instance that it probably was occurring, at some points at least? Given that it was , I attribute cause evenly to both sides. Firstly, fn wasn't answering the questions in spirit in which they were asked, and it bears repeating that in the eyes of the general reading public, it doesn't fool anyone, it is noticeable and you get marked down as a result. Credit, though, in that he didn't evade all relevant questions and made irregular attempts to clear the black-log (and he was still going at the end of 30 days - many a lesser man would have fled).

So, the other 50%? Lordy, these eggshells are loud. OK, I felt sometimes you knowingly weren't helping the situation by, for example, the deadly repeated use of the dreaded 'Triple Post' full of pertinent, relevant direct questions. My heart would sink for forrest. I'd scoll up and down 8 foot of post trying to make sense of it (the fault being mine, obviously) and picture the poor guy coming home from a hard day to face that. You say that it is part of the harsh reality of scientific debate, I say that in essence I agree with you but sometimes it was kicking a man when he was down.

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 06:53 PM
This post is not specifically for PD ...
[...]

The main proponent (there were others) of the mainstream position argued strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but was also ruthless, vicious, and relentless. [...] I can think of no other poster here who I would want least to be on opposite sides of an argument.

FN was unlucky in coming up against such an awesomely strong opponent, and at times, he should have been given more protection by the mods. [...]
Given the BAUT ATM section's 'mission', if you really, truly believed you had developed a really good ATM idea, would you consider yourself unlucky 'to come up against' a BAUT member such as PD describes*?

If you ever found yourself in such a position, what 'more protection by the mods' would you expect? wish for?

Those who've been around a long time, and have at least read some of ATM threads where such 'opponents' have been very active, will know that there seem to be some BAUT members - apparently with strongly held beliefs in the validity of ATM ideas they propose, as good astrophysics - who most strenuously do consider having such an opponent unlucky in the extreme.

I've never understood why, and am genuinely interested in learning why ...

* sans the "ruthless, vicious" part

Nereid
2009-Oct-27, 07:30 PM
I didn't see a problem with irrelevant questions in this thread, so I'll throw out 80% relevant. There were some comedy turns from certain well-known posters but I didn't mind that as I felt it was a welcome diversion from the grim intensity of the main event. As to breaking it down by questioner, I think that's best answered by reading the thread and making one's own mind up. Each poster knows how much s/he conributed to the discussion, there were some who contributed much, some, not so much, and yes, there was a marked difference in the quality (by your four criteria) of individual posters output.

As to question-flooding, in most ATM threads, almost entirely due to evasion by the OP. In FN's thread, do we agree in the first instance that it probably was occurring, at some points at least? Given that it was , I attribute cause evenly to both sides. Firstly, fn wasn't answering the questions in spirit in which they were asked, and it bears repeating that in the eyes of the general reading public, it doesn't fool anyone, it is noticeable and you get marked down as a result. Credit, though, in that he didn't evade all relevant questions and made irregular attempts to clear the black-log (and he was still going at the end of 30 days - many a lesser man would have fled).

So, the other 50%? Lordy, these eggshells are loud. OK, I felt sometimes you knowingly weren't helping the situation by, for example, the deadly repeated use of the dreaded 'Triple Post' full of pertinent, relevant direct questions. My heart would sink for forrest. I'd scoll up and down 8 foot of post trying to make sense of it (the fault being mine, obviously) and picture the poor guy coming home from a hard day to face that. You say that it is part of the harsh reality of scientific debate, I say that in essence I agree with you but sometimes it was kicking a man when he was down.
Thanks very much! :)

Back on 'question-flooding'.

In general.

First, as a matter of good 'response management' (shall we say), how effective do you think a response like the following would be "I acknowledge the questions in posts n, m, and x {or quote the actual questions}; I will try to address them in turn {or some other indication of order}, hoping to have done so by {date}. However, I will need clarification on {list}, and am also concerned that {list2} are beyond the scope of the ATM ideas, as presented."?

How often would you say a response (by an ATM idea proponent) which is a non-answer would have been better as a request for clarification? IOW, there most certainly are misunderstandings, by every BAUT member who participates in such threads, failures to communicate, etc; where the ATM proponent feels this may be happening, isn't it better to ask for clarification (than give a non-answer)?

FWIW, a general principle I try to stick with (I don't always do so :sad:) is that if the response to one of my questions is a non-answer, I assume my question was insufficiently clear, and have a go at providing a more detailed context (including lots of material from the ATM idea, as presented), approaching the question in a different way, or re-wording it (or some combo, including all three).

Finally, to what extent do you consider it possible for valid questions (per my four criteria) to be irrelevant (comic relief aside!)?

Swift
2009-Oct-27, 07:48 PM
I have split the most recent discussion about ATM rules and modifications to them out of the general Rules Discussion thread, and into their own thread (this one).

forrest noble
2009-Oct-27, 08:42 PM
Nereid,


Surely the only concern here should be: are the questions valid?

The word valid is OK. I prefer the word pertinent.


The intent of the ATM section, with its rules, is very clear; if you are aware of the intent, and familiar with the rules and how they apply, then in preparing for the day when you post the OP of a new ATM idea presumably you will have considered the likely questions and have already addressed them (in the OP) or be prepared to do so.

Agreed, but the way questions are applied, question flooding for instance is unacceptable. Antagonistic questions like "are you prepared to answer questions ....................." are also unacceptable.


I'm not sure about questions such as "are you sure you want to present this ATM idea? are you prepared to address challenges to it" - asked out of concern for the ATM proponent, and politeness - perhaps everyone should just assume every ATM idea presented is open (and that the proponent is prepared).

As I said, I consider these questions as attempted intimidation. You must assume the ATMer is ready to answer questions without asking.


IMHO, there are four ordered criteria for judging whether a question - one that must be answered in a timely fashion - is valid or not:

* is it direct?
* does the question concern an ATM idea presented by the proponent?
* can the question be tied directly to the ATM idea, as presented?
* is the question pertinent to the ATM idea presented, as presented?

If the question unambiguously meets all four criteria, then answer the question you must.


Agreed. But often these criteria are not met.


Of course, you can always answer something like any of these: "I don't know", or "I acknowledge the question, but it will take me some time to answer it", or "I don't understand the question, could you please clarify?", or "I can't see how the question relates to the ATM idea I have presented, as I presented it; could you elaborate please?".


Why do you keep repeating comments like questions, that have already been responded to/ answered. I have already agreed with your paragraph and comments above.


One important thing many ATM proponents fail to realise is that every ATM presented, by them, in the ATM thread, is automatically open to being questioned and challenged (it seems some feel that only those ATM ideas presented in the OP are 'on the table').


Obviously, but there is a limit to how far the peripheral questions can go. Since everything is related to everything else in this universe, you can't go from galaxy formation as the OP, to quark theory by progressive steps of questioning. There must be a limit. The OP should always be the primary basis for all questions. Try to understand that ATM proposals often require many ATM answers but questioning of the answers progressively can only go so far otherwise the presentation of many ATM proposals would become impossible since it might require the explanation of much new physics, as it would for my theories for instance. Ten years might not be enough time to get through all the questions if there was no limit.

Moose
2009-Oct-27, 08:55 PM
You must assume the ATMer is ready to answer questions without asking.

Believe me when I say we "must" assume no such thing. Quite the opposite, in practice.

Have you ever considered why (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/91853-very-brief-history-atm-forum.html) we've had to codify Rule 13 at all? It wasn't for larks.

Painfully unprepared and here solely for the personal perception of street cred (by getting banned by "the establishment"), the Martyr-ATMer is by far the most time-consuming enforcement issue the mod team faces. (Spam is considerably more common by incident, but individual cases can be handled very quickly.)

Tensor
2009-Oct-27, 09:21 PM
Tensor,
You are one of the exceptions concerning knowledge and behavior. Everything you say, that I recall, concerning an ATM proposal has relevance, is insightful, and you generally respond with a respectful demeanor. If everybody had your knowledge and social skills the ATM forum would be a far better, and more productive forum, in my opinion.

You give me far too much credit. I can, and have, been snarky and rude with the best of them (usually as sarcasm). Now, it may be that it happened before you were here, as I now post less than I used to(not due to anything here), although I continue to read almost everything every day. But, and I know it's no excuse, it's usually in response to one of the examples I gave.


Regarding the rules: That being said, I disagree with your opinion concerning snarky, rude, insulting comments. I certainly have not been a part of BAUT as long as you have but for the 1 1/2 years that I have it appears to me that almost all of the abuses concerning the rules, in the present day, come from the ATM opponents.

Moose's post above contains a link to a short history of the why's of the ATM forum and the rules of such. The problems I listed, while not specifically addressed by Moose's link, are in large part the reasons for the way the ATM rules ended up the way they are. Which may account for your experience here.

I will tell you that in my experience, that the types of posters the rules have been designed for (or in reaction too) far outweigh those who may have a valid idea and the wherewithal to defend it.

Jeff Root
2009-Oct-27, 09:36 PM
Antagonistic questions like "are you prepared to answer questions ...."
are also unacceptable.



I'm not sure about questions such as "are you sure you want to present
this ATM idea? are you prepared to address challenges to it" - asked out
of concern for the ATM proponent, and politeness - perhaps everyone
should just assume every ATM idea presented is open (and that the
proponent is prepared).
As I said, I consider these questions as attempted intimidation.
I doubt that anyone else would consider them to be attempted
intimidation. Your interpretation of them as attempted intimidation
surprises me. I'm quite sure it would surprise almost anyone who
doesn't know you.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

korjik
2009-Oct-27, 10:06 PM
ATM abuses:

I just finished a very long ATM thread and these were the very clear abuses that I experienced. I believe some changes in the rules could stop some of the abuses which I and others experienced on this and other threads, as described both above and below.

Question Flooding discussed above. One person asking 10 to 15 questions all in one day (as many as 40), sometimes on just one posting. Some of these questions individually required very long answers allowing much less time for other questions.

'Question Flooding' is a straw man as has been dicussed above. The rules allow answering questions at what ever rate that the ATMer wants.


Thread Flooding also discussed above. This does not happen often but the strategy is to flood the thread with alot of quotations, sometimes three of four long postings of quotations, to keep the reader away from relevant/ valuable comments by the OP, pushing their reply to the top of the page or to a prior page.

The only ones that I have seen do this are ATMers. Frequently, the quotes actually disprove the ATMers point.


Based upon my experiences I feel that those asking the questions do not really want to hear answers and often do not even read them since they keep asking the same questions over again repeatedly. It would seem that their sole purpose is to defeat the OP without having any real interest in their own questions or the answers given.

Nice little backhanded ad-hom. My experience is that the questions keep getting asked because the answer was trivial, non-applicable, or just plain wrong, and the error is pointed out and further information is desired. No one who spends time shooting down ATMs is there just to opress the ATMers. We are ususally there to educate and to prevent the perversion of knowledge by bad ATM ideas. No one simply tries to stifle the ATMer.


Repeated questions by the same person: Many questions were asked over and over again even when the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody. This was a very big problem and I feel certain that those doing it understood what they were doing, i.e wasting my time to reply to unanswered questions. I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question. It was easier to answer the same question multiple times when asked by the same person, rather than get warned to answer the questions by the moderator -- a strategy of intimidation by the questioner.

What you consider understandable and clear, is usually trival and incorrect. The problem isnt that the answer wasnt understood, but that the ATMer dosent understand the explanation of why the given answer was incorrect and worthless.


False Accusations and Insults were the order of the day and continued on an ongoing basis rather than addressing the answer, I was repeatedly attacked personally. This of course is the worst problem and should be stopped in its tracts every time, by the moderators without hesitation. There could never be an excuse for allowing such behavior. If this abuse is not stopped it always escalates. I made a number of complaints to moderators on this matter but none were answered. One time the moderator warned a poster concerning rule #1 but I don't know if it was in response to my complaint or not. When I commented online concerning continuous insults, I was told to push the triangle and warned concerning such online discussions-- whereby nobody ever answered my complaints, a catch 22.

I'll admit that I get snarky, but any accusation I have made hasnt been false, and I havent even come close to being insulting. You can tell that by how I can still post here


Lack of understanding: Many of those asking questions could not understand sometimes simple concepts and answers. This, in some cases, may have been a reason why the same questions were repeatedly asked. In frustration I suggested that maybe somebody else reading my answers could help explain them to the questioner, after my answering the same question using different wording. The questioner complained to the moderator and I was warned concerning suspension. For this problem I don't know how new rules could help. But maybe somebody else might have an idea.

It isnt the responders who do not understand, it is the ATMers. I have yet to see an ATM poster that has a good enough understanding of physics to pass a Jr level physics class. I dont mean this as an insult, but as an observation. The problem is that alot of the subjects that ATMers bring up are quite sophisticated and the explanations that show the ATM idea wrong are way over the ATMers head.


A number of questions were unrelated to the OP. Some involved how this or that experimenter performed his analysis. I told the questioner to ask this in the Q & A section since it did not involve any ATM idea or assertion. I was warned by the moderator to stop trying to moderate the thread myself and to answer the questions. I answered the questions by simply saying I don't know -- which was true unless I would have looked up the answers. Upon seeing my response somebody watching the thread looked up the answer and provided them online. They were warned not to do so thereafter.

Several persons had favorable comments concerning the OP and gave, what I considered very valuable comments. They were told not to partake in meta-discussions, and warned of suspension.

Moderators seemingly are biased against the OP, regardless of what the subject is. Some moderators, I believe, think they are doing a service by favoring opponents of the OP. This favoritism is based upon presuming some commentators know what they are talking about, and the OP does not. Other moderators may not even be aware of their own bias. I also feel that moderators seldom recognize those deceitful tactics described above. I'm not sure anything can be done about some of these tactics and the rules other than this posting, and moderators becoming aware of some of these unwanted/ deceitful tactics.

On a positive note: maybe it's just my imagination but it appears to me that some moderators may be improving to some extent concerning obvious favoritism.

Sorry, but if the moderators were truly biased against the OP, then none of them would ever make it off the first page.

What you consider bias is probably one of the other people in the thread trying to get you to provide and answer that actually answers something, or trying to get you to realize that the answer you provided wasnt good enough to be considered a response, much less an actual answer.

I participated in your thread for a while, and lurked occasionally once I was satisfied that you were not interested in learning from your mistakes. The only problem that thread had was that you have some pretty fundamental misunderstanding in physics, and a misunderstanding on how science in general works. Most of your responses were ambigous or just plain wrong, and you never understood any of the reasons why. People kept trying to get you to see the light, but that is just 'question flooding' to you. The problem you had was never the people who were answering you, or the moderators.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-27, 10:52 PM
No one simply tries to stifle the ATMer.

After all, wouldn't it be easier to just ignore them completely? No, some threads don't get much response, because they don't draw interest, but a lot of threads grow very quickly from interested responses. Not paying attention is more effective at keeping an idea from gaining momentum than actually actively suppressing it.

captain swoop
2009-Oct-27, 11:09 PM
I have never understood the complaints about repressing threads or censoring. If we wanted to repress ATM we wouldn't have the forum.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 12:08 AM
Gillianren,


After all, wouldn't it be easier to just ignore them completely? No, some threads don't get much response, because they don't draw interest, but a lot of threads grow very quickly from interested responses. Not paying attention is more effective at keeping an idea from gaining momentum than actually actively suppressing it.

I agree 100%.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 12:34 AM
Korjik,


Question Flooding' is a straw man as has been dicussed above. The rules allow answering questions at what ever rate that the ATMer wants.

The problem with question flooding is not the number of questions, it's the continuous complaint the the questions have not been answered. The effect is that often one person dominates the thread and questions.

RE: thread flooding.

The only ones that I have seen do this are ATMers. Frequently, the quotes actually disprove the ATMers point.


I believe I've seen this on a number of occasions but only on high-profile threads.

questioners not particularly interested in answers would rather see a wrong/ incorrect answer than a right answer:


Nice little backhanded ad-hom. My experience is that the questions keep getting asked because the answer was trivial, non-applicable, or just plain wrong, and the error is pointed out and further information is desired. No one who spends time shooting down ATMs is there just to oppress the ATMers. We are usually there to educate and to prevent the perversion of knowledge by bad ATM ideas. No one simply tries to stifle the ATMer.


In high profile cases I think this is one of the many strategies when all else seems to be failing. On long posting to them, they often miss answers.


What you consider understandable and clear, is usually trival and incorrect. The problem isnt that the answer wasnt understood, but that the ATMer dosent understand the explanation of why the given answer was incorrect and worthless.

I understand and know that many ATM threads are impossible to follow. As to my own explanations, if someone has a little background knowledge I think my explanations are not difficult to understand.


I'll admit that I get snarky, but any accusation I have made hasnt been false, and I havent even come close to being insulting. You can tell that by how I can still post here

Anyone who admits to being snarky from time to time has to be one of the good guys.


It isnt the responders who do not understand, it is the ATMers. I have yet to see an ATM poster that has a good enough understanding of physics to pass a Jr level physics class. I dont mean this as an insult, but as an observation. The problem is that alot of the subjects that ATMers bring up are quite sophisticated and the explanations that show the ATM idea wrong are way over the ATMers head.

I think there is a wide divergence between the quality of ATM threads/ postings as you suggest.


Sorry, but if the moderators were truly biased against the OP, then none of them would ever make it off the first page.

Being biased has many faces.


What you consider bias is probably one of the other people in the thread trying to get you to provide and answer that actually answers something, or trying to get you to realize that the answer you provided wasnt good enough to be considered a response, much less an actual answer.


No, my definition of bias here is for a moderator(s) to consider beforehand that an opponent is most likely correct and the ATMer is most likely at fault concerning accusations.


I participated in your thread for a while, and lurked occasionally once I was satisfied that you were not interested in learning from your mistakes. The only problem that thread had was that you have some pretty fundamental misunderstanding in physics, and a misunderstanding on how science in general works. Most of your responses were ambiguous or just plain wrong, and you never understood any of the reasons why. People kept trying to get you to see the light, but that is just 'question flooding' to you. The problem you had was never the people who were answering you, or the moderators.

I've been writing theory for 50 years and am well educated in math and astronomy. I'm a retired teacher. Few on that thread could understand basic principles. Go back and look at Bob Angstrom's postings where he was trying to explain the simple stuff to them after I already explained it, sometimes twice.

Thanks for your comments, regards forrest

slang
2009-Oct-28, 12:44 AM
The problem with question flooding is not the number of questions, it's the continuous complaint the the questions have not been answered.

Changing goal posts. If the problem is that questions are considered to be unanswered, while you personally think they have been answered, why not ask why the answers given so far do not in fact answer the question?

If I ask you what the color of your car is, a 1000 word response detailing which colors sell the most, and which colors are good for the soul, and which colors promote peace, and bicycles are better than cars anyway, and explaining that some people are color blind, does not answer my question on what the color of your car is, even if every one of those 1000 words are true.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 01:35 AM
Moose,

RE: assuming the OP/ or someone else is prepared to defend:


Believe me when I say we "must" assume no such thing. Quite the opposite, in practice.

Have you ever considered why we've had to codify Rule 13 at all? It wasn't for larks.


I believe that it is a valid rule that has properly evolved but it also has been abused by moderators, in my opinion.

You took part in this thread.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/85219-modern-cosmology-science-folktale.html

The title of the thread was Cosmology, science or Folklore. It featured an article by the astronomer Michael Disney concerning what's wrong with the standard model.

In complete agreement with the OP I said the following. referred to in posting #139 back to a previous posting.


The standard model, I honestly think, is on its way out and I would bet it will be gone, or out of favor, in 20 years or sooner because of the reasons Disney has explained -- and because I believe it will be contradicted by continuous observations of more distant galaxies far beyond what has been observed to date.

Nereid said the following: posting #135


..........Well, I think it's time for a mod to step in provide clarification ...
... until then, as I understand it, there is no 'adhere to' requirement, nor that the ATM idea (or ideas) being presented be one's own.

As I have said, repeatedly, the key requirement is that if an ATM idea is presented in a thread in the ATM section (whether in the OP or subsequently), the default is that the BAUT member posting it is required to answer questions on it, and address challenges to it (the usual caveats apply)...........

My quote: posting #144 same thread I said:


To agree with something contrary to the mainstream model doesn't mean that you are in favor of anything in particular. I'm supposed to defend what I think is wrong with the standard model? That's not a hypothesis or proposal, its just an agreement with a criticism. Even criticism itself is not a proposal, if so everybody criticizing the OP would be making proposals.

In other words what do you expect me to defend. I'm not the OP. I was in complete agreement with the OP proposal when I said "I honestly think" and "I believe" -------- these are not ATM proposals, in my opinion. This was my only "ATM proposal" and on posting #148 I was suspended for three days for supposedly rule 13, not supporting my ATM claim.

The closing thread read:


"As you seem determined to ignore your responsibilities under rule 13 I am going to suspend you for 3 days to consider your position.

As Forrest seems to be the only active proponent of the ATM Idea I am going to lock the thread. If anyone wants to continue let me know"

(bold added)

Some say that the mods misunderstood the thread or what was being said. That may be true but it is not a valid excuse for abusing rule 13, in my opinion, and suspending somebody for asserting nothing. You can't even say "I honestly believe" xyz in the ATM section without having to defend it as a new thread in the ATM section? Of course I was not prepared to defend such a frivolous proposal such as "I honestly believe" as a separate ATM thread as Nereid proposed. This thread would have been nearly identical to the Cosmology, Science or Folkore? with me defending a similar statement to Disney's prefaced by "I honestly believe." A truly ridiculous proposal/ decision which was enforced by the mods based upon rule 13.

I understand and appreciate that a mods job is difficult at times but I expect better than this from them, especially since I was the object of their rath :).

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 01:48 AM
Slang,


Changing goal posts. If the problem is that questions are considered to be unanswered, while you personally think they have been answered, why not ask why the answers given so far do not in fact answer the question?


(bold added)

I did something similar to this but admittedly not as good. I said "why do you keep asking the same questions when I've already answered them before. No response follows other than "you still have not answered questions postings x, y, & z.

Your approach is better since it is a more straight forward question without the possibly antagonistic statement "I've already answered that." It requires their response in a more compelling way, with a better sounding request.

mugaliens
2009-Oct-28, 02:02 AM
I have split the most recent discussion about ATM rules and modifications to them out of the general Rules Discussion thread, and into their own thread (this one).

Excellent move, and as we're already on page three, that took some time, Swift - thanks!

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 02:11 AM
Here's a funny thought, Or is it?

In the ATM section or another I might say in agreement with the OP that "I think xyz standard model is wrong because of abc reason" The mods step in and say you must retract this statement or you will be suspended. You've already had your 30 days :)

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-28, 02:14 AM
Not paying attention is more effective at keeping an idea from gaining momentum than actually actively suppressing it.
Deleting the thread and banning the poster would be even easier, and much less work for the moderators, but, in spite of repeated accusations of censorship, that doesn't actually happen here.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-28, 02:24 AM
Here's a funny thought, Or is it?

In the ATM section or another I might say in agreement with the OP that "I think xyz standard model is wrong because of abc reason" The mods step in and say you must retract this statement or you will be suspended. You've already had your 30 days :)
99.99%1 of the situations where this happens, the argument from ATM2 quoted to support ATM1 doesn't actually support ATM 1, ATM2 often contradicts ATM1 on several points and the discussion becomes seriously confused because people have to keep track of which ATM they're arguing with in what posts.
It doesn't help ATM1 and if ATM2 has already failed to be demonstrated in another thread, it's not valid as supporting evidence anyway.



1) 87% of statistics on the internet are invented on the spot.

Nereid
2009-Oct-28, 02:25 AM
Here's a funny thought, Or is it?

In the ATM section or another I might say in agreement with the OP that "I think xyz standard model is wrong because of abc reason" The mods step in and say you must retract this statement or you will be suspended. You've already had your 30 days :)
To get an appreciation of what Moose (and Tensor, and ...) have been referring to - re the history of the ATM section, grotesquely misapplied intellect*, etc - take a gander at some of the "electric universe" ATM threads.

IIRC, this particular tactic (the one you write in your post) has been used, many times, in several guises ... (and yes, some BAUT members were, in fact, banned for persisting with such tactics, despite repeated warnings).

* i.e. devising ever more clever ways to circumvent the rules, in order to give visibility to pet ATM ideas

Tensor
2009-Oct-28, 02:35 AM
1) 87% of statistics on the internet are invented on the spot.

But, 74% of that 87% are actually valid(within ~10%). Of course the other 26% or 22% of all statistics on the internet are imaginary. So, if you multiply that 22% by i, you will have 100% real statistics. :)

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-28, 02:43 AM
-i

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 02:54 AM
HenrikOlsen,


Deleting the thread and banning the poster would be even easier, and much less work for the moderators, but, in spite of repeated accusations of censorship, that doesn't actually happen here.

I'm not saying it's all that bad. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. I'm just suggesting that it could be improved.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 02:57 AM
HenrikOlsen,


To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’


I'm with you all the way on this one but how does crime fiction relate. I've been accused of writing science fiction, not crime fiction?:)

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-28, 03:06 AM
You're missing that it's a quote by a specific author regarding his own works and how they're perceived.
Try reading some of his novels and you'll understand why he said it.

The "-i" was my actual post.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 03:19 AM
Tensor,

I haven't heard of that. Do you have a link to these stats which might help me on my next ATM proposal? :)

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 03:27 AM
Nereid,


To get an appreciation of what Moose (and Tensor, and ...) have been referring to - re the history of the ATM section, grotesquely misapplied intellect*, etc - take a gander at some of the "electric universe" ATM threads.

IIRC, this particular tactic (the one you write in your post) has been used, many times, in several guises ... (and yes, some BAUT members were, in fact, banned for persisting with such tactics, despite repeated warnings).


I have agreed that these rules have evolved for good reasons but I've also suggested that they can be misapplied. Frankly I don't like it when my own donkey has been gored :cry: by misuse of the rules.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 03:40 AM
HenrikOlsen,


You're missing that it's a quote by a specific author regarding his own works and how they're perceived.

Granted I missed the point. Over my head.


Try reading some of his novels and you'll understand why he said it.

Can't you give me a clue. Reading a whole novel to become aware of a fine point of understanding might be a little drastic. Do you think?

OK, I will guess.

"To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku."

Guess: The meaning of it is there is no exact formula that makes a good crime novel.
Your meaning: There is no perfect set of rules that could make BAUT better.

If that's your meaning, I agree. But don't you agree everyone/ entity in every way should strive to be better and better, Including BAUT?

Gillianren
2009-Oct-28, 03:47 AM
Can't you give me a clue. Reading a whole novel to become aware of a fine point of understanding might be a little drastic. Do you think?

No more than reading a physics text is a little drastic when it comes to learning physics. It can be explained, but it's better to go to the source, even if it takes longer.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-28, 04:12 AM
Granted I missed the point. Over my head.
Still missing the point.

It's my signature, the piece that comes at the end of every post I make.

It isn't there to comment on how you post in ATM treads, it doesn't carry deep significance relevant to this discussion, it's just there because I like it.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 04:13 AM
HenrikOlsen,


99.99%1 of the situations where this happens, the argument from ATM2 quoted to support ATM1 doesn't actually support ATM 1, ATM2 often contradicts ATM1 on several points and the discussion becomes seriously confused because people have to keep track of which ATM they're arguing with in what posts. It doesn't help ATM1 and if ATM2 has already failed to be demonstrated in another thread, it's not valid as supporting evidence anyway.

1) 87% of statistics on the internet are invented on the spot.

OK a little joke was put forward at mods expense and you have to take it personally.


.....has already failed to be demonstrated in another thread.

(bold added)

I'm sure you realize that nothing ATM could ever be demonstrated to be valid in the ATM section, regardless if it is valid or not, and regardless of the evidence. No one will ever agree to its validity. Maybe an alternative mainstream theory like super symmetry possibly.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-28, 04:17 AM
Sure it could.

If it was carefully though out in advance, with all the math in place (using standard notation), with fully fleshed out references to relevant experiments, was described either using the standard meaning of physical words or specified explicitly in advance how the meaning differed and it fitted all known experiments better than the the mainstream hypothesis, then it could.

No hypothesis fitting those criteria has every been presented in the ATM forum.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 04:19 AM
Still missing the point.

It's my signature, the piece that comes at the end of every post I make.

It isn't there to comment on how you post in ATM treads, it doesn't carry deep significance relevant to this discussion, it's just there because I like it.

That's cool, I like it too -- now that I understand it. Sometimes it's just a little flavoring that makes a big difference in the taste.

Spoons
2009-Oct-28, 04:26 AM
Now do my sig!

(Kidding)

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 04:33 AM
Sure it could.

If it was carefully though out in advance, with all the math in place (using standard notation), with fully fleshed out references to relevant experiments and it fitted all known experiments better than the the mainstream hypothesis, then it could.

Granted I've never seen any ATM proposals like this either.

Your explanation sounds ideally perfect, but in my opinion they would never stop arguing against it. I've heard people say that sounds good to me, but that's just one person and it's rare.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-28, 04:37 AM
Hi spoons,


Now do my sig!

Sig:

Pull up a groove and get fabulous

you could get banned for that kind of rap on BAUT. You should know better.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-28, 05:45 AM
Your explanation sounds ideally perfect, but in my opinion they would never stop arguing against it.
And why should they?
There's not a single piece of mainstream physics that people have stopped trying to poke holes in either.

hhEb09'1
2009-Oct-28, 05:51 AM
And why should they?
There's not a single piece of mainstream physics that people have stopped trying to poke holes in either.This is a point that is seldom well appreciated, so I am going to quote it just so it can be read again.

Science has to be skeptical of itself, or it is not science.

Tensor
2009-Oct-28, 01:52 PM
Care to try my sig? You might guess from all three that I've spent quite a bit of time in the ATM forum.

Kwalish Kid
2009-Oct-28, 04:20 PM
Question Flooding discussed above. One person asking 10 to 15 questions all in one day (as many as 40), sometimes on just one posting. Some of these questions individually required very long answers allowing much less time for other questions.
I had to ask the same questions over and over because you refused to answer them. I was amazed that you weren't banned!

Based upon my experiences I feel that those asking the questions do not really want to hear answers and often do not even read them since they keep asking the same questions over again repeatedly. It would seem that their sole purpose is to defeat the OP without having any real interest in their own questions or the answers given.
Well, in honesty, I really wanted you to simply admit that you have no idea what you were talking about. I wanted to know if you could come to the realization that you were basing your beliefs on things that you thought that you knew but didn't actually know. This would serve as a learning experience for you and a warning to others. In the course of answering these questions, there was always a chance that you would bring up good points that would add to an analysis of contemporary cosmology.

However, you avoided most of this by refusing to answer questions repeatedly.

Repeated questions by the same person: Many questions were asked over and over again even when the answers seemed quite understandable and clear to almost anybody. This was a very big problem and I feel certain that those doing it understood what they were doing, i.e wasting my time to reply to unanswered questions. I could not go back hundreds of postings to find out on what posting I answered their question before, even though I told them I already answered their question they always listed it as an unanswered question. It was easier to answer the same question multiple times when asked by the same person, rather than get warned to answer the questions by the moderator -- a strategy of intimidation by the questioner.
When I asked questions multiple times, I always pointed out why your answers were unacceptable. I skipped this when you ignored my posts and simply repeated the questions.

Lack of understanding: Many of those asking questions could not understand sometimes simple concepts and answers.
Kettle, though art black.

A number of questions were unrelated to the OP.
Sometimes this happens, but I contend that you simply did not understand how they related to the OP. If you would answer questions directly, you and the questioner could get to the point of how they relate to the OP.

The evidence for my assertions are the thread itself.
This is a great example of the kind of citation that you did in your last ATM thread: it does not provide a good guide to the document in question, it does not point to specifics, and it does not support your position. That thread is filled with your attempts to dodge questions and provided responses to questions that were not answers.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-28, 04:25 PM
Care to try my sig?
That last one is an explicit admission of using the concept occasionally known as lies-to-children, where a simpler(wrong) explanation is taught first, because that gives enough to base the less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in school on which gives enough basis to learn the even less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in high school, which are also simplified and wrong, but enables you to go to college and learn the somewhat simplified and wrong explanations that are what's needed to learn the least simplified explanation you get as a post doc, before you try to find a not so simplified explanation as a researcher.

Weakly Interacting MP
2009-Oct-28, 06:02 PM
I have been following all of the threads discussed here (along with many others) and I am finally moved enough to make a comment (or 6! :D)

Forrest, I am admittedly addressing most of this to you, although it probably applies to others.

To quote Pauli (from memory, so maybe not exact) "That's not right. It's not even wrong!"

This statement speaks to many, perhaps even most, of the responses you gave to repeated questions. The problem, as far as I could (can) see, is that you do not seem to have a strong enough grasp of the relevent sciences to understand why and how your responces were not (mostly) answers, and did therefore often appear as dodges.

Furthermore, when it was pointed out to you that the responce did not provide an asnwer, and in some cases why it did not provide an answer, you either ignored the explanation or returned to the same responce.

I can't describe to you my frustration in reading your replies nor the empathy I felt with Nereid, who repeatedly tried to clarify and reword the questions asked, all to little or no avail.

I also question your interpretation of Nereid as a "her". On what basis did you make the assumption Nereid was a female? AFAIK Nereid has never, on any forum I have been on, nor even in private Moderator discussions, admitted to being one sex or the other.

I found that some of your responses and criticisms smacked of gender bias. My own opinion of course, but I suggest you reconsider some of your responces thinking of Nereid as a male.

I also agree with the comment of Kwalish Kid: kettle, thou art black. My immediate thought on reading the comment from you that was quoted was "says the kettle to the pot".

...(continued)

Nereid
2009-Oct-28, 06:14 PM
WIMP: it is true that I have tried hard to not declare myself male, female, intersex*, undecided**, or ... even to the extent of avoiding to have to use either he or she when referring to myself.

IMHO, it matters not a jot what Nereid's gender is, just as it matters just as much what Nereid's age, skin colour, ethnicity, etc, etc, etc is.

However, if it matters to any reader, I have, over the years offered two suggestions:

a) if you wish Nereid to be male, well, then for you Nereid is male (and similarly for female, etc)

b) you may wish to consider the etymology of the word "Nereid".

* if you haven't been following the news about the South African runner and her/his/? gold medal, you may not have come across this term
** apparently, in Australia, this is an officially OK third gender/sex option (on various legal documents)

Weakly Interacting MP
2009-Oct-28, 06:27 PM
WIMP: it is true that I have tried hard to not declare myself male, female, intersex*, undecided**, or ... even to the extent of avoiding to have to use either he or she when referring to myself.

IMHO, it matters not a jot what Nereid's gender is, just as it matters just as much what Nereid's age, skin colour, ethnicity, etc, etc, etc is.

However, if it matters to any reader, I have, over the years offered two suggestions:

a) if you wish Nereid to be male, well, then for you Nereid is male (and similarly for female, etc)

b) you may wish to consider the etymology of the word "Nereid".

* if you haven't been following the news about the South African runner and her/his/? gold medal, you may not have come across this term
** apparently, in Australia, this is an officially OK third gender/sex option (on various legal documents)

Agreed and understood. That was my point to Forrest, that some responces I saw seemed (to me) to reflect a bias that may have been different had the opposite assumption been applied.

And yes, I know the etymology. Probably correct is still an assumption. :)

Jeff Root
2009-Oct-28, 06:33 PM
I have thought of Nereid as Vulcan for almost as long as I've been here.



b) you may wish to consider the etymology of the word "Nereid".
And consider it to be applicable or dismiss it as a red herring?

In the last year or so I have begun to change my mind. Now I'm thinking
"Romulan".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Nereid
2009-Oct-28, 06:39 PM
Well, Jeff, there is kind of polychaete worm, most species of which are marine, called a Nereid (of the Nereididae); I think some of them might be red (but none are herrings) ...

Tensor
2009-Oct-28, 08:17 PM
That last one is an explicit admission of using the concept occasionally known as lies-to-children, where a simpler(wrong) explanation is taught first, because that gives enough to base the less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in school on which gives enough basis to learn the even less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in high school, which are also simplified and wrong, but enables you to go to college and learn the somewhat simplified and wrong explanations that are what's needed to learn the least simplified explanation you get as a post doc, before you try to find a not so simplified explanation as a researcher.

:clap::clap::dance::clap::clap: Right on the nose. The reason it's there though is that a majority of ATM posters, being unfamiliar with the actual physics, assume the first or second instance above is the absolute truth. They then base their new idea on such a wrong understanding. In Knuth's case, it was a specific example in computer programing.

01101001
2009-Oct-29, 12:22 AM
I believe that it is a valid rule that has properly evolved but it also has been abused by moderators, in my opinion.

So, when two or more moderators have -- in your opinion -- abused their power, and you reported it to the whole moderation team, did the abuse stop?

How did the appeal process go?

When you reported the entire moderation team to the BAUT Forum owners, Phil and Fraser, did they undo the abuse and set things right?

If not, why are you continuing to frequent an Internet site where some of the moderators are abusive toward you and your ideas and none of management acts to end the abuse? Or are you really willing to put up with the purported abuse because it's not that bad?

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 01:29 AM
HenrikOlsen,

Re: stop from pocking holes in a good model


And why should they. There's not a single piece of mainstream physics that people have stopped trying to poke holes in either.

I think you're right about that. But there's no forum on BAUT where such an effort by all participants could take place. It would go like this: One person would defend the mainstream model xyz and all the participants would try to find the error of the model and poke holes in it if they can. I would pay to see that if the participants put on their thinking caps and went forth in earnest. It would be like being on a debating team. The moderator picks what side you must defend and assert. You don't have the choice.

regards

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 01:38 AM
hhEb09'1,


This is a point that is seldom well appreciated, so I am going to quote it just so it can be read again.

Science has to be skeptical of itself, or it is not science.

This I also know is true. The value of a theory is to a great extent based upon the test of time without major changes, like Newton's theories.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 02:01 AM
Tensor,


Care to try my sig? You might guess from all three that I've spent quite a bit of time in the ATM forum.

I deliberately didn't read HenrikOlson's reply and your own below, cause I want to read the tea leaves myself.


Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Based upon your "ATM" clue you gave above, I would say it simply means that some present ideas/ proposals to others that they have not spent the proper time to be able to justify such an idea/ proposal.


Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

This one I think is easy. They discovered Neptune based upon the perturbations in the orbit of Uranus. Therefore the influence of Neptune's gravity was an unseen (dark matter) gravitational influence.


The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

This one I have to guess at:
Lying by exaggeration is one of the known ways in psychology, as I recall, to make people think. For instance when comparing conditions between two entities, it may be difficult to understand the relationship, but if you exaggerate the differences sometimes it's easier to understand the original comparison of differences better.

Or it might mean that an ATMer thinks he has a good idea and justifies it with lies thinking people might better understand the idea?

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 02:06 AM
HenrikOlsen,


That last one is an explicit admission of using the concept occasionally known as lies-to-children, where a simpler(wrong) explanation is taught first, because that gives enough to base the less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in school on which gives enough basis to learn the even less simplified(but still wrong) explanations you get in high school, which are also simplified and wrong, but enables you to go to college and learn the somewhat simplified and wrong explanations that are what's needed to learn the least simplified explanation you get as a post doc, before you try to find a not so simplified explanation as a researcher.

OK, you one-upped me, with a pretty sophisticated, valid explanation too. I'm humbled.

NickW
2009-Oct-29, 02:10 AM
Forrest,
It seems to me that you are trying to play on both teams at the same time. You want science to be critical, but not of you. If it is to critical of you, then we need to change the rules of BAUT. Pick a side and stick to it.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 02:30 AM
01101001,


So, when two or more moderators have -- in your opinion -- abused their power, and you reported it to the whole moderation team, did the abuse stop?

That kind of language is not my style or my preference. Moderators, in my opinion, usually do their best. Sometimes they make mistakes as we all do. I'm thinking that certain changes in the rules might guide them to make better decisions from time to time.


How did the appeal process go?


I've complained maybe 20 times totally on two long threads that I was volunteered to defend (and I agreed), and one where I was participant. All regarding my own threads. Like when your donkey is gored, yell. In my opinion most were blatant violations of the rules. Maybe once a moderator responded to my complaint.


When you reported the entire moderation team to the BAUT Forum owners, Phil and Fraser, did they undo the abuse and set things right?


I do know Phil by exchanging chats but I would never bother him with such frivolous personal matters.


If not, why are you continuing to frequent an Internet site where some of the moderators are abusive toward you and your ideas and none of management acts to end the abuse? Or are you really willing to put up with the purported abuse because it's not that bad?

Smart people often change their minds by re-evaluation, and can gain a new perspective. This is a cool place, BAUT, but I think a few improvements could be made. That's why this thread was opened, I think. I was also drafted for this duty but think it is a worthy cause to continue. I've also made some friends here.

BTW, like your moniker, 01101001. Your tea leave say that it's 105 in the base ten system. I might have chosen a different combination of ones and zeros but that's just me.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 02:42 AM
NickW,


Forrest,
It seems to me that you are trying to play on both teams at the same time. You want science to be critical, but not of you. If it is to critical of you, then we need to change the rules of BAUT. Pick a side and stick to it

Critical of theory is cool. Sarcasm, rudeness, personal insults, and false accusations are not.

I made my choice 50 years ago when I started writing theory. Criticize all. Chery pick only what observation supports. Use logic as your primary guide. Believe nothing you hear or read where interpretations are involved -- and only half of what appears to be real based upon your personal logic, experiences, and senses seem to suggest.

Kwalish Kid
2009-Oct-29, 03:00 AM
Believe nothing you hear or read where interpretations are involved
Yet you clearly do not folow your own advice, as you admitted to relying for the development of your own theory on the abstract of a paper you had not read.

01101001
2009-Oct-29, 03:26 AM
I've complained maybe 20 times totally on two long threads that I was volunteered to defend (and I agreed), and one where I was participant. All regarding my own threads. Like when your donkey is gored, yell. In my opinion most were blatant violations of the rules. Maybe once a moderator responded to my complaint.

Rather than besmirching the character of some BAUT Forum moderators to your fellow members, why don't you stick to the appeals process? It is what the channels are for: reversing mistakes in judgment -- and especially abuse! We are only your peers. If you don't like your treatment, complain to your hosts, not whine to your fellow guests.


I do know Phil by exchanging chats but I would never bother him with such frivolous personal matters.

So, it's just not that important to Forrest Noble. Why don't your fellow members get the same respect and not be bothered by such frivolous matters -- now, frivolous, not even close to abusive!

Your assertions here are no more persuasive that a problem exists, than others elsewhere were are at convincing us mainstream science has failed.

NickW
2009-Oct-29, 03:28 AM
Critical of theory is cool. Sarcasm, rudeness, personal insults, and false accusations are not.

I made my choice 50 years ago when I started writing theory. Criticize all. Chery pick only what observation supports. Use logic as your primary guide. Believe nothing you hear or read where interpretations are involved -- and only half of what appears to be real based upon your personal logic, experiences, and senses seem to suggest.
[Bold mine]

Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are interpreting what you think is rudeness, sarcasm, personal attacks, and false accusations could very well be just very critical responses to your theories. Based on your logic, I should not believe you.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 04:03 AM
Weakly Interacting MP,


I have been following all of the threads discussed here (along with many others) and I am finally moved enough to make a comment (or 6! )

Forrest, I am admittedly addressing most of this to you, although it probably applies to others.

To quote Pauli (from memory, so maybe not exact) "That's not right. It's not even wrong!"

This statement speaks to many, perhaps even most, of the responses you gave to repeated questions. The problem, as far as I could (can) see, is that you do not seem to have a strong enough grasp of the relevant sciences to understand why and how your responses were not (mostly) answers, and did therefore often appear as dodges.

I understand this is your opinion.


Furthermore, when it was pointed out to you that the responce did not provide an asnwer, and in some cases why it did not provide an answer, you either ignored the explanation or returned to the same responce.


Go back to the thread (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas.html) and look for Bob Angstrom's comments, every one of them. You will see that he tried to explain simple concepts to several people that I had previously explained the same answers to, sometimes twice, and I couldn't believe they could not understand such simple answers and concepts that both Bob and I tried to explain, I think mostly in vain, since it was at least sometimes in my opinion, over their heads.


I can't describe to you my frustration in reading your replies nor the empathy I felt with Nereid, who repeatedly tried to clarify and reword the questions asked, all to little or no avail.


I believe all my answers were easy to understand for anybody who's well read in cosmology. Bob Angstrom could have done a better job of defending the ATM position than I did because it is all text book knowledge concerning problems with many mainstream models and he is very well written. All you have to do is Google "what's wrong with modern cosmology, etc." He however, would have been quickly banned because he would not have put up with the ** that I did, personal insults, false accusations, question flooding, etc.


I also question your interpretation of Nereid as a "her". On what basis did you make the assumption Nereid was a female? AFAIK Nereid has never, on any forum I have been on, nor even in private Moderator discussions, admitted to being one sex or the other.

I was told by a moderator on a previous thread when I was addressing her as "he." Upon looking it up I found that it was not an uncommon Egyptian name for a female although I do not know her nationality.


I found that some of your responses and criticisms smacked of gender bias. My own opinion of course, but I suggest you reconsider some of your responces thinking of Nereid as a male.

No, I had an attitude based upon her question flooding. On a previous thread (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/83686-forrest-nobles-pushing-gravity-13.html) she flooded so many questions and complained so much that I was not answering them fast enough that a mod said that I was to answer her questions only and respond to no one else.

Tensor had to finally jump in and say this (posting #369) "I hope Nereid doesn't mind me jumping in here, but a test for Lorentz invariance, here on Earth, would detect a violation. Since, in your model, the Earth ..............."

This is not the kind of ATM forum I want. This happened because of question flooding. In this last thread which Nereid started, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas, Nereid by her own count posted 32 questions in just one day, she said 5 were repeats. Consider that just one involved question might take me a half an hour to answer properly.

quote Nereid. posting #620 here (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/32867-rules-discussion-21.html)


Here is the correct total:
5 by Nereid, posting #70 (six question marks, five questions)
3 by Nereid, posting #75 (four question marks, three questions)
6 by Nereid, posting #76 (one is being helpful to fn, two are repeats of questions asked previously but not answered; three are new)
6 by Nereid, posting #102 (four are repeats of questions asked previous but not answered; two are new)
5 by Nereid, posting #103 (all are new)
4 by Nereid, posting #108 (six question marks, four questions)
3 by Nereid, posting #109 (five question marks, three questions)
zero by Nereid, posting #112 (these are repeats of questions already asked, put in priority order per fn's request).

That's 32 (not 40, or 45).

Of these, 25 are new, and six are repeats of questions already asked but not answered (being helpful to fn doesn't count, does it?).

Some further context:

* #70 questions are of the definitive ATM idea, presented barely an hour earlier

* #75 questions are in response to answers to the #70 questions

* #76 new questions are in response to answers to questions before the thread was closed (they'd've been asked earlier if the thread hadn't been closed)

* #102 new questions are in response to answers to the #75 questions (one concerns a new ATM idea presented in that response)

* #103 questions are all in response to answers to the #76 questions (one concerns an apparently new ATM idea presented in that response)

* #108 questions are all in response to answers to the #76 questions

* #109 questions are all in response to answers to the #76 questions.

While YMMV, almost all the questions are direct, and are pertinent to the ATM ideas or claims presented, as presented.

One question which fn did not count (it's in #103) - perhaps because it does not have a question mark - is this: "fn, this is not the first time you have responded to what I think are simple, straight-forward questions with non-answers; we seem to be having a breakdown in communication, and I want to understand why, and how, and what I can do to make my questions (direct, pertinent ones remember, about the ATM ideas you have presented, as presented) clearer.

Please help."

Question flooding results in a useless soap opera. It's not what I consider a well thought out forum.


I also agree with the comment of Kwalish Kid: kettle, thou art black. My immediate thought on reading the comment from you that was quoted was "says the kettle to the pot".

When asking 20 questions at one time, while others are also asking questions, how much time do you think I can spend giving an answer? Instead, if 3 good questions were asked in one day by one person, the answers would certainly have been more detailed. It has been my belief for a while that many posters on BAUT would rather see a wrong answer so they could quickly denounce the thread, no answer so they can complain, or an answer where they can easily point to errors.

Personal opinions makes riding the world as it goes round, more fun. Cheers!

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 05:30 AM
NickW,


Isn't that exactly what you are doing? You are interpreting what you think is rudeness, sarcasm, personal attacks, and false accusations could very well be just very critical responses to your theories. Based on your logic, I should not believe you.

Obviously you did not read much of the thread, link here (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-27.html).


Only when people sense they may be losing an argument do they resort to personal insults rather than insults of the proposal.

All against rule #1: Be polite

Personally dimeaning comments , #754 Kwalish Kid; posting #735 Geo Kaplan;
#733 Geo Kaplan; #729 Geo Kaplan;

rudeness #668

personal attacks, #673 Geo Kaplan

false accusations: No evidence to support a statement or personal insult (of course I can only know they are completely false concerning the insults)

#724 Kwalish Kid, #697 Geo Kaplan; #659 Geo Kaplan

So much sarcasm it would be too much work to list it. These are just the examples that I could find quickly going through about 1/7 of the thread. Draw your own conclusion from these examples if you want, or read more.

NickW
2009-Oct-29, 06:03 AM
Obviously you did not read much of the thread, link here.


Only when people sense they may be losing an argument do they resort to personal insults rather than insults of the proposal.

Your right, I didn't read your thread. This thread is about ATM rules discussion. Your thread is completely irrelevant.

Not only do they resort to personally attacking, they also resort to posting topics about rules discussion about rules that would only affect their ability to weakly convey their ATM ideas.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 06:07 AM
01101001,

Rather than besmirching the character of some BAUT Forum moderators to your fellow members, why don't you stick to the appeals process? It is what the channels are for: reversing mistakes in judgment -- and especially abuse! We are only your peers. If you don't like your treatment, complain to your hosts, not whine to your fellow guests.


So, it's just not that important to Forrest Noble. Why don't your fellow members get the same respect and not be bothered by such frivolous matters -- now, frivolous, not even close to abusive!

Your assertions here are no more persuasive that a problem exists, than others elsewhere were are at convincing us mainstream science has failed.

I have no hard feelings anymore. I am only answering direct questions and comments, not complaining. Anything I say or do can be rightly judged. This applies to anyone. I have nothing personal against any the moderators, but if my donkey gets gored I'm going to complain. I'm neither the load wiener nor the silent sufferer. I think I'm normal in this way, but I do follow a different drummer from time to time :)

In my opinion anybody can see rudeness and sarcasm by opponents on a continuing basis in the ATM section. As far as abuse and personal insults it's more rare but it seems to me it happens more often in the longer, high-profile threads like the one Nereid opened for me.

The main problem that I am asserting is question flooding. My other hope is for a proper definition of what an ATM proposal is. My last thread certainly should not have been an ATM proposal put in the ATM section, or anywhere else other that where I originally placed it IMHO.

NickW
2009-Oct-29, 06:16 AM
The main problem that I am asserting is question flooding. My other hope is for a proper definition of what an ATM proposal is. My last thread certainly should not have been an ATM proposal put in the ATM section, or anywhere else other that where I originally placed it IMHO.

Was your last thread "Against the Mainstream"? If it was, then it was in the proper place.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 06:18 AM
Kwalish Kid,


Yet you clearly do not follow your own advice, as you admitted to relying for the development of your own theory on the abstract of a paper you had not read.


When making statements concerning my own theory there are often complaints concerning paper sources. When I quote my own papers there are complaints that I am promoting my website. This link I just found while Googling for links to support my theory. In a prior thread I did not provide a link to anything, just several paragraphs from my books. I do not need that paper to support my theory. That was for that thread only. I will not put in my book. Hopefully future papers that include direct experiments might show support for this facet of my theory in the future.

NickW
2009-Oct-29, 06:20 AM
When making statements concerning my own theory there are often complaints concerning paper sources. When I quote my own papers there are complaints that I am promoting my website. This link I just found while Googling for links to support my theory. In a prior thread I did not provide a link to anything, just several paragraphs from my books. I do not need that paper to support my theory. That was for that thread only. I will not put in my book. Hopefully future papers that include direct experiments might show support for this facet of my theory in the future.

How about third party papers? Its pretty circular to use your own papers as sources for your theory. Or books for that matter.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 06:39 AM
NickW,

I see why you're still up replying. We're in the same time zone. I Like your quote of Phil in your sig area. I have high regards for Phil since I followed him to BAUT. I've got to call it a night right now, however, Have a good one. cheers

PetersCreek
2009-Oct-29, 07:40 AM
When I quote my own papers there are complaints that I am promoting my website.
If you're referring to my warning about promoting your site, you are mischaracterizing what occurred. I warned you that links needed to be specific to the point being made. The problem was, you were simply referring members to your site, in toto...all "360 pages+" of it...without reference to which portion of it directly related to the matter under discussion. Repeatedly posting 'Go read my website' kind of links is promotion. You may not have noticed but you received no warning from me for posting direct links to your tech paper.


I do not need that paper to support my theory. That was for that thread only. I will not put in my book. Hopefully future papers that include direct experiments might show support for this facet of my theory in the future.
What you do or do not put in your book is not the issue, here...but adequately citing references used in support of assertions made here is. This goes beyond BAUT rules to observing convention and good form.

Kwalish Kid
2009-Oct-29, 12:25 PM
Go back to the thread and look for Bob Angstrom's comments, every one of them. You will see that he tried to explain simple concepts to several people that I had previously explained the same answers to, sometimes twice, and I couldn't believe they could not understand such simple answers and concepts that both Bob and I tried to explain, I think mostly in vain, since it was at least sometimes in my opinion, over their heads.
Bob Angstrom's comments were clearly ATM and they confused the issues. Additionally, just like you, he failed to understand a basic issue central to QSSC, the ATM that you and he were defending (until you could no longer do so). Since QSSC has many published works and is build on a foundation of published papers, there is little excuse to be so ignorant of one of the central issue often discussed in the relevant literature. His, and yours, simple answers were simply incorrect and failed to address substantial problems addressed in the literature and asked about in questions.

I believe all my answers were easy to understand for anybody who's well read in cosmology.
Well, you are wrong. I'm very well read in cosmology, and your replies were vague and deflective. You often fail to address the central point in your response and instead immediately shift to defending some other element of your position.

false accusations: No evidence to support a statement or personal insult (of course I can only know they are completely false concerning the insults)

#724 Kwalish Kid
Are you kidding? There is no personal insult there. And while I didn't offer evidence in the post, you had admitted that there was evolution in the universe. This is anathema to the Steady-State theory and thus proves my point. Then you proceeded to dodge the question about evolution when I asked you about it directly.

Personally dimeaning comments , #754 Kwalish Kid
I will not apologize for what is obviously the truth. You make broad claims against a straw man version of the standard cosmological model and you continue to do so when your claims about the theoretical contents of the standard cosmological model are demonstrated to be false. It is a question of scruples as to whether you will argue fairly; you fail to do so.

When making statements concerning my own theory there are often complaints concerning paper sources. When I quote my own papers there are complaints that I am promoting my website. This link I just found while Googling for links to support my theory.
But by the standards you outlined earlier, you should have no idea if it supports your theory, because you didn't read the paper. As we tried to demonstrate in the other thread, your standard for science is to accept the conclusions of those who support your position and reject the conclusions of those supporting the mainstream position, regardless of the quality of their work. If you could answer questions directly, you could possibly have defended yourself from this perception.

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 02:18 PM
[...]

This is not the kind of ATM forum I want. This happened because of question flooding. In this last thread which Nereid started, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas, Nereid by her own count posted 32 questions in just one day, she said 5 were repeats. Consider that just one involved question might take me a half an hour to answer properly.

quote Nereid. posting #620 here (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/32867-rules-discussion-21.html)

Here is the correct total:
5 by Nereid, posting #70 (six question marks, five questions)
3 by Nereid, posting #75 (four question marks, three questions)
6 by Nereid, posting #76 (one is being helpful to fn, two are repeats of questions asked previously but not answered; three are new)
6 by Nereid, posting #102 (four are repeats of questions asked previous but not answered; two are new)
5 by Nereid, posting #103 (all are new)
4 by Nereid, posting #108 (six question marks, four questions)
3 by Nereid, posting #109 (five question marks, three questions)
zero by Nereid, posting #112 (these are repeats of questions already asked, put in priority order per fn's request).

That's 32 (not 40, or 45).

Of these, 25 are new, and six are repeats of questions already asked but not answered (being helpful to fn doesn't count, does it?).

Some further context:

* #70 questions are of the definitive ATM idea, presented barely an hour earlier

* #75 questions are in response to answers to the #70 questions

* #76 new questions are in response to answers to questions before the thread was closed (they'd've been asked earlier if the thread hadn't been closed)

* #102 new questions are in response to answers to the #75 questions (one concerns a new ATM idea presented in that response)

* #103 questions are all in response to answers to the #76 questions (one concerns an apparently new ATM idea presented in that response)

* #108 questions are all in response to answers to the #76 questions

* #109 questions are all in response to answers to the #76 questions.

While YMMV, almost all the questions are direct, and are pertinent to the ATM ideas or claims presented, as presented.

One question which fn did not count (it's in #103) - perhaps because it does not have a question mark - is this: "fn, this is not the first time you have responded to what I think are simple, straight-forward questions with non-answers; we seem to be having a breakdown in communication, and I want to understand why, and how, and what I can do to make my questions (direct, pertinent ones remember, about the ATM ideas you have presented, as presented) clearer.

Please help."

Question flooding results in a useless soap opera. It's not what I consider a well thought out forum.

[...]
Since this particular day (24 Sept, 2009) has been singled out, presumably as a prime example, let's take a closer look at it, shall we?

The day starts1, with post #70 (http://www.bautforum.com/1580612-post70.html), by me, at 12:01 AM, about as early as a day can start.

It ends at 05:58 PM, with post #117, by a mod, closing the thread temporarily (it remained closed for two days and a few hours).

The ATM ideas, or claims, that were the then focus of the thread had been posted2 the day before (23 Sep), in the closing hour of that day.

In the very first post of the day, we can already see that there are going to be some practical difficulties with quantifying "question flooding" - how to count questions?

Consider the first three questions (line breaks in original deleted): "What is the numerical basis for "ATM proposals"? Specifically, what is the "2-3%" of? Or, perhaps, how did you count "cases"?"

Is this one question? or two? or three?

Then there's the matter of whether any are "involved questions"3.

Now fn responded to the questions - whether one, three, five, or six - within an hour (at 12:45 AM, in post #72); clearly no more than one of the questions can have been "involved".

It took me nearly two hours to respond to this (at 02:37 AM, in post #75 (http://www.bautforum.com/1580690-post75.html)).

Again we see the same difficulty with question counting; for example: "is there an objective, independently verifiable basis for your claims? if so, what is it? if not, to what extent do you consider your claims to be science-based?" (one, two, or three questions?).

Too, we can also see, perhaps, why these follow-up questions4 arise; to quote the KKid earlier in this thread "I had to ask the same questions over and over because you refused to answer them" ... the last para in this post (75) begins "In closing, I note that you seem to have not actually answered the last two questions"; perhaps, then, "question flooding" is - at least in part - simply a consequence of repeated failure to answer the question originally asked? Keep this in mind as we review the rest of the day.

A little later comes post #76 (http://www.bautforum.com/1580697-post76.html), with questions concerning the contents of fn's post #73. It's a bit tricky to trace the origin of the questions in 76, perhaps the most direct path is as follows: fn's 73 re-states ATM claims made prior to the thread closure of 23 Sep ... by re-stating those claims, all questions previously asked about them are thereby open; my substantive questions in 76 (some of which may, indeed, be "involved") are all repeats of questions previously asked (but not answered; some are re-worded, to improve clarity and focus).

Provisional conclusion, from 76? At least in one respect, as the KKid said - if ATM claims are repeated, and if there are unanswered questions on those claims, is it not legitimate to repeat the questions?

Moving along, to post #102 (http://www.bautforum.com/1580954-post102.htm), at 08:40 AM, in response to fn's post #85 (at 05:10 AM), itself a response to my post #75.

Three things stand out - to me - here:
* First, questions were not answered (so were clarified and repeated)
* Second, the ATM claim (at least one of them) changed substantially, in just a few hours
* Third, new ATM claims were presented.

So the provisional conclusion is strengthened - "question flooding" arises at least in part from repeated non-answers to questions asked.

Two new elements emerge: "moving the goalposts", and introduction of new ATM material.

A few minutes' later (09:00 AM) comes post #103 (http://www.bautforum.com/1580963-post103.html), a response to fn's 93 (nearly three hours' earlier), which contains "answers" to my questions in 76.

I think some of my frustration shows, in this post: "What relevance does ... have to my specific question?" "I did not ask you whether ... I asked you whether ... fn, this is not the first time you have responded to what I think are simple, straight-forward questions with non-answers; we seem to be having a breakdown in communication, and I want to understand why, and how, and what I can do to make my questions (direct, pertinent ones remember, about the ATM ideas you have presented, as presented) clearer. Please help." "Is this yet another ATM idea? Is it appropriate to use the "person reading the argument is well read and well versed on the subject" criterion here?".

All my questions in 103 are clarifications/elaborations/re-statements of what's in 76, in an attempt to address what seemed - to me, at the time - a dramatic failure of communication (fn clearly did not understand any of the questions I had asked).

Post #108 (http://www.bautforum.com/1581021-post108.html) (12:25) continues 103, responding to the content of fn's 93. Recall that my questions in 76 were in two blocks, one each on two separate sets of ATM claims made by fn before 23 Sep (and put back on the table in his second post of the day, 24 Sep); 102 concerns the first block, 103 the second. Of all the 24 Sep posts this one (and 108) - and the chain leading to it - come closest to being a normal Q -> A -> Q -> ... dialogue.

Post #109 (http://www.bautforum.com/1581027-post109.html) (12:36) continues 108, and concludes the second block.

My day ends with post #112 (http://www.bautforum.com/1581268-post112.html) (4:54 PM), which is a direct response to fn's request (in post 110, 3:58 PM) for a prioritised list of questions. 112 contains seven questions ... and this note: "1 through 5 are all questions which have been asked at least twice now".

So what can we learn about "question flooding" from this example?

Here are my tentative conclusion (discussion welcome):

1. Many, perhaps most, of the questions are either repeats or clarifications; had the original questions been answered almost none of these would have been asked

2. Of the rest of the questions, many resulted from either a significantly re-stated ATM claim, or introduction of new ATM material

3. There is at least one example of a 'three-cycle' on this day: Q -> A -> Q -> A -> Q (70-72-75-85-102); if even one of fn's responses (72, 85) had been made a day later, the number of questions on 24 Sep would have been smaller. IOW, the pace at which questions are responded to dictates the rate at which questions are asked (at least to some extent).

Finally, were all the questions I asked valid (wrt the four criteria I laid out earlier)? No ... at least some were rhetorical (and obviously so), and at least one was merely an attempt to help fn (correct an apparent 'typo') ... but the rest were.

Perhaps, after some discussion, we can better understand the root cause(s) of "question flooding", and thus be better informed with regard to considering possible remedies.

1 I assume the timestamps are unique, e.g. the BAUT members' timezones, and browser and PC settings are not in any way inputs to the values displayed
2 actually re-posted, or re-stated/clarified, ...
3 "one involved question might take me a half an hour to answer properly"
4 all questions in post 75 are in response to the "answers" to the questions in 70 (these "answers" are in post 72)

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 03:13 PM
Weakly Interacting MP,

[...]

I can't describe to you my frustration in reading your replies nor the empathy I felt with Nereid, who repeatedly tried to clarify and reword the questions asked, all to little or no avail.
I believe all my answers were easy to understand for anybody who's well read in cosmology.
And I believe that all your answers amount to about as convincing a demonstration as anyone could ask for that you are not "well read in cosmology" (at least, not during those 30 days).

So, here we have two "I believe"'s, quite contrary in import.

What should one do, if one wishes to resolve the apparent contradiction? How would you advise readers who might so wish to go about any such resolution?


Bob Angstrom could have done a better job of defending the ATM position than I did because it is all text book knowledge concerning problems with many mainstream models and he is very well written.
Perhaps he could, perhaps he couldn't ... in any case, he didn't (and stated that he had no intention of ever doing so), so there is no way anyone can determine the veracity of your claim, in an objective fashion, is there?

And if there is - in fact - no such possibility, why write this? I mean, doesn't it invite assertions (rebuttals) that may be just as unsubstantiatiable (sp?)?


All you have to do is Google "what's wrong with modern cosmology, etc."
Indeed.

And when you do, you come up with dozens and dozens and dozens of links ... to crackpot websites, to creationist rants, to vitriolic anti-science garbage, ... (many of which contain excerpts from the Disney material you quoted, without a reference*)!


He however, would have been quickly banned because he would not have put up with the ** that I did, personal insults, false accusations, question flooding, etc.

[...]
Maybe.

Alternatively, he may have continued to make an ATM case that is - obviously and fundamentally - inconsistent with the ATM ideas you had presented ...

... or he may have started citing crackpot websites, creationist rants, and vitriolic anti-science garbage ...

... or he may have presented the first ever (on BAUT) ATM case which meets HO's description^ ...

(you get the idea)

* actually, it's worse than that; the sole reference you did give does not contain the Disney material!
^ "... carefully though[t] out in advance, with all the math in place (using standard notation), with fully fleshed out references to relevant experiments, [...] described either using the standard meaning of physical words or specified explicitly in advance how the meaning differed and it fitted all known experiments better than the the mainstream hypothesis ..."

Weakly Interacting MP
2009-Oct-29, 03:14 PM
Weakly Interacting MP,



I understand this is your opinion.

Perhaps, but I think it was more along the lines of an observation. Again, even in those instances where it was explained to you why the responce was not an answer, you did not seem to understand the explanation, or more ominously, ignored the reason.




Go back to the thread (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas.html) and look for Bob Angstrom's comments, every one of them. You will see that he tried to explain simple concepts to several people that I had previously explained the same answers to, sometimes twice, and I couldn't believe they could not understand such simple answers and concepts that both Bob and I tried to explain, I think mostly in vain, since it was at least sometimes in my opinion, over their heads.



I believe all my answers were easy to understand for anybody who's well read in cosmology. Bob Angstrom could have done a better job of defending the ATM position than I did because it is all text book knowledge concerning problems with many mainstream models and he is very well written. All you have to do is Google "what's wrong with modern cosmology, etc." He however, would have been quickly banned because he would not have put up with the ** that I did, personal insults, false accusations, question flooding, etc. ..bolding mine

Another back-handed ad-hom. You do not know me (or, I suspect, anyone else on this site) well enough to make such a generalized characterization.

Furthermore, I submit that the main questioners in that thread appear to be better read than you are.







No, I had an attitude based upon her question flooding. On a previous thread (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/83686-forrest-nobles-pushing-gravity-13.html) she flooded so many questions and complained so much that I was not answering them fast enough that a mod said that I was to answer her questions only and respond to no one else.

Tensor had to finally jump in and say this (posting #369) "I hope Nereid doesn't mind me jumping in here, but a test for Lorentz invariance, here on Earth, would detect a violation. Since, in your model, the Earth ..............."

This is not the kind of ATM forum I want. This happened because of question flooding. In this last thread which Nereid started, Forrest Nobles ATM ideas, Nereid by her own count posted 32 questions in just one day, she said 5 were repeats. Consider that just one involved question might take me a half an hour to answer properly.

quote Nereid. posting #620 here (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/32867-rules-discussion-21.html)



Question flooding results in a useless soap opera. It's not what I consider a well thought out forum.



When asking 20 questions at one time, while others are also asking questions, how much time do you think I can spend giving an answer? Instead, if 3 good questions were asked in one day by one person, the answers would certainly have been more detailed. It has been my belief for a while that many posters on BAUT would rather see a wrong answer so they could quickly denounce the thread, no answer so they can complain, or an answer where they can easily point to errors.

It is an easy thing (and well within the rules) to request time to formulate your answers or even ask the thread be closed for a time to allow you the opportunity to consider (carefully) your responces.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out several times, in many of your responces you introduced new ATM claims which evoked further questions. You, Forrest, opened the door.

Frankly, your responce proves the point--you do not understand the complexities of the sciences you use to well enough to understand why your responces were not answers.

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 03:28 PM
01101001,

[...]

The main problem that I am asserting is question flooding.
At least there's now a bit of discussion on this, in concrete terms (so suggestions for rule or guideline changes at least might, one day, be made).


My other hope is for a proper definition of what an ATM proposal is. My last thread certainly should not have been an ATM proposal put in the ATM section, or anywhere else other that where I originally placed it IMHO.
So far, AFAIK, your only specific suggestions on this concern 'only ATM ideas in the OP' are the ones to questioned and challenged*; did I perhaps miss any other concrete suggestions (that you've made, in this thread) on this?

Oh, and at least one mod had a different opinion (whether H or otherwise) on whether your idea was ATM or not (etc) ... and there's an established procedure for handling disagreements with mods' decisions; may I ask if you followed it?

* a suggestion that has zero chance of being adopted, for reasons already given, by several BAUT members

01101001
2009-Oct-29, 03:48 PM
In my opinion anybody can see rudeness and sarcasm by opponents on a continuing basis in the ATM section. As far as abuse and personal insults it's more rare but it seems to me it happens more often in the longer, high-profile threads like the one Nereid opened for me.

I might presume, but describe exactly what happened when you utilized the prescribed appeal methods to complain of what you perceived to be violations of the rules?

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 04:59 PM
HenrikOlsen,

Re: stop from pocking holes in a good model


And why should they. There's not a single piece of mainstream physics that people have stopped trying to poke holes in either.

I think you're right about that. But there's no forum on BAUT where such an effort by all participants could take place.
Indeed.


It would go like this: One person would defend the mainstream model xyz and all the participants would try to find the error of the model and poke holes in it if they can.
A complete non-starter.

Why?

The idea pre-supposes that "the participants" have a good enough understanding of "the mainstream model xyz" to be able to formulate even meaningful questions, let alone "find the error of the model and poke holes in it". There are, of course, notable exceptions (quite a few BAUT members would have a good enough understanding, at least of some xyz's), but I think anyone would be hard pressed to make a case that there are more and a dozen or so who are not already full-time professionals (or post-grads, or retired professionals) ... and in the case of some xyz's, few among even the professionals could ask good questions.


I would pay to see that if the participants put on their thinking caps and went forth in earnest. It would be like being on a debating team. The moderator picks what side you must defend and assert. You don't have the choice.

regards
A somewhat modified version of this exists already, and such discussions number in the thousands every year. I'm talking about the symposia and colloquia which are held by physics, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, space science, ... university and college departments throughout the world, often weekly (during term time). Then there are the less frequent, but more heavily attended, meetings, conferences, etc.

May I ask if you've ever been to one of these?

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 06:17 PM
PetersCreek,


If you're referring to my warning about promoting your site, you are mischaracterizing what occurred. I warned you that links needed to be specific to the point being made. The problem was, you were simply referring members to your site, in toto...all "360 pages+" of it...without reference to which portion of it directly related to the matter under discussion. Repeatedly posting 'Go read my website' kind of links is promotion. You may not have noticed but you received no warning from me for posting direct links to your tech paper.


What you do or do not put in your book is not the issue, here...but adequately citing references used in support of assertions made here is. This goes beyond BAUT rules to observing convention and good form.

No, I never thought of -- or was referring to that incident. I understand there is good reason why that (no spamming) is an important part of BAUT rules. I have nothing commercial on my site however, but this "spamming" could be a big problem if not enforced. Your suspension was too harsh IMHO, since I had a very good reason for the referral, even though you thought not, and my intent was entirely innocent. I simply forgot; that's the truth.

I hope you support my efforts concerning Question Flooding. If one person asked only three questions per day total that would still be 90 potential questions in one month. Beyond this rate opponents would not be allowed to complain that their questions were not being answered. If just five people were asking questions that would be a potential of 450 questions in a 30 day period. Add up the numbers if more people were participating. Even three is a lot of questions in one day if the ATMer cannot participate for a few days. On those days only comments should be allowed if a poster still has more than three unanswered questions. That would not limit the number of comments being made in any way. The time required for answering more questions than this is an unreasonable expectation concerning a properly run ATM forum IMHO.

This would not stop their ability to complain that their questions have not been answered. I suggest that the rules state that rhetorical questions be identified with (rht) and that questions without question marks do not need to be addressed. I also suggest that complaints of unanswered questions should only be allowed until more than 10 questions have gone unanswered and then they must be listed in priority without referring back to prior postings. This was a big problem on my thread since it was sometimes not possible for me to know what "unanswered" questions they were referring to which added to the confusion. Another suggestion is that the rules be formally presented rather than in the thread format that they are currently presented since it can be unclear to some, exactly what the rules are.

Remember on the last thread (FN ATM ideas) Nereid, by her own count, asked 25 questions in just one day and complained frequently, on an ongoing basis, that her questions were not being answered and others did the same. There must be a stop to this abuse otherwise some ATM threads become nothing but a soap opera (like FN ATM ideas) with no time for real discussion of the proposal, which I believe is the true intent of those asking that many questions and those making continuous allegations.

Concerning unacceptable answers: After answering the same question twice I think the ATMer should be able to say "I've tried my best to answer this question," but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion." After that formal statement this same question should not be repeated nor complaints be made or listed, saying that question has not been answered. It certainly could be asserted for the record that the opponent didn't think his question was properly answered. Rewording the same question and listing it as unanswered also should not be allowed by the same opponent or another. These rule changes would effect very few threads, only the high profile ones IMHO. I don't believe these changes in the rules would involve more moderator work either, to the contrary; I think it would involve less moderator work since it would seemingly slow up complaints on both sides IMHO.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 06:34 PM
01101001,


I might presume, but describe exactly what happened when you utilized the prescribed appeal methods to complain of what you perceived to be violations of the rules?

I don't understand your question.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 06:44 PM
Weakly Interacting MP,


...........It is an easy thing (and well within the rules) to request time to formulate your answers or even ask the thread be closed for a time to allow you the opportunity to consider (carefully) your responces.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out several times, in many of your responces you introduced new ATM claims which evoked further questions. You, Forrest, opened the door.

Frankly, your responce proves the point--you do not understand the complexities of the sciences you use to well enough to understand why your responces were not answers.

These are your opinions concerning my knowledge. I cannot change that opinion unless you read my works, papers, books, etc. Read my last response to PetersCreek who was the mod on the thread you have been referring to, concerning my opinion of rule changes.

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 06:48 PM
[...]

Concerning unacceptable answers: After answering the same question twice I think the ATMer should be able to say "I've tried my best to answer this question," but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion."

[...]
Let's see if I understand this proposal correctly ...

ATMer: E = mc3
BAUTian: What is "E" in this equation?
ATMer: 'twas brillig and the slithy toves
BAUTian: I'm sorry, I don't understand this response; for example, it has nothing to do with your claim ("E = mc3"), nor my question ("What is "E" in this equation?"). Would you please try again?
ATMer: did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
BAUTian: Huh?!? Do you require clarification of my question? If not, then please answer it; here it is again: what is "E" in your equation ("E = mc3")?
ATMer: I've tried my best to answer this question, but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion.

... is that how it would work, fn?

Neverfly
2009-Oct-29, 06:51 PM
Let's see if I understand this proposal correctly ...

ATMer: E = mc3
BAUTian: What is "E" in this equation?
ATMer: 'twas brillig and the slithy toves
BAUTian: I'm sorry, I don't understand this response; for example, it has nothing to do with your claim ("E = mc3"), nor my question ("What is "E" in this equation?"). Would you please try again?
ATMer: did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
BAUTian: Huh?!? Do you require clarification of my question? If not, then please answer it; here it is again: what is "E" in your equation ("E = mc3")?
ATMer: I've tried my best to answer this question, but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion.

... is that how it would work, fn?

Let's stick to reality.

A lot of ATM'ers do give an honest effort into answering questions even if a lot of them don't in order to make their pet theory seem more realistic.

Call cherry picking etc when you see it.

But I've never seen an ATM'er come anywhere near your provided example.

Just because you find an answer to be nonsense (Of course there will be nonsense answers given if someone doesn't understand something very well) does NOT mean ATM'ers are giving nonsense answers deliberately.

Your example doesn't hold. If anything, it suggests a strong bias on your part.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 07:08 PM
..........A somewhat modified version of this exists already, and such discussions number in the thousands every year. I'm talking about the symposia and colloquia which are held by physics, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, space science, ... university and college departments throughout the world, often weekly (during term time). Then there are the less frequent, but more heavily attended, meetings, conferences, etc.

May I ask if you've ever been to one of these?


No, I never have. But I don't think alternative broad-scope theories is what they're looking for, since I would not be discussing minor changes of theory.

Nereid, you do not know me very well. I am quite lighthearted in my every-day life. This was meant to be kind of a joke, but I was sincere in that I would like to see such a forum online but agree it would need to be well thought out to have a quality to it. But if anybody could participate in it, it wouldn't be much different than the quality of the ATM forum right now, kind of a free-for-all bashing IMHO.

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 07:11 PM
Let's see if I understand this proposal correctly ...

ATMer: E = mc3
BAUTian: What is "E" in this equation?
ATMer: 'twas brillig and the slithy toves
BAUTian: I'm sorry, I don't understand this response; for example, it has nothing to do with your claim ("E = mc3"), nor my question ("What is "E" in this equation?"). Would you please try again?
ATMer: did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
BAUTian: Huh?!? Do you require clarification of my question? If not, then please answer it; here it is again: what is "E" in your equation ("E = mc3")?
ATMer: I've tried my best to answer this question, but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion.

... is that how it would work, fn?Let's stick to reality.
Sure ... would some direct quotes from the thread in question count as reality Nev? Or some other ATM threads?


A lot of ATM'ers do give an honest effort into answering questions even if a lot of them don't in order to make their pet theory seem more realistic.
That may be so, or it may not.

In either case, it's utterly irrelevant ... because fn did not propose that mods make an attempt to assess "honest effort" (read fn's proposal again, please).

But let's take this on as a reasonable extension to fn's proposal ... are you suggesting that a mod must make an "honest effort" assessment in order for it to work?


Call cherry picking etc when you see it.
I don't get it Nev; what do you mean?


But I've never seen an ATM'er come anywhere near your provided example.
I did turn up the contrast some ... but there are real examples which are not far from this ...

... but, and this is far more important, the proposal (as it stands) gives ATM proponents bent of using BAUT as a marketing tool an extremely convenient way to do so, without the risk of being even warned (or do you not see that?).


Just because you find an answer to be nonsense (Of course there will be nonsense answers given if someone doesn't understand something very well) does NOT mean ATM'ers are giving nonsense answers deliberately.
Indeed.

Which brings us right back to the question of intent, doesn't it ...


Your example doesn't hold. If anything, it suggests a strong bias on your part.
Actually, your response is exactly the sort of thing I was expecting ... the 800 pound gorilla in the (fn proposal) room is intent ("honest response", "deliberately"), and you very nicely highlighted it; well done! :)

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 07:14 PM
Nereid,


So far, AFAIK, your only specific suggestions on this concern 'only ATM ideas in the OP' are the ones to questioned and challenged*; did I perhaps miss any other concrete suggestions (that you've made, in this thread) on this?

Oh, and at least one mod had a different opinion (whether H or otherwise) on whether your idea was ATM or not (etc) ... and there's an established procedure for handling disagreements with mods' decisions; may I ask if you followed it?


Sort of a summary of my suggestions was made in my response to PetersCreek in posting #144 above.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 07:24 PM
Howdy Neverfly,

Glad to you again on the board.

Neverfly
2009-Oct-29, 07:26 PM
That may be so, or it may not.

In either case, it's utterly irrelevant ...
No, itisn't. If you are going to provide a counter example and take that example to completely unrealistic extremes; the actual effort provided is very relevant.



... are you suggesting that a mod must make an "honest effort" assessment in order for it to work?
As it stands, even the Moderators are not specialists in the fields that are being discussed in ATM.
They may not know how accurate the answer given was.
That's a separate issue from the example you provided, however. The example you provided does not reflect what actually occurs.


I don't get it Nev; what do you mean?
I mean, discuss evidence, mathematics etc as usual. If you see cherry picking going on, point it out in thread.
But the example you just provided suggests that you have a bias that ATM'ers will have intent to give a nonsense answer.

Nereid- let's be blunt.
If you gave an ATM'er a rebuttal that was complex and deeply mathematical- and gave Misinformation- would any of us actually be aware that you had done so?
Maybe- maybe not.
Chances are that if you did, no one would call you on it except for the ATM'er.

If the Mods are uncertain as to the difference- Who are they going to side with?

You.


I did turn up the contrast some ...
Indeed.


... but, and this is far more important, the proposal (as it stands) gives ATM proponents bent of using BAUT as a marketing tool an extremely convenient way to do so, without the risk of being even warned (or do you not see that?).
Irrelevant to my point about your example- which is the only thing I have addressed so far. Please respond to my post on track and not introduce straw men.



Which brings us right back to the question of intent, doesn't it ...


Actually, your response is exactly the sort of thing I was expecting ... the 800 pound gorilla in the (fn proposal) room is intent ("honest response", "deliberately"), and you very nicely highlighted it; well done! :)

Not at all.

Intent on the part of the ATM'er is to express their proposed hypothesis.
For you to suggest that an ATM Proposition, by example you provided, is going to be comprised of such nonsense as to be a deliberate quoting of Lewis Carrol strongly suggests your bias against anything ATM in general.

Your example was lacking and a very poor demonstration of the ATM forum's existence.

If an ATM'er has nothing to look forward to than to confront a bias- it makes logical sense that some, as FN, seek to question the structure and performance of the forum.

The odds of an ATM proposal passing the gauntlet are very slim.
But that's standard. And as it should be. However, the same standard is that the proposals are weighed against their merit- not bias.

It's easy to get away with a bias. So many ATM'ers scream bias as for it to be the boy who cried wolf.

Neverfly
2009-Oct-29, 07:27 PM
Howdy Neverfly,

Glad to you again on the board.

Hey now- I'm not on your side either;)

I'm just confronting a facet that's been troubling me all along.

Since wording is often so careful- I rarely get the opportunity to seize an error which can be exposed.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 07:31 PM
Nereid,


Let's see if I understand this proposal correctly ...

ATMer: E = mc3
BAUTian: What is "E" in this equation?
ATMer: 'twas brillig and the slithy toves
BAUTian: I'm sorry, I don't understand this response; for example, it has nothing to do with your claim ("E = mc3"), nor my question ("What is "E" in this equation?"). Would you please try again?
ATMer: did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
BAUTian: Huh?!? Do you require clarification of my question? If not, then please answer it; here it is again: what is "E" in your equation ("E = mc3")?
ATMer: I've tried my best to answer this question, but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion.

... is that how it would work, fn?

You forgot the "^" i.e. ........ E= Mc^3

I can see you have a sense of humor, but at whose expense is this humor directed? Do I sense a wee bit of sarcasm here?

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 07:38 PM
Neverfly


Hey now- I'm not on your side either. I'm just confronting a facet that's been troubling me all along. Since wording is often so careful- I rarely get the opportunity to seize an error which can be exposed.

No intent in my statement. Glad to see ........, was sincere regardless of what the meaning of what you were saying was.

regards

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 07:43 PM
No, itisn't. If you are going to provide a counter example and take that example to completely unrealistic extremes; the actual effort provided is very relevant.



As it stands, even the Moderators are not specialists in the fields that are being discussed in ATM.
They may not know how accurate the answer given was.
That's a separate issue from the example you provided, however. The example you provided does not reflect what actually occurs.


I mean, discuss evidence, mathematics etc as usual. If you see cherry picking going on, point it out in thread.
But the example you just provided suggests that you have a bias that ATM'ers will have intent to give a nonsense answer.

Nereid- let's be blunt.
If you gave an ATM'er a rebuttal that was complex and deeply mathematical- and gave Misinformation- would any of us actually be aware that you had done so?
Maybe- maybe not.
Chances are that if you did, no one would call you on it except for the ATM'er.

If the Mods are uncertain as to the difference- Who are they going to side with?

You.


Indeed.


Irrelevant to my point about your example- which is the only thing I have addressed so far. Please respond to my post on track and not introduce straw men.



Not at all.

Intent on the part of the ATM'er is to express their proposed hypothesis.
For you to suggest that an ATM Proposition, by example you provided, is going to be comprised of such nonsense as to be a deliberate quoting of Lewis Carrol strongly suggests your bias against anything ATM in general.

Your example was lacking and a very poor demonstration of the ATM forum's existence.

If an ATM'er has nothing to look forward to than to confront a bias- it makes logical sense that some, as FN, seek to question the structure and performance of the forum.

The odds of an ATM proposal passing the gauntlet are very slim.
But that's standard. And as it should be. However, the same standard is that the proposals are weighed against their merit- not bias.

It's easy to get away with a bias. So many ATM'ers scream bias as for it to be the boy who cried wolf.
I'm going to focus on just one part here Nev, the part I have put in bold ...

Moose wrote a short post - which is now a sticky at the top of the ATM section - on why the ATM rules are the way they are today. From that, and your own research, you will learn that, hithertofore, a great many ATM threads were started with the intent of promoting one ATM view or other ... and no (discernible) intent on answering questions on such views or addressing challenges to them.

Now the answering of questions and addressing of challenges is what the ATM section is, in fact, all about.

fn's proposal, if adopted, provides an extremely convenient, low cost, method for a 'I'm-here-to-promote-my-ATM-idea' BAUT member to do so ... and avoid answering questions or addressing challenges.

Sure, they'd have to be a tad more clever than to quote LC ... but not much (a modest re-wording of something already posted would do just fine*).

Bottom line: mods would be forced to judge intent, and, pace fn^, mod workload would increase dramatically.

Do you get it now?

* example: "well, in the equation, E is equal to m, mess, times c squared" (answer one); "OK, I can see your confusion; in my equation E represents the product of m and c and c" (answer two).
^ "I don't believe these changes in the rules would involve more moderator work either, to the contrary; I think it would involve less moderator work since it would seemingly slow up complaints on both sides IMHO"

Neverfly
2009-Oct-29, 07:45 PM
Neverfly



No intent in my statement. Glad to see ........, was sincere regardless of what the meaning of what you were saying was.

regards
Awww, admit it. You saw mighty warrior and said "yay."

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 07:48 PM
Nereid, posting #155

I see your point in your posting #155 but a mod could always step in as they often do saying the ATMer has continuously not been making sense, and close the thread. It could be opened again only based upon a justifiable appeal.

Neverfly
2009-Oct-29, 07:52 PM
Do you get it now?


You're confusing my confrontation of your example as support for FN's proposed ATM forum changes...again.

This is not the case.

My confrontation is based on one point: Be Fair.

FN is trying to say that often times, an answer can be rejected repeatedly by the mainstream opponents without a strong control as to whether or not that answer was valid.
In essence, it falls to interpretation and that's not always either fair nor accurate.
I know and you know that a lot of answers given in ATM can become word salad.
The intent of the forum is to teach people this.

The intent of the ATM'er is not necessarily to outwit the mainstream, it is to support their idea.

By suggesting that it's to outwit, you are presenting an inaccurate portrayal and thus; Refuting FN's proposal on an inaccuracy, rather than on what's most likely.

I do not agree with FN.

However, that does not automatically mean I agree with you either.

The reason being: There is a fault with ATM. That fault is two basics: Bias and inability to fact check a bias. This poorly represents science.

So instead of inaccurately portraying the activities in ATM, if disagreeing with FN,it's more productive to discuss suggestions that will eliminate both the ability for an ATM proposition to be comprised of word salad and the bias that suggests an ATM proposal is word salad without question.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 07:53 PM
Neverfly,


Awww, admit it. You saw mighty warrior and said "yay."

You got it Neverfly -- concede before the wrath of god descends. And concede I do!

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 07:58 PM
OK, one more ...
[...]

I don't get it Nev; what do you mean?
I mean, discuss evidence, mathematics etc as usual. If you see cherry picking going on, point it out in thread.
But the example you just provided suggests that you have a bias that ATM'ers will have intent to give a nonsense answer.
Still don't get it ...

What you wrote, in post numero uno, is "Call cherry picking etc when you see it." - what's this got to do with fn's proposal, or my turn-up-the-contrast response?


Nereid- let's be blunt.
If you gave an ATM'er a rebuttal that was complex and deeply mathematical- and gave Misinformation- would any of us actually be aware that you had done so?
Maybe- maybe not.
Chances are that if you did, no one would call you on it except for the ATM'er.
Two things:

* from indirect evidence, it would seem that several BAUT members with the ability to fully understand "a rebuttal that was complex and deeply mathematical" would very likely be reading my posts, and if it were "Misinformation", would call me on it very swiftly indeed

* with perhaps only three exceptions, no ATMer who's posted in BAUT's ATM section would be able to follow "a rebuttal that was complex and deeply mathematical" (so if they called me on any such, they'd be doing so without understanding what I'd written)

* (OK, I lied; three things) you introduced realism ("realistic") ... can you cite a single example of any response of mine, to any ATM post, that is "a rebuttal that was complex and deeply mathematical"?




If the Mods are uncertain as to the difference- Who are they going to side with?

You.

[...]
Let's talk reality, shall we?

Did you know that tusenfem is a BAUT mod? Do you know what he does for a living (he's made it quite plain, many times)? Do you honestly think that if an ATMer called any "a rebuttal that was complex and deeply mathematical" of mine "Misinformation", that a mod like tusenfem wouldn't be all over it?

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 08:07 PM
You're confusing my confrontation of your example as support for FN's proposed ATM forum changes...again.

This is not the case.

My confrontation is based on one point: Be Fair.

FN is trying to say that often times, an answer can be rejected repeatedly by the mainstream opponents without a strong control as to whether or not that answer was valid.
In essence, it falls to interpretation and that's not always either fair nor accurate.
I know and you know that a lot of answers given in ATM can become word salad.
The intent of the forum is to teach people this.

The intent of the ATM'er is not necessarily to outwit the mainstream, it is to support their idea.

By suggesting that it's to outwit, you are presenting an inaccurate portrayal and thus; Refuting FN's proposal on an inaccuracy, rather than on what's most likely.

I do not agree with FN.

However, that does not automatically mean I agree with you either.

The reason being: There is a fault with ATM. That fault is two basics: Bias and inability to fact check a bias. This poorly represents science.

So instead of inaccurately portraying the activities in ATM, if disagreeing with FN,it's more productive to discuss suggestions that will eliminate both the ability for an ATM proposition to be comprised of word salad and the bias that suggests an ATM proposal is word salad without question.
And you're still missing the whole point of my nonsense example! :mad:

There are fans of various ATM ideas who would just love to have a chance to promote their ideas here, in BAUT.

Should a rule like the one fn proposed be introduced, they could answer questions with what is, in essence, no different than lines from the Jabberwocky ... and nary a rule would be violated.

Worse, they could do this knowing full well that there is an abundance of real examples (in real ATM threads) of two-answers which are, content-wise, little different from gibberish ... but honestly and sincerely stated gibberish.

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 08:12 PM
Nereid,



You forgot the "^" i.e. ........ E= Mc^3

I can see you have a sense of humor, but at who's expense is this humor directed? Do I sense a wee bit of sarcasm here?
None intended ... your proposal, as it stands, seems to me to be open invitation to those who wish to market their ATM ideas in BAUT to do so, essentially cost-free.

What I'm pointing out - and Nev very conveniently picked it up right away - is that implementation of such a proposal requires mods to make judgments concerning a poster's intent (which is problematic, and an onerous burden), and also completely ignores the certainty of willful gaming of the rule (which would render it almost useless).

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 08:16 PM
Nereid, posting #155

I see your point in your posting #155 but a mod could always step in as they often do saying the ATMer has continuously not been making sense, and close the thread. It could be opened again only based upon a justifiable appeal.
And an ATMer, bent on getting a few thousand free hits courtesy of BAUT, would feel such a result were just fine, thank you very much BAUT ... again, your proposal overlooks the certainty that some will try to game it (and the fact that it's so easy to game).

Neverfly
2009-Oct-29, 08:40 PM
Nereid,

I have seen you and others claim that ATM'ers posting in the ATM forum receive treatment that is easier on them and much less demanding than peer review is.

This claim is often made- and just accepted, because it's made by mainstream folks.

But how accurate is this claim?

Scientific proposals submitted for peer review go through a process that is nothing like ATM forum.
It is submitted and the numbers crunched by specialists that know the field. Not by amateurs nitpicking semantics.
It is then returned to the submitter with an explanation given.

The only place in University where you might see such a fracas as what ATM forum here has would be a debate hall. Which is not where scientific proposals are reviewed.

The statement is inaccurate.

Even CT forum, which is similar (Cousins?) to ATM, runs very differently than ATM.
In CT forum, proposals are made and then discussed using verifiable examples, processes and number/knowledge crunching.

Not so in ATM, where proposals are nitpicked into ridiculous bickering over semantics.
Nereid, I recall a time when you used to post links.
Lately, I see less and less mathematical discussion, less links, less informative physics posts.
You have taken on a policy of Nitpick Semantics to death and Blame the ATM'er for all and any fault within the system.
You can flawlessly support your position with claims of why the ATM is to blame, how ATM'ers do this; that; and the other.

This is why I confronted your example.
I DO get what you were trying to express in refuting FN. It's not what my posts are about.

It's about the concept that the ATM forum has become a sludge house for bickering and less science than I ever recall seeing in there before.

And I confront you, Nereid, because I am observing you on the front line- rationalizing your flawless attacks... and they are not helping.

They are NOT what peer review does.
Your posts no longer crunch numbers.
Your posts no longer are as informative as in the past.
Your posts no longer provide anywhere near as many links and directions nd simple rebuttals they used to.

They have descended into attacking the silliest aspects and you flawlessly justifying your reasons why. You blame the ATM'ers for it.
It's just so...perfect- that a Red Flag goes up. Nothing's ever that perfect. Not even in science.

The problem with ATM is not just the ATM'ers.
We handle goofy answers just fine in CT forum. Yet we're unable to handle them in ATM?
One problem becomes very clear:
The Approach Mainstream proponents are using in ATM is Flawed. No matter how well you blame the other guy and rationalize it.

The Bias defers to Mainstream.
Tusenfem is not online that often.

ATM'ers proposing in the forum must be able to defend their ideas.
However, they are not helped, they are hindered by bickering over semantics and nitpicking of irrelevancies.

What happened to the good old days when we saw actual Physics discussed there?
When we saw some MATH on the screen?

Instead of asking the ATM'er what "e" in e=mc^2 means, just put up the math instead of picking a fight.

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 08:47 PM
That may be so, or it may not.

In either case, it's utterly irrelevant ...No, itisn't. If you are going to provide a counter example and take that example to completely unrealistic extremes; the actual effort provided is very relevant.

[...]
One specific, concrete example coming up* ...

A: The standard model of cosmology, the big bang, is wrong

B(1): Is the derivation of a redshift-distance relationship from the application of GR (General Relativity) to the universe as a whole correct?
Comment: totally valid question; right at the heart of the standard cosmological model

A(1): The redshift distance relationship is determined by the Hubble formula, not GR. This formula I believe, is incorrect and have formulated my own distance formula ...
Comment: blatant non-answer

B(2): If you apply GR to a non-empty (i.e. containing mass-energy) homogeneous and isotropic universe, is there a solution in which every observer in that universe sees everything else in the universe moving away from her? If there is such a solution, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?
Comment: attempt at rephrasing the question, so as to make it clear exactly what is being asked

A(2): At least one solution to Einstein's equations concerning the universe, derived from General Relativity, involves an expanding universe. since I do not adhere to this formulation I do not adhere to this solution.
Comment: an answer to the first part; blatant non-answer to the second

Now per fn's proposal, this line of questioning - concerning the ATM claim presented, as presented - can be brought to a complete halt ... all B has to do is say "I've tried my best to answer this question, but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion."

Comments, Nev?

* several edits, mostly formatting

Nereid
2009-Oct-29, 09:19 PM
Nereid,

I have seen you and others claim that ATM'ers posting in the ATM forum receive treatment that is easier on them and much less demanding than peer review is.
Cite?



This claim is often made- and just accepted, because it's made by mainstream folks.

But how accurate is this claim?

Scientific proposals submitted for peer review go through a process that is nothing like ATM forum.
Yep, that's pretty true ...


It is submitted and the numbers crunched by specialists that know the field. Not by amateurs nitpicking semantics.
You know why, don't you?

OK, perhaps you don't ... it's because if you use non-standard terminology in your draft (without pointing it out, and very carefully defining it), your manuscript will be returned immediately (and future ones will have a hard time being accepted).

Dude, it may seem like semantics to you, but it isn't.

Oh, and if you manuscript is purely word salad (nothing quantitative), the publisher may not even bother to send it back (i.e. it'll go straight into the round file).



It is then returned to the submitter with an explanation given.

The only place in University where you might see such a fracas as what ATM forum here has would be a debate hall. Which is not where scientific proposals are reviewed.
Have you been to one of those symposia I mentioned earlier? Where a radical new idea is presented (numbers, equations, and all)?


The statement is inaccurate.

Even CT forum, which is similar (Cousins?) to ATM, runs very differently than ATM.
In CT forum, proposals are made and then discussed using verifiable examples, processes and number/knowledge crunching.

Not so in ATM, where proposals are nitpicked into ridiculous bickering over semantics.
Nereid, I recall a time when you used to post links.
As in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/1598329-post564.html) (star date 14 October, 2009)?



Lately, I see less and less mathematical discussion, less links, less informative physics posts.
Like this (http://www.bautforum.com/1599025-post583.html), or this (http://www.bautforum.com/1599362-post591.html) (stardate 15 October, 2009)?


You have taken on a policy of Nitpick Semantics to death and Blame the ATM'er for all and any fault within the system.
Cite?


You can flawlessly support your position with claims of why the ATM is to blame, how ATM'ers do this; that; and the other.

This is why I confronted your example.
I DO get what you were trying to express in refuting FN. It's not what my posts are about.

It's about the concept that the ATM forum has become a sludge house for bickering and less science than I ever recall seeing in there before.
You may find the posts on Eddington's calculation, in the thread this one was created to discuss, refreshing then ... did you read them?


And I confront you, Nereid, because I am observing you on the front line- rationalizing your flawless attacks... and they are not helping.

They are NOT what peer review does.
Your posts no longer crunch numbers.
Your posts no longer are as informative as in the past.
Your posts no longer provide anywhere near as many links and directions nd simple rebuttals they used to.

They have descended into attacking the silliest aspects and you flawlessly justifying your reasons why. You blame the ATM'ers for it.
It's just so...perfect- that a Red Flag goes up. Nothing's ever that perfect. Not even in science.

The problem with ATM is not just the ATM'ers.
We handle goofy answers just fine in CT forum. Yet we're unable to handle them in ATM?
One problem becomes very clear:
The Approach Mainstream proponents are using in ATM is Flawed. No matter how well you blame the other guy and rationalize it.

The Bias defers to Mainstream.
Tusenfem is not online that often.

ATM'ers proposing in the forum must be able to defend their ideas.
However, they are not helped, they are hindered by bickering over semantics and nitpicking of irrelevancies.

What happened to the good old days when we saw actual Physics discussed there?
When we saw some MATH on the screen?

Instead of asking the ATM'er what "e" in e=mc^2 means, just put up the math instead of picking a fight.
So here's the scoop Nev: I'm a bit more grown up now, and realise the utter pointlessness of engaging in a discussion on an ATM idea if I don't understand it.

And after having spent vast amounts of time researching (and providing links), crunching numbers, explaining physics, etc, I have come to realise that almost the whole time the ATM proponent and I have been talking past each other, that we have a huge gap in mutual understanding, ...

For example, one ATM proponent went on and on and on about (electric) current ... and it took a good dozen pages for any of us to realise that what he meant by current was not at all what we meant. Do you know how ridiculous this is? Do you see just how utterly pointless the whole exchange was? Oh, and the icing on the cake was that he refused to accept there even was a difference, much less that it rendered the whole thread meaningless (btw, this same guy firmly believes emf is a force!).

Even more recently I've discovered an even more fundamental basis (than merely non-standard terminology) is missing ... sufficient agreement on what constitutes science to hold a meaningful discussion. You know, primacy of objective, independently verifiable evidence, fatality of internal inconsistency, that sort of thing.

So what's the point of participating in ATM threads if there's no agreement that we should base our discourse on science?

Swift
2009-Oct-29, 09:48 PM
I have seen you and others claim that ATM'ers posting in the ATM forum receive treatment that is easier on them and much less demanding than peer review is.

This claim is often made- and just accepted, because it's made by mainstream folks.

But how accurate is this claim?
I certainly have made that claim (actually, I think I've said peer review is hard, without making a claim about which is worse, but now I'm nitpicking).

But I have personally also used the comparison to point out that they are both one-to-many debates, as opposed to a one-to-one (like a formal debate).


Scientific proposals submitted for peer review go through a process that is nothing like ATM forum.
Again, that is correct. In fact a dissertation defense, a review for a journal article, a review for a grant proposal, a departmental seminar, all mainstream, but all have differences. Why, because the goals are different in each.


The only place in University where you might see such a fracas as what ATM forum here has would be a debate hall. Which is not where scientific proposals are reviewed.

Here, I will disagree. I recall a conference where a colleague of mine was giving a presentation and someone in the audience publicly chastised him for failing to answer a question to their satisfaction. I've seen fireworks at plenty of seminars. I've seen written reviews (for example for an article submitted to a journal) where the reviewer gave a very detail critique, and ones where they basically said "nope, wrong, do it again".

And my oral prelimin was pretty brutal. I've heard similar reports from other about both prelimins and defenses. And more often then not, the criticisms are not much more than "no, that's wrong", without the committee crunching any numbers for you.

Swift
2009-Oct-29, 09:53 PM
OK, now I'm putting on my moderator cap. And these comments are not aimed at any particular person.

I think giving examples from actual ATM threads is very helpful. But I think we might be crossing a line from examples to personal criticisms. If this thread has a goal (beyond general complaining) I would hope it is to improve ATM, possibly by suggesting rule changes. It should not be a specific criticism of any particular poster or their posting style.

Weakly Interacting MP
2009-Oct-29, 10:02 PM
Nereid, posting #155

I see your point in your posting #155 but a mod could always step in as they often do saying the ATMer has continuously not been making sense, and close the thread. It could be opened again only based upon a justifiable appeal.


I am---agast! Is this not the whole point of what I have been saying Forrest? It was your non-answers to some very direct questions that created the whole problem (for me at least) in trying to understand what your whole assertation was.

Neverfly, while the "contrast" was indeed set to high, it frankly wasn't set to maximum. I'm surprised you took issue with the comment.

captain swoop
2009-Oct-29, 10:41 PM
What happened to the good old days when we saw actual Physics discussed there?
When we saw some MATH on the screen?
What happened to the time when at least some of the ATM proponents tried to present some physics and maths?

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 11:42 PM
Nereid,

Nereid's examples of nonsensical answers to her "valid" questions.


One specific, concrete example coming up* ...

My quote:

A: The standard model of cosmology, the big bang, is wrong

statement taken out of the context of a longer answer.

Nereid's first question:
Is the derivation of a redshift-distance relationship from the application of GR (General Relativity) to the universe as a whole correct?

Nereid Comment:
totally valid question; right at the heart of the standard cosmological model
My answer:
The redshift distance relationship is determined by the Hubble formula, not GR. This formula I believe, is incorrect and have formulated my own distance formula ...


Nereid Comment: blatant non-answer

Distances to galaxies, supernovae, quasars, etc. are calculated from using the Hubble formula, not based upon the equations of General Relativity.

To start with, this is a question with a false premise. The false premise is: "derivation of a redshift-distance relationship from the application of GR (General Relativity) to the universe," which is an illogical question in the first place.

My additional comment was that I proposed a new formulation for the Hubble formula since I think that it is incorrectly formulated, was just extra. Bottom line is that there is/was no logical answer to her/ your question.

Nereid's rephrased question: (thinking her previous question was not answered properly)
If you apply GR to a non-empty (i.e. containing mass-energy) homogeneous and isotropic universe, is there a solution in which every observer in that universe sees everything else in the universe moving away from her? If there is such a solution, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?


Nereid's Comment: attempt at rephrasing the question, so as to make it clear exactly what is being asked

General Relativity is also not directly involved with expansion of the universe. Einstein's Cosmology Equations (based upon General Relativity) are involved with showing the possibility of an expanding universe. These equations have many solutions. Alexander Freedman, a Russian, showed mathematically that an expanding universe was one of the possible solutions to Einstein's cosmological equations. This is the present solution/ interpretation used by the standard model today.

This is also a statement with a false premise. The false premise is: "is there a solution in which every observer in that universe sees everything else in the universe moving away from her?" The standard model proposes no motion of receding galaxies, instead it proposes the expansion of space where no real motion is involved (but this is not important in this context/question).

The second part of Nereid's question repeated:


If there is such a solution, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?

The answer is yes; I believe there is a direct relationship between redshift and distance, but I do not adhere to the present Hubble formula used to determine these distances since I have made my own formulation, based upon my own cosmological model, that better matches distances based upon type 1a supernovae observations.

According to Nereid this was my answer:

A(2): At least one solution to Einstein's equations concerning the universe, derived from General Relativity, involves an expanding universe. since I do not adhere to this formulation I do not adhere to this solution.


Nereid's Comment:
an answer to the first part; blatant non-answer to the second.

Now per fn's proposal, this line of questioning - concerning the ATM claim presented, as presented - can be brought to a complete halt ... all B has to do is say "I've tried my best to answer this question, but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion."

Nereid, Tell me where the quotes took place for the answer to your amended question?. On what posting number? I believe you are missing something in your quote or addendum answer.

I think your comments and examples are perfect examples concerning this ATM related thread and perceived "non" answers and possible rule changes.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-29, 11:58 PM
Captain Swoop,


What happened to the time when at least some of the ATM proponents tried to present some physics and maths?


I think you're talking in generalities concerning most proposals but both of my ATM proposals involved important ATM equations that were posted, and/ or links to my equations in technical papers.

slang
2009-Oct-30, 12:31 AM
statement taken out of the context of a longer answer.

Right.. and if the context is restored, with appropriate quotes from pertinent posts, and historical context, there is likely to be a claim that it's flooding, intended to keep readers away from something. Been there, done that, not even a t-shirt. :mad:

Nereid
2009-Oct-30, 12:34 AM
Assuming one or more mods don't shut this down ...
Nereid,

Nereid's examples of nonsensical answers to her "valid" questions.


One specific, concrete example coming up* ...

My quote:

A: The standard model of cosmology, the big bang, is wrong
statement taken out of the context of a longer answer.

Nereid's first question:

Is the derivation of a redshift-distance relationship from the application of GR (General Relativity) to the universe as a whole correct?

Nereid Comment:

totally valid question; right at the heart of the standard cosmological model

My answer:

The redshift distance relationship is determined by the Hubble formula, not GR. This formula I believe, is incorrect and have formulated my own distance formula ...

Nereid Comment: blatant non-answer
Distances to galaxies, supernovae, quasars, etc. are calculated from using the Hubble formula, not based upon the equations of General Relativity.

To start with, this is a question with a false premise. The false premise is: "derivation of a redshift-distance relationship from the application of GR (General Relativity) to the universe," which is an illogical question in the first place.

My additional comment was that I proposed a new formulation for the Hubble formula since I think that it is incorrectly formulated, was just extra. Bottom line is that there is/was no logical answer to her/ your question.
Let's parse the first question, shall we?

Top level: "Is X correct?" Clearly a Yes/No question.

Peeling the onion back, one layer; X = "the derivation of Y"

So, the question concerns the correctness of a derivation.

A derivation is the application of a set of equations in a particular circumstance (or, given a set of conditions), to produce a solution.

One further layer; Y = "a redshift-distance relationship from Z"

OK, so the solution being sought is "a redshift-distance relationship".

Again, peeling the onion; Z = "the application of GR (General Relativity) to A"

Now we know what sets of equations we need to start with, in order to see if a particular result (solution) is correct.

Further; A = "the universe as a whole" ... and the specification of the problem is complete.

Does fn's parsing bear any resemblance to the reality of the question?

All readers of this post are invited to comment.


Nereid's rephrased question: (thinking her previous question was not answered properly)

If you apply GR to a non-empty (i.e. containing mass-energy) homogeneous and isotropic universe, is there a solution in which every observer in that universe sees everything else in the universe moving away from her? If there is such a solution, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?

Nereid's Comment: attempt at rephrasing the question, so as to make it clear exactly what is being asked

General Relativity is also not directly involved with expansion of the universe. Einstein's Cosmology Equations (based upon General Relativity) are involved with showing the possibility of an expanding universe. These equations have many solutions. Alexander Freedman, a Russian, showed mathematically that an expanding universe was one of the possible solutions to Einstein's cosmological equations. This is the present solution/ interpretation used by the standard model today.

This is also a statement with a false premise. The false premise is: "is there a solution in which every observer in that universe sees everything else in the universe moving away from her?" The standard model proposes no motion of receding galaxies, instead it proposes the expansion of space where no real motion is involved (but this is not important in this context/question).
In one respect, fn is correct (conflating "redshift" with "sees ... moving away from her" is misleading at best; the thing which is observed is a redshift).

Otherwise, does this not illustrate that the first question was, indeed, well-posed?


The second part of Nereid's question repeated:

If there is such a solution, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?

The answer is yes;
An answer, for the record, that was not given.


I believe there is a direct relationship between redshift and distance, but I do not adhere to the present Hubble formula used to determine these distances since I have made my own formulation, based upon my own cosmological model, that better matches distances based upon type 1a supernovae observations.
And indeed, fn may - or may not - have his own formulation ...

... except that any such formulation - if it involves only Ia SNe, or otherwise - is pretty darn irrelevant!

The question did not ask whether there were other possible explanations (formulation or otherwise) of the Hubble relationship! :mad:

Read it again, dear reader; the question is simple, and straight-forward ... it simply asks if the derivation of a particular solution of the application of a set of equations to a particular situation is correct ... the derivation (not the observations, not the possibility of other explanations, not whether the Red Sox will win, not ...).




According to Nereid this was my answer:

A(2): At least one solution to Einstein's equations concerning the universe, derived from General Relativity, involves an expanding universe. since I do not adhere to this formulation I do not adhere to this solution.

Nereid's Comment:

an answer to the first part; blatant non-answer to the second.

Now per fn's proposal, this line of questioning - concerning the ATM claim presented, as presented - can be brought to a complete halt ... all B has to do is say "I've tried my best to answer this question, but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion."
Nereid, Tell me where the quotes took place for the answer to your amended question?. On what posting number? I believe you are missing something in your quote or addendum answer.
Sure ... it's in post #93 (http://www.bautforum.com/1580866-post93.html) (some intelligence is required to read this, it contains one of the dozens of misapplications - shall we say - of quote tags that are to be found, widely, in fn's posts).

Kwalish Kid
2009-Oct-30, 12:46 AM
I liked Nereid's fictional ATM example, but let's track another actual example from forrest noble.

http://www.bautforum.com/1590686-post353.html

2) The black body spectrum is something expected from a homogeneous source, not from a collection of sources even when all of these sources are themselves a source of blackbody radiation. There is a significant difference, and this is why a significantly powerful argument is required to explain how a number of point sources, like the dust you describe, can possibly show the same form as a black body spectrum. The black body spectrum of the background radiation is not theoretical, it is observed to an accuracy of 5 parts in 100000.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-13.html#post1590774

I generally agree with this but think this does not contradict what Bob said -- that opaque matter can act as a blackbody. There is no argument to this statement since it is standard physics. The only question is, which Bob did not discuss, to what extent IGM and ISM behaves as a blackbody as a whole concerning our observations.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-13.html#post1590840

No, what you and Bob are saying is ignoring standard physics. If the background radiation is a collection of radiation from a number of different sources at a number of different distances, we should not expect it to match a blackbody spectrum. This is because the radiation as a whole will be an overlap of a number of sources, even if all of the sources are themselves blackbody radiation. One needs to provide an argument as to why these multiple sources produce an almost exact (red-shifted) blackbody spectrum.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-13.html#post1590886

Agreed. This is where the word re-ratiation comes to play. The mechanism Hoyle proposed was iron particles, the one I prefer based upon recent observations of HI radiation is neutral hydrogen for the uniform distribution of heat.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-13.html#post1590993

A collection of re-radiating particles at different distances cannot be expected to produce a black body spectrum without some extra explanation. What is your explanation?
Note that there was no answer to this last question. Later, forrest noble posted the following in response to something I wrote to Bob Angstrom.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-14.html#post1592712

I believe given enough time that the continuous re-radiation of matter within a contiguous volume not containing stars within hundreds of light years, will eventually reach an equilibrium temperature. The reason why I believe this is true is that radiation and absorption of matter never ceases. But I think there is another mechanism also involved. It concerns the heat transfer ability of the ZPF. Given this ability, a temperature equilibrium of a contiguous volume such as the observable universe, can be achieved. Here is a link to these observations that assert this is the case. I've discussed this mechanism before (aether heat transfer) with Nereid and others here in the ATM section.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713737987~db=all~jumptype=rss
Note that the above link is one that does not only have nothing to do with the question, but is a paper that forrest noble has not, at time of posting, read.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-14.html#post1592742

A collection of re-radiating particles at different distances cannot be expected to produce a black body spectrum without some extra explanation. What is your explanation?
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-14.html#post1593057

As I answered in posting # 405 the other mechanism is ZPF heat transfer whereby I provided this link http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...l~jumptype=rss
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-15.html#post1593188

This paper has absolutely nothing to do with the problem I raised. I will ask again: A collection of re-radiating particles at different distances cannot be expected to produce a black body spectrum without some extra explanation. What is your explanation?
This question goes unanswered (apparently because I was not in "discussion mode" according to forrest noble).
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-16.html#post1595073

A collection of re-radiating black body particles at different distances and at different redshifts cannot be expected to produce a black body spectrum without some extra explanation. What is your explanation?
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-16.html#post1595168

I believe given enough time that continuous radiation of the field will produce close to entropic/ isotropic temperatures. Hoyles preferred mechanism was iron particles. Mine is neutral hydrogen.

The extra mechanism I discussed to produce an isotropic background is heat transfer of the ZPF as explained by this link.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...l~jumptype=rss
Note that again forrest noble links to the paper that has nothing to do with the question and that forrest noble has not, at the time of posting, read.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-16.html#post1595611

How much neutral hydrogen must there be to produce the observed background radiation at the uniformity observed?
This question goes unanswered and is asked again. http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-17.html#post1595701

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-17.html#post1595747

The currently believed density of Hydrogen in intergalactic space is one atom of hydrogen per cubic meter. Not very dense. More than half of this is believed to be just protons which are ions that are more easily observed. Only the faster moving volumes with greater density can be observed as having a separately observable temperature.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-17.html#post1595956

But this is not an answer to my question.

UQ 9. How much neutral hydrogen must there be to produce the observed background radiation at the uniformity observed?

This is an important question, since Peebles, Schramm, Turner, & Kron (Nature, Vol 352, 29 Aug 1991, pp. 769-776) demonstrate that the amount of dust required to generate a coherent black body spectrum would result in a universe opaque beyond a low redshift. Hydrogen particles may face the same dilemma.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-17.html#post1596713

I don't know that hydrogen acts as a blackbody, instead the re-radiation of neutral hydrogen, according to Verchuur in his paper below, is co-incident (having a similar frequency) with what is being observed in the microwave background. His claim was/ is : if neutral hydrogen exists everywhere in intergalactic space as it is known to exist in our galaxy, and if it is radiating at a similar frequency as the CMBR then how could you tell the difference between neutral hydrogen radiation in our galaxy and the theoretical Big Bang radiation, or if both exist how could you distinguish one from the other.

http://www.dsri.dk/~mykal/tmp/tycho/Verschuur.doc
Note that forrest noble entirely dodges the question. Additionally, he links to a press release about a paper by Verschuur in which Verschuur does not claim that hydrogen is the origin of the background radiation. As far as all the citation provided by forrest noble and all those discovered by me, Verschuur nowhere makes the claim that hydrogen is the origin of the background radiation.

I ask the question again: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-18.html#post1596815

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-19.html#post1597958

Since no blackbody is needed to produce this microwave background, according to the observations of Verschuur, then the known quantity will due, one atom per cubic meter of intergalactic space.
Note that Verschuur nowhere proposes a mechanism for generating the background radiation from hydrogen.

Since no citation or direct explanation has been offered, I ask again. http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-19.html#post1598104

No answer. I do explain one of the problems with scatter from particles as a source of background radiation, with a citation: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-20.html#post1598770

But still no answer. The question is asked again: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-22.html#post1601040

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-22.html#post1601180

This question I have already answered twice. No blackbody is needed for neutral hydrogen to re-radiate. Neither is hydrogen the sole proposed theoretical mechanism in a combined mechanism proposal such as my own. The total quantity needed is one atom per cubic meter, no more. Individual clouds can have much greater density.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-22.html#post1601217

I not that you previously seem to have said that all your proposal required was hydrogen. However, you seem to now be saying that one hydrogen atom per cubic meter is enough for the re-radiation of light from hydrogen atoms to recreate the background radiation. Now I can ask a follow up question.

642A. What is a source for the claim that one atom per cubic meter is density enough for re-radiating hydrogen to generate the background radiation we observe? (You can answer this question by merely showing the equations.)

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-23.html#post1601710

In my own model I propose three possible methods to account for the CMBR. One is the radiation of relatively high speed hydrogen in our own galaxy as evidenced by Verchuurs observations, two, I like Hyle's proposal or iron particle re-radiation (and other matter), and third I proposed the heat transfer of the ZPF. I proposed that all of these mechanisms could contribute to entropic processes that even the temperature of matter in space, hence the observed MBR. Possible any one of these mechanisms alone might be the primary mechanism the evens out the temperature of the space.
Given this commitment to these three "methods", I switch to looking for the demonstration of the effectiveness of these methods (another question asked repeatedly and not answered repeatedly.) http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-23.html#post1601824

Where is the demonstration that any alternate theory matches the black body spectrum of the background radiation as well as the standard model?
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-23.html#post1601905

The most important part of my answer and the part that you do not seem to understand is that the standard model explanation is also only theory, and is not based upon observable reality at the time this mechanism supposedly existed. Such mechanisms are far easier to realize sometimes that real world, observable, mechanisms.

Any competing model must explain a uniform microwave background temperature not by theoretical mechanisms that may not have existed, but by mechanisms that can be observed which in this case is much more difficult. I already gave you my three preferred mechanisms.
Again, rather than actually answer the question, forrest noble simply turns to attacking his straw man idea of the standard cosmological model.

Question asked again: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-23.html#post1601946

And again: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas-26.html#post1603249

And then the thread is closed.

So there is a real history here of direct, meaningful questions and replies to these questions that are meaningless at best and dishonest at worst.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-30, 01:34 AM
Kwalish Kid,


I liked Nereid's fictional ATM example, but let's track another actual example from forrest noble.

Those were not fictitious examples from the thread. They were almost verbatim quotations of questions and answers just like your own presentation. BTW showing up here in my thread shows up the honest intent of you and Nereid, which I think says says something good about your characters. I doubt Geo Kaplan will show up here.

As you know the discussions of this thread concern proposed changes to the ATM rules which I think can relate to your posting above which will show the misunderstandings involved. I don't know what rule changes might be implemented concerning misunderstandings of answers but I have made a proposal concerning this. Now I'll get to your long, and I'm sure time consuming posting. Thanks for your effort and for posting here.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-30, 01:47 AM
Slang,


Right.. and if the context is restored, with appropriate quotes from pertinent posts, and historical context, there is likely to be a claim that it's flooding, intended to keep readers away from something. Been there, done that, not even a t-shirt.:mad:

What do you mean no tea shirt? :mad:

Gillianren
2009-Oct-30, 01:55 AM
I don't know what rule changes might be implemented concerning misunderstandings of answers but I have made a proposal concerning this.

How much effort does it involve on the part of the ATM proponent?

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-30, 01:58 AM
I don't know what rule changes might be implemented concerning misunderstandings of answers but I have made a proposal concerning this.
How about rules for when the question is being misunderstood too?

Neverfly
2009-Oct-30, 02:11 AM
What happened to the time when at least some of the ATM proponents tried to present some physics and maths?

Then hold them to that standard.


Nereid, I can explain it over and over until I'm blue in the face.

Claiming that you're older now and have grown cynical of ATM forum is no excuse. If that's the case, perhaps you should decrease your participation.

I have been silently following your posts there for a while, trying to determine whether or not my perception is correct. Not to be confused with stalking:p


Nereid, your change of tactics is a big part of the problem.

You can justify it.
Rationalize it.
Blame the ATM proponents.

But it does not change that you are leading many threads into dizzying roundabouts that create utter confusion and chaos.

Stick to math and physics. If the ATM'er cannot keep up- that's on them.
A bickering match over semantics is a Problem, not a solution.

You are exasperated by the ATM claims.
I am exasperated by your exacerbation of confusion.

All that does is make both parties wrong. If ATM'ers cannot properly support their claims, they will make that clear by creating their own confusion.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-30, 02:25 AM
Actually, I think the shift came because of a realization that many ATM'ers don't talk the same language as the mainstream physicists and Nereid has shifted to trying to establish some sort of common vocabulary before starting the discussion, to avoid the colossal waste of time it otherwise becomes.

Far too often people spend page after page trying to explain why something if wrong just to find that there's a disagreement on something utterly basic that both sides have been using to argue from.

For example, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion of special relativity with someone who just plain refuses to believe that the speed of light is constant in all initial frames and that we think it is because that's what all measurements have shown, because that goes against his common sense.
But if that refusal doesn't come up in the thread, everything said to convince him is a waste of time and space.

A bickering match over semantics is a problem, but getting the fundamentals hammered out before the real discussion isn't.

Nereid
2009-Oct-30, 02:30 AM
[...]

Nereid, I can explain it over and over until I'm blue in the face.

Claiming that you're older know
I can feel a nitpick coming on ...


and have grown cynical of ATM forum is no excuse. If that's the case, perhaps you should decrease your participation.
Last time I checked, I had ... do you have evidence (objective, verifiable ... you know the drill) that says otherwise?


I have been silently following your posts there for a while, trying to determine whether or not my perception is correct. Not to be confused with stalking:p


Nereid, your change of tactics is a big part of the problem.

You can justify it.
Rationalize it.
Blame the ATM proponents.

But it does not change that you are leading many threads into dizzying roundabouts that create utter confusion and chaos.
Cite?

BTW, you didn't provide any evidence to back up your previous claims (despite my request) ... may I enquire as to the reason?

Also, what did you think of the 'Eddington calculation' posts I invited you to take a gander at?


Stick to math and physics. If the ATM'er cannot keep up- that's on them.
What part of "talking past each other" did you not understand?

More concretely, can you give three examples of recent ATM threads - which I have not been involved in - where you are sure no gross misuse of standard terms was occurring? The 'twins paradox' ones aside.


A bickering match over semantics is a Problem, not a solution.
Um, ... er, ... you say 'bickering match over semantics', I say 'potato' ... if you still think emf is a force, we're not 'bickering', one of us might as well be speaking Hittite (and the other Glui).


You are exasperated by the ATM claims.
I am exasperated by your exacerbation of confusion.

All that does is make both parties wrong. If ATM'ers cannot properly support their claims, they will make that clear by creating their own confusion.
Yep, they've done that (in spades), and they've got their t-shirts ...

BTW, what do you think of the all-too-common ATM idea that spiral galaxy morphology is due to a catherine wheel (or garden sprinkler) type effect (i.e. mass ejected from the galactic nucleus)? Should there be a sticky for that idea too, something like the electric universe one (seeing as how often it pops up)?

Neverfly
2009-Oct-30, 02:32 AM
Actually, I think the shift came because of a realization that many ATM'ers don't talk the same language as the mainstream physicists and Nereid has shifted to trying to establish some sort of common vocabulary before starting the discussion, to avoid the colossal waste of time it otherwise becomes.

Far too often people spend page after page trying to explain why something if wrong just to find that there's a disagreement on something utterly basic that both sides have been using to argue from.

For example, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion of special relativity with someone who just plain refuses to believe that the speed of light is constant in all initial frames and that we think it is because that's what all measurements have shown, because that goes against his common sense.
But if that refusal doesn't come up in the thread, everything said to convince him is a waste of time and space.

A bickering match over semantics is a problem, but getting the fundamentals hammered out before the real discussion isn't.

I have seen this happen. This is why I said earlier that Nereids justification is "flawless" and "perfect."

Because who could dispute it?

But these communication problems for one.) Don't happen often enough to require every thread to be turned into a dictionary and two.) Nereids approach takes it to a whole other level.
Again, Nereid can flawlessly justify it. I maintain that is still a problem.
And that justification is blinding.

To make a poor analogy; You are riding in a covered wagon out west. You notice that the rocks on the ground are damaging your wheels.
Are you going to walk in front of your wagon picking rocks and pebbles and any other object out of the path? Or are you going to rivet a metal band to the outside of the wheel?

Kwalish Kid
2009-Oct-30, 02:32 AM
Those were not fictitious examples from the thread. They were almost verbatim quotations of questions and answers just like your own presentation.
I was referring to the Jabberwocky situation given earlier. I missed her earlier example and she posted her second example while I was posting.

BTW showing up here in my thread shows up the honest intent of you and Nereid, which I think says says something good about your characters. I doubt Geo Kaplan will show up here.
My intent in that thread is irrelevant. You consistently avoided answering questions through either incompetence or dishonesty or both.

As you know the discussions of this thread concern proposed changes to the ATM rules which I think can relate to your posting above which will show the misunderstandings involved. I don't know what rule changes might be implemented concerning misunderstandings of answers but I have made a proposal concerning this. Now I'll get to your long, and I'm sure time consuming posting. Thanks for your effort and for posting here.
There was no misunderstanding of your answers. Your answers were often off-topic and despite me and other people clarifying the nature of the questions, you continued to dodge the specific meaning of the questions. In this thread, you made charges against those who attempted to ask you honest and direct questions, I am attempting to answer those charges.

If you had bothered to directly answer a question rather than continuing to dodge pretty much every question (with the occasional lie about the nature of the papers you were citing thrown in for good measure), then this thread wouldn't be here.

Neverfly
2009-Oct-30, 02:38 AM
I can feel a nitpick coming on ...
I already corrected that typo long before you posted. Grow up.



Last time I checked, I had ... do you have evidence (objective, verifiable ... you know the drill) that says otherwise?


Cite?

BTW, you didn't provide any evidence to back up your previous claims (despite my request) ... may I enquire as to the reason?

The reason is simple:
You have admitted to changing your tactic.
There is no "evidence needed" to support what we all see and agree with. The only thing we disagree with is whether or not your new tactics are creating further confusion and are, in fact, detrimental to threads.

I consider this to be a Straw Man.


What part of "talking past each other" did you not understand?
What part of Stop Rationalizing and Justifying your Blame pointing do You not understand?
You're so busy blaming everyone else- Have you stopped to consider the possibility that you could be in the wrong too?

Or is that too fat fetched for you?


More concretely, can you give three examples of recent ATM threads - which I have not been involved in - where you are sure no gross misuse of standard terms was occurring? The 'twins paradox' ones aside.
Irrelevant.
This is why I said "call it when you see it" and you did not understand what I meant.

Figure it out.



Um, ... er, ... you say 'bickering match over semantics', I say 'potato' ... if you still think emf is a force, we're not 'bickering', one of us might as well be speaking Hittite (and the other Glui).


Yep, they've done that (in spades), and they've got their t-shirts ...

BTW, what do you think of the all-too-common ATM idea that spiral galaxy morphology is due to a catherine wheel (or garden sprinkler) type effect (i.e. mass ejected from the galactic nucleus)? Should there be a sticky for that idea too, something like the electric universe one (seeing as how often it pops up)?
No, correct these misconceptions as you go instead of trying to write a novel at the beginning of each thread.

CT forum deals with the same troubles.
CT forum deals with the same garbage over and over, too.

Yet, CT forum rolls along pretty smoothly, over-all, because they are not bickering over semantics as is being done in ATM.

Nereid, you seem to be under the impression that you must Provide a Full Education to each and every poster at the start of the thread.
You can justify that flawlessly- But it's still only going to create a problem.

ATM forum is not an education. It's educational- but not an education.
It's Entertainment- just as puzzles or crosswords are.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-30, 03:33 AM
Nereid,

concerning your assertions of non-intelligible answers -- answer not given.
My quote:

If there is such a solution, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?
my quote this thread

The answer is yes........
Nereid's quote from this thread:


An answer, for the record, that was not given.
Nereid's question posting #120 fnATM;


My quote from #120 fnATM:

The same answer, for the record, was given


If there is such a solution*, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)? (this requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer; however if "no", then please explain)


This is not a yes or no question to me. To me there is no apparent recession of galaxies. The universe accordingly is not expanding. But yes, I do believe there is a correlation between the redshift of galaxies and their distances.

(bold added)

There might have been misunderstandings, but your assertion that the question was not answered was incorrect. With your later rewording of the same question I gave you the answer similar to what I gave you on this thread.

Addressed to the Question Flooding issue:

If an ATM opponent spent less time asking numerous questions and more time formulating well-worded, well thought out questions, then the OP would have more time to provide more extensive, better expressed answers to questions. There would be fewer misunderstandings. Everybody including mods and BAUT would benefit if this were the case in the future.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-30, 04:10 AM
Kwalish Kid,


My intent in that thread is irrelevant. You consistently avoided answering questions through either incompetence or dishonesty or both.


There was no misunderstanding of your answers. Your answers were often off-topic and despite me and other people clarifying the nature of the questions, you continued to dodge the specific meaning of the questions. In this thread, you made charges against those who attempted to ask you honest and direct questions, I am attempting to answer those charges.

If you had bothered to directly answer a question rather than continuing to dodge pretty much every question (with the occasional lie about the nature of the papers you were citing thrown in for good measure), then this thread wouldn't be here.

You are making assertions that I think are entirely wrong, but if you wish to continue on this thread you need to address the issue of this thread, at least pretend to. The title is ATM Rules discussion. I'm not questioned your integrity so please don't question mine on this thread (embolden above).

Concerning question flooding or other supposed allegations:

I am attempting to answer those charges.

Concerning the considerable time you spent of your "he-said she-said" posting above please PM me and we can sort this out in the forum of your choice that will allow such discussions. We have been warned not to continue such discussions on this thread.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-30, 05:05 AM
HenrikOlsen,


How about rules for when the question is being misunderstood too?

I know your pulling my leg a bit concerning your question but I'll give you an answer anyway.

I don't think any new rules are needed for misunderstood questions. The OP can always respond as shown below:

"I do not understand your question, do you think you could rephrase it?"

"What is it about my answer that leads you to believe that your question has not already been answered?

Could you please clarify what you mean by "abc" in your question?

Does anybody else understand this question who could possibly rephrase it?

I simply don't know what your question concerns.

I don't know the intent of your question.

Could you ask another related question. I don't get the gist of this one.

etc.

Mods will eventually shut down a thread if the OP does not understand the topic and too many related questions cannot be understood/ answered.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-30, 06:26 AM
To make a poor analogy; You are riding in a covered wagon out west. You notice that the rocks on the ground are damaging your wheels.
Are you going to walk in front of your wagon picking rocks and pebbles and any other object out of the path? Or are you going to rivet a metal band to the outside of the wheel?
Will the metal band move the rocks so the next one coming this way will have an easier time?

Neverfly
2009-Oct-30, 06:30 AM
Will the metal band move the rocks so the next one coming this way will have an easier time?

It's up to the next wagon to also have a metal band on the wheel.

Frankly, I admitted the analogy is poor. Should Nereid pick out all the rocks, it won't make an easier time next time. It only means that Nereid will be picking out the rocks, Every Single Time.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Oct-30, 06:32 AM
I know your pulling my leg a bit concerning your question but I'll give you an answer anyway.

I don't think any new rules are needed for misunderstood questions. The OP can always respond as shown below:

"I do not understand your question, do you think you could rephrase it?<snips>
Your suggestions all deal with the situation where the OP understands that he doesn't understand the question. I wasn't asking about the situation where the question isn't understood, I was asking about the situation where the question was misunderstood.

Where it's clear the question being answered has nothing to do with what was actually asked.


A bit like this case actually, you didn't answer the question asked, you answered the question you though I asked.

Nereid
2009-Oct-30, 01:24 PM
Nereid,

concerning your assertions of non-intelligible answers -- answer not given.
My quote:

If there is such a solution, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?
my quote this thread

The answer is yes........
Nereid's quote from this thread:

An answer, for the record, that was not given.

Nereid's question posting #120 fnATM;


My quote from #120 fnATM:

The same answer, for the record, was given


If there is such a solution*, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)? (this requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer; however if "no", then please explain)

This is not a yes or no question to me. To me there is no apparent recession of galaxies. The universe accordingly is not expanding. But yes, I do believe there is a correlation between the redshift of galaxies and their distances.
Quite right, of course ...

... except that my example would have to be extended, something like this:

B(3): If there is such a solution {If you apply GR to a non-empty (i.e. containing mass-energy) homogeneous and isotropic universe, there a solution in which every observer in that universe sees everything else in the universe moving away from her}, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)? (this requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer; however if "no", then please explain)

A(3): This is not a yes or no question to me. To me there is no apparent recession of galaxies. The universe accordingly is not expanding. But yes, I do believe there is a correlation between the redshift of galaxies and their distances.

B(4): If this is not a yes or no question to you, then I have not written it clearly enough; allow me, please, to clarify. [...] In a GR-based {non-empty, isotropic and homogeneous}, expanding universe solution, is the apparent speed of recession a function of the apparent distance (for each object)?

A(4): yes, I agree




(bold added)

There might have been misunderstandings, but your assertion that the question was not answered was incorrect. With your later rewording of the same question I gave you the answer similar to what I gave you on this thread.
Indeed.

I provided a real example of an exchange which could have ended after A(2), should your suggestion re 'question flooding' be adopted; i.e. there would never have been a B(3), A(3), B(4), and an A(4) had A 'taken the fn' and declared that "I've tried my best to answer this question, but if my answer is unacceptable in your opinion then that's your opinion."


Addressed to the Question Flooding issue:

If an ATM opponent spent less time asking numerous questions and more time formulating well-worded, well thought out questions, then the OP would have more time to provide more extensive, better expressed answers to questions. There would be fewer misunderstandings. Everybody including mods and BAUT would benefit if this were the case in the future.
We can test this suggestion against reality - the ATM thread in question, my A through A(4) example - to see if might make a difference.

B(1)* comes very early in the thread (post #29), and is one of only three questions (on one of perhaps five separate ATM claims; the only other questions at this time were about what the ATM claims actually are).

Further, B(1) is about as straight-forward a question as possible, concerning cosmology, and should be especially easy to answer "for anybody who's well read in cosmology".

Conclusion: Both suggestions concerning 'question flooding' would likely have had no impact, on the ATM thread we are using as an example, other than to allow the ATM proponent to declare a valid and legitimate question closed, without ever having answered it.

In short, the suggestion fails its first test.

* "Is the derivation of a redshift-distance relationship from the application of GR (General Relativity) to the universe as a whole correct?"

Swift
2009-Oct-30, 02:02 PM
OK, now I'm putting on my moderator cap. And these comments are not aimed at any particular person.

I think giving examples from actual ATM threads is very helpful. But I think we might be crossing a line from examples to personal criticisms. If this thread has a goal (beyond general complaining) I would hope it is to improve ATM, possibly by suggesting rule changes. It should not be a specific criticism of any particular poster or their posting style.

This is the last warning.

There is entirely too much of this thread that is attacks on individuals and their posting style, particularly at both forrest noble and at Nereid. I also think that this thread has probably run its course and the risks are starting to exceed the benefits.

I'll allow the discussion to continue for a little, to see if there are any more useful suggestions for ATM. Any more personal attacks and we're done.

Nereid
2009-Oct-30, 02:15 PM
With Swift's recent post in mind, perhaps fn could summarise his suggestions for rule, or guideline, changes?

AFAIK, they relate to two distinct things; namely, "question flooding" and prohibiting any questions or challenges to any ATM claims other than those made by the ATM proponent in the OP of an ATM thread.

On "question flooding": HO, the KKid, and I have demonstrated that the specific suggestions made, so far, would fail (many reasons).

On restricting questions (etc) to ATM claims made in the OP only, several participants in this thread have stated that it is unacceptable (many reasons).

AFAIK, no one has - yet - addressed either set of clearly identified failures.

AFAICS, Nev did not make any suggestions for rule, or guideline, changes (if this is incorrect, I hope someone will point to any such, ASAP).

Nereid
2009-Oct-30, 02:32 PM
[...]

Concerning the considerable time you spent of your "he-said she-said" posting above please PM me and we can sort this out in the forum of your choice that will allow such discussions. We have been warned not to continue such discussions on this thread.(bold added)

A suggestion, if I may: the JREF Science Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5) (JREF = James Randi Education Forum; BAUT's Bad Astronomer, Phil Plait, is closely tied to this forum too). It allows ATM ideas to be presented, has no time-out rule, and there are quite a few knowledgeable and articulate regulars; however, things do tend to get somewhat more personal (shall we say) than they are allowed to here ...

forrest noble
2009-Oct-30, 10:50 PM
HenrikOlsen,


Your suggestions all deal with the situation where the OP understands that he doesn't understand the question. I wasn't asking about the situation where the question isn't understood, I was asking about the situation where the question was misunderstood.

Where it's clear the question being answered has nothing to do with what was actually asked.


Slang's suggestion for this situation was the answer suggested below, which I think is a good one.

When confronted with "this was not my question" that you answered, it was the one you thought I asked,
or,

No you did not answer my question.You seem to keep misunderstanding the question.

The ATMer would then say:

"What is it about my answer that leads you to believe that your question has not already been answered?"

This requires the questioner to reword the question, to clarify what point(s) he believes have not been addressed or answered, which I'm sure could often clarify the question for the ATMer.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-30, 11:02 PM
Nereid,

Appreciate the info. JREF Science Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section. If you wish to pursue questions and answers with me over there I will be happy to follow, just PM me (but let's stick to questions and answers already given, fnATMideas, OK?). Remember I hate argument but enjoy discussion. As for you and me I think that forum you suggested would be fine. Kwalish Kid seems to like getting personal for some reason and I don't want to argue, just discuss points. For him maybe off-topic babbling might be a good place? or do you have another venue suggestion? -- if he or someone else is interested.

Kwalish Kid
2009-Oct-30, 11:09 PM
There's nothing personal. Now, do you still have a serious suggestion for an ATM rule change?

mugaliens
2009-Oct-30, 11:44 PM
The Patent to Reverse Global Warming thread (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/94976-patent-reverse-global-warming.html)serves as an example of the type of cooperative refinement effort that's possible here on BAUT, as this approach exemplifies the strengths of a message forum!

BAUT will never be a replacement of, nor augment the peer-review process as it has utterly failed at one simple, yet vital task: Quality Control of those asking the questions.

In the real world, every one of the problems associate with the non-thread owners who fail to conduct a proper peer-review process would have been solved by trash-canning the comments. Yet here on BAUT, the lack of quality contral elevates all comments to a "worthy" status while putting the onus on the OP to answer all questions, period.

That's flawed, and is why the ATM section remains so contentious. I hinges on message forum venue's principle weaknesses - the lack of quality control.

Therefore, if you want to have a viable ATM forum, you'll need to chuck the current "shooting fish in a barrel" approach and move towards cooperative discourse, as depicted in the referencd thread, as the one thing at which message forums excel above all else.

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 12:02 AM
The Patent to Reverse Global Warming thread (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/94976-patent-reverse-global-warming.html)serves as an example of the type of cooperative refinement effort that's possible here on BAUT, as this approach exemplifies the strengths of a message forum!

BAUT will never be a replacement of, nor augment the peer-review process as it has utterly failed at one simple, yet vital task: Quality Control of those asking the questions.

In the real world, every one of the problems associate with the non-thread owners who fail to conduct a proper peer-review process would have been solved by trash-canning the comments. Yet here on BAUT, the lack of quality contral elevates all comments to a "worthy" status while putting the onus on the OP to answer all questions, period.

That's flawed, and is why the ATM section remains so contentious. I hinges on message forum venue's principle weaknesses - the lack of quality control.

Therefore, if you want to have a viable ATM forum, you'll need to chuck the current "shooting fish in a barrel" approach and move towards cooperative discourse, as depicted in the referencd thread, as the one thing at which message forums excel above all else.
Is there a specific, actionable suggestion - or three - here (wrt either BAUT's rules, guidelines, or both, as they apply to the ATM section)?

If so, what is it?

FWIW, IMHO BAUT's ATM section's biggest fault is that it is so lax ... it doesn't even require ATM proponents to demonstrate the most basic of science-based attributes concerning the ATM ideas they present (e.g. absence of gross internal inconsistencies, 0-th level consistency of use of standard terms, absence of gross inconsistencies wrt well-established theories - or their key experimental/observational foundations - where the domains of applicability overlap) ... and there may even be a case for saying that those who seek to move away from such laxity are attacked, viciously, ruthlessly, and relentlessly ...

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 02:13 AM
Kwalish Kid,


There's nothing personal. Now, do you still have a serious suggestion for an ATM rule change?

Yes, that's really the only reason I'm still here.

Discussing ATM Rule changes

The other items that I mentioned in the beginning of this thread might be improved just by moderators and others being aware of them. I have also discussed details concerning the numbers of questions permitted and how to control question flooding. The primary objective for all of these suggested changes in the rules is to facilitate discussion and discourage argument in the ATM section.

A secondary benefit, I believe, is that if the rules are properly written and implemented, the moderators jobs will become easier.

The first problem is Question Flooding. I know the system in the ATM section does not work well the way that it is presently formatted. As I suggested to Nereid and at large on this thread, that too many questions invites misunderstands since less time is spent preparing both the questions and the answers. This, I think, has been the source of most of the problems that we had on the last thread. Consider that both out times, and others also, have a limit concerning BAUT. If a lot of time was spent proposing great questions and a lot of time was spent preparing great answers I'm sure there would have been far fewer misunderstandings.

Question Flooding. Defined as: too many questions given to the OP per day so that at best only brief answers can be given in the time he has available.


The second problem, not understanding questions and answers, the way that I saw it, was once an answer was given it was sometimes not understood. Along the same lines the question was sometimes not understood. Slang suggested this following statement:

"What is it about my answer that leads you to believe that your question has not already been answered?"

Which I think is a good approach since it doesn't assume, like I did, that the question was already answered.

Additional support of OP. Another problem, I believe, is that those who want to support the position of the OP by providing links and technical information and related comments are chased away. This can readily by observed on the last thread. There should be changes in the rules, I believe, concerning how this might properly be accomplished and be acceptable according to ATM objective without confusion. The problem has been stated that participants try to provide support by offering their own explanation. This is not support and it is not permitted.

How this might work is that participants can address question to the OP, such as "Is this what your model suggests? What do you think about additionally if xzr ............" This would not be making a statement. Instead it would be asking a question. By this means of only directing questions and comments to the OP, others might be able to contribute to the OP's proposal. This may not require new rules, just a policy that moderators accept and are aware of.

Being polite: Enhancing the meaning of being polite, according to the rules. It is already in the rule book but it has not been well defined. Additional comments concerning mandatory politeness on both sides, I think, would go a long way to improving real discussion. This is the difference between arguing and discussion. Very little is gained by argument and sometimes a great deal by discussion.

Kwalish Kid, Nereid has suggested a forum where we can continue our discussion if you like, even off topic babbling could be another venue if you wish to find out why your questions and my answers don't seem to fit in your opinion. PM me if this is what you want.

Soon I will provide a summary of this proposal including the details. Then I hope it will be open here for discussion from all so that the best proposal results for a real consideration by the appropriate decision makers.

respectfully

NickW
2009-Oct-31, 02:45 AM
The basis of the above statement was what I called Question Flooding. Defined as: too many questions given to the OP per day so that at best only brief answers can be given in the time he has available.

How do you suggest we fix this then? You raise a problem, but not a probable solution. I personally don't see a big problem with the current system. Usually, if a question that is asked is pertinent, but not answered, a mod will say so. I see plenty of other questions that aren't pertinent that don't get answered, but there is never a warning associated with them as well.


The second problem, the way that I saw it, was once an answer was given it was sometimes not understood. Along the same lines the question was sometimes not understood.

Could this have be the problem with the OP not understand the basic sciences that he brought to the table? I think 9 times out of 10 this is probably the case (I use the term loosely, btw).

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 02:53 AM
Kwalish Kid,



The first problem is Question Flooding. I know the system in the ATM section does not work well the way that it is presently formatted. As I suggested to Nereid and at large on this thread, that too many questions invites misunderstands since less time is spent preparing both the questions and the answers. This, I think, has been the source of most of the problems that we had on the last thread. Consider that both out times, and others also, have a limit concerning BAUT. If a lot of time was spent proposing great questions and a lot of time was spent preparing great answers I'm sure there would have been far fewer misunderstandings.

The basis of the above statement was what I called Question Flooding. Defined as: too many questions given to the OP per day so that at best only brief answers can be given in the time he has available.


The second problem, the way that I saw it, was once an answer was given it was sometimes not understood. Along the same lines the question was sometimes not understood. Slang suggested this following statement:

"What is it about my answer that leads you to believe that your question has not already been answered?"

Which I think is a good approach since it doesn't assume, like I did, that the question was already answered.

Another problem, I believe, is that those who want to support the position of the OP by providing links and technical information are chased away. This can readily by observed on the last thread. There should be rules, I believe, concerning how this might properly by done and be acceptable according to the rules without confusion.
Um, ... what - specifically - are the rule (and/or guideline) changes that you suggest might alleviate the problems you perceive?

To other readers: to what extent do you perceive there to be, in ATM threads in general:
a) a "question flooding" problem?
b) an "answer not understood" problem?
c) an "inability to be able to provide technical support for the OP" problem?

And if you do perceive a significant problem - with any one, or any combo - of the above, what suggestions (if any) do you have to address them?

For the record, I think none of these are at all significant (as problems), and so no changes need even be considered, to either the rules or guidelines.

Why?

a) the ATM proponent already has all that they need to control the flow of questions (and answers), as I have explained several times already in this thread.

b) in the words of the BA "Remember: you came here" .. IOW, it's your job, as the presenter of the ATM idea, to make sure all your answers are understandable, and understood. To continue with the BA, with a twist "If you cannot [explain your ATM ideas clearly], then maybe you need to rethink your [those ATM ideas], too."

c) any BAUT member can send any number of PMs to the ATM proponent, suggesting resources that might be used, ideas that might be presented, wording that might be considered, etc, etc, etc ... and they can do so at any time; the ATM proponent can then write posts incorporating this input - or not - if they consider it relevant and helpful. IOW, no need for any 'in thread support'.

Tensor
2009-Oct-31, 03:05 AM
BAUT will never be a replacement of, nor augment the peer-review process as it has utterly failed at one simple, yet vital task: Quality Control of those asking the questions.

BAUT will never be (nor is it designed to be) a replacement of, nor augment the peer-review process as it has utterly failed at one simple, yet vital task: Quality Control of those posting the ATM Idea.


In the real world, every one of the problems associate with the non-thread owners who fail to conduct a proper peer-review process would have been solved by trash-canning the comments.

In the real world, 99%+ (I can think of 2, that were worth the time) of the ideas presented in the forum would have been trash-canned, before even getting to the peer reviewed stage (or the equivalent stage here, the OP). That doesn't happen here, OPs can, and have, posted the most worthless ideas.


Yet here on BAUT, the lack of quality contral elevates all comments to a "worthy" status while putting the onus on the OP to answer all questions, period.

Yet here on BAUT, the lack of quality contral elevates all ATM ideas to a "worthy" status while putting the onus on other posters to ask enough questions to show the worthlessness of the ideas. Even when the OPs don't understand common terms, don't understand or can't do the math, or refuse to answer any questions on their ideas.



That's flawed, and is why the ATM section remains so contentious. I hinges on message forum venue's principle weaknesses - the lack of quality control.

Yeah, mostly of the OPs and their silly ideas.


Therefore, if you want to have a viable ATM forum, you'll need to chuck the current "shooting fish in a barrel" approach and move towards cooperative discourse, as depicted in the referencd thread, as the one thing at which message forums excel above all else.

I suggest you go back and read Moose's link. There was never any intention to have an ATM forum (viable or otherwise). It was initiated to keep the silly ideas out of the regular forums. There was talk of getting rid of it. The only reason it was kept, was because of the additional rules. It's quite simple really. If anyone doesn't like the rules of the ATM forum, don't post an idea there. Nereid provided a link where the rules aren't as restrictive, go post there.

mugaliens
2009-Oct-31, 03:06 AM
Is there a specific, actionable suggestion - or three - here (wrt either BAUT's rules, guidelines, or both, as they apply to the ATM section)?

You mean I have to break it out for you?


Originally Posted by mugaliens
The Patent to Reverse Global Warming thread serves as an example of the type of cooperative refinement effort that's possible here on BAUT, as this approach exemplifies the strengths of a message forum!

SAS: Use a cooperative refinement, as evidenced in the linked thread.


BAUT will never be a replacement of, nor augment the peer-review process as it has utterly failed at one simple, yet vital task: Quality Control of those asking the questions.

In the real world, every one of the problems associate with the non-thread owners who fail to conduct a proper peer-review process would have been solved by trash-canning the comments. Yet here on BAUT, the lack of quality contral elevates all comments to a "worthy" status while putting the onus on the OP to answer all questions, period.

Either implement and enforce the same level of quality control for those asking the questions as for the OP, or allow the OP to ignore questions they feel are frivilous, wasteful, derailing, etc, the same as would the author of a paper submitted for peer-review.


Therefore, if you want to have a viable ATM forum, you'll need to chuck the current "shooting fish in a barrel" approach and move towards cooperative discourse, as depicted in the referencd thread, as the one thing at which message forums excel above all else.[/quote]

Quit trying ro use a message forum to replace the peer-review process - two different processes, with a different set of strengths and weaknesses.


FWIW, IMHO BAUT's ATM section's biggest fault is that it is so lax ... it doesn't even require ATM proponents to demonstrate the most basic of science-based attributes concerning the ATM ideas they present (e.g. absence of gross internal inconsistencies, 0-th level consistency of use of standard terms, absence of gross inconsistencies wrt well-established theories - or their key experimental/observational foundations - where the domains of applicability overlap) ... and there may even be a case for saying that those who seek to move away from such laxity are attacked, viciously, ruthlessly, and relentlessly ...

In the peer-reviewed process, that step is handled before a paper is even published, but by a team of knowledgeable experts, not a buch of message forum vigilantes who get their kicks out of shooting holes in someone's theory.

BAUT's ATM section's biggest fault is that it's not properly modeled after the peer-reviewed process, and it's second biggest fault is that throwing the onus on the posters will never fix it's underlying, yet overriding faults.

The third biggest fault happens when people (present company included, at one time) expect otherwise.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 03:13 AM
Concerning Thread Flooding

I see it seldom but when I think I do, I look up to find a posting that the "flooder" may wish to be out of sight, considering a possible motive. I don't think this could easily be stopped according to the rules nor have I seen it often. It's just a suspicion that I wish moderators to consider. Another motive may be to simply impress observers/ lurkers into thinking the poster is well versed in the topic. This I don't mind. Bottom line, I'm presently not pressing for rule changes regarding this matter because at present I cannot prove it is a real motive for threading a page with quotes. But the mods awareness will certainly help, I think.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-31, 03:18 AM
What rule could possibly solve the problem of misunderstanding of questions or answers? And if the rule is "rephrase it," don't you think that's been tried? I have participated in threads where the same question has been phrased as many ways as is possible in the English language, and the person either still didn't understand or just didn't bother answering it. Similarly, I have seen great frustration from ATM proponents because no one understood what they were saying.

However, in just about every single one of the latter cases, it was because some very basic concept was being used differently by the OP than by everyone else in the world. I'm sure there are exceptions, but since I stay in the kiddie pool of ATM, I don't encounter much in the way of people who know anything of what they're talking about.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 04:09 AM
NickW,

Re: Question flooding


How do you suggest we fix this then? You raise a problem, but not a probable solution. I personally don't see a big problem with the current system. Usually, if a question that is asked is pertinent, but not answered, a mod will say so. I see plenty of other questions that aren't pertinent that don't get answered, but there is never a warning associated with them as well.


But envision if five people are asking questions on a single day and a couple of those people ask 20 questions each. Remember your can sit down for ten minutes and ask 20 questions, but how long will it take the OP to give quality answers to your questions, even if he really has the ability. sometimes 20 minutes to a half hour for sometimes a one sentence questions. In one or two days the OP will be inundated with unanswered questions and complaints of unanswered questions will begin. This is not a reasonable idea to allow unlimited questions and expect them all answered.


Could this have be the problem with the OP not understand the basic sciences that he brought to the table? I think 9 times out of 10 this is probably the case (I use the term loosely, btw).

I agree understanding is a big problem. Even if the OP has a true insight and his idea really explains a facet of reality hidden to most scientists in the field, he still may not be able to use the proper terminology, based upon his mental image, to make his proposal understood in the ATM section or probably anywhere else for that matter.

Understanding goes both ways I've observed. Many or most opponents are not formally educated in these fields and are generally self educated. Not having a true fundamental understanding can be a big problem because you must rely on others papers, experiments and interpretations which are almost entirely mainstream interpretations. When faced with math, theoretical physics or theoretic concepts requiring fundamental concepts, opponents are at times more lost than the OP who has sometimes spent years studying the material.

For the average ATM proposal, it might go something like this: "I have been thinking and reading for the last month and think I've come up a great idea. How about if such and such is the reason why etc..................."

This may be 80% of the proposals. For these my only rules suggestion would be to expand upon the meaning of the word "polite" in the rules since I see it violated more often than not. But for those presenters that have a full in- depth knowledge of their subject -- as I suggested maybe 2-3 % do, then I think improvements in the rules would apply more in these cases. These are often threads more than 12 pages long where each posting is generally long and there are no more than a half dozen regular participants. If the rules were changed the OP would be able to give good/ better answers to anyone wishing to contribute and soap-opera threads would be at a minimum, I believe.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 04:30 AM
Gillianren,


What rule could possibly solve the problem of misunderstanding of questions or answers? And if the rule is "rephrase it," don't you think that's been tried? I have participated in threads where the same question has been phrased as many ways as is possible in the English language, and the person either still didn't understand or just didn't bother answering it. Similarly, I have seen great frustration from ATM proponents because no one understood what they were saying.

However, in just about every single one of the latter cases, it was because some very basic concept was being used differently by the OP than by everyone else in the world. I'm sure there are exceptions, but since I stay in the kiddie pool of ATM, I don't encounter much in the way of people who know anything of what they're talking about.

The rule that I have suggested, limit the amount of allowed questions per day per opponent, would allow the OP to give a better, longer, more comprehensive answer if he can. And it would also allow the questioner more time to consider better, well worded questions. Having time for discussions rather than just answering questions would also improve understandings on both sides providing opponents can, and are prepared (not required) to answer questions also.

Of course whenever new rules are presented there will always be those trying to game the system by having a bunch of their buddies ask additional questions of theirs. A big problem is that few really want to evaluate the OP in earnest because it is assumed to be worthless before it is even presented.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 04:49 AM
Tensor,


BAUT will never be (nor is it designed to be) a replacement of, nor augment the peer-review process as it has utterly failed at one simple, yet vital task: Quality Control of those posting the ATM Idea.


Granted, a problem. But this is a commercial site and people have a need to discuss their "important ATM ideas" with someone and this is sometimes a good place for that. BAUT would lose a lot of readership, I think, if there was a pretesting of ATM proponents -- an idea put in the discussion room. My reply also mentioned the commercial downside but also questioned why we should just test ATM proponents, why not opponents also, they are often equally ignorant. Why stop there, the whole site is generally filled with discussions of people often not knowing what they're talking about. Why not require a test for anyone posting in a science related room?

So it is my belief that testing in general is not a good idea because this is truly not a science forum, it is simply a science discussion forum, two different places.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-31, 05:21 AM
The rule that I have suggested, limit the amount of allowed questions per day per opponent, would allow the OP to give a better, longer, more comprehensive answer if he can. And it would also allow the questioner more time to consider better, well worded questions. Having time for discussions rather than just answering questions would also improve understandings on both sides providing opponents can, and are prepared (not required) to answer questions also.

No, that doesn't solve the problem.

Look, I can point you to specific examples if you need it. I actually had a fairly short list of questions for the poster I'm thinking of, perhaps thirteen or fourteen in all. Practically every other question asked could be boiled down to my list, at that. And the guy could not be made to understand why he needed to answer these questions and why his answers were unsatisfactory. Say those were the only fourteen questions he'd had to answer over an entire month. He still wouldn't have answered them, because he didn't understand that he didn't know what the questions meant or even what the terms he was using meant.

There was another poster from a long time ago where, before anyone could understand a thing he said, I had to go in and essentially rewrite his posts into some semblance of English. (And, yes, I'm pretty sure he was a native speaker.) He refused all advice on how to help people understand what he was talking about. Indeed, he repeatedly used a format he'd been asked not to because nobody understood it, so he'd have to explain it all in words anyway.

So how would your limit on how many questions get asked per respondent per day solve either of those situations?

NickW
2009-Oct-31, 06:22 AM
But envision if five people are asking questions on a single day and a couple of those people ask 20 questions each. Remember your can sit down for ten minutes and ask 20 questions, but how long will it take the OP to give quality answers to your questions, even if he really has the ability. sometimes 20 minutes to a half hour for sometimes a one sentence questions. In one or two days the OP will be inundated with unanswered questions and complaints of unanswered questions will begin. This is not a reasonable idea to allow unlimited questions and expect them all answered.

Of course you are making the assumption that they are all asking different questions. A majority of them are asking the same question without reading the newest replies to said topic. You can answer all of them in one answer, then refer back to them. Also, don't forget, you can ask for a time out, in case on inundation.


I agree understanding is a big problem. Even if the OP has a true insight and his idea really explains a facet of reality hidden to most scientists in the field, he still may not be able to use the proper terminology, based upon his mental image, to make his proposal understood in the ATM section or probably anywhere else for that matter.
If the ATM proponent can use proper terminology, then he/she probably doesn't understand the facet of hidden reality that he/she thinks they know. If he can't make people that aren't are a peer review understand, how do you make people that are on a peer review understand?


For the average ATM proposal, it might go something like this: "I have been thinking and reading for the last month and think I've come up a great idea. How about if such and such is the reason why etc..................."
That sounds like a Q&A question to me, not and ATM. If it has only taken the a month to read and think about their theory, then it needs to evolve more.


This may be 80% of the proposals. For these my only rules suggestion would be to expand upon the meaning of the word "polite" in the rules since I see it violated more often than not.
Suggestive.


But for those presenters that have a full in- depth knowledge of their subject -- as I suggested maybe 2-3 % do, then I think improvements in the rules would apply more in these cases.
That is your thoughts. I think more then 2-3% on this forum have more "in-depth knowledge" then you think. Yet you have yet to really give a new rule definition in these cases. You just want the rules changed. How about an in-depth run through on the rule changes you think should be made.


These are often threads more than 12 pages long where each posting is generally long and there are no more than a half dozen regular participants.
Just because a post is long doesn't not mean it is valid. I have seen many short posts that show more insight then a long, drawn out post.


If the rules were changed the OP would be able to give good/ better answers to anyone wishing to contribute and soap-opera threads would be at a minimum, I believe.

Of course, this is coming from someone who tends to stand on a soap box.

agingjb
2009-Oct-31, 07:44 AM
In the situation where a questioner on an ATM thread feels that a question has not been answered, I think that the demand "answer my question", if necessary, should always be accompanied by an explicit restatement of the question.

NickW
2009-Oct-31, 08:00 AM
In the situation where a questioner on an ATM thread feels that a question has not been answered, I think that the demand "answer my question", if necessary, should always be accompanied by an explicit restatement of the question.

Now I can agree with that.

Bob Angstrom
2009-Oct-31, 08:47 AM
So how would your limit on how many questions get asked per respondent per day solve either of those situations?One pertinent question, clearly phrased so there is little room for misunderstanding is all you need to get things started. If a person can't understand your one question, how can you expect them to understand thirteen or fourteen which is NOT a “fairly short” list of questions. You also need to consider that there are other people asking questions and other people following the thread who may not care if the presenter can answer your questions or not. The problems you mention are not uncommon and we have all seen poorly presented ideas. You ask, “How would a limit on how many questions get asked per respondent per day solve either of those situations?” It would solve neither but asking a lot of questions is a great way to make it worse. If you do want to help, you can rephrase some of their more ambiguous statements and then ask, “Is this what you mean to say?” If they refuse all help, you leave and let them flounder. This won't help but at least you won't be adding to the confusion with a lot of questions. You can't fix stupid.

Bob Angstrom
2009-Oct-31, 08:56 AM
In the situation where a questioner on an ATM thread feels that a question has not been answered, I think that the demand "answer my question", if necessary, should always be accompanied by an explicit restatement of the question.This is a personal rule for me and I think it should be for everyone.

mugaliens
2009-Oct-31, 09:49 AM
...since I stay in the kiddie pool of ATM, I don't encounter much in the way of people who know anything of what they're talking about.

Do you think this may have colored your perception with respect to what's been happening in the rest of the pool area? If so, I'm surprised at your sharing your opinion on the issues involving all of ATM so vehemently if you're staying in the "kiddie pool of ATM" as you claim.

Please tell us more about the "kiddie pool" area and how it differs from the rest of the pool.

slang
2009-Oct-31, 10:26 AM
To other readers: to what extent do you perceive there to be, in ATM threads in general:
a) a "question flooding" problem?

None that requires a rule change. More effective communication can drastically reduce questionload. IE on the proponent side: ask if it is unclear why a question is pertinent, or why a given answer is not acceptable. On challengers side: read the thread. Try not to duplicate questions others have already asked.

Including a limit to the amount of questions is begging for abuse, it creates more work for enforcing mods, and it doesn't prevent a challenger to PM a couple of buddies to have them ask some of their questions.

IMHO the current ruleset is flexible enough to allow mods to exercise some judgement in how to apply the rules, and to judge whether piling up of questions is the proponent's or the challenger's fault, or a mix thereof, and to act appropriately.


b) an "answer not understood" problem?

None that a rule change would help. Effective communication might.


c) an "inability to be able to provide technical support for the OP" problem?

None. The situation gets confused enough as it is with a one vs many conversation, with several lines of questioning.


In the situation where a questioner on an ATM thread feels that a question has not been answered, I think that the demand "answer my question", if necessary, should always be accompanied by an explicit restatement of the question.

If necessary, always... ok? I don't see much need for such a rule. After all, repeats of the same questions should not be needed, if a proponent addresses them adequately. Depending on the answer (or request for clarification), a repeat or rephrasing of the question might be helpful.

If "answer my question" is needed because an opponent simply ignores the question, why should the challenger do the extra work? Just refer to the post number as a courtesy. There is a grey area when it is not clear to the proponent that an answer was expected, ie with questions that might be considered rethorical or that are confusing for some other reason. Act appropriately, repeat or explain.

I don't see why an ATM proponent should be given another way to try to avoid answering questions "You didn't repeat them so I don't need to answer". Repeat questions as a courtesy or for clarification, not as a rule. As you said, always, when necessary :)

Bob Angstrom
2009-Oct-31, 10:27 AM
Please tell us more about the "kiddie pool" area and how it differs from the rest of the pool.Neverfly described the "kiddie pool" in Post 166 which deserves repeating in its entirety but I will suffice with a quote,"It's about the concept that the ATM forum has become a sludge house for bickering and less science than I ever recall seeing in there before." An internet form is only as good as the talent it retains and quality attracts quality. So, if quality is lacking, the fault is to be found within.

Bob Angstrom
2009-Oct-31, 11:02 AM
None that a rule change would help. Effective communication might.Question flooding stops communication dead in its tracks when it becomes as one person said "evisceration by piranhas". Question flooding appears to be a major cause of problems in this ATM forum and it clearly originates with the rule that all pertinent questions must be answered in a timely manner. Hard feelings result because of different interpretations of “timely” and “pertinent” and because of what one considers to be an acceptable answer and that leads to more problems. None of the other science groups that I am familiar with have this rule or need it. Many questions may remain unanswered or evaded but the discussion tends to swirl about these questions until any really pivotal matters can no longer be avoided or evasive answers can be resolved as either truly evasive or bits of arcana that were previously misunderstood. This makes the discussion easy to follow because the presenter doesn't have to stop and answer a lot of questions that are trivial or irrelevant to the discussion or of no interest to those who really care to follow the topic. The “questions must be answered” rule is well intended and it might be workable but not without some regulation of the nature and number of questions that must be answered. This would likely involve more effort on the mods than it is worth. If I were king, I would get rid of the rule.

Having no limits on questions leaves the presenter open to trollish behavior by those who might ask several questions and follow them by numerous posts complaining, “You didn't answer my questions.” whether they had been answered or not. Or, others with no interest in learning what the presenter has to say other than to find a flaw it the theory could toss out questions by the dozen just probing for soft spots. Of course these things have never ever happened in the past but I am saying that they could if the mods were to let people take advantage rule to the point where it becomes abusive.

abcdefg
2009-Oct-31, 11:48 AM
Gillianren,



The rule that I have suggested, limit the amount of allowed questions per day per opponent, would allow the OP to give a better, longer, more comprehensive answer if he can. And it would also allow the questioner more time to consider better, well worded questions. Having time for discussions rather than just answering questions would also improve understandings on both sides providing opponents can, and are prepared (not required) to answer questions also.

Of course whenever new rules are presented there will always be those trying to game the system by having a bunch of their buddies ask additional questions of theirs. A big problem is that few really want to evaluate the OP in earnest because it is assumed to be worthless before it is even presented.


It appears to me, although I am not certain, that question flooding combined with reporting is an effective tool of the mainstream.

I also find I must keep an answer log on some of the mainstream with links because they claim I refuse to answer. I then have to post the log to prove otherwise.

Yet, I did not get refinemernt questions on any of the answers I provided.

abcdefg
2009-Oct-31, 11:52 AM
Question flooding stops communication dead in its tracks when it becomes as one person said "evisceration by piranhas". Question flooding appears to be a major cause of problems in this ATM forum and it clearly originates with the rule that all pertinent questions must be answered in a timely manner. Hard feelings result because of different interpretations of “timely” and “pertinent” and because of what one considers to be an acceptable answer and that leads to more problems. None of the other science groups that I am familiar with have this rule or need it. Many questions may remain unanswered or evaded but the discussion tends to swirl about these questions until any really pivotal matters can no longer be avoided or evasive answers can be resolved as either truly evasive or bits of arcana that were previously misunderstood. This makes the discussion easy to follow because the presenter doesn't have to stop and answer a lot of questions that are trivial or irrelevant to the discussion or of no interest to those who really care to follow the topic. The “questions must be answered” rule is well intended and it might be workable but not without some regulation of the nature and number of questions that must be answered. This would likely involve more effort on the mods than it is worth. If I were king, I would get rid of the rule.

Having no limits on questions leaves the presenter open to trollish behavior by those who might ask several questions and follow them by numerous posts complaining, “You didn't answer my questions.” whether they had been answered or not. Or, others with no interest in learning what the presenter has to say other than to find a flaw it the theory could toss out questions by the dozen just probing for soft spots. Of course these things have never ever happened in the past but I am saying that they could if the mods were to let people take advantage rule to the point where it becomes abusive.

In particular, in my last ATM, you can look, I took over 90 questions in 1.25 days. Now, that is the number of posts because some contained multiple questions so it is actually more than that.

That is flooding

slang
2009-Oct-31, 12:04 PM
In particular, in my last ATM, you can look, I took over 90 questions in 1.25 days. Now, that is the number of posts because some contained multiple questions so it is actually more than that.

That is flooding

The amount of questions in a timeframe alone can not determine whether the situation amounts to flooding. It can not be seen without the amount of responses given. If you answer a question in 5 minutes, then a question about that answer can be posted in 5 minutes. Keep that cycle up long enough and you'll get many questions in a short timeframe. You decide when you answer. If you want to do that in the tempo of a chatroom, you don't get to complain about flooding. Do it slower, and you'll probably also get less posts with the same questions, all posted at about the same time (because new posts are present as soon as someone hits "submit".)

abcdefg
2009-Oct-31, 12:09 PM
The amount of questions in a timeframe alone can not determine whether the situation amounts to flooding. It can not be seen without the amount of responses given. If you answer a question in 5 minutes, then a question about that answer can be posted in 5 minutes. Keep that cycle up long enough and you'll get many questions in a short timeframe. You decide when you answer. If you want to do that in the tempo of a chatroom, you don't get to complain about flooding. Do it slower, and you'll probably also get less posts with the same questions, all posted at about the same time (because new posts are present as soon as someone hits "submit".)

I agree, the speed of the answer can increase the number of questions.

I think I was around maybe a total of 6 hours.

agingjb
2009-Oct-31, 12:17 PM
I'm never entirely clear how quickly the moderators demand an answer. I do remember, a few years back, someone getting a permanent ban for a 48 hour delay; presumably there was "history".

captain swoop
2009-Oct-31, 12:24 PM
If ATM proponents took some time to learn some real science and understand the basics of the physics they want to replace or overturn it might help.
If the ATM proponents took some time to actualy think about their own 'ideas' and understand them it might help.
If the ATM proponents tried to anticipate what questions they might be asked it would help.
If the ATM Proponents at the end of the day had an even half developed theory it might help.

All I have ever seen in ATM is half formed ideas based on misunderstandings of or lack of knowledge of Mainstream science.
I don't agree with Neverfly that there is a lack of quality and science in the ATM forum compared to the 'good old days' it's always been rubbish.
It exists to trap all the ATM and keep it away from the other Mainstream Forums. It makes the jobs of the Moderators bearable, if the ATM forum didn't exist then the 'ideas' would be spread all over the board and we would have a harder job keeping on top of trhem.

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 12:38 PM
I'm never entirely clear how quickly the moderators demand an answer. I do remember, a few years back, someone getting a permanent ban for a 48 hour delay; presumably there was "history".
IIRC, there was a general guideline of a week.

Why a week? Why not a day? Partly because good questions do tend to take a lot of effort to answer, partly because - back then - the technique of temporarily closing an ATM thread (at the ATM proponent's request) was rarely, if ever, used (no doubt other reasons too).

Why was it not codified? Because it is, obviously, open to abuse ... and the case you may be thinking may have been one like that.

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 12:43 PM
In particular, in my last ATM, you can look, I took over 90 questions in 1.25 days. Now, that is the number of posts because some contained multiple questions so it is actually more than that.

That is floodingThe amount of questions in a timeframe alone can not determine whether the situation amounts to flooding. It can not be seen without the amount of responses given. If you answer a question in 5 minutes, then a question about that answer can be posted in 5 minutes. Keep that cycle up long enough and you'll get many questions in a short timeframe. You decide when you answer. If you want to do that in the tempo of a chatroom, you don't get to complain about flooding. Do it slower, and you'll probably also get less posts with the same questions, all posted at about the same time (because new posts are present as soon as someone hits "submit".)
There's also evidence of that in the poster-child example fn cited; there were three question-response cycles in a set of questions in one day (had there been only one, the number of questions that day would have been considerably fewer) ... the pace at which the ATM proponent answers (valid) questions determines the pace at which others can ask new ones.

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 12:48 PM
Concerning Thread Flooding

I see it seldom but when I think I do, I look up to find a posting that the "flooder" may wish to be out of sight, considering a possible motive. I don't think this could easily be stopped according to the rules nor have I seen it often. It's just a suspicion that I wish moderators to consider. Another motive may be to simply impress observers/ lurkers into thinking the poster is well versed in the topic. This I don't mind. Bottom line, I'm presently not pressing for rule changes regarding this matter because at present I cannot prove it is a real motive for threading a page with quotes. But the mods awareness will certainly help, I think.
As has been pointed out - at least once before - the only actual example of this which you cited was manifestly not thread flooding.

Can you give a different example please?

I for one do not even know what you are referring to, much less whether there is any problem that needs to be considered (rule/guideline changes or not).

captain swoop
2009-Oct-31, 12:49 PM
Also the more ATM ideas that a poster stuffs into a thread the more questions it will generate. Most ATM threads are very broad in their scope and invite a lot of questions, introducing new ATM ideas to patch over problems revealed by previous questions also adds to the number.
If ATM proponents limited the scope of their idea they might fare better.

Moose
2009-Oct-31, 12:57 PM
And I'll point out the "job" is hard enough as it is. Let me give you an idea of my "good day" routine.

Clearing spam out of the moderation queue and vetting new user posts (typically ATM related) takes about 10 minutes if everything's straightforward. (And sometimes they are. But if there are any marginal cases to discuss, raising the issue alone takes an additional ten minutes.)

Next I start going through the reported posts for any emergencies. It takes about one minute (on average) to read each reported post. We get twenty reported posts on a light day, so that's 20 minutes taken up just _reading_ the reported posts.

Straightforward actions in non-ATM forums typically require about 15 minutes per incident. This includes research on priors, updating the logs and completing other notifications.

If I'm contemplating an action in ATM, that typically requires a minimum of a half hour to deal with, per incident, because of the additional time required to get even a surface understanding of any particular ATM thread. Such an understanding of an ATM thread (because problem threads are invariably high-activity) can be utterly stale within an hour.

Meta-threads about ATM can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours per day to keep up with.

For those doing the math, moderating the ATM forum alone is a potential 8 hour a day job if I were inclined to act on every single report, or even most of them.

If "your" expectation is that we should act on every report about ATM, especially if you expect prompt action (for any value of "prompt"), then you will need to provide living wages for the mod team to make such a thing possible.

abcdefg
2009-Oct-31, 12:58 PM
If ATM proponents took some time to learn some real science and understand the basics of the physics they want to replace or overturn it might help.
If the ATM proponents took some time to actualy think about their own 'ideas' and understand them it might help.
If the ATM proponents tried to anticipate what questions they might be asked it would help.
If the ATM Proponents at the end of the day had an even half developed theory it might help.

All I have ever seen in ATM is half formed ideas based on misunderstandings of or lack of knowledge of Mainstream science.
I don't agree with Neverfly that there is a lack of quality and science in the ATM forum compared to the 'good old days' it's always been rubbish.
It exists to trap all the ATM and keep it away from the other Mainstream Forums. It makes the jobs of the Moderators bearable, if the ATM forum didn't exist then the 'ideas' would be spread all over the board and we would have a harder job keeping on top of trhem.

Fair.

What if the the mainstream took some time to resolve the twins spheres paradox that would also help.

That is left unresolved by the mainstream.

Further, in the alternative twins paradox, once all observers were placed into the same frame, the mainstream walked away and did not refute the paradox.

It would be nice to see the mainstream mathematically refute these paradoxes.

captain swoop
2009-Oct-31, 01:02 PM
abcdefg This is not ATM, you have had you go at persuading people that your ideas has merit, you have spread it over several threads. Thats your lot. No More. Mention it again outside ATM or hijack another thread and you will be subject to Mod action. consider this a warning

abcdefg
2009-Oct-31, 01:04 PM
And I'll point out the "job" is hard enough as it is. Let me give you an idea of my "good day" routine.

Clearing spam out of the moderation queue and vetting new user posts (typically ATM related) takes about 10 minutes if everything's straightforward. (And sometimes they are. But if there are any marginal cases to discuss, raising the issue alone takes an additional ten minutes.)

Next I start going through the reported posts for any emergencies. It takes about one minute (on average) to read each reported post. We get twenty reported posts on a light day, so that's 20 minutes taken up just _reading_ the reported posts.

Straightforward actions in non-ATM forums typically require about 15 minutes per incident. This includes research on priors, updating the logs and completing other notifications.

If I'm contemplating an action in ATM, that typically requires a minimum of a half hour to deal with, per incident, because of the additional time required to get even a surface understanding of any particular ATM thread. Such an understanding of an ATM thread (because problem threads are invariably high-activity) can be utterly stale within an hour.

Meta-threads about ATM can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours per day to keep up with.

For those doing the math, moderating the ATM forum alone is a potential 8 hour a day job if I were inclined to act on every single report, or even most of them.
If "your" expectation is that we should act on every report about ATM, especially if you expect prompt action (for any value of "prompt"), then you will need to provide living wages for the mod team to make such a thing possible.

I do not hit the report button so I do not understand this.

Am I allowed to ask why you get so many of these in ATM?

A full time job for volunteers in ATM is too much.

captain swoop
2009-Oct-31, 01:06 PM
Because posters in ATM don't answer questions, hijack other posters threads to spam their own ideas etc.

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 01:14 PM
Is there a specific, actionable suggestion - or three - here (wrt either BAUT's rules, guidelines, or both, as they apply to the ATM section)?You mean I have to break it out for you?
Yes please.




Originally Posted by mugaliens
The Patent to Reverse Global Warming thread serves as an example of the type of cooperative refinement effort that's possible here on BAUT, as this approach exemplifies the strengths of a message forum!

SAS: Use a cooperative refinement, as evidenced in the linked thread.
I don't get it ... how does anyone "cooperatively refine" an ATM claim that is not quantitative (other than by first asking what all the key terms in the claim actually mean)?



BAUT will never be a replacement of, nor augment the peer-review process as it has utterly failed at one simple, yet vital task: Quality Control of those asking the questions.

In the real world, every one of the problems associate with the non-thread owners who fail to conduct a proper peer-review process would have been solved by trash-canning the comments. Yet here on BAUT, the lack of quality contral elevates all comments to a "worthy" status while putting the onus on the OP to answer all questions, period.

Either implement and enforce the same level of quality control for those asking the questions as for the OP, or allow the OP to ignore questions they feel are frivilous, wasteful, derailing, etc, the same as would the author of a paper submitted for peer-review.
This assumes that the "vital task" of quality control of the questions is an issue.

So far, in this thread (which has focussed on a particular, recent, ATM thread), no evidence has been presented concerning the prevalence of "frivilous, wasteful, derailing" questions (there were essentially none in the only ATM thread cited so far).

Did you read my criteria for "valid question"? In case you missed it, here it is again: valid questions are those which are direct, and pertinent to the ATM claim presented, as presented. The only questions which an ATM proponent must answer are valid questions.



Therefore, if you want to have a viable ATM forum, you'll need to chuck the current "shooting fish in a barrel" approach and move towards cooperative discourse, as depicted in the referencd thread, as the one thing at which message forums excel above all else.
Quit trying ro use a message forum to replace the peer-review process - two different processes, with a different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not entirely sure where this "the ATM section is a kind of peer-review process" comes from; certainly the ATM rule makes no mention of it.

You seem to be suggesting that the current ATM rule be almost completely re-written; are you?



FWIW, IMHO BAUT's ATM section's biggest fault is that it is so lax ... it doesn't even require ATM proponents to demonstrate the most basic of science-based attributes concerning the ATM ideas they present (e.g. absence of gross internal inconsistencies, 0-th level consistency of use of standard terms, absence of gross inconsistencies wrt well-established theories - or their key experimental/observational foundations - where the domains of applicability overlap) ... and there may even be a case for saying that those who seek to move away from such laxity are attacked, viciously, ruthlessly, and relentlessly ...

In the peer-reviewed process, that step is handled before a paper is even published, but by a team of knowledgeable experts, not a buch of message forum vigilantes who get their kicks out of shooting holes in someone's theory.

BAUT's ATM section's biggest fault is that it's not properly modeled after the peer-reviewed process, and it's second biggest fault is that throwing the onus on the posters will never fix it's underlying, yet overriding faults.

The third biggest fault happens when people (present company included, at one time) expect otherwise.(attribution added)

Mugs, I'd appreciate it if you tried harder to make the quotes more accurate (this last one, in your post, is actually by me ... but there's nothing to tell a casual reader that it isn't you).

As I think I have said before - more than once - if you consider the ATM section should be like a peer-review, then it would operate very differently.

For example, if the ATM claim presented contains unacknowledged, undefined non-standard meanings, for key terms, then the thread would be locked immediately (and the proponent told to go away and fix ALL such failures before submitting again).

For example, if the ATM claim presented did not contain references to at least the core ideas on which it builds or is seeking to replace, it would likewise be thrown out.

And so on.

Again, the ATM section is not a peer-review in anything like the normal sense.

Moose
2009-Oct-31, 01:15 PM
Am I allowed to ask why you get so many of these in ATM?

The ATM related reports typically boil down to any of:

50-70% "they're not answering questions, make them make sense",
20-40% "they're asking me questions, I don't want to answer that (or any) question(s)",
10% "that's rude, make them stop being rude to me".

This is drastically oversimplified, and can vary widely from day to day, but it's usually pretty close to what we're seeing.

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 01:21 PM
Gillianren,

What rule could possibly solve the problem of misunderstanding of questions or answers? And if the rule is "rephrase it," don't you think that's been tried? I have participated in threads where the same question has been phrased as many ways as is possible in the English language, and the person either still didn't understand or just didn't bother answering it. Similarly, I have seen great frustration from ATM proponents because no one understood what they were saying.

However, in just about every single one of the latter cases, it was because some very basic concept was being used differently by the OP than by everyone else in the world. I'm sure there are exceptions, but since I stay in the kiddie pool of ATM, I don't encounter much in the way of people who know anything of what they're talking about.

The rule that I have suggested, limit the amount of allowed questions per day per opponent, would allow the OP to give a better, longer, more comprehensive answer if he can. And it would also allow the questioner more time to consider better, well worded questions. Having time for discussions rather than just answering questions would also improve understandings on both sides providing opponents can, and are prepared (not required) to answer questions also.

Of course whenever new rules are presented there will always be those trying to game the system by having a bunch of their buddies ask additional questions of theirs. A big problem is that few really want to evaluate the OP in earnest because it is assumed to be worthless before it is even presented.
We're starting to go over the same ground, with nothing new ...

In addition to what Gillianren wrote in response to this post of yours, may I point out that you didn't explain how this would not result in considerably more work for the mods (so is a non-starter, per Moose's sticky), nor how it would not be an invitation for abuse and gaming on the part of ATM proponents?

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 01:32 PM
...since I stay in the kiddie pool of ATM, I don't encounter much in the way of people who know anything of what they're talking about.Do you think this may have colored your perception with respect to what's been happening in the rest of the pool area? If so, I'm surprised at your sharing your opinion on the issues involving all of ATM so vehemently if you're staying in the "kiddie pool of ATM" as you claim.

Please tell us more about the "kiddie pool" area and how it differs from the rest of the pool.
If a case could be made that a majority of the ATM threads I have participated in are not in the kiddie pool, I echo Gillianren's comment: "I don't encounter much in the way of people who know anything of what they're talking about."

May I repeat an example I've used several times already, wrt what might be in the kiddie pool? The suggestion that spiral galaxy morphology (i.e. the spiral arms) is due to a catherine wheel, or garden sprinkler, type effect, with the galaxy nucleus (whether SMBH or not) emitting matter (whether stars/gas/dust or not). It is an idea which comes up all too frequently.

Another would be ATM ideas containing the word "energy"*, without explaining that what is meant is something very different than what this word means in physics.

* of course, the OPs in some such threads do use the word with its technical meaning (more or less)

Nereid
2009-Oct-31, 01:50 PM
Question flooding stops communication dead in its tracks when it becomes as one person said "evisceration by piranhas". Question flooding appears to be a major cause of problems in this ATM forum and it clearly originates with the rule that all pertinent questions must be answered in a timely manner. Hard feelings result because of different interpretations of “timely” and “pertinent” and because of what one considers to be an acceptable answer and that leads to more problems. None of the other science groups that I am familiar with have this rule or need it. Many questions may remain unanswered or evaded but the discussion tends to swirl about these questions until any really pivotal matters can no longer be avoided or evasive answers can be resolved as either truly evasive or bits of arcana that were previously misunderstood. This makes the discussion easy to follow because the presenter doesn't have to stop and answer a lot of questions that are trivial or irrelevant to the discussion or of no interest to those who really care to follow the topic. The “questions must be answered” rule is well intended and it might be workable but not without some regulation of the nature and number of questions that must be answered. This would likely involve more effort on the mods than it is worth. If I were king, I would get rid of the rule.

Having no limits on questions leaves the presenter open to trollish behavior by those who might ask several questions and follow them by numerous posts complaining, “You didn't answer my questions.” whether they had been answered or not. Or, others with no interest in learning what the presenter has to say other than to find a flaw it the theory could toss out questions by the dozen just probing for soft spots. Of course these things have never ever happened in the past but I am saying that they could if the mods were to let people take advantage rule to the point where it becomes abusive.
Good to see you're still around BA.

fn has referenced only one case of what he considers question flooding.

I undertook a detailed analysis (http://www.bautforum.com/1610233-post138.html) of this case, and concluded that whatever flooding there may have been it was primarily due to repeated failure to actually answer questions (the responses were non-answers), to a fast-paced question-response cycle (three times in less than one day, for one set of questions), with two minor aspects added (introduction of new ATM ideas, and significant re-statement of main ATM idea).

In short, the pace of questions was, in fact, well within fn's power to substantially control.

Perhaps you could give a concrete example of what you consider question flooding to be? That would help - me at least - understand it better.

Also, your comments on my analysis would be welcome.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 05:11 PM
Nereid,

less work for the mods:)


In addition to what Gillianren wrote in response to this post of yours, may I point out that you didn't explain how this would not result in considerably more work for the mods (so is a non-starter, per Moose's sticky), nor how it would not be an invitation for abuse and gaming on the part of ATM proponents?
(bold added)

Yes I did. You have not read the postings relating to this concern/ matter. I mentioned in two or more postings how this proposal would be less work for the mods.

If an opponent were allowed only three questions a day most would think of good ones, better thought-out questions. The ATMer would have more time to give better, longer, more understandable replies, resulting in fewer misunderstandings, fewer complaints of unanswered questions, hence less work for the mods. There still would be no restriction on the extent of comments.

That could still be a possibility of 90 questions in a thirty day period for a single opponant. Five people doing this would be 450 pretty good questions in a month. It would also give the ATMer possibly more time to respond to the comments, not just the questions. As I said before it may take an opponent 15 minutes to write 10 questions but it could take hours providing good answers to those questions. If we want better quality questions, answers, and discussions, the number of questions per person allowed must be limited.

Sometimes a one line question can take four paragraphs to answer including links.

For the days where the OP is not available, only comments should be allowed. Only if ten questions, or three days of unanswered questions (which could be three questions) have gone unanswered, would an opponent be allowed to complain about unanswered questions. Before complaining to the OP, or otherwise, the opponent would have to list his unanswered questions in priority 1,2,3,4, ............ on the board, without referring back to prior postings which would make apparent to the OP and all others which questions of his are believed to be unaswered. For those questions where answers have been given but are thought to be inadequate, a separate listing should be made. As long as there is an open request regarding unanswered questions no new questions could be asked. The extent of comments would still remain unrestricted.

It will be easy to see if a poster is posting more than 3 questions a day. From the date the OP's last posted the opponent should have no more than six outstanding questions posted since that date but no more than 10 total including and backlog including both unanswered and "improperly answered" questions. It would be up the OP to keep tract of which would be much easier than keeping tract of unlimited questions (I guarantee it) -- which is what is allowed at the present time. The OP would have time to take count of the questions and list those that were over the limit in number, if any. I also suggest that it would help if all questions were embolden and always with a question mark. They would be easier to spot for the OP anyone else wishing to do so.


fn has referenced only one case of what he considers question flooding.


I just mentioned the worst case of question flooding that I could find on the fnATM thread. It was an ongoing problem of yours and others which only improved a little, I think, because of my complaints and others in the Rules section. It happened almost every day in the fnATMideas thread. Anyone reading it could easily have seen the excess questions. Question flooding is commonly done on high-profile threads that I have looked at in the last year and a half.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 05:32 PM
NickW,

Question inundation:


Of course you are making the assumption that they are all asking different questions. A majority of them are asking the same question without reading the newest replies to said topic. You can answer all of them in one answer, then refer back to them. Also, don't forget, you can ask for a time out, in case on inundation.


I think if you look at the "Forrest Noble ATM ideas" thread here (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas.html) it was a very rare case where two opponents were asking the same question. Sometimes one opponent would request an answer be given for another opponents question when it was my belief (and still is) that the question had already been answered.

The trains of thought of opponents usually are separate. One poster follows one idea and line of reasoning/ questioning while another usually follows a completely different line of questioning. This is common in high-profile scientific-related questioning threads.

Kwalish Kid
2009-Oct-31, 05:50 PM
I think if you look at the "Forrest Noble ATM ideas" thread here (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/93803-forrest-noble-atm-ideas.html) it was a very rare case where two opponents were asking the same question. Sometimes one opponent would request an answer be given for another opponents question when it was my belief (and still is) that the question had already been answered.
So you are again demonstrating that it is the ATM proponent who is the problem, not the questioners. There is ample evidence above that in the thread you cite that you repeatedly failed to provide answers to questions, often the same question over and over again. If you truly wanted to cut down on repeat questions, there is a simple solution: answer the questions directly.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-31, 05:52 PM
One pertinent question, clearly phrased so there is little room for misunderstanding is all you need to get things started. If a person can't understand your one question, how can you expect them to understand thirteen or fourteen which is NOT a “fairly short” list of questions. You also need to consider that there are other people asking questions and other people following the thread who may not care if the presenter can answer your questions or not. The problems you mention are not uncommon and we have all seen poorly presented ideas. You ask, “How would a limit on how many questions get asked per respondent per day solve either of those situations?” It would solve neither but asking a lot of questions is a great way to make it worse. If you do want to help, you can rephrase some of their more ambiguous statements and then ask, “Is this what you mean to say?” If they refuse all help, you leave and let them flounder. This won't help but at least you won't be adding to the confusion with a lot of questions. You can't fix stupid.

Every single question on my, yes, short list (since we're getting complaints about ninety or so questions at a time, fourteen is quite short) had been asked as clearly as possible over and over by the time I put it into my list. Most of the questions asked, in fact, distilled down into that list. (I'm sure Nereid remembers the thread in question and can vouch for that statement, should you trust Nereid's word on the subject.) Indeed, I will also note that the thread in question is one of the reasons, as I understand it, for the time limit. Those same fourteen questions (let's say; I haven't looked up the exact number, and it may be fewer) were asked over and over and over, phrased every conceivable way--phrased so my daughter, who turns twelve Thursday, could understand them, mostly. Certainly quite a lot of the science involved was science I had learned by the age of twelve. And by the end of things, I think most of us would have been happy to get an answer, any answer, which adequately explained any one of those questions. What we got was "but look at the picture! I'm right!"

You've also ignored how limiting the number of questions helps the situation where the situation is "what on Earth does that drawing of yours even mean? What does that term mean? What are you talking about?" In this one, it assuredly was not a case of using terms in a non-standard manner. It was a case of making up terms and getting angry when people didn't understand them, because the drawing made everything clear.

And to clear up terminology I would have thought obvious--the "kiddie pool" of ATM is the really, really simple stuff. The stuff which doesn't require terribly advanced knowledge going in. I don't go swimming with the big kids, because I'm not good enough. On the other hand, that means that the stuff I deal with is so basic that people really should have their ducks in a row before presenting. They never do.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 05:52 PM
Gillianren,


No, that doesn't solve the problem.

Look, I can point you to specific examples if you need it. I actually had a fairly short list of questions for the poster I'm thinking of, perhaps thirteen or fourteen in all. Practically every other question asked could be boiled down to my list, at that. And the guy could not be made to understand why he needed to answer these questions and why his answers were unsatisfactory. Say those were the only fourteen questions he'd had to answer over an entire month. He still wouldn't have answered them, because he didn't understand that he didn't know what the questions meant or even what the terms he was using meant.

There was another poster from a long time ago where, before anyone could understand a thing he said, I had to go in and essentially rewrite his posts into some semblance of English. (And, yes, I'm pretty sure he was a native speaker.) He refused all advice on how to help people understand what he was talking about. Indeed, he repeatedly used a format he'd been asked not to because nobody understood it, so he'd have to explain it all in words anyway.

So how would your limit on how many questions get asked per respondent per day solve either of those situations?

Of course it cannot solve the problem of the OP not understanding your questions. But it certainly would not have been better if you had asked more questions. Remember the ATMer is also dealing with others questions. Granted, many ATMers just don't get it and complaining is no fun, at least not for me. Just find another interesting proposal where the OP does understand your questions and can answer them. That's my suggestion. Nobody is going to continuing posting on a thread where nothing interesting is being stated by the OP. A thread where the OP statement was something like "the scientific method is entirely wrong" would cause little attention or comment if only gibberish and flying saucer statements followed as the logic -- just a lot of short sarcastic remarks/ statements probably. The thread would soon be shut down by the mods if most of the answers of the OP made no sense.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 06:02 PM
Kwalish Kid,


So you are again demonstrating that it is the ATM proponent who is the problem, not the questioners. There is ample evidence above that in the thread you cite that you repeatedly failed to provide answers to questions, often the same question over and over again. If you truly wanted to cut down on repeat questions, there is a simple solution: answer the questions directly.

Re: Question Flooding

Your above statement is not valid. My answer to your statement is that if one cuts down on the number of questions then the problem would greatly improve. Both Proponents and Opponents can have problems concerning both proposing valid questions and providing valid answers based upon time constraints.

forrest noble
2009-Oct-31, 06:27 PM
abcdefg,


It appears to me, although I am not certain, that question flooding combined with reporting is an effective tool of the mainstream.

I also find I must keep an answer log on some of the mainstream with links because they claim I refuse to answer. I then have to post the log to prove otherwise.

Yet, I did not get refinement questions on any of the answers I provided.

You would know as well as anyone else what it's like facing unlimited questions, continuous complaints and snarky replies.

And you had an OP of a very specific proposal which is usually less of a problem with less confusion.

Gillianren
2009-Oct-31, 06:46 PM
My answer to your statement is that if one cuts down on the number of questions then the problem would greatly improve.

I'm choosing this as the most succinct version of your flawed argument.

Because it is flawed. The fact is, I should think the whole point of presenting an ATM argument is either to get help with it or to get people to understand it. Otherwise, you're just promoting, and that's against board rules. Go somewhere else for that. However, if you're here in the spirit of legitimate scientific inquiry, shouldn't you want to express your idea as clearly as possible and improve understanding as much as possible? Again, if you're not prepared to answer what are almost always very basic questions--as, again, the ones presented in most of the threads I participate in have been--isn't that your problem?