PDA

View Full Version : a thread response



north
2010-Jan-17, 06:17 AM
in my astrology and quantum entanglement thread its seems there is a little impatience here

so that I have to respond in a certain matter of time

I see your point , the discussion wants to move on

however , thought , from both sides can take time

why the rush ?

Hungry4info
2010-Jan-17, 06:57 AM
It is expected that you respond to or acknowledge all the questions presented to you. You are allowed to say "I will get back with you on that." (in thus, acknowledging the question). Alternatively, you are allowed to ask for the thread to be closed while you gather up a reply, and you can ask a moderator to re-open it for you once you are ready to reply.

This is done because too many people post ATM theories and do not reply to the questions asked of them to defend it.

PetersCreek
2010-Jan-17, 07:01 AM
Moved to the appropriate forum.

To answer your question, north...when advocating a theory in the ATM forum, you must answer questions in a timely manner. You've been around long enough to know that.

Tobin Dax
2010-Jan-17, 07:06 AM
The purpose of the ATM forum is not to have a casual discussion, but to present an idea for scrutiny. The idea needs to be well-formed for this to work.

Note that neither moderator who closed your thread did so because you didn't respond quickly enough, they did so because there your idea was not well-developed. Both moderators also said to repost your idea once you could post the whole thing in the OP. This is well in line with the rules for ATM. If you question this, review the rules and the sticky threads in ATM.

north
2010-Jan-17, 07:30 AM
The purpose of the ATM forum is not to have a casual discussion, but to present an idea for scrutiny. The idea needs to be well-formed for this to work.

Note that neither moderator who closed your thread did so because you didn't respond quickly enough, they did so because there your idea was not well-developed. Both moderators also said to repost your idea once you could post the whole thing in the OP. This is well in line with the rules for ATM. If you question this, review the rules and the sticky threads in ATM.

then why not propose questions , as you usually do

there was none of this

pzkpfw
2010-Jan-17, 08:25 AM
Members did try to engage you in debate of your claim, but you mainly answered questions with questions; you seemed quite evasive.

It certainly seemed to me that you wanted more to play a game than propose and discuss your idea.

After your first two posts, these were the next four posts you made:


in what way does astrology not work ?


what in your mind is astrology suppose to do that works ?


newspaper Horoscopes ?


so you think that Horoscopes are a method of divination ?

why ?

It was your thread. Where was your information?

Then post #16 seemed more of a rant against someone elses idea, and post #17 concluded with:


by the way the OP of this thread was my idea

just so you know , for the record

Why not read posts #18 and #19 of your thread? The moderator advice (which Tobin Dax covered well) posted there gave you what you need to have your idea tested here at BAUT.

Van Rijn
2010-Jan-17, 09:10 AM
then why not propose questions , as you usually do

there was none of this

Did you not notice the questions and requests in posts 8, 9, 10 and 15 in that thread? You can find my request in post 10. Post 19 (which was posted after the thread was closed) also had a request specific to your claim, and would be a good place to start if you want to continue with your argument.

captain swoop
2010-Jan-17, 02:20 PM
I also noted that when you had an idea to post you can report and have the thread re opened.

SolusLupus
2010-Jan-17, 03:40 PM
Try to keep it focused, though. If you're going to try to prove how astrology works, you'll have to demonstrate that astrology functions in the first place. Don't ask others how they think astrology works, be direct and explain what, exactly, you're asserting exists in the first place.

peter eldergill
2010-Jan-18, 05:31 AM
The purpose of the ATM forum is not to have a casual discussion, but to present an idea for scrutiny.


Suppose someone like me, wanted to discuss an idea in a casual way and not have it up for extreme scrutiny? Or if I just wanted opinions on an idea or something. Also suppose it's also not silliness either. Where would that go? Clearly not in ATM.

I also wouldn't want it in general bablbling either.

So...where to?

My idea , BTW is that realitiy in a nonexistence transcendental foray into consciousness is derived only by the ethereal and non-ethereal differences of parallel multiverses which cause Bahamut and Tiamat to plunge into a shame spiral which will annihilate the "multiverse"

:clap:

Pete

01101001
2010-Jan-21, 01:31 PM
Suppose someone like me, wanted to discuss an idea in a casual way and not have it up for extreme scrutiny?

If you don't want scrutiny, BAUT Forum may not be for you. The members here tend to be skewed toward the intellectually sharp and are scrutinous. Isn't that why you would ask about an idea here?

Can you say things, and ask things, about an idea without advocating positions that are out of the mainstream? Without asserting non-facts? Without trying to sway?

People ask about non-mainstream astronomy and space-physics positions in Q&A all the time. In some of those topics, the originator, or insidious interlopers, begin asserting the position, or denying the responses. Those instances pretty quickly get moved to ATM where they belong. Yay, moderation! The rest continue to be discussed until interest wanes and dies. Just like you seem to want.

korjik
2010-Jan-21, 05:25 PM
Suppose someone like me, wanted to discuss an idea in a casual way and not have it up for extreme scrutiny? Or if I just wanted opinions on an idea or something. Also suppose it's also not silliness either. Where would that go? Clearly not in ATM.

I also wouldn't want it in general bablbling either.

So...where to?

My idea , BTW is that realitiy in a nonexistence transcendental foray into consciousness is derived only by the ethereal and non-ethereal differences of parallel multiverses which cause Bahamut and Tiamat to plunge into a shame spiral which will annihilate the "multiverse"

:clap:

Pete

Babylonian religion is still religion. :)

kleindoofy
2010-Jan-21, 08:49 PM
Babylonian religion is still religion.
No, it *was* (a) religion.

If a discussion of it were to be held here on BAUT, none of the Ishtar, Marduk etc. faithful would be around to get all puffy and upset and start flame wars about matters dear to their hearts.

Religion, politics & co. are disallowed on BAUT simply because personal faiths and deeply felt beliefs of the BAUT members are involved. In most cases no objective discussion is possible before the flames start flying.

Disallowing a discussion of Babylonian religion, absolutist European politics during the French Revolution, or the Thirty Years War would defeat the purpose, demonstrate an embarrassingly low degree of differentiated thinking, and be just plain silly.

Swift
2010-Jan-21, 09:38 PM
I'm not sure how this conversation drifted into the appropriateness of discussions about Babylonian religion (I think I missed a turn ;) ), but I would say kleindoofy is correct and such a discussion would not be automatically against the rules. However, moderators always retain the right to close any discussion if it gets out of hand (and I've seen that happen for even the most mundane topics).