Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 101

Thread: ATM added feature

  1. #1

    Lightbulb ATM added feature

    Hello,
    I think it is possible to improve the ATM (an maybe CT) forum rules:
    It would be great if those discussions were (partially) tabular instead of linear...
    ...of course this sentence is really not crystal clear, I will try to explain with my poor English.

    Objectifs:

    1-Avoid unanswered (good) questions.
    2-Avoid that the OP is overbooked by numerous (less good) questions.
    (3)-(Avoid exchanges like: "you didn't answer"/"yes I did it several times") [I put it between parentheses as this is a consequence of the 2 first points]

    How to:

    Step1 : ordering questions
    -Each time a reader have a new question, he must add it in a "question queue"
    -Each day (or each 2 days, or...) any reader can vote (once) for the questions he likes to be answered. (a good algorithm is needed here)

    -->At this stage, we have an ordered list of questions sorted by importance... Maybe it is possible to constraint the duty* for the OP to only answer the questions having an "importance rate" higher then a specific value, and, maybe, also based on a maximum number of questions... (again an algorithm)
    -->Note that, the reader can still ask questions in the "normal way"; those questions can be answered inside the thread by the OP, but the answers will not be mandatory.
    -->The questions should be easily linkable inside all threads.

    * I am not sure it is the correct word

    Step 2: answering the questions
    -Each question should have its own thread dedicated ONLY to this question. (this is the tabular aspect; see upper the "not so crystal clear sentence")

    -->With few* programmatic, it is possible to leverage the "Threads layout" into a "Questions layout"
    -->This "Questions layouts" should only shows the questions pertaining to one original OP (thread). In other words, it should quickly show the state of all questions for a particular thread. (see Step 3 for other details that this layout should show up)

    *few is a lot

    Step 3: Evaluating answers

    -Each day (or each 2 days, or...) any reader can evaluate (once) the answer(s) for a particular question [I am satisfied by the answer/I don't understand the answer, it need clarifications/I agree, this question is useful/IMHO, the OP didn't answer at all to this question/ etc..]

    -->The "Questions layout" should shows the average state of each question (based on the daily evaluations)
    -->A global note for the thread could be calculated...

    That's it...
    I am near to be sure it's a dream...

    Baudouin

    ps: Unfortunately, I am not able to answer in a timely fashion

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    I'm not sure how practical this suggestion is. Sounds like it requires new features in the software and, maybe, more work for moderators. But...

    any reader can vote (once) for the questions he likes to be answered
    I think this is an interesting idea. I have often seen someone else's question and thought "ooh thats a good one, I hope that gets answered". Very occasionally, there will be a discussion amongs those taking part to say something like "OK, lets wait and see what the OP says to X's question". This might be considered against the rules (meta-discussion, etc) but it is often a better way of making progress than just throwing more and more (similar) questions at the OP.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Baud View Post
    Hello,
    I think it is possible to improve the ATM (an maybe CT) forum rules:
    It would be great if those discussions were (partially) tabular instead of linear...
    ...of course this sentence is really not crystal clear, I will try to explain with my poor English.

    Objectifs:

    1-Avoid unanswered (good) questions.
    2-Avoid that the OP is overbooked by numerous (less good) questions.
    (3)-(Avoid exchanges like: "you didn't answer"/"yes I did it several times") [I put it between parentheses as this is a consequence of the 2 first points]

    How to:

    Step1 : ordering questions
    -Each time a reader have a new question, he must add it in a "question queue"
    -Each day (or each 2 days, or...) any reader can vote (once) for the questions he likes to be answered. (a good algorithm is needed here)

    -->At this stage, we have an ordered list of questions sorted by importance... Maybe it is possible to constraint the duty* for the OP to only answer the questions having an "importance rate" higher then a specific value, and, maybe, also based on a maximum number of questions... (again an algorithm)
    -->Note that, the reader can still ask questions in the "normal way"; those questions can be answered inside the thread by the OP, but the answers will not be mandatory.
    -->The questions should be easily linkable inside all threads.

    * I am not sure it is the correct word

    Step 2: answering the questions
    -Each question should have its own thread dedicated ONLY to this question. (this is the tabular aspect; see upper the "not so crystal clear sentence")

    -->With few* programmatic, it is possible to leverage the "Threads layout" into a "Questions layout"
    -->This "Questions layouts" should only shows the questions pertaining to one original OP (thread). In other words, it should quickly show the state of all questions for a particular thread. (see Step 3 for other details that this layout should show up)

    *few is a lot

    Step 3: Evaluating answers

    -Each day (or each 2 days, or...) any reader can evaluate (once) the answer(s) for a particular question [I am satisfied by the answer/I don't understand the answer, it need clarifications/I agree, this question is useful/IMHO, the OP didn't answer at all to this question/ etc..]

    -->The "Questions layout" should shows the average state of each question (based on the daily evaluations)
    -->A global note for the thread could be calculated...

    That's it...
    I am near to be sure it's a dream...

    Baudouin

    ps: Unfortunately, I am not able to answer in a timely fashion
    I think that this is an excellent post. I would add that for every unanswered question, the ATM proponents get 1 negative point. For every question answered with the intent to deceive, they receive 2 negative points. Accumulation of a certain number of points brings thread closure, there is no reason for threads to go 30 days of diversions, willfully wrong answers, etc. This would go a long way in terms of getting the ATM proponents to answer truthfully.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm not sure how practical this suggestion is. Sounds like it requires new features in the software and, maybe, more work for moderators. But...
    I agree, it depends completely on some dedicated persons who like to handle this.
    But, maybe, we can reuse the thread system for the question (I am not sure I am clear on this). Also, only parts of the new rules can be implemented at the beginning.
    And to finish, some of the rules can be implemented "manually" by the OP (like asking for votes, compiling/publishing results)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I think this is an interesting idea. I have often seen someone else's question and thought "ooh thats a good one, I hope that gets answered". Very occasionally, there will be a discussion amongs those taking part to say something like "OK, lets wait and see what the OP says to X's question". This might be considered against the rules (meta-discussion, etc) but it is often a better way of making progress than just throwing more and more (similar) questions at the OP.
    Thanks

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,093
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    I would add that for every unanswered question, the ATM proponents get 1 negative point. For every question answered with the intent to deceive, they receive 2 negative points.
    The problem is not keeping track, whether you use points or not. It is the judgment call as to the response to the questions. It is, IMHO, relatively rare that a question just goes ignored. Much more frequently, the ATM advocate gives some sort of response, which the person asking the question thinks is not a legit answer. A moderator then has to make a case-by-case (and sometimes point-by-point) decision as to whether the ATM advocate is at least trying to answer the question. And getting into judgments on intent.... well, good luck with that. My mind-reading abilities are much too poor.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    I think that this is an excellent post. I would add that for every unanswered question, the ATM proponents get 1 negative point. For every question answered with the intent to deceive, they receive 2 negative points. Accumulation of a certain number of points brings thread closure, there is no reason for threads to go 30 days of diversions, willfully wrong answers, etc. This would go a long way in terms of getting the ATM proponents to answer truthfully.
    I agree on the fact that threads having "a lot of points" can be very interesting. But the opposite is not necessarily true (a good idea can be badly explained, and the OP needs several try to answer correctly... or ... the readers who are "giving/not giving points" can have a lack of knowledge in the OP field, and by this, are not able to understand the answers - I assume it is less common, but still can exists)
    This is why, I think we should still give the chance to answer until the end (But a thread with, let say, -111 points will directly looks less attractive then a thread having -11 points or 11 points) [don't ask me why 111, I don't know myself]

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Much more frequently, the ATM advocate gives some sort of response, which the person asking the question thinks is not a legit answer. least trying to answer the question. And getting into judgments on intent.... well, good luck with that. My mind-reading abilities are much too poor.
    I completely agree... this is why an extra thread PER question will make more easy the follow up of each question.
    (Again I am not sure I am understandable)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    The problem is not keeping track, whether you use points or not. It is the judgment call as to the response to the questions. It is, IMHO, relatively rare that a question just goes ignored. Much more frequently, the ATM advocate gives some sort of response, which the person asking the question thinks is not a legit answer. A moderator then has to make a case-by-case (and sometimes point-by-point) decision as to whether the ATM advocate is at least trying to answer the question. And getting into judgments on intent.... well, good luck with that. My mind-reading abilities are much too poor.
    There are enough competent ATM "examiners" (Tensor, Grey, etc, to name a few) to be able to grade the ATM responses. I have yet to see an ATM thread that was legit science.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,093
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    There are enough competent ATM "examiners" (Tensor, Grey, etc, to name a few) to be able to grade the ATM responses. I have yet to see an ATM thread that was legit science.
    The moderation team has considered several systems of non-moderator ATM "examiners" of various types over the years, but has never found one that satisfies a large variety of concerns that I do not think I can get into publicly (but I wanted you to know we've thought about this).
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    There are enough competent ATM "examiners" (Tensor, Grey, etc, to name a few) to be able to grade the ATM responses. I have yet to see an ATM thread that was legit science.
    IMHO, it is better if everyone can grade the answers (if you are not sure, don't grade)
    But "baut reviewers" as you propose have some interest also...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    The moderation team has considered several systems of non-moderator ATM "examiners" of various types over the years, but has never found one that satisfies a large variety of concerns that I do not think I can get into publicly (but I wanted you to know we've thought about this).
    If we are good enough to refute the claims in a scientific way we should be good enough to grade the answers given by the ATM proponents. The grades would have only bearing on the perceived value of the ATM. The infracting would still be done by the mods.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Baud View Post
    IMHO, it is better if everyone can grade the answers (if you are not sure, don't grade)
    But "baut reviewers" as you propose have some interest also...
    The problem with that is that there are several ATM proponents who have friends around here who really believe every response from the person's keyboard is accurate, helpful, and insightful. This despite the fact that the friends are really bad about answering questions as well. And failing that, they can load the board with their actual friends who only go in and vote that the person has fulfilled their obligation. And having a minimum post-count requirement wouldn't entirely help that. After all, it's not difficult to build up post count.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    The problem with that is that there are several ATM proponents who have friends around here who really believe every response from the person's keyboard is accurate, helpful, and insightful.
    That is ok, the point awarding would be done only by a few , moderator - selected, people that have shown in the past to know their field. It is very easy no name a few, no more than 20 (Tensor,Van Rijn, Grey, Fortis, Wayne Francis, etc). We could call them "science advisors". many other fora have such people. They are not moderators, they are just scientists. It would be a nice reward for a few of us that spend a lot of time explaining why certain ATMs are not correct.




    This despite the fact that the friends are really bad about answering questions as well. And failing that, they can load the board with their actual friends who only go in and vote that the person has fulfilled their obligation. And having a minimum post-count requirement wouldn't entirely help that. After all, it's not difficult to build up post count.
    That's ok, the "friends" have no vote, only the science advisors do. Thank you for engaging me in a nice way.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,504
    You're quite welcome, but then the mods have to deal with claims that the advisers are unfair and biased and brainwashed and whatever adjective they come up with. And the advisers have to be willing to do it, which isn't a guarantee. After all, it would be a great deal of extra work for them as well.

    Besides which I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to someone who suggested that everyone have a vote.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Exactly how many people do we need to put on the secret payroll here?

    Everyone works differently, and a scheme like that could actually cause issues for someone that actually has a line of thought in addressing the questions. What may be a high priority for the board community may not necessarily help in answering a series of questions in a line of reasoning. (in other words, some lower priority questions may be answered on the way to the bigger issue).

    I think the OP has some responsibility to keep track of the questions too.

    Recently, I've seen a good back and forth between two users on another thread where they numbered the questions and responses. It looked like it worked well for thier discussion, but I'm not sure how that can scale up.

    If the OP kept the list of how they interpreted the question (or group of questions) and referenced them in an obvious fashion (such as listing them occasionally), it would go a long way to helping themselves with the overload. This way, one group can be answered, while others can be notated with a "pending" type of comment that at least acknowledges the question will be addressed. I see no problem in leaving a question unanswered for a while as long as it's known that it's still there and un-addressed, rather than just lost in the shuffle.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    You're quite welcome, but then the mods have to deal with claims that the advisers are unfair and biased and brainwashed and whatever adjective they come up with. And the advisers have to be willing to do it, which isn't a guarantee. After all, it would be a great deal of extra work for them as well.

    Besides which I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to someone who suggested that everyone have a vote.
    We are doing the heavy lifting already (i.e. debunking the claims, showing the correct way of doing science, etc), so it isn't much extra work in awarding the points. I am quite sure that there could be quite a few of us ready to do it, other fora already have this kind of people.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,595
    Just so you know, if the feature isn't found in stock vBulliten (or about to be found in stock vBulliten), it's exceptionally unlikely you'll see it happen. You've got better odds getting Sylvia Browne to successfully find Jimmy Hoffa, alive and well, pro bono.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,504
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    We are doing the heavy lifting already (i.e. debunking the claims, showing the correct way of doing science, etc), so it isn't much extra work in awarding the points. I am quite sure that there could be quite a few of us ready to do it, other fora already have this kind of people.
    Other fora are not, in general, as big as ours. And at least one or two people would have to agree to read every ATM thread and either come up with questions or vet other people's.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,093
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    If we are good enough to refute the claims in a scientific way we should be good enough to grade the answers given by the ATM proponents. The grades would have only bearing on the perceived value of the ATM. The infracting would still be done by the mods.
    But there is no "good enough" to refute claims in ATM. This is an open forum; whether you have six PhDs or didn't graduate high school, you are allowed to ask questions in ATM.

    As I said, we have considered a variety of systems where there is a new set of members, not moderators, who are granted special privileges to question, judge, and evaluate ATM proponents. We have never come up with a scheme that the moderation team is happy with; among many concerns is the fact that it does go against the idea of an open forum.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    But there is no "good enough" to refute claims in ATM. This is an open forum; whether you have six PhDs or didn't graduate high school, you are allowed to ask questions in ATM.
    Sure anyone can ask questions. Much fewer are capable of answering the questions correctly.

    As I said, we have considered a variety of systems where there is a new set of members, not moderators, who are granted special privileges to question, judge, and evaluate ATM proponents. We have never come up with a scheme that the moderation team is happy with; among many concerns is the fact that it does go against the idea of an open forum.
    rather than think in abstract, I suggest that you give it a try in practice, for about 2 months. After two months, you evaluate the results.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Other fora are not, in general, as big as ours. And at least one or two people would have to agree to read every ATM thread and either come up with questions or vet other people's.
    There are only a handful of ATM threads going on at any time. Most of them don't make it to the 30 day limit. Actually, many of them should not even last one week.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    While the reviewers may make the best scientific objections to any proposal, ultimately it is the publisher who decides what gets published. It's just the way it is i suppose.
    I don't see anything of added value in making an extra system so the reviewers can express their opinion to the readers about the proposal or answers (that is basically what the proposed system does), when they can just do it in-thread (in a polite manner).

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,767
    It seems like a very complex, very work intensive means to fix a system that, to me at least, doesn't appear to be broken. I don't think I've seen any thread where an ATM proponent who was aware of the rules and trying to abide by them, failed to answer or attempt to answer questions. For those who are basically trying to dodge the answer-questions rule, this system will not stop them doing so.

    In short, some break the rule, some follow the rule, all know it exists, it's implementation isn't going to change things

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    The moderation team has considered several systems of non-moderator ATM "examiners" of various types over the years, but has never found one that satisfies a large variety of concerns that I do not think I can get into publicly (but I wanted you to know we've thought about this).
    (my bold)

    I just wonder why such a thing should be kept confidential? I would think expressing the underlying reasoning for decisions could provide a much clearer image of what factors are considered "behind the scenes" and the relative weight of each. Even if it didn't, i'm a bit suprised at the reflex of confidentiality. As long as it doesn't pertain to specific members or something, i can't really see how it could harm for these kinds of things to be made public.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,869
    I do not follow ATM that often. Has there been any ATM claims that where really ATM (not mainstream in reality and put there by mistake) that have ended up being established true/valid?
    If not or virtually not, then IMHO the system/rules are flawed. Mainstream views or more precisely majority views are not guaranteed to be true. There are numerous examples of shifting paradigms in mainstream views throughout the history of science. In fact chances are that any mainstream concept you may think of, has been ATM or unthought of in the not too distant past.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,513
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    I just wonder why such a thing should be kept confidential? I would think expressing the underlying reasoning for decisions could provide a much clearer image of what factors are considered "behind the scenes" and the relative weight of each.
    At the risk of speaking out of turn, I think Swift was deferring to our practice of nonattribution outside of the mod forum. While we do sometimes make very general mentions of our private delibertions, going ino greater detail is something we don't normally do unilaterally.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    While the reviewers may make the best scientific objections to any proposal, ultimately it is the publisher who decides what gets published. It's just the way it is i suppose.
    I don't see anything of added value in making an extra system so the reviewers can express their opinion to the readers about the proposal or answers (that is basically what the proposed system does), when they can just do it in-thread (in a polite manner).
    In peer reviewed journals, if even one reviewer gives you a bad review, you don't get published. Practically, the chief editor rubber stamps the reviewers decisions (and you need that all reviewers give you a positive in order to publish). Anyways, I am suggesting something much simpler that would shorten considerably the ATM threads that are full of mistakes, diversions, nonsensical answers, etc. If a group of science advisors marks the answers as dishonest or willfully wrong, the thread gets closed earlier. For example, the thread opened by chinglu1998 in ATM is an example of a thread where the OP has been proven wrong about 100 times, yet he persists in using dishonest arguments. In SciForums this thread would have long been closed and the poster would have been suspended for intellectual dishonesty.
    Last edited by macaw; 2010-Nov-30 at 02:21 AM.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,093
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    I just wonder why such a thing should be kept confidential? I would think expressing the underlying reasoning for decisions could provide a much clearer image of what factors are considered "behind the scenes" and the relative weight of each. Even if it didn't, i'm a bit suprised at the reflex of confidentiality. As long as it doesn't pertain to specific members or something, i can't really see how it could harm for these kinds of things to be made public.
    Just to elaborate on what Peterscreek said, a lot of what is said among the moderators and administrators is very frank and open, and said in confidence. And yes, it does sometime pertain to specific members, even in discussions of things like ATM rules (for example, as specific examples). But even if specific members are not mentioned, I feel it would be a breach of those confidences to go into details. As it is, I sometimes feel conflicted to even make passing or broad mention of those discussions. As you say, it is a balance between informing the membership, and allowing the moderators to talk openly and privately about these sometimes complex issues.

    There is also a different reason to leave out the details. We are probably talking about at least 4 or 5 separate long and detailed discussions over the last year or two. I frankly don't have the time nor energy to dig those all up, review them, and publish the condensed version here.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Durham NC USA
    Posts
    8,197
    Quote Originally Posted by a1call View Post
    I do not follow ATM that often. Has there been any ATM claims that where really ATM (not mainstream in reality and put there by mistake) that have ended up being established true/valid?
    If not or virtually not, then IMHO the system/rules are flawed. Mainstream views or more precisely majority views are not guaranteed to be true. There are numerous examples of shifting paradigms in mainstream views throughout the history of science. In fact chances are that any mainstream concept you may think of, has been ATM or unthought of in the not too distant past.
    BAUT flawed? That's just flawed logic!

    Count up the number of ATM ideas we've had here on BAUT--I'd say the "expected" value of valid ATMs is still close to zero, nowhere near even 1. Perhaps the only reason you think that there should be at least one valid ATM on BAUT is because you're not that familiar with the sheer number of ATMs that are presented in the real world?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    BAUT flawed? That's just flawed logic!

    Count up the number of ATM ideas we've had here on BAUT--I'd say the "expected" value of valid ATMs is still close to zero, nowhere near even 1.
    Absolutely. In many cases it is less than zero since the proponents resort to outright dishonesty in arguing the claims. This is what makes such theories "less than zero", as in the Elton John hit.



    Perhaps the only reason you think that there should be at least one valid ATM on BAUT is because you're not that familiar with the sheer number of ATMs that are presented in the real world?
    In the three years I've been on this forum I have never seen a valid one, they swing from outright lunacy, to basic (honest) errors to sheer intellectual dishonesty to outright trolling (many are being trolled on multiple fora simultaneously).

Similar Threads

  1. M33 with Ha Added
    By andyschlei in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-13, 09:54 PM
  2. New added value to physics is necessary
    By Cerveny in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 2010-Mar-11, 04:20 PM
  3. Additional Lab to be Added to ISS
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Sep-04, 08:10 PM
  4. Added More Avatars
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2004-May-11, 12:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •