View Single Post
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 14-September-2007, 07:09 PM
galacsi galacsi is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NW of Paris
Posts: 1,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
Such as this one.

Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:

1) Oblique (and sometimes not so oblique) references to concerns over mainstream astronomy or space science (or astrophysics, or cosmology) that have been raised, many times, in many threads, in several BAUT sections, before. In this particular case, it is 'gravity behaving badly'.

Sometimes the post does seem to have direct pertinence to the thread; many times its pertinence seems to be perceived only by the BAUT member who posted it.

2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before. Examples include *quasar proper motions; *(lack of) time dilation in quasars; *Pioneer 6.

What concerns me is that there's nothing new introduced, as could be seen by copying and pasting from earlier threads. It gets tiring to have to keep responding to this, over and over again, yet if someone doesn't do it, folk reading these new instances for the first time may form the impression that there's something unaddressed, some big question that is going unanswered.

And for avoidance of doubt, my concern is over the repetitious posting of the same material by the same BAUT member(s) (not a new member posting such material for the first time).

Note too that most times there is not an explicit ATM idea being presented (such presentations are easily handled within BAUT's rules), or even hinted at or implied.

Is anyone else concerned about this?

If so, what to do about it?
No I am not concerned at all . And there nothing to do about it.

IF an idea has already been talked about , is not really a concern.And If it is the case and a thread is referenced I go to it and read it. And thank you for the reference.

As about the persistence I think it is a quality. And Nereid you have been very persistent explaining us that one falsification is not enough to kill a theory , so why somebody should stop promoting an idea just because of a failure to answer every imaginable question ?

So as says Warren Platts , please give Jerry a break !