Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
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? |
Nereid,
I really think you get way too concerned about these types of issues. Since the merger of BABB and UT there have been a ton of changes - changes that you always seem to feel very strongly in favor of.
You've supported an ATM policy that modifies the old BABB approach - now only the ATM proponents must defend their statements on the threads in ATM. Mainstream defenders are under no obligation to admit mistaken statements or defend their statements when an ATM proponent shows potential flaws.
But that wasn't good enough. There were still perceived "problems" so now we have a 30 day rule for ATM threads.
Apparently the 30 day rule for ATM isn't fixing all the problems either because now people complain about ATM spillover into other forums.
And now you're complaining about what you define as "Jerry posts".
It doesn't need to be this complicated and there doesn't need to be a constant push to add more rules every time somebody finds some new variant of "problem" to get tweaked about.
It really can be this simple:
Be polite. Polite means:
1.
No ad homs and insults. Why? Such behavior encourages antagonistic debate which is no fun for the participants or the lurkers and distracts from the discussion of science.
2.
When you choose to participate in a discussion be prepared to defend your statements - whether you are defending the mainstream or some ATM idea. Why? The people that respond to your statements are looking to make a point. If you choose to engage in that debate, then you should accept the responsibility of debating.
3.
If you need more time to look into something say so. Why? It's nice to have some idea of when you might expect a response to a point you've made.
4.
If you are shown to be wrong admit it. Why? It frustrates your debate opponent to have valid points your opponent has made ignored.
5.
Ask the person you're debating to clarify rather than accuse the person of "personal bias"; "straw man arguments"; "intentionally misleading BAUT readers" .... Why? This is an internet message board. Unless the person states their motives you're making an inference about their personal objectives. Such inferences leveled as accusations only anger people and again distract from the discussion of science. Instead of questioning a person's motives, it is better to simply tell them you disagree - and where you think they are wrong.