Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
So, what do suggest be done when someone is covering often repeated ground that has been answered already? I think Nereid is showing frustration dealing with this type of thing. I've run into this type of issue myself on a number of occasions with various posters, where a subject has been covered, an argument shown to be flawed, and yet the same poster makes the same argument a day, a week, or a month later as if the previous discussion never took place.
|
I already have suggested a rule change in this forum (long time ago) that would take care of situation like that. Rules should be changed so that many of the responsibilities of ATM proponents in rule #13 would be expanded to cover all posters. That was then met with strong resistance because at the time I was talking about bad behavior of some people arguing against ATM proponents. It seems to me that the same rule change would suit to situations like the one you mention, it would give moderators a tool to deal with the situation.
Mind you, "an argument shown to be flawed" seems to be a relative concept in my opinion. The subjects Jerry talks about haven't always shown to be flawed. Of the three examples Nereid mentions in the opening post, two seem to be open questions (both have some observational evidence, although it's inconclusive), and the third one, Pioneer 6 anomaly, Jerry has himself admitted that it is not a problem anymore. What I frequently see here, in addition to many ATM arguments really being shown flawed, is people assuming ATM argument shown to be false prematurely (as just one example, quasar host galaxies are often mentioned showing Arp's model wrong, even if they are in fact expected in Arp's model).