Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
For the most part it is reasonable...
but the idea that one must answer each and every question put to them, in a timely manner is questionalble... since in many cases the question itself is flawed due to a misunderstanding
|
Do I detect a standard ATM smokescreen here?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
and in answering it.. it is not answered, but is made clear in its relavance to the topic, while still being part of the mystery.
|
What mystery? This is a science board, remember?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
thus your rule that everything must be answered is suspect.. and should i think be reviewed.. and changed to allow more flexability in discussion.
|
No, the idea is to keep threads from going around in circles due to the inability or reluctance of the OP to defend the presented idea.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
after all would it be wrong to shut someone down just because they dont have every answer?
|
If the idea is properly thought through to the point where it is deemed presentable to a group of peers for criticism, then, yes, all questions about the idea should be answered. Otherwise, the idea is either wrong or not yet ready for public consumption.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
are we all to be Einstiens now?
|
Funny that someone who has now "corrected" one of Einstein's equations would complain about that.*
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
and pull the knowledge out of a hat?
|
Ah, now you're getting closer to the issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
2)
|
What was "1)"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion
the idea that you would opennly state that we should be prepared for.."attacks"
is i think a bad choce of words.. its fundamental in your rules.. which contradicts the basics of calm nice discussions...
attacks are quick and mean.. and have nothing to do with sharing ideas and knowledge.
the survival of the strong and fittest is for the jungle.!
we are suposed to be better than that...
-MT
|
You've obviously never experienced the world of graduate academia, where one defends one's thesis against attacks by the committee that will judge whether it is worthy of consideration, and whether you are worthy of being granted an advanced degree. It's the committee's charter to attack without mercy any weakness of logic, evidence, etc., that might be found in the thesis. Such attacks actually benefit the candidate, providing him/her with, among other things, the opportunity to learn where the paper went astray.
Tell you what, MT. Take a few college courses. Maybe for four years. Perhaps even graduate. Better yet, add another 2-4 years for post-graduate work, then come back here and tell us what you think. I'm very sure what appear to be your currently uninformed opinions about what defending an idea entails will have changed quite a bit .
Meanwhile, the rule is a good one. It will (hopefully) keep certain ATM and CT threads from approaching infinity when one takes the limit as x approaches total inconclusiveness. The fact that the rule got you nervous indicates its initial effectiveness.
*BTW, wouldn't you agree that it would be good form at least to spell the fellow's name correctly?