Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
So if you claim something as a "mainstreamer" or "challenger" you can walk away from it anytime? I don't think there is anything in the rules for that behaviour (I'll check, but "be nice" would, imo, include answering questions), but let me tell you it is very impolite if not downright dishonest.
Cheers.
|
Well one of my points when this new rule was brought up about ATMers answering direct questions in a timely fashion is that while it is not unreasonable to expect ATM proponents to anwer direct questions, it is also not unreasonable for an ATM proponent to say,
"I'm going to need some time to look into that ... Give me X days/weeks and I'll get back to you."
But I think it is understood as part of fair dialogue that this rule about answering question in a timely fashion should equally apply to mainstreamers. This forum is a place of dialogue. If someone defending the mainstream POV chooses to engage in the dialogue taking place on an ATM thread - then IMO the mainstreamer has as much obligation to answer questions asked by an ATMer as the ATMer has to answer questions from the mainstream.
The questions I asked on post #1247 of the Arp et al thread were fair questions - and not exceedingly difficult. Since Nereid linked to those papers, I presume she saw some relevance of those papers to the discussion. I simply asked at that time and still would like to know now what specifically the relevance was.
Now perhaps Nereid has permanently disengaged from the Arp et al thread. In that case I will not get the answers to those questions. However, at whatever time she finds the time and willingly rejoins the Arp et al discussion, I will request an answer to post #1247 as well as ask for a reaction to the bridges discussion.
At this time I do not know whether or not Nereid will re-engage in the bridges discussion because she has not yet answered Turbo-1's question from May 15:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Turbo-1
My point is that you have called me out in this thread, yet you have only lurked on the 'More from Arp et al' thread for more than a month, despite your assertions that you wanted to undertake an organized, structured, discussion of Arpian ideas. You have been noticeably absent for all that time, depite personal and public requests to rejoin the discussion. It is your perogative to engage in any discussions that you feel worthy of your efforts, of course, but it is disengenuous to encourage such engagement, then to avoid the engagement entirely, and then to issue a challenge on an entirely different topic that is more to your liking. Can we expect to engage you on 'More from Arp et al' or will you continue to hide?
|
nor my question from May 18:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
Can we expect to engage you - Nereid - on the bridges topic specifically? We're talking about other concepts too, but given all the pre-bridges discussion, preparation, and hoopla I'd like to get your reactions to that discussion.
|
As long as those questions remain unanswered I will assume that the answer is "no" so as not to expect responses that will not be forthcoming.
But I do not think it is a rules violation to choose to disengage from a discussion. Some may justifiably view such an action as a concession to the opponent of the points of debate. Without an explanation as to why the person disengages, that is a reasonable interpretation. However, I do think that it would be a rules violation (or at least very bad form) to disengage from a discussion after being asked direct "pertinent" questions and then return at some later time and start posting to the thread as if nothing had been left unanswered.