Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Several of the posts of the last few days seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what this ATM section of BAUT is intended for.
The Rules for Posting to This Board are pretty straight-forward:Let's see if some recent misunderstandings can be clarified, by reference to these rules. |
The problem is not mis-understanding of the rules. The people you are lecturing about the rules spent the last 6 weeks having a very productive, high level, polite discussion about bridges.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Indeed, you haven't, and you didn't (get dragged in) ... the flip side of 'you are welcome' is 'you are also under no obligation, express or implied, to argue any ATM case; it's your choice entirely'. (turbo-1 chose to make his intention to not so argue public ("I'm not prepared to defend them from a gleeful and vigorous attack at this point."); there is no requirement whatsoever about making any such intentions known).
|
You called Turbo-1 out by name even though he had never posted on this thread Nereid. Same with Tom T and Atkins. That's the point. I call that rude behavior on your part.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
BAUT has a very good Q&A section, where you may ask questions about astronomy and space science. So, for example, if you are curious to know what (scientific) flaws the Bell&McDiarmid paper has (if any), you can ask such questions in that section.
|
Why would someone post a question there on an ATM paper? As soon as anyone defended the possibility that the analysis in the paper might be right - it would need to be
moved to the ATM forum anyway. The ATM paper can be posted here in ATM and then in the course of discussing the paper - if someone chooses to defend some aspect of the paper, the thread does not need to be moved.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
However, if anyone thinks it is sound, and says so here in this thread, then they may be challenged to defend their thoughts and claims.There is no requirement that we go through any such process.
|
Of course there is no requirement, but that is exactly what you constantly you do when these discussions pop up. And I'm not sure why since we played that game in the Arp et al thread before the bridges discussion.
Quote:
|
However, it is totally legitimate to ask a poster if they are presenting and ATM claim
|
It's legitimate if that poster has already posted on the thread in question. It is rude to bring in the person's name when they have not yet chosen to engage in discussion on the thread - as you did with turbo-1, TomT, and Atkins.
Quote:
|
(if so, then such claims can be challenged; if not, then there is nothing to discuss), and to ask them to state the claim(s) they are prepared to defend clearly (this is efficiency, if nothing else - what's the point of challenging a claim no one is prepared to defend?)
|
Or - as was always done in the good old days of BABB - people would just have conversations. When someone defended a position it was pretty obvious and the gleeful attacking began without the need for all this pre-debate cataloging.
Quote:
|
However, if no one is prepared to present an ATM case that they also prepared to defend, then what is there to challenge?
|
So there is no educational value in discussing a paper where there is no party prepared to defend it? You see no value in someone linking to an ATM paper, asking what others think about it - and then having the mainstream supporters explain the flaws of the paper even though ATM defense of the paper is lacking?
If we follow your approach then these papers must only be discussed in a debate atmosphere - and some people don't want to do that - which is why this constant demand for someone to step up and defend a paper if it is to be discussed limits discussion.
Quote:
|
If you think that challenging ideas is 'detrimental to real science', then I suggest that BAUT is not the place for you. Here's what the rules say: "If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science."
|
Is it challenging ideas -Nereid - when you call out people by name that have not previously participated in a thread? That is what you did - and that is obviously what Turbo-1 was talking about.
Quote:
|
OTOH, if no one is prepared to present 'some of the controversial topics', with the intent of defending them, what has BAUT lost?
|
An opportunity for mainstreamers to explain the flaws in ATM papers.