Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TomT
Hi Nereid,
In response to my question on how did I get dragged in (invited) into this thread, you replied:
Well, OK, but, in the Arp et al, thread, I thought we agreed to stick to one subject at a time, and discuss it in depth. You were part of orchestrating that decision. So we have had a scholarly discussion there IMHO on the topic of evidence of bridges between discordant redshift objects. This was to my liking because I have said more than once that "if you truly want to disprove Arp, you have to demonstrate that his observations, and his conclusions about connections between discordant redshift objects, are in error". We have had a good discussion of this subject, and again IMHO, Arp's contention that physical connections exist between highly different redshift objects is alive and well. In view of your absence from the discussion and your statement below, I conclude that you either agree, or cannot find fault with the arguments.
TomT
|
Of course you are free to conclude anything that you wish,
TomT.
It seems that mentioning some BAUT members by name was a mistake on my part; I apologise for any discomfort or disruption it may have caused.
The general point remains: any BAUT member is free to extend, deepen, broaden, etc the defence of an ATM idea presented in an ATM thread; there is no requirement that only the OP may mount a defence (nor any requirement that the OP may not challenge the ATM idea!).
The only (special) requirements are that the posts stay on topic (i.e. the ATM idea being discussed in that thread, so no hijacking for example), and that all direct, pertinent questions concerning an ATM idea (as presented by a poster) be answered in a timely manner.