Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rule 13
Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.
|
I think this should be applied also to the mainstream proponents posting in ATM threads. I don't see any reasons not doing so. |
Remember that it is the ATM proponents that are making claims.
The information about mainstream ideas is available in the world and on this board (Q&A, Astronomy, General Science), but the info about the ATM idea usually is not. That's why the ATM proponent should answer direct questions.
How are critics supposed to understand the ATM idea, if its proponent is not answering questions about it?
The same rule works for the mainstream: if a scientist wants to publish a paper, he has to support his claims and respond properly to the critiques of the referees.
If an ATM proponent is not prepared to defend his claims against criticism, what is the point of posting in hte first place? How can his idea be discussed if he does not answer direct questions about it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Doing that wouldn't take away anything from ATM proponents' responsibilities. And if mainstream proponents' arguments really have a point, then there wouldn't be any reason not to defend those arguments and answer direct questions about them.
|
As I said above, most of the critiques are based on what is already known, and this info is already available. Should a critic spend time and effort to explain and defend a mainstream argument, if all the ATM proponent needs to do is to look up the relevant reference?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Example situation where this might help is that sometimes it might happen that a mainstream proponent doesn't really get to know the ATM idea before making an argument against it. In that situation it then might happen that the argument doesn't really apply to the ATM idea. ATM proponents then might point that out. Sometimes this situation might continue so that the mainstream proponent just continues repeating that same argument over and over again. This doesn't have a positive effect to the quality of the discussion.
|
And ATM proponents refusing to answer direct questions or to look up relevant mainstream references does not help.
What if it is the ATM proponent who does not understand the relevance of an objection?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
And what if the unthinkable happens? What if some mainstream proponent starts behaving dishonestly in ATM discussions, just trying to denigrate the ATM idea not caring about the truth?
|
It should be reported to the moderators.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Way I see it, current rules allow this kind of behavior if the mainstream proponent doesn't break any other rules while doing that.
|
Do you think that dishonest behavior is allowed
at all on this board?
You are basically accusing the board of double standard.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
Unfortunately, examples above are not entirely hypothetical. I see it constantly in ATM forum, in the "More from Arp et al" thread for example.
|
If you think that somebody has been dishonest, report the poster.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
There are some suggestions above that ATM proponents don't want to be challenged. While this might be true for some, there are lot of ATM proponents who welcome fair challenges, VanderL definitely belongs to latter group. It's just that we want to be challenged fairly and honestly, without having to encounter all kinds of strange debate tactics.
|
Unfortunately, many ATM proponents equate "fair" with "agreeing with me".