Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki
[snip]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
I'll cover some new ones...
|
I have no idea how the first section of your post relates to what I said.
Quote:
|
I guess I don't really see what your point is, Ari Jokimaki; would you please say whether you are generalising from your experience of/in one (or two) ATM threads, or many?
|
If you take a closer look at my post, you'll see that I wasn't generalising at all. My point is that in my opinion there is a loophole in the rules. Furthermore I think that the presence of the loophole shows in the ATM forum discussions, so I'm suggesting that we get rid of the loophole.
Quote:
|
With the exception of two examples brought to my attention by hhEb09'1, the only specific examples that I can think of that seem relevant to your post are from just three ATM threads. (you can PM me instead of replying, if you wish).
|
My goal here is not to talk about specific examples, just to exhibit my concern about the issue generally. Isn't even one example enough if it shows that the loophole is real? |
Oops.
FWIW, I was replying to the second part of the rule 13 extract you quoted - "
Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner", pointing out that the way it actually works is considerably more complex than the way it's written.
So, if you are proposing a similar kind of rule, wrt statements on current mainstream, textbook, or consensus positions in astrophysics (etc), then I feel such a rule would likely also be complex, in its use.
And I'm not sure it would be very helpful anyway - it's pretty useless making a statement about mainstream astrophysics (etc) unless a reference can be supplied (upon request). In fact, that's pretty much how the Astronomy, General Science, and Q&A sections already work - inaccurate, incorrect, misleading, incomplete (etc) statements about astrophysics (etc) are often (nearly always?) corrected in later post(s).
Do you have a particular reason for suggesting that (mainstream) support/reference material may be lacking?
As to defending arguments, well, as has already been pointed out, if it's become mainstream, then it's almost certainly got a great weight of defence, in dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of peer-reviewed papers. Indeed, there are probably a PhD thesis or twenty in there, and the doctors who wrote the theses certainly faced scrutiny far, far more intense than any ATMer posting in BAUT ever had to worry about.
And as to loopholes, well, why not address them when they arise? After all, between them, BABB, UT, and BAUT have hundreds of thousands of posts, thousands of members, and several years' of experience.
Finally, wrt miscommunication ("
a mainstream proponent doesn't really get to know the ATM idea before making an argument against it") - that certainly happens, and likely rather too often. However, I don't see how changing the ATM rules would address this. Could you elaborate please?