Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
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.
|
If that's the case, then why isn't word "pertinent" just added to the rules? It seems to me it would clarify things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
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.
|
I'm proposing no such thing. I am simply proposing that everyone are held responsible of their arguments, not just ATM proponents, as long as the critique and questions are
pertinent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Do you have a particular reason for suggesting that (mainstream) support/reference material may be lacking?
|
Where did I suggest that???
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
And as to loopholes, well, why not address them when they arise?
|
I am addressing one right now. I think the proper way to address loopholes is to correct them in the rules, not to let them exist and deal the situations one by one without proper rules for them. If I report a post, I want to be quite sure that I have a real issue before I make the report.
If there's known loophole, why not fix it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
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?
|
In that example, that part wasn't the problem, it was just setting up the example. Problem was "Sometimes this situation might continue so that the mainstream proponent just continues repeating that same argument over and over again."