[Nereid speaking as Nereid, not as a BAUT Moderator]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose
I don't disagree. I have to say that I'm actually pleasantly surprised: 1%-2% seems a little high to me.
|
It uses a fairly liberal criterion ... but it's not inconsistent with BAUT's ATM section.
Assume ~1000 ATM threads, then can we say there are ~10 that seem to be free of obvious mathematical or logical errors? not already strongly inconsistent with good observational results? free of obvious misrepresentations or gross misunderstanding of basic accepted science? (and so on)
I think we can. Not wishing to pick favourites, there's some good stuff in the Arp thread, POAMS seems it might show promise, perhaps some of
grav's or
john hunter's material?
Quote:
|
What I'm failing to understand, however, is why we are proposing to explicitly throw out the rare "baby" while going out of our way to keep the "bathwater", metaphorically speaking? Don't we like "babies"?
|
What I'd like to do is throw out the bathwater, and keep these ~1-2% babies.
My impression is that they (the babies) would greatly benefit from more focussed attention ... including fervid and gleeful attacks, as well as support and encouragement (should any BAUT member wish to offer it).