I tried to get this discussed once before, diverting/hijacking the Rules Discussion thread with
this article and forward. I'm not sure it produced a conclusion. Now, ATM (Edit:
Against the Mainstream) is different, and the incentives for ATM promotion to stray out of ATM are greater, so, I'll try this separate topic.
Are the new controls on ATM promotion in the ATM Forum inspiring ATM promotion to leak into other groups?
I feel like I've been seeing more lately. Anyone else? I can't quantify it. (Any statisticians want a task?) Here's a precious, fun anecdote, though, which, of course, is not data:
In the
Is the Earth growing? I
challenged ExpErdMann to keep ATM promotion out of Q&A, after ExpErdMann admitted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
I don't want to debate the matter here (it's not the right forum anyway), but I just wanted you to have some of the right A in this Q&A thread.
|
So ExpErdMann knows it doesn't belong. Yet, ExpErdMann calls it the right answer, even though Q&A is for mainstream answers. How could it be right
and ATM? That's promotion. And ExpErdMann got
a warning:
Quote:
|
ExpErdMann do not insert ATM ideas into the Q&A forum. Q&A is strictly for mainstream answers.
|
Not long after, ExpErdMann promotes the ATM idea again with data:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
For each of the GPS stations, you can take the annual height change and average them out. When this is done, it comes to about a 1.7 mm/yr average increase in altitude per year. Admittedly, the GPS stations are all on land, so the seafloor motions are undetermined. The 1.7 mm/yr value is too small from the fast expansion side (1-2 cm/yr) and a little too much for the slow expansion prediction (.5-.7 mm/yr). Still, it seems to indicate expansion.
|
Boy that sounds familiar. Wasn't there a whole ATM thread kicked off by this data? Seems so, 2004, November 5:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
Ray Tomes has done a study on GPS data for over 1,000 stations and reports that the average rate of expansion is 1.77 mm/yr. That would be consistent with slow expansion models, but not fast expansion models, unless the fast expansion is punctuated. The interesting graphs are halfway down the page.
|
So what gives? Must we endure ATM-promotion data introduced a few years ago, in an ATM thread, yet again, in Q&A, the place for mainstream answers?
Once again, ExpErdMann goes "Oops":
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpErdMann
I promised above not to be debating EE here (and yet here I'm doing it). So I'll try to minimize my further comments in this thread.
|
I'm so glad that ExpErdMann is going be be responsible and minimize comments,
after debating the Expanding Earth ATM issue,
after introducing it yet again, post-warning,
after presenting it to the members years ago in an ATM topic. Oops.
Why is this appropriate? If endless-ATM promotion is enough of a problem that we are experimenting with closing ATM threads after 30 days of discussion, isn't ATM promotion -- in Q&A threads -- of ideas presented circa 30
months ago also a problem?
That's one instance of ATM promotion leaking out of ATM recently. But it's not the only one. Want more?
Anyone else? Or, should we change Q&A so any-sort-of-answer is OK?
[Edit: Defined ATM.]