__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

You can always check www.bugmenot.com

I do that when I see subscription requirements for news sites when I want to check the article, but I don't want to go on their list.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Van Rijn, You Rock.

Hmm....I'll try that with the Royal Soc. thing and see if it works. Thanks, Van Rijn!

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

In this thread The 'faces' Of Mars!! the OP's writing style has become an impediment for some regular readers. His posts are long, rambling, and disjointed. The OP's real-world identity is known, providing an ability to see other examples of his communications.

There is testimony that his writing here at BAUT is an affected style, deliberately adopted for effect. I understand that this is an unresolved question of fact. My question instead has to do with whether the general requirement to provide direct answers might have something to say about an elective writing style: might an artificially obfuscatory, disjointed, and rambling style be construed as evasive?

I fear the slippery slope. Not everyone has an equal command of the English language, and it would be unfortunate to squelch important discussion by imposing stylistic requirements that some other posters legitimately cannot attain.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Well, since the OP has been banned, it seems to be irrelevant.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Suspended.

I think it's a valid point. Deliberately falsifying your writing style can have many implications- all of which are to confuse.

What do we do in situations where a member publicly posts message included in a PM (Private Message) without the express permission of the original sender?

As explained in the rules here:

How long does the message have to stay there (before they delete it) for the user to get a warning or possible suspension? 10 minutes? an hour? a day?

__________________
P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.

-- Mitch Hedberg

I may be speaking out of turn, but like any other major violation, you report it.

As for how long an offender has, they have had, judging by past observation, exactly as long as it takes as a mod to notice, and rarely so much as a second more. There has never been much visible leeway in the enforcement of rule 5.

__________________
[Dr. Horrible]___________________________[Penny]
Listen close to everybody's heart________And you believe there's good in everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sound_____________Keep it safe and sound
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart____With hope you can do your part
And crashing to the ground_______________To turn a life around

It's being taken care of TRS.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

And BTW- to anyone interested to know, the issue was settled mutually. So my previous post and its implications can be considered void.

__________________
P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.

-- Mitch Hedberg

What are the general considerations for what should be in the Q&A forum? My impression is that that forum is for space and astronomy related questions and answers, and is supposed to show a straightforward "good face" for new and rare posters. So, my question is, should we report threads like this:

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...ms-anyway.html

I don't see an astronomy or space related question and answer session there, and the science content itself is pretty thin. What I mostly see is a back and forth argument about what one person thinks the other person said. In other words, they're debating the person, not the subject.

I would PM this, but threads like this seem to turn up in Q&A fairly regularly. Are they considered acceptable for that forum, or not?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Well, I've asked paleontology/geochemistry questions there and have gotten good feedback.

Should I not have done that?

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

It's a good question. Perhaps it should go in "General Science." But there are two issue here: One is if there is a science question that is subsequently answerd. Another is if there is not a question and answer thread, but a debate that might or might not be scientific in nature, let alone astronomy or space related.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

That sort of thing happens in threads sometimes, it's part of the process of working out the misunderstandings. You have to offer a paraphrase, and evaluate the response.

Should Q&A be for science Q&A? or just space/astronomy Q&A? I don't start very many threads there (search says none), I just try to answer the posted questions.You are supposed to PM a mod if you don't like what you see. I'm pretty sure, for instance, you're not supposed to accuse people of being a troll, you're supposed to PM a mod that they might be a troll.

Use the little red triangle. That alerts all the Mods.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

The subheader says "Got a space/astronomy question? Get it answered here."
I take that to be exclusionary.

If I don't see a topic's connection to space or astronomy, even a tenuous one, I just ask the participants. They should have an answer. I don't see bothering the mods until the poster plainly states that there is no connection, or the proffered connection is nonsense. Sometimes a good explanation is offered, one I didn't expect; usually not.

Edit: But.... in light of the very recent Rule 16 change, I must ask: is asking such a question "talking about bad posts or anything else you consider to be inappropriate user behavior"? What is talking and what is asking?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

Rule 16 has been further modified, as follows:

Before:

After:

This is to forestall another meltdown of the sort that occurred in a recent thread, where one poster criticized another poster's pattern of behavior, whereupon a bunch of other posters got on that poster for being critical, etc., etc.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.