I agree with you, but I thought it was still an issue worth raising. I remember a discussion on the BABB about whether people should stop using the word "woowoo".

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Many thanks, Wolverine, for your explanation concerning image use. The subsequent quoting of the Hubble image use policy by Nereid (posted again above), gave me cause for thought: according to this statement, our avatars - both Hubble photos with some processing to make them fit into the image size limit - would contravene NASA policy: They are not credited and our manipulations were not reported to NASA. Do you think that would be a problem?

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

I have a feeling that by "use" they mean "practical use." If you're not using it for science, merchandise, or advertising, I doubt it makes a big difference.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Actually NASA has a very open license. For most of their images, you're free to use them for any purpose whatsoever (including commercial purposes) without asking for permission or paying a license fee. I was very careful to choose only license free images when providing all the free avatars.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

If I get banned, then I assume I can still read posts. But can I still search? And indeed what facilities of the site can I still use?

Are you planning on getting banned?

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

It seems all too easy here, except in what seem to be unique circumstances. I post rarely and read much, but I do see people being warned for critical views expressed in an emphatic manner into which I might easily stray.

As long as you either have evidence to back up your claims or don't present them as fact then you will be fine. The problem is when someone presents their ideas as fact but either refuses to provide any evidence for them or refuses to acknowledge when all of his or her evidence is refuted. And it does not happen suddenly, they are warned to stop before banning occurs, and even then it is usually just a temporary ban unless the offense is particularly heinous. Follow the rules and you will be fine. But refusing to follow the rules despite being warned to do so is not tolerated by the Mods here.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

I like the temporary banning thing. Permanent bannings should be fairly rare. This would have been a good idea on the old BABB (I think someone here might agree with me ...ahem)

L8R

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Thanks. I must look up the definition of Guest Status. I'm probably unlikely to say anything that would get me banned, and I'd certainly be happy to remove it if challenged by a moderator. It is, however, very clear that there a puzzling difference in tolerance being shown on this board.

Guest status is the status you had before you ever registered. Perhaps, this is a better way for an explanation. Remember the difference as guest compared to being a member?

I like having more moderators. I like this system of banning much better than the old way. I haven't seen a difference in tolerance levels. I haven't really followed much of the threads that seem to generate a banning, either. I learned my lesson already.

Yes, Peter, yes!

Congrats on cracking 10,000 Candy!

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Thank you, Count Zero.

The 10,001 post was in a thread about getting banned.

Would you be kind enough to say a little more about this please?

For example, what differences in tolerance have you noticed (other than between the first month and now; in the first month the rules were different)?

I would have thought that, were I to assert that the moon landings did not take place, to offer no new evidence of this (false) assertion, to demonstrate an invincible ignorance of the basics of physics and astronomy, and to sustain this against a large number and variety of informed rebuttals, then I would be justly banned, swiftly and finally.

And the evidence suggests that you would be, except for the finally part

Ah yes. I see that the evidence has arrived.

Well, I meant the first banning, but now it looks permanent.

Oh well, he wasn't a big fan of evidence, but at least he was less, shall we say, aggressive, than some of the other folks who cruise through here...

(edited for spelling)

Keep in mind that, despite the number of posts on that thread, Moon Man was here for only about 72 hours.

I do agree that we had ample reason to ban him from the time I first did so on. I was responding to vox populi, and I'm not sure I'll do that again: rules should be enforced consistently and not relaxed just because someone provokes some desired excitement.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'd agree with your reasoning there, ToSeek. I know you were trying to make people happy, but I think your first action was correct.