cl14, smearing theories (which can't be proven, even though some are probably basically correct, e.g. evolution) is allowed and isn't ad hominem, ever. Still, you are supposed on this board to back up any attack on a mainstream theory with facts, or admit that it is just a hunch and you have no serious arguments.
Furthermore, not all attacks on a person are ad hominems. If someone can show why he thinks that Einstein has conned us (e.g. a letter from him stating that "haha, I fooled them all"), then it isn't an ad hominem attack to do so. Similarly, if someone tells a blatant lie (like saying (I never claimed X or Y), then pointing that out isn't an ad hominem attack either, if you can show where and how the person lied.
On the other hand, saying "Einstein conned us" and then only trying to show that his theory is wrong, but not that he willingly or knowingly misled us, is indeed an ad hominem.

Another point: I don't think it is allowed to put a link to your own website, and then putting on that website "The BA stinks" (sorry BA, just giving an example). But linking to a third party website that contains ad hominems (say, Hoagland's website, or GLP) is something else. Although in the latter case it is best to warn people that the link can cause permanent brain damage, it can hardly be forbidden to link to that site, if it is pertinent to a discussion.
Of course, linking to shock sites, porn, or other unacceptable sites (for this board) is still forbidden, and has resulted in warnings yet. So basically I see no double standard.
To give one more example: if you would write :"Neil Armstrong is a nitwit", then you would use an ad hominem and have to face the repercussions. On the other hand, if you report on Bart Sibrel and quote him saying "Neil Armstrong is a nitwit", then you are not using an ad hominem (unless you continue with 'and I agree' of course).
The line between the acceptable and the unacceptable is of course not that clear as I try to show here, but I do think that most people know when they have gone too far and crossed it. And when in doubt, ask a moderator.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Ah. Gotcha. My apologies.

It's okay to criticize recognized scientists and proven theories so long as you can back up what you're saying.

Take Richard Feynman, for example. The man is undoubtedly brilliant, but perhaps at least somewhat naive. He uses metaphysical terms when describing evolution that I feel contributes to the layperson's confusion and plays right into the hands of the anti-science crowd.

During the Dover trial, Michael Behe tried to play on Feynman's metaphor (by selectively interpreting Feynman's words literally). That it ended up having no signficant impact on the trial was more a reflection of Behe's dismal performance as an "expert" witness than it was of how much or little opportunity for mischief was opened by Feynman's words.

Now. In those two paragraphs, it could be said (by the dishonest) that I've ad-hommed Behe and even Feynman. I didn't. Criticism is fine, so long as you're describing the argument/behavior, and not the person.

I'm glad for the correction.

Right. Whether or not it's accurate (and I don't have a horse in that race), that's a fairly clear ad-hom.

__________________
[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

OK, so do we adjust the rules or not? Where is this discussion leading?

For example , should the thread listed below be closed?

Have we been conned by Einstein?

Note the:
-offensive title and content
-indefinite circular argument

*shrug* It's up to the admin, but I don't really see any reason to amend the rules. It's pretty much all covered, both in writing and in practice.

The rules are there. They just need to be followed.

As for the thread you've brought up, I don't see that wisp has done anything wrong. He's mistaken, as others have shown, and that's fine in itself. It's never been about shouting down people with alternative ideas.

Again, it's up to the admin, but I don't really see that they'd have any reason to close the thread at this point.

__________________
[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

Well, I guess that it is ok to put up a thread entitled (for example): "Are we being Conned by the Bad Astronomer", right? Follows the same logic. Should not result into any punishment , correct?.

Especially if we argue indefinitely that the ridiculous statement in the title is true by throwing in every conceivable argument together with the kitchen sink.

There's one sure way to find out.

Such a claim would be easily refuted anyway, considering that BA is in no way asking us for money or material goods.

__________________
[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

Agreed.

If I remember correctly, and I'm not going to read the entier thread again, the original poster has explained that english isn't his first language and he used "conned" without knowing that it implied malicious intent, so the title wasn't intentionally offensive.
If you start a thread titled "Are we being Conned by the Bad Astronomer", it's going to be difficult to argue that offense wasn't intended, which makes the two situations very different.

__________________
An emperor without enemies, a king without a kingdom, supported in life by the willing tribute of a free people.

Excuse me? He is an Englishman.

It was Relmuis who felt that the choice of the word "conned" was an unhappy one in post #22 of that thread. In post #26 Relmuis admits that English is not his first language. Of course Relmuis is absolutely correct about the word "conned" having negative connotations.

If you check wisp's profile I think you will infer that English is very probably wisp's primary language; he knew exactly what word he wanted and used it.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The most productive, reasonable course of action in this case consists of demonstrating why the poster's arguments are incorrect. While I'm not very fond of the OP's choice of terms in the thread title, there's really nothing actionable in that regard.

Several of us did so, for about 3 weeks now. Only to be given circular arguments.

Why not? It is an ad hominem attack.Not against a forum member but against a respected scientist (one of the most respected scientists?). Why allow this ? You've been very quick to warn me, suspend me, etc. You must have received some complaints against these types of threads and against this type of language.....I know of at least one.

At least change the thread title to something less objectionable.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

No, it's not. An ad hominem attack is along the lines of, "You're an idiot, therefore you must be wrong." That doesn't remotely resemble either the title or the presentation in that thread.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

And the discussion is most helpful in addressing the poster's misconceptions. Most often in these sorts of interactions that's something that cannot be accomplished overnight. The administrators' outlook reflects a position of latitude -- care is taken to ensure that participants follow the forum rules, while leeway is extended to ATM proponents... up to a certain point, at which the mods and admins will intervene, in keeping with the FAQ.

What you're asking us to do isn't reasonable. We encourage participation, not censorship. It is not our aim to go about quelling the discussion of ideas, whether we like them or not.

As ToSeek has pointed out above, your assessment isn't correct. While the thread title may be in poor form, it is not actionable.

Only because you violated the forum rules. Those apply to everyone here. Had wisp or anyone else behaved in an equally impolite fashion, they too would have been warned and/or suspended accordingly.

Being rude to someone with whom you disagree will not help them understand why their arguments are incorrect; it only serves to exacerbate the situation. Needless to say, we strongly frown on that.

Aside from your report, the only others I've received pertaining to the thread in question concerned your violations of our civility & decorum rules.

The presentation of circular arguments will not be allowed indefinitely. We will review the situation based upon its content and intervene as necessary. In the meantime, I'd place a strong emphasis on patience.

If you objectively examine our actions (look through the banned posters log, for example), you will see we evenly enforce the forum guidelines. I think perhaps you've taken this instance too personally.

we will see... let's talk 3 months and hundreds of circular arguments from now....

Hi Administrators and Moderators,

I've been on this group for a couple of years now, posting casually.......I must say this is my first time I actually went and read all the forum rules....including some of the banned stuff....WOW!!!

I had no clue how much you all have to deal with on a daily basis.........
This is why the forums are so great...........its you all working hard in the background making it a great place to frequent for all, including myself and my kids.

I have a whole new respect for your efforts...............Keep up the good work! You will always have my support.............

Best Regards,
John

__________________
Best Regards,
John Chumack
The Chumack Observatories
MPC 838 Dayton Research Station
MPC H66 Yellow Springs Research Station
www.galacticimages.com

When I read the posts in the ATM section and also the special rules for posting in this section, I notice that there is much emphasis on attacking the weak parts of these theories. I don't have the feeling this is a good basis for a constructive discussion.

Maybe the tone should be a different. Something like this:
We will attack all the flaws in your theory with fervour, but you also can be sure that we take the good and interesting elements in your theory very serious, will examine it thoroughly, discuss it with our colleges, etcetera

This sounds more freindly, but also shows the will to build on something.
I agree that it is important to let the people know, you are not going to make it easy for them.

Another point, I mentioned here on this board.
Sometimes it needs controversal ideas to make breakthroughs.
When it is a good contrversal idea, it won't be easy to prove it nor to disprove it. If it could be proven easily from observed data, it would not be a controversal idea, but probably a mainstream idea already.

Maybe you should keep this somewhere in your mind:
Wouldn't it be great if a new meanstream theory was born on this board in the ATM section.

I hope my comments are of any use to this board.

Thomas.

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

The problem with that occurs when there are many problems....the weakest is the easiest to attack. There need be only 1 error and your whole argument falls apart.

There is a story about a contest to prove Fermat's Last Theorem (it has since been proved). There was prize money to prove it and the reviewers had a form saying something like "Thank you for your submission. Your first error is on page ___ line____. We are returning your transcript without further review after that point"

I suppose they would get thousands of submissions which were not so good

Pete