Rules discussion

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Jens

I also have a little bit of trouble with the rule that you have to answer questions. It's a good rule, generally, but one might misunderstand that you have to give a correct answer to every question, which means theoretically that a person who doesn't like you could get you banned just by asking a series of really hard questions. I don't think it would be a bad idea to add something like, "If you don't know the answer, admit it."

Already considered and answered here, as well as in Item 8 of the Advice for ATM theory supporters.

8. You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question – answer it. If you don’t know the answer – say so.

Bottom line is, if you've presented an idea, be prepared to defend it. Questions about the idea need to be answered. If you can't answer a question, then the "I don't know." response is of course perfectly fine. But if too many "I don't knows" start to pile up, then it's probably time to reconsider the posting of your idea, with the option of withdrawing it for further work. Items 19 and 21 of the referenced thread are pertinent here:

19. Be willing to modify your views.
21. You need more data. All scientists need more data.

Remember, if it's your idea, then it's also exclusively your responsibility to explain and defend it.

As Item 1 in the referenced thread says:

1. You’re going to be challenged to defend your statements with evidence.

The challenge: a question about your idea. The defense: an answer with evidence.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Moose

One way, IMO, to handle kilopi would be to add a kilopi smiley to which folks could link from their signatures. Multiple smileys for multiple multiples. Or something.

To the best of my knowledge we have only one member who was really involved with changing names at "kilopi".

I support the BA's position re people getting one name and sticking with it.

-Mak (who might have been Catadioptric/Cassegrain/Maksutov by now)

[Glom]

How about a rule that Glom is allowed to make as many politically inflammatory comments as he likes but no-one is allowed to make them back? What? No? You people are so intolerant.

Okay, about rule 13.

Originally Posted by Rule 13

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

I understand the spirit of this and my concern is probably baseless on this forum, which is a shining beacon of the principles of scientific Enlightenment that have been lost in the world. My concern is that in other places, some people have tried to assert that legitimate arguments have been long debunked when in fact they haven't, based on the notion that supposedly the Establishment does not accept them. I think you all know to what I'm referring. They say the science is settled on something and then say that any further discussion should not be allowed. Of course, I have never experienced anything remotely like this on this forum so I know I have nothing to worry about.

[Jens]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

Bottom line is, if you've presented an idea, be prepared to defend it. Questions about the idea need to be answered. If you can't answer a question, then the "I don't know." response is of course perfectly fine. But if too many "I don't knows" start to pile up, then it's probably time to reconsider the posting of your idea, with the option of withdrawing it for further work. Items 19 and 21 of the referenced thread are pertinent here:

As long as that's clear, I have no problem with it. I don't think there's anything wrong about tough questioning, in fact I think it's necessary for progress in science, so no argument there. The only thing I'm pointing out is that people should understand that there is a "graceful exit" available, that you are free, upon finding problems, to say, "You're right, I'll have to go back and reconsider things," and that posting a theory which turns out to be flaws doesn't mean banning as long as you are willing to recognize that.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Glom

I understand the spirit of this and my concern is probably baseless on this forum, which is a shining beacon of the principles of scientific Enlightenment that have been lost in the world.

Yeah, the thing to remember is that in actual practice, this rule has never really kicked in before the 20th-30th page of obstinacy.

[Disinfo Agent]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

Bottom line is, if you've presented an idea, be prepared to defend it. Questions about the idea need to be answered. If you can't answer a question, then the "I don't know." response is of course perfectly fine. But if too many "I don't knows" start to pile up, then it's probably time to reconsider the posting of your idea, with the option of withdrawing it for further work.

For me, it's not the piling of "I don't knows" that's annoying. It's when people simply dodge all inconvenient questions, by ignoring them or changing the subject.
P.S. But I think this is difficult to legislate.

[Nereid]

Michael Mozina, in this ATM thread, commented as follows on the rules (my bold):

I'm also frustrated about this whole notion of suggesting that I can't question the gas model based on these images. That is highly unusual in a scientific setting. You've setup a scenario here where I'm handed a billion and three pet "issues" that anyone and everyone is welcome to throw at me, while I can't ask anyone any questions or expect any answers to these observations from a gas model perspective. How is that a fair debate?

This process looks suspiciously "religious-like" in nature. What you are saying is more or less akin to being told I can't question your "sacred" beliefs, but you get to pick my ideas apart any way you'd like. That isn't scientifically fair IMO, nor is that a sound or standard scientific approach to scientific debate about competing theories. There are supposed to be no "sacred" theories in science, but this "method" you are insisting on imposing rigidly now makes the gas model a "sacred cow" that is somehow above scientific reproach or scrutiny.

I need to stop for awhile and decide the usefulness of trying to have a serious scientific debate about this issue given such unequal settings, and highly unusual limitations, and the constant ignoring of the answers I give as though I've never answered anything and we have start over again.

I'll post the image pixel sizes from the first few images from my website when I've decided if and how I'd like to continue this discussion on this forum given such *severe* limits on free speech and the unusual deviation from standard scientific method that has been adopted here. It's pretty clear from your last few posts and Dwayne's last few posts that things need to cool off a bit anyway. Let's all take a deep breath and think about what we all want to achieve here. I want to talk about these observations and debate them openly. You seem to want to put me under a microscope and take pot shots at anything you think I might not be able to asnwer yet avoid any direct questions about these images based on gas model theories. I don't see how that is going to produce a fair and open debate about competing ideas and models. It's more like a firing squad where no one has to explain anything from a gas model perspective, but I have to explain absolutely EVERYTHING in my model. Its all one way, and it's not an open debate. Is that really the environment you want to create here? Do you really think any single indivual or small groups of individuals could adequately address even just the images I put on my website, let alone explain how fusion ties into the gas model and how magnetic flux ropes form and that list Dwayne through at me using the gas model? Even many professional astronomers have avoided explaining the observations on my website using gas model theories, demonstrating that even experts can't answer every question posed to them using their model, but you are expecting this of me on any and every subject you toss my way. That is simply unfair and unscientific IMO. I came here for an open debate of these ideas but it looks more like a duck hunt and any theory deamed "ATM" automatically becomes the sitting duck.

[Wolverine]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Regarding rule #2, sometimes in BAUT discussions people who are not members here (Richard Hoagland for example) get insulted. I don't know how others feel about this, but I find it very annoying. So, I'm just wondering if it would be a good idea to include a mention about that to rule #2.

This is a fair point. Granted, wiggle room has been allowed in discussions of individuals positing utterly egregious claims (e.g. Lieder, Hoagland, etc.), and in such cases I'd contend harsh criticisms of psuedoscientists have been well-earned. People do need to refrain from ad-hominem attacks, however, no matter how outlandish the subject matter. FWIW, I dispatched a PM the other day to a new user who'd included an ad-hom directed at RCH.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

To the best of my knowledge we have only one member who was really involved with changing names at "kilopi".

There were three, maybe four if you count someone who changed their name but didn't continue with it. A couple more changed after a couple thousand posts, and many others changed after a significant number of posts.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Michael Mozina, in this ATM thread, commented as follows on the rules (my bold):

I'm also frustrated about this whole notion of suggesting that I can't question the gas model based on these images. That is highly unusual in a scientific setting. You've setup a scenario here where I'm handed a billion and three pet "issues" that anyone and everyone is welcome to throw at me, while I can't ask anyone any questions or expect any answers to these observations from a gas model perspective. How is that a fair debate?

This process looks suspiciously "religious-like" in nature. What you are saying is more or less akin to being told I can't question your "sacred" beliefs, but you get to pick my ideas apart any way you'd like. That isn't scientifically fair IMO, nor is that a sound or standard scientific approach to scientific debate about competing theories. There are supposed to be no "sacred" theories in science, but this "method" you are insisting on imposing rigidly now makes the gas model a "sacred cow" that is somehow above scientific reproach or scrutiny.

I need to stop for awhile and decide the usefulness of trying to have a serious scientific debate about this issue given such unequal settings, and highly unusual limitations, and the constant ignoring of the answers I give as though I've never answered anything and we have start over again.

I'll post the image pixel sizes from the first few images from my website when I've decided if and how I'd like to continue this discussion on this forum given such *severe* limits on free speech and the unusual deviation from standard scientific method that has been adopted here. It's pretty clear from your last few posts and Dwayne's last few posts that things need to cool off a bit anyway. Let's all take a deep breath and think about what we all want to achieve here. I want to talk about these observations and debate them openly. You seem to want to put me under a microscope and take pot shots at anything you think I might not be able to asnwer yet avoid any direct questions about these images based on gas model theories. I don't see how that is going to produce a fair and open debate about competing ideas and models. It's more like a firing squad where no one has to explain anything from a gas model perspective, but I have to explain absolutely EVERYTHING in my model. Its all one way, and it's not an open debate. Is that really the environment you want to create here? Do you really think any single indivual or small groups of individuals could adequately address even just the images I put on my website, let alone explain how fusion ties into the gas model and how magnetic flux ropes form and that list Dwayne through at me using the gas model? Even many professional astronomers have avoided explaining the observations on my website using gas model theories, demonstrating that even experts can't answer every question posed to them using their model, but you are expecting this of me on any and every subject you toss my way. That is simply unfair and unscientific IMO. I came here for an open debate of these ideas but it looks more like a duck hunt and any theory deamed "ATM" automatically becomes the sitting duck.

What's the problem?

Besides Moz doing the usual complaining about how he's a victim?

If he responded to one of the "billion and three pet 'issues'" (good to see he's not exaggerating) with a straightforward, evidence-laden answer, then the discussion might move on.

Instead he retreats into the usual ATM position of being some kind of victim or self-styled martyr (i.e., "anyone and everyone is welcome to throw at me, while I can't ask anyone any questions or expect any answers").

Another typical aspect of the ATM retreat is the claim that "This process looks suspiciously "religious-like" in nature." It's the old "I'm up against dogma/the system/the establishment/"the man" baloney, which is designed to shift the focus from what the ATMer is claiming to how the ATMer is being treated.

This invariably leads to the old "I'm being suppressed and therefore I'm right!" claim. This is usually coupled with comments about the rabble the "advanced thinker" has to deal with.

I need to stop for awhile and decide the usefulness of trying to have a serious scientific debate about this issue given such unequal settings, and highly unusual limitations, and the constant ignoring of the answers I give as though I've never answered anything and we have start over again.

Same old baloney (no matter how you slice it) that's been going around for decades. Remember the kid in the playground who took his ball home?

[Archer17]

I have no problem with the rules - I think they are fair and necessary. One thing I would like to comment on is the second paragraph involving warnings:

For most of these rules, the first violation will result in a warning issued via Private Message (PM). If you have PMs turned off, we will issue the warning in the thread. In the case of a second violation, depending upon the severity, the moderators/administrators will issue a more stern warning, or they may ban you temporarily (for a few days), or they may permanently ban you.

I believe that if any poster violates the rules all warnings should be public. Two reasons. If, for example, I am rude with poster "A," a public warning will most likely nip it in the bud right there. If done via PM, Poster A or others might be inclined to respond to whatever I posted and run the risk of violating the rules themselves. At the very least it could result in the admins/mods getting barraged with people reporting the same infraction. The other reason is education. Wolverine's post regarding ad hominems involving RCH made me reflect on my past use of the term "quack" regarding one pseudoscience promoter in particular. I don't know if "quack" crosses the line or not, but the fact that I'm not so sure now will help me stick to the particular claims and avoid such unnecessary descriptors in the future.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Archer17

I have no problem with the rules - I think they are fair and necessary. One thing I would like to comment on is the second paragraph involving warnings:I believe that if any poster violates the rules all warnings should be public. Two reasons. If, for example, I am rude with poster "A," a public warning will most likely nip it in the bud right there. If done via PM, Poster A or others might be inclined to respond to whatever I posted and run the risk of violating the rules themselves. At the very least it could result in the admins/mods getting barraged with people reporting the same infraction. The other reason is education. Wolverine's post regarding ad hominems involving RCH made me reflect on my past use of the term "quack" regarding one pseudoscience promoter in particular. I don't know if "quack" crosses the line or not, but the fact that I'm not so sure now will help me stick to the particular claims and avoid such unnecessary descriptors in the future.[/font]

Good points about the usefulness of public notification.

Re "quack", I'd say it's appropriate if the HB/CT/ATMer is ducking the issues.

Concerning RCH and appropriate language, heck, just seeing "Hoagland" in a post is enough to get me giggling.

[Jeff Root]

I haven't read the rules yet, and only the first 5 posts in
this thread, but I have two observations already:

First, I think it is great than an area for discussion of the
rules is available! That would probably have prevented a
lot of grief in some astronomy/Space discussion forums I
participated in. Which leads to my second observation...

The Fido SPACE echo was run for years by a moderator
who was widely respected. She needed to turn the very
successful echo over to a new moderator. One person
campaigned for the job. I tried to convince the long-time
moderator that the guy who was campaigning was a bad
choice. But his campaign was successful and he won the
position. He immediately installed a way-too-long list of
rules, and enforced them as though enforcing rules was
the ultimate reason for being a moderator. He regularly
chewed out new posters for posting slightly off-topic or
other mistakes that seemed to me to be entirely innocent
in many cases. He knew he was right and wouldn't listen
to backtalk. I was temporarily banned from the echo for
what I said to him in e-mail, complaing about his rules.
The echo quickly tanked. In summary, his main problem
was his personality, which is not a problem here, and his
secondary problem was too many rules.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Correction, a while later: If I recall correctly, I was
actually banned for complaining about the moderator's
application of the rules to another poster, not about
the rules themselves.

[Candy]

4. Copyright

Do not post copyrighted material here. This is very serious. It is within the law to post small, relevant quotes, but not whole passages from newspapers, magazines, books, etc. If you do, the post will be deleted, and you will be warned. Do it twice and you will be banned. If you want to reference material somewhere else on the web, give a brief summary and link to the rest. People can go take a look at what you're talking about and then return to discuss it further.

8. Hotlinking

Try to avoid putting in links to images directly from someone else's website. This can add a lot to their bandwidth, and then the host has to pay for it. In other words, if you see an image you like on an astronomy site, put in a link to that site, but don't use the [IMG] tags so the image loads into your post from their site directly. If you really want an image in your post, put it in a public site someplace and link to it from there. One exception would be from sites like NASA or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue. If you own the image, then you can upload it to the board yourself.

First question: Can I take an image (copyrighted or not) from someone’s website, copy it to my web space, and use [IMG] tags? For all practical purposes, let’s say a whole image or part of an image?

Second question: Does CNN, ABCNews, MSNBC, etc, basically all the big News companies, fall into the same league as NASA or an universities realm of big bandwidth (when using [IMG] tags)?

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by Candy

First question: Can I take an image (copyrighted or not) from someone’s website, copy it to my web space, and use [IMG] tags? For all practical purposes, let’s say a whole image or part of an image?

My take: if it's copyrighted, no. Otherwise, okay.

Second question: Does CNN, ABCNews, MSNBC, etc, basically all the big News companies, fall into the same league as NASA or an universities realm of big bandwidth (when using [IMG] tags)?

I don't think it's the big bandwidth realm so much as that NASA and universities put out their material deliberately for educational purposes, so any links to their materials (on a site like this, anyway) further their ends.

The commercial sites all pretty much have advertising around the outskirts of their pages. Linking directly to their materials bypasses one of their main ways of making money off their sites, so it's probably not appreciated.

[Robert Andersson]

Originally Posted by Candy

First question: Can I take an image (copyrighted or not) from someone’s website, copy it to my web space, and use [IMG] tags? For all practical purposes, let’s say a whole image or part of an image?

Almost any image is copyrighted. What matters is if you have permission to copy it. If you copy something without permission, it can be criminal to provide links to it. If you do have permission, do whatever you like

Second question: Does CNN, ABCNews, MSNBC, etc, basically all the big News companies, fall into the same league as NASA or an universities realm of big bandwidth (when using [IMG] tags)?

IMO, hot-linking is mostly a matter of courtesy. There are two aspects:
1) Bandwidth: You can always provide a link, and then the host will loose the bandwidth either way, although the ratio of those who follow it and people looking at the thread is usually less than 1. If the ratio is expected to be low, it might be wise not to hot-link. Then consider how many views it will have relative to what it has in its original context. At BAUT, maybe it will be shown 1000 times in one day, while maybe a million will see it from CNN. In that case I see no problem. On the other hand, a poor geocities site with limited bandwidth, might suffer badly from hot-linking.
2) Copyright: The owner might not want the image to be shown in other contexts than the original...

In the end of the day, I think it comes down to common sense. Personally I would prefer more hot-linking, since I hate have to follow links everywhere, but that's just me

[Candy]

Okay, I'm still confused.

After reading the rules, I started copying an image (from a small site) to my webspace. I did this to not use their bandwidth. I used mine.

I assumed hot linking an image from a big worldwide company would be okay, provided I add a link to the article. I did this thinking CNN or ABCNews (ATT Worldnet) were companies that fell into the league of NASA.

One exception would be from sites like NASA or universities, where bandwidth is not such an issue.

To me, this means big businesses, not necessarily educating people. If you want to think of it as educational, then isn't that what Worldwide News Websites are attempting to accomplish, too?

[Fraser]

You shouldn't ever post an image directly from another site. You should post a link to a page that contains the image. If people want to see it, they can click to see the page that contains the image and see it in context. It's partly a courtesy thing, and partly a copyright issue.

If you're storing an image locally, the original source loses the ability to modify the image and have it be updated directly. If you paste a link to their image only, you're not letting people see the page that the image was stored in (it's rude). And if you paste the link directly into a forum page, you're making every person who loads the page also load the image. It's a severe bandwidth hog, and considered very rude.

[Candy]

Originally Posted by Fraser

You shouldn't ever post an image directly from another site. You should post a link to a page that contains the image. If people want to see it, they can click to see the page that contains the image and see it in context. It's partly a courtesy thing, and partly a copyright issue.

If you're storing an image locally, the original source loses the ability to modify the image and have it be updated directly. If you paste a link to their image only, you're not letting people see the page that the image was stored in (it's rude). And if you paste the link directly into a forum page, you're making every person who loads the page also load the image. It's a severe bandwidth hog, and considered very rude.

Basically, don't load an image to BAUT ever, even if it is from NASA.

1. Each viewer is using their bandwidth to load the thread. Downloading each page with images is cumbersome and considered rude.
2. Using [IMG] tags is a copyright violation, unless given permission. Even then so, see 1.
3. The only images one should even post are images owned by the poster. Even then so, see 1.

Wow, I can think of a few posters that often use [IMG] tagged funny photos to a thread, like Maksutov.

I don’t think I like these rules, but I can live with them. I assume this doesn’t apply to smilies, or am I wrong there, too?

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Fraser

You shouldn't ever post an image directly from another site. You should post a link to a page that contains the image. If people want to see it, they can click to see the page that contains the image and see it in context. It's partly a courtesy thing, and partly a copyright issue.

If you're storing an image locally, the original source loses the ability to modify the image and have it be updated directly. If you paste a link to their image only, you're not letting people see the page that the image was stored in (it's rude). And if you paste the link directly into a forum page, you're making every person who loads the page also load the image. It's a severe bandwidth hog, and considered very rude.

I guess you don't like images, eh?

What I typically post is either a small image itself, i.e. 5K or less or a tiny thumbnail linking to an image service site. The thumbnail gives the reader the option of clicking on it to see the larger image, or not.The images are either mine or in the public domain.

But if images are verboten (including, it would appear, custom avatars (so long, T. Rex)), then I'll say goodbye to such things and probably significantly decrease my participation in this board.

[R.A.F.]

Ok..now I'm confused as to what is and what is not allowed here...image wise, that is...

Could someone "dumb it down" for me??

[Wolverine]

Whoa, time-out... it seems we have a simple misunderstanding here. No need to get upset.

There's nothing wrong with using dedicated services like Imageshack to host thumbnails/pictures which are public domain, like Maksutov and others have done in the past (I know Mak and other folks create their own from time to time as well). I've used it repeatedly to display my own photographs and such, as I've very limited personal hosting space. The thumbnail feature it offers is nice because it allows users the option of clicking on the photo or not, which is especially courteous to dial-up users.

This is fine:



The issue of hotlinking images from news services is what prompted this discussion, as I'd sent Candy a private message about it. Regardless of the fact that they may have adequate bandwidth, it's still an inconsiderate practice, and such images are copyrighted. When linking to a news story, what you should do is simply include a url to the originating page and not hotlink the image. Viewers can see the picture(s) if they click on the link. You should not take images from media sites and upload them to Imageshack or your own personal webspace to get around the hotlink request present in the FAQ, again, because the images are copyrighted.

Including smilies of one's own design, public domain, or from the emoticon sites which explicitly allow for their emotes to be linked to directly is okay.

Let's not make this harder than it needs to be.

[Candy]

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Whoa, time-out... it seems we have a simple misunderstanding here. No need to get upset.

There's nothing wrong with using dedicated services like Imageshack to host thumbnails/pictures which are public domain, like Maksutov and others have done in the past (I know Mak and other folks create their own from time to time as well). I've used it repeatedly to display my own photographs and such, as I've very limited personal hosting space. The thumbnail feature it offers is nice because it allows users the option of clicking on the photo or not, which is especially courteous to dial-up users.

This is fine:



The issue of hotlinking images from news services is what prompted this discussion, as I'd sent Candy a private message about it. Regardless of the fact that they may have adequate bandwidth, it's still an inconsiderate practice, and such images are copyrighted. When linking to a news story, what you should do is simply include a url to the originating page and not hotlink the image. Viewers can see the picture(s) if they click on the link. You should not take images from media sites and upload them to Imageshack or your own personal webspace to get around the hotlink request present in the FAQ, again, because the images are copyrighted.

Including smilies of one's own design, public domain, or from the emoticon sites which explicitly allow for their emotes to be linked to directly is okay.

Let's not make this harder than it needs to be.

I have ATT Worldnet, and they give me huge amounts of personal webspace. I don't have an option to convert my photos into a thumbnail. I assume it is okay to post as I have been in the past with my photos. I just won't hotlink to a news article's photo any longer.

What's considered a public domain? Google Images?

I have dial-up, and I don't mind downloading another's images (included in a thread). Especially, Mak's, because they make me laugh. It's the price I pay to enjoy life a little.

[Wolverine]

Originally Posted by Candy

What's considered a public domain? Google Images?

No, Google images are still subject to copyright -- the search engine just compiles them from various web sources. See here for more on public domain.

[Candy]

Originally Posted by Wolverine

No, Google images are still subject to copyright -- the search engine just compiles them from various web sources. See here for more on public domain.

Inline Linking

Thumbnails

Fair use on the Internet

A recent court case, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgement after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.

I see thumbnails fall into the category that I had concern about (inline linking), so I believe I will be okay with my future posting style.

If I have questions of wrong or right, I will just PM a moderator or administrator (based on who's online) for direction.

Thank you, Wolverine, for the link.

[Nereid]

... which apply (particularly?) to images.

For example, Hubblesite/newscenter: here is what their copyright page says (extract):

Copyright Notice Material credited to STScI on this site was created, authored, and/or prepared for NASA under Contract NAS5-26555. Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and it may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract. However, it is requested that in any subsequent use of this work NASA and STScI be given appropriate acknowledgement. STScI further requests voluntary reporting of all use, derivative creation, and other alteration of this work. Such reporting should be sent to copyright@stsci.edu.

This site also contains material generated, authored and/or prepared by individuals or institutions other than STScI, and those individuals or institutions may claim copyright. Should you desire use of such material at this time, inquiries should be made to those individuals and institutions in accordance with the following:

A catalogue of HST publicly released images on this site may be found at the following location: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/. If the credit line for an image lists STScI as the source, the image may be freely used as in the public domain as noted above. However, for credit lines listing individuals from other institutions, you will need to contact that institution listed in the credit line to advise you on the copyright policy for that image. If the individual listed in the credit line is a member of the American Astronomical Society you can obtain their contact information from (https://members.aas.org/directory/directory.cfm)

So, if you have an image you wish to use - in one way or another - on a (public) website (generally, not specifically BAUT), there will likely be a statement, by the image owner, on what they want you do you re (public) re-use - prohibited, acknowledge source (sometimes, with specific words), only commercial use prohibited, whatever.

In my experience, publicly funded agencies, those whose mandate is education, etc actively encourage non-commercial re-use of materials, provided appropriate acknowledgement of the source is given, and provided it's of the 'extract+link' kind.

[Disinfo Agent]

Something else to ponder about? Where to place that fuzzy line between 'trolling' and 'humour'?

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Something else to ponder about? Where to place that fuzzy line between 'trolling' and 'humour'?

That's a tricky one. In all honesty, I thought the OP was a joke until I saw some of the later comments that cried "trolling" on posts that I thought were just going along with the joke.

Sometimes it is hard to know what to take seriously, and if we assume everything we read is meant seriously this will be a very dull board.

I think it will come down to a case by case determination depending on posters' intentions.

[Disinfo Agent]

I have another question. The rules of the old BABB included a "three strikes, you're out" policy, except for blatant violations of the rules, such as spamming or using sock puppets. The new rules are not as clear about how much tolerance there will be for infractions.

[peter eldergill]

I thought the "photos" were hilarious. I don't know why the poster (JHotz, I think) got so upset...

Pete