Rules discussion

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

I think it's OK to use "themseves". "He/she" and its variants is awkward.

Stop that! I know you're doing that on purpose, but it's riling up all the OCDs on the board.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

I think it's OK to use "themseves".

You're the BA...you can use "themseves" any time you want.

[SciFi Chick]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I should have known better. Sorry.

No worries. I'm finally going to be learning about the Big Bang theory next semester. I'm sure there's lots you'll be able to catch me on then.

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

This is an interesting area of grammar evolution/devolution. "They" or "them" or "their" are being used in place of the singular he (him, his) or she (her, hers) because some writers are attempting to be gender neutral.

Indeed. It's a shame we must be so politically correct. It would be nice if someone could come up with a method that sounded less awkward.

[SciFi Chick]

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

I think it's OK to use "themseves". "He/she" and its variants is awkward.

English is an evolving language, and there are times we should let it change. But that's a bit OT...

I agree. I probably would have let it slide if that had been the word used as opposed to one that doesn't exist. Then again, creating new words is part of the evolutionary process of language, so I guess it's six to one, half dozen to the other.

And yeah, it's starting to look like we've lost the plot on this topic.

[Hugh Jass]

Reading the new rule, it is a bit vague, but is it designed to protect against taking threads hopelessly off topic? For example, any thread that devolves into a grammar vs PC discussion?
BTW how many BA’s does it take to change a light bulb?

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by Hugh Jass

Reading the new rule, it is a bit vague, snip

I don't see any way you can not make it vague. How can you make unknowns clear? Although, it does convey a message of intent.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by SciFi Chick

Indeed. It's a shame we must be so politically correct. It would be nice if someone could come up with a method that sounded less awkward.

Many have tried; few have succeeded in getting anyone to pay attention to their solutions.

Isn't there already a rule against taking threads hopelessly off topic?

[Disinfo Agent]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

This is an interesting area of grammar evolution/devolution. "They" or "them" or "their" are being used in place of the singular he (him, his) or she (her, hers) because some writers are attempting to be gender neutral.

"They" and "their" have been used to refer to persons of unknown sex for centuries.

[agingjb]

Hmm. Try: "warning violators ... and giving them a chance to explain their behaviour".

[Kaptain K]

BTW how many BA’s does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one , but the bulb has to be "bad"!

[William_Thompson]

Good rule.

I bit worried that it can open the door to punishing someone for just being human and correcting someone's misstep even if it is off topic.

Another problem I can see is moderators being too subjective in what is thought of as "off topic".

Things could be taken too far end evolve into someone taking action against someone because of personal preference. But I will have faith that this will not happen.

There is an obvious joke I could make here about worrying what I just said now was off topic, but I won't tell it.

[George]

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

Only one , but the bulb has to be "bad"!

And these are the ones resistant to change.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by William_Thompson

Good rule.

I bit worried that it can open the door to punishing someone for just being human and correcting someone's misstep even if it is off topic.

Another problem I can see is moderators being too subjective in what is thought of as "off topic".

Things could be taken too far end evolve into someone taking action against someone because of personal preference. But I will have faith that this will not happen.

There is an obvious joke I could make here about worrying what I just said now was off topic, but I won't tell it.

Anyone a moderator believes is misbehaving under this rule will be warned and given a chance to correct their behavior before any punitive action is taken.

[howard2]

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

For the most part it is reasonable...

but the idea that one must answer each and every question put to them, in a timely manner is questionalble... since in many cases the question itself is flawed due to a misunderstanding and in answering it.. it is not answered, but is made clear in its relevance to the topic, while still being part of the mystery.
thus your rule that everything must be answered is suspect.. and should i think be reviewed.. and changed to allow more flexibility in discussion.

after all would it be wrong to shut someone down just because they dont have every answer? are we all to be Einsteins now? and pull the knowledge out of a hat?

2) the idea that you would openly state that we should be prepared for.."attacks"
is i think a bad choice of words.. its fundamental in your rules.. which contradicts the basics of calm nice discussions...
attacks are quick and mean.. and have nothing to do with sharing ideas and knowledge.

the survival of the strong and fittest is for the jungle.!

we are supposed to be better than that...
-MT

Yes I agree whole heartedly with your direction. That is the best attitude for allowing ideas to flow,and to maintain the enthusiasm.
May I quote Trenton's first principle: Nothing is absolutely right and nothing is absolutely wrong. but everything is necessary.

We pride ourselves on our democratic values. So here is my definition:
A democratic society gives each member of that society, The Freedom to Make Responsible Choices. Responsible not only to themselves but also to the other members of that society.
Each person must respect other people's freedom to make responsible choices. If you don't agree. Then that is your freedom of choice.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by howard2

We pride ourselves on our democratic values.

To repeat what's often been said, this is not a democracy, it's a Duumvirate

[Candy]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

To repeat what's often been said, this is not a democracy, it's a Duumvirate

Great link. Short, but sweet.

[Fortunate]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

This is an interesting area of grammar evolution/devolution. "They" or "them" or "their" are being used in place of the singular he (him, his) or she (her, hers) because some writers are attempting to be gender neutral.

Before the days of PC, the word "he" was often used to mean "he/she." This use of the word "he" is still recognized. See definition 2 here. "They" can also be used in this way. See defintion 1b here.

[sarongsong]

Why isn't this thread locked?

[mickal555]

What rule does it break...

I wish it would go away though...

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by sarongsong

Why isn't this thread locked?

Exactly why should it be locked?

[sarongsong]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Y'know, this is four people to respond to this post so far, and none of them are Monique.

#1...

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by sarongsong

#1...

How is it breaking a rule to note that?

Or is it breaking a rule for people to post to a thread that's meant for someone else?

I don't mind what the thread has turned into. It's served it's purpose, and people are having fun with it. I really don't see the harm. I also don't see any rules being broken. It's in BABBling, which is meant for, y'know, BABBling.

[sarongsong]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

...I don't mind what the thread has turned into. It's served it's purpose...

Oh, OK---sorry, missed that detail---nevermind; carry on...

[Candy]

RULES FOR POSTING TO THIS BOARD

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

If you have PMs...

[clj4]

If your thread starts with ad hominem attacks aka "Have we been conned by Einstein" your thread will be dismissed instantly.
If you link in websites that contain ad hominem attacks you will be banned
If you try to solicit funds for your "experiments" you will be banned.

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by clj4

If you link in websites that contain ad hominem attacks you will be banned

This, I'm skeptical on. While you will probably get a warning or be banned for linking to material that is deemed incredibly offensive without giving prior warning (The heavier the material, the heavier the warning required, I'd think), I highly doubt you'd get banned if you link to, say, a debunking site that is less than polite in its arguments (as long as it's not, say, overboard). 'course, I might be wrong.

[clj4]

The key expression is "ad hominem". Why do I get suspended for posting an attack and one can link in a website that is offensive and hosts MULTIPLE ad hominem attacks. Is this the new face of the PC BS?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by clj4

The key expression is "ad hominem". Why do I get suspended for posting an attack and one can link in a website that is offensive and hosts MULTIPLE ad hominem attacks. Is this the new face of the PC BS?

Because posting attacks is specifically against the rules of the forum. If you don't want to get suspended, don't post attacks.

If your thread starts with ad hominem attacks aka "Have we been conned by Einstein" your thread will be dismissed instantly.

As it should be. BAUT posters are required to be civil at all times as a condition of posting here. If you wish to post ad homs, there are plenty of places on the net where it's not only permitted, but highly encouraged. Feel free to join one of those places and say what you like, how you like.

As for this:

If you link in websites that contain ad hominem attacks you will be banned

This statement is a direct contradiction of this:

and one can link in a website that is offensive and hosts MULTIPLE ad hominem attacks

Since you're complaining bitterly about both sides of the very same coin, I can only assume you're randomly lashing out over your suspension. As there's no basis to respond, I won't.

If you try to solicit funds for your "experiments" you will be banned.

Wrong. If you try to scam the board owners out of their cut of the site's advertising revenue, you will be banned. And rightly so.

If you want to advertize here, you have two options:

1) Contact Google. Give them money. They'll include your ad in the rotation while giving Phil and Fraser a cut of that money, which will be used to keep the site running. Everybody wins.

2) Contact Phil and/or Fraser. Give them money. They'll cut open a space for your ad. The money you give them will be used to keep the site running. Everybody wins.

See the common theme here?

Frankly, you're in a right snit because you can't seem to accept that the rules apply to you too. You remind me of that brunette in the Ford Focus commercial who rolls her eyes while running people over on the sidewalk because she's too special and too much in a hurry to wait for a traffic light.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Moose

Since you're complaining bitterly about both sides of the very same coin, I can only assume you're randomly lashing out over your suspension.
[...]
If you want to advertize here, you have two options:

Moose, I think you read clj4 wrong. I appears to me that the statements in Post 93 are proposals for rules. Two of your responses don't make sense in that light.

A) It's not complaining about both sides, if 1) proposing what should happen and 2) stating what does happen, are in contradiction.

B) Far as I can tell clj4 does not want to advertize here -- and doesn't want to see others soliciting funds.

[clj4]

Moose, I think that you are not getting it:
I am AGAINST personal attacks. What gets me is the double-standard exhibited by this site when it comes to calling the attackers on what they are doing.
If I were to believe what you are saying, it is perfectly ok to smear recognized scientists and proven theories with impunity.

"01101001" got it right. Thank you for your help in setting Moose right.
As an aside, what got me suspended was calling a guy who was soliciting funds for a phony experiment (one that would prove how "wrong" special relativity is) a crook.