Why there is an ATM section at all?

[Nereid]

This excellent question was posed by VanderL, here.

The general context is, in my own words: ATM rules include "People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do."; VanderL feels this is not 'constructive', and it 'obstructs many good exchanges where people could learn from each other’s input'. Instead of challenging ATM ideas, as presented, VanderL suggests "If the idea doesn’t have any merit in your view, just say so and leave it at that. A little restraint would work wonders."

Of course, you should check the primary sources yourself, to see the extent that Nereid's summary misses any key points.

But what do you, BAUT members reading this post, think?

Should BAUT have an ATM section? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Gillianren]

But it won't be possible to "leave it at that"! After all, logically, people will ask why you don't agree.

Besides, I would think any decent scientific mind would welcome the questioning they'll receive at the hands of the more knowledgeable BAUT members. It will enable them to improve their ideas. If you don't want questions asked about your idea, why tell anyone about it at all?

[DOOMMaster]

But if we didn't have the ATM section, where would I get my daily laughs from? I love seeing the constant posting by certain people of ideas that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I know, I can always go to the Conspiracy Forum and read the 9/11 posts or the occasionally "We didn't land on the Moon" posts. But there's just something about the Electric/Plasma cosmology people that is really, really funny. And the various "Einstien was all wrong!" posts.

Few of the ATM people want there to be any type of reasonable discussion about their ideas, because so few of them actually have any evidence for their ideas. And they very rarely even understand how science works. There are a few that are willing to engage in a real discussion, and I have nothing against them. But the rest should get exactly what they do in the ATM section, and that is having their ideas torn apart by people who actually know what they are talking about. If the ATMers don't like this, too bad. Don't post your idea then.

[Moose]

If we were to squelch ATM, what exactly would we do with the existing traffic in that forum? Would you prefer ATM posts in General Astronomy? Questions? Censor ATM threads outright? Let ATMers post willy-nilly?

Personally, I think ATM (the forum and the participation) does have a valuable place here, but the logistics pretty much require a separate area with a separate ruleset. It seems to me ATM's been working fairly well as it is. Why mess with a good thing?

Edit to add: We've had similar threads before, and the common factor in all of them seems to be the desire for the ATMer to avoid being challenged. Although it's possible I'm misjudging VanderL's request, it seems to be in that vein. I can only repeat what I've repeated so often: this is BAUT. Nobody gets a free ride here. Not me. Not the mods. Not even the admin get a free ride here. If Phil and Fraser get challenged when they've made a mistake, why should ATMers expect to be coddled?

In any case, if an ATMer's idea is a good one, it will survive challenge just like all other good ideas. And the longer it survives, the better it is, the more it will become accepted. Just like any good scientific idea has undergone.

[Xbalanque]

I guess it depends. Do the ATM proponents actually wish to learn from their mistakes and improve upon their ideas, or do they want a forum where only those who agree with them can discuss those ideas? Is it possible (and this doesn't solely apply to ATM proponents) that sometimes the presenter of the idea is unable to separate criticism of the idea from criticism of the presenter? From my own experiences in peer review, you need to develop a pretty thick skin but you also need to realize that an attack on your ideas is not an attack upon yourself. If the ATM section does adopt the "fluffy bunny" approach to the critique of ATM ideas, then it seems to me that it would also be incumbent upon ATM proponents not to attack the "Mainstream" in exchange. After all, fair is fair.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Nereid

The general context is, in my own words: ATM rules include "People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do."; VanderL feels this is not 'constructive', and it 'obstructs many good exchanges where people could learn from each other’s input'. Instead of challenging ATM ideas, as presented, VanderL suggests "If the idea doesn’t have any merit in your view, just say so and leave it at that. A little restraint would work wonders."

People attack arguments with glee and fervor in all the forums. That is what science and scientists do. It seems to be a sore point with ATM proponents because they are either actually unconvinced of their own ideas, yet assert them anyway, or they are unable to communicate the reasoning that got them there.

People who encounter questionable assertions in the other forums rarely just say so and leave it at that. Why should they behave differently in ATM? Are ATM ideas so fragile that they need special treatment?

[PhantomWolf]

I think that the ATM proponets need to wake up and smell the cookies. Regardless of who it is, any new theories are attacked and shredded by science, that's how it works, if experimental data shows that you're theory is wrong, then it gets tossed on the scrap pile. The trouble is that most of the ATM crowd have so much invested in their pet topic they aren't willing to listen when it's shown their system falls over and they dig their heels in. If they reaqlly were to approach it with an open mind and ready to extend and work on their theory, they'd take each failure and question as an opportunity to broadedn and modify their ideas into a workable form.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Should BAUT have an ATM section? If so, why? If not, why not?

I'm not even sure why this question has to be asked. In the past, and even recently, many threads in general science get highjacked by posters with pet theories--someone will ask a question about relativity, and a few oldtimers will answer to the best of their ability, and then an ATM poster will barrage the thread with ATM objections.

Without banning ATM entirely (and how would we really know?), the only option is to have a separate forum in which the moderators can sequester the ATM posts. Most ATM content is self-identifying, so it isn't too hard. Some stuff does get through.

OTOH, I've seen some unfair treatment of ATM posters, and I've complained about it. Instances like that can get blown out of proportion. Vandert may have experienced something like that.

[Frog march]

I made an ATM thread on JREF once and someone made an counter argument based, I thought, upon nothing but an appeal to authority(their own in this case). I think that this may be common in the ATM forum, but I don't know because I don't go there much partly because I find the ATM ideas generally too annoying.

[johnp]

The only motive for an ATM section as well as a Conspiracy theory section is for
a better rating ie more peoples on board ....close them for a few weeks and the ratings will go down.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by johnp

The only motive for an ATM section as well as a Conspiracy theory section is for
a better rating ie more peoples on board ....close them for a few weeks and the ratings will go down.

You're not from around these parts, eh pardner?

That's a pretty cynical (and erroneous) viewpoint there. I thought my explanation covered some of the historical perspective.

[Wolverine]

Speaking solely as a long-time member of this community, not attempting to wield my status as a moderator:

• Yes, we should have an ATM forum.
• This is a scientifically-oriented discussion forum.
• Parties who only wish to engage in idle speculation or the exchange of highly speculative ideas without the burdens of being asked to provide substantive evidence, calculations, or quantitative predictions for said ideas are under no obligation to participate here.
• The ATM section in general serves as an excellent educational resource; problematic ideas and/or models are aptly deconstructed and errant claims identified and refuted by volunteers with the appropriate backgrounds and experience, in group format, under specific rules mandating civility.
• The above demonstrate to readers/lurkers and participants alike the differences between mainstream science and pseudoscience while promoting sound fundamentals in physics and cosmology.

[Fraser]

I think an ATM section is absolutely necessary, and you'd have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.

In my experience, many ATM theorists don't entirely understand the scientific method, and have faith, not skepticism about their ideas. When scientists have a theory, it's their duty to find all the ways they're probably wrong, and then test them out, item by item. Many ATM theorists have skipped that step, and have convinced themselves that they're correct - if only they could get people to listen to them.

It's nearly impossible to change their minds. And if you deride, mock, or make light of their theories, it just fills fencesitters with doubt. Just look at how many people think that "intelligent design" should be taught with evolution as an alternative. It sounds reasonable on its face.

The only way to promote rational thought is to calmly and carefully challenge the theories, demonstrating how they're incorrect based on the evidence we have so far. The ATM theorists can be tricky and slippery, relying on many obnoxious tactics to bully people who challenge their theories.

But for every wild-eyed ATM theorist, there are dozens of spectators watching how we debunk and enlighten. And it's for their benefit that this section exists. I want it slurped up by Google, so that if someone types in "moon hoax", this forum should show up. Instead of believing some conspiracy theory, they'll get an opportunity to see it properly debunked.

So this and the CT sections are very important. And even more important is the methods we employ to debunk the theories.

And maybe, just maybe, a theory may come along that really does change our understanding of the Universe. And I hope we'll be openminded, not dismiss it out of hand, and help the theorist make connections to get theories validated.

[peter eldergill]

Don't forget, there is always the one-in-a-million idea that has a bit 'o merit

Pete

[Ari Jokimaki]

A simple change to the rules of ATM discussions would make ATM forum far more better, in my opinion. Rule 13 says this:

Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

I think this should be applied also to the mainstream proponents posting in ATM threads. I don't see any reasons not doing so. Doing that wouldn't take away anything from ATM proponents' responsibilities. And if mainstream proponents' arguments really have a point, then there wouldn't be any reason not to defend those arguments and answer direct questions about them.

Example situation where this might help is that sometimes it might happen that a mainstream proponent doesn't really get to know the ATM idea before making an argument against it. In that situation it then might happen that the argument doesn't really apply to the ATM idea. ATM proponents then might point that out. Sometimes this situation might continue so that the mainstream proponent just continues repeating that same argument over and over again. This doesn't have a positive effect to the quality of the discussion.

And what if the unthinkable happens? What if some mainstream proponent starts behaving dishonestly in ATM discussions, just trying to denigrate the ATM idea not caring about the truth? Way I see it, current rules allow this kind of behavior if the mainstream proponent doesn't break any other rules while doing that.

Unfortunately, examples above are not entirely hypothetical. I see it constantly in ATM forum, in the "More from Arp et al" thread for example.

There are some suggestions above that ATM proponents don't want to be challenged. While this might be true for some, there are lot of ATM proponents who welcome fair challenges, VanderL definitely belongs to latter group. It's just that we want to be challenged fairly and honestly, without having to encounter all kinds of strange debate tactics.

[papageno]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

I think this should be applied also to the mainstream proponents posting in ATM threads. I don't see any reasons not doing so.

Remember that it is the ATM proponents that are making claims.
The information about mainstream ideas is available in the world and on this board (Q&A, Astronomy, General Science), but the info about the ATM idea usually is not. That's why the ATM proponent should answer direct questions.
How are critics supposed to understand the ATM idea, if its proponent is not answering questions about it?

The same rule works for the mainstream: if a scientist wants to publish a paper, he has to support his claims and respond properly to the critiques of the referees.

If an ATM proponent is not prepared to defend his claims against criticism, what is the point of posting in hte first place? How can his idea be discussed if he does not answer direct questions about it?

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Doing that wouldn't take away anything from ATM proponents' responsibilities. And if mainstream proponents' arguments really have a point, then there wouldn't be any reason not to defend those arguments and answer direct questions about them.

As I said above, most of the critiques are based on what is already known, and this info is already available. Should a critic spend time and effort to explain and defend a mainstream argument, if all the ATM proponent needs to do is to look up the relevant reference?

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Example situation where this might help is that sometimes it might happen that a mainstream proponent doesn't really get to know the ATM idea before making an argument against it. In that situation it then might happen that the argument doesn't really apply to the ATM idea. ATM proponents then might point that out. Sometimes this situation might continue so that the mainstream proponent just continues repeating that same argument over and over again. This doesn't have a positive effect to the quality of the discussion.

And ATM proponents refusing to answer direct questions or to look up relevant mainstream references does not help.

What if it is the ATM proponent who does not understand the relevance of an objection?

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

And what if the unthinkable happens? What if some mainstream proponent starts behaving dishonestly in ATM discussions, just trying to denigrate the ATM idea not caring about the truth?

It should be reported to the moderators.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Way I see it, current rules allow this kind of behavior if the mainstream proponent doesn't break any other rules while doing that.

Do you think that dishonest behavior is allowed at all on this board?
You are basically accusing the board of double standard.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Unfortunately, examples above are not entirely hypothetical. I see it constantly in ATM forum, in the "More from Arp et al" thread for example.

If you think that somebody has been dishonest, report the poster.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

There are some suggestions above that ATM proponents don't want to be challenged. While this might be true for some, there are lot of ATM proponents who welcome fair challenges, VanderL definitely belongs to latter group. It's just that we want to be challenged fairly and honestly, without having to encounter all kinds of strange debate tactics.

Unfortunately, many ATM proponents equate "fair" with "agreeing with me".

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

And what if the unthinkable happens? What if some mainstream proponent starts behaving dishonestly in ATM discussions, just trying to denigrate the ATM idea not caring about the truth? Way I see it, current rules allow this kind of behavior if the mainstream proponent doesn't break any other rules while doing that.

I don't believe that the current rules allow that.

It may happen, and it should be reported. As papageno says.

[Dr Nigel]

Well, I had not given this much thought until I saw this thread. The arguments presented by Gillianren, DoomMaster, Moose, Wolverine, Fraser and Papageno seem to me to be both compelling and entirely relevant.

I have participated in a thread in Q&A that nearly turned into an ATM discussion, so I think there must be a place to which to move such discussions.

So, in my opinion, the ATM section serves a valuable purpose, and its current rules seem to be doing a good job.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

A simple change to the rules of ATM discussions would make ATM forum far more better, in my opinion. Rule 13 says this:

I think this should be applied also to the mainstream proponents posting in ATM threads. I don't see any reasons not doing so. Doing that wouldn't take away anything from ATM proponents' responsibilities. And if mainstream proponents' arguments really have a point, then there wouldn't be any reason not to defend those arguments and answer direct questions about them.

Example situation where this might help is that sometimes it might happen that a mainstream proponent doesn't really get to know the ATM idea before making an argument against it. In that situation it then might happen that the argument doesn't really apply to the ATM idea. ATM proponents then might point that out. Sometimes this situation might continue so that the mainstream proponent just continues repeating that same argument over and over again. This doesn't have a positive effect to the quality of the discussion.

And what if the unthinkable happens? What if some mainstream proponent starts behaving dishonestly in ATM discussions, just trying to denigrate the ATM idea not caring about the truth? Way I see it, current rules allow this kind of behavior if the mainstream proponent doesn't break any other rules while doing that.

Unfortunately, examples above are not entirely hypothetical. I see it constantly in ATM forum, in the "More from Arp et al" thread for example.

There are some suggestions above that ATM proponents don't want to be challenged. While this might be true for some, there are lot of ATM proponents who welcome fair challenges, VanderL definitely belongs to latter group. It's just that we want to be challenged fairly and honestly, without having to encounter all kinds of strange debate tactics.

Others have already addressed several points to this; I'll cover some new ones.

First, there are some aspects to "Direct questions" which are not stated in the rule:
* such questions must be pertinent, to the ATM topic under discussion
* they should also, generally, relate to what has already been presented in the ATM thread, to that point (including material introduced via links or external references)
* "I don't know", "I can't answer that", "I need more time to answer that", "I don't understand the question, would you please clarify?", and so on, are all perfectly good answers.

Second, there's an important communication aspect: what do the key terms (or words) used by the presenter of the ATM idea actually mean?

IMHO, rather often the ATM idea is presented using what seem like standard terms (for example, 'velocity', or 'energy', or 'mass', or 'time'), but it becomes clear - sometimes quickly, sometimes only after a dozen pages or more - that the ATM idea, as presented, uses the terms in an idiosyncratic way. So unless the ATMer can clarify what they mean, there really isn't even the basis for a discussion (i.e. no common basis for communication), let alone challenges.

Third, 'new physics'. Many ATM threads would be a lot shorter if the proponent of the ATM idea could clearly state whether the idea includes physics that goes beyond the Standard Model (of particle physics), quantum theory, or General Relativity - if not, then it is a simple matter to ask for the relevant textbook physics to be introduced.

However, questions about either definitions or 'new physics' may sometimes be quite difficult to ask, in terms of being direct and pertinent to the ATM idea as presented.

Turning to "mainstream proponents posting in ATM threads". I guess I don't really see what your point is, Ari Jokimaki; would you please say whether you are generalising from your experience of/in one (or two) ATM threads, or many? With the exception of two examples brought to my attention by hhEb09'1, the only specific examples that I can think of that seem relevant to your post are from just three ATM threads. (you can PM me instead of replying, if you wish).

[Ari Jokimaki]

Originally Posted by papageno

Remember that it is the ATM proponents that are making claims.

Does that mean that mainstream proponents shouldn't be held responsible of their sayings? Remember that I was talking about mainstream proponents.

Originally Posted by papageno

The information about mainstream ideas is available in the world and on this board (Q&A, Astronomy, General Science), but the info about the ATM idea usually is not. That's why the ATM proponent should answer direct questions.

I wholeheartedly agree, and don't have any problems with that. Remember that I was talking about mainstream proponents.

Originally Posted by papageno

How are critics supposed to understand the ATM idea, if its proponent is not answering questions about it?

They probably understand it badly in that situation. I didn't know I was suggesting that ATM proponents shouldn't be obligated to answer questions about their idea. Remember that I was talking about mainstream proponents.

Originally Posted by papageno

The same rule works for the mainstream: if a scientist wants to publish a paper, he has to support his claims and respond properly to the critiques of the referees.

I was talking about things that happen in the ATM forum of this board.

Originally Posted by papageno

If an ATM proponent is not prepared to defend his claims against criticism, what is the point of posting in hte first place? How can his idea be discussed if he does not answer direct questions about it?

I didn't know I was suggesting that ATM proponents shouldn't be obligated to answer questions about their idea or defend them. Remember that I was talking about mainstream proponents. I even said that my suggestion wouldn't take any responsibilities away from ATM proponents, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

Originally Posted by papageno

As I said above, most of the critiques are based on what is already known, and this info is already available. Should a critic spend time and effort to explain and defend a mainstream argument, if all the ATM proponent needs to do is to look up the relevant reference?

Perhaps not, but I don't see where's the harm in giving that relevant reference. But I'm not talking about most of the critiques, I'm talking about some special occasions, such as the ones I gave examples of.

What if the mainstream proponent's critique is not based on what is already known but instead is just false? Should ATM proponent then turn world and this board inside out trying to find the relevant reference which doesn't exist, or would it be better that ATM proponent would ask some questions about the critique from the mainstream proponent? And would it be good in this case if mainstream proponents would be obligated to answer direct questions about their critique?

What if the mainstream proponent presents the critique badly and ATM proponent doesn't quite understand it? Should ATM proponent then turn world and this board inside out trying to find the relevant reference without knowing what that reference should be about, or would it be better that ATM proponent would ask some questions about the critique from the mainstream proponent? And would it be good in this case if mainstream proponents would be obligated to answer direct questions about their critique?

Originally Posted by papageno

And ATM proponents refusing to answer direct questions or to look up relevant mainstream references does not help.

No it doesn't, but for them there's rule 13, so that is not a problem. Are you suggesting that all ATM proponents behave this way?

Originally Posted by papageno

What if it is the ATM proponent who does not understand the relevance of an objection?

It might happen, and it eventually leads to a clash with rule 13, so that is not a problem. How this relates to my example situation where I was talking about mainstream proponents? If some ATM proponent doesn't understand the relevance of some objection, does it make my example situation less relevant?

Originally Posted by papageno

It should be reported to the moderators.

There's no rule against it.

Originally Posted by papageno

Do you think that dishonest behavior is allowed at all on this board?

There's no rule against it.

Originally Posted by papageno

You are basically accusing the board of double standard.

Yes, I think rule 13 exhibits a double standard, although I have thought of it more as a loophole. ATM proponents are held responsible of their sayings but mainstream proponents are not.

Originally Posted by papageno

If you think that somebody has been dishonest, report the poster.

There's no rule against it.

Originally Posted by papageno

Unfortunately, many ATM proponents equate "fair" with "agreeing with me".

How do you know that? How many? How is that relevant to what I said?

[Ari Jokimaki]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I don't believe that the current rules allow that.

Just check the rules, there's nothing about that.

Originally Posted by Nereid

I'll cover some new ones...

I have no idea how the first section of your post relates to what I said.

Originally Posted by Nereid

I guess I don't really see what your point is, Ari Jokimaki; would you please say whether you are generalising from your experience of/in one (or two) ATM threads, or many?

If you take a closer look at my post, you'll see that I wasn't generalising at all. My point is that in my opinion there is a loophole in the rules. Furthermore I think that the presence of the loophole shows in the ATM forum discussions, so I'm suggesting that we get rid of the loophole.

Originally Posted by Nereid

With the exception of two examples brought to my attention by hhEb09'1, the only specific examples that I can think of that seem relevant to your post are from just three ATM threads. (you can PM me instead of replying, if you wish).

My goal here is not to talk about specific examples, just to exhibit my concern about the issue generally. Isn't even one example enough if it shows that the loophole is real?

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

No it doesn't, but for them there's rule 13, so that is not a problem. Are you suggesting that all ATM proponents behave this way?

No, but way more ATM proponents than mainstream proponents. For example, "Go read a basic text on the subject in question" is just as much an answer, at least in my opinion, as "I don't know." If it's obvious that the ATM proponent doesn't know what they're talking about, which is not an uncommon phenomenon by any means, it is their own job to become educated; it is not the mainstream proponents' job to explain an entire relevant field.

Oh, and I think if you show examples of genuine intellectual dishonesty, whether it's against the letter of any given rule or not, action will be taken no matter which side of the argument the person is on.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Does that mean that mainstream proponents shouldn't be held responsible of their sayings? Remember that I was talking about mainstream proponents.

Who said they aren't? If somebody states something is well accepted, but it isn't, or they state it incorrectly they can be and usually are corrected.

They probably understand it badly in that situation. I didn't know I was suggesting that ATM proponents shouldn't be obligated to answer questions about their idea. Remember that I was talking about mainstream proponents.

What kind of questions? Is the mainstream proponent making a claim that cannot be readily verified with a bit of research? Most ATM ideas I've seen are based on fundamental misunderstandings of basic physics and astronomy. Often, when the proponent is told some of their errors, their response is to redirect the questions to the person who demonstrated the errors. When the "mainstreamer" makes an honest attempt to answer, they are often bombarded with still more questions that show the ATM proponent has learned nothing. In these cases, it quickly becomes obvious that the ATM proponent is merely engaging in a debating tactic, not attempting to learn anything. The actual ATM argument is left behind.

This defeats the purpose of the ATM section. My experience is that reasonable questions asked in a friendly way will get answers. Of course, if the answers are greeted with scorn or are ignored, don't be surprised if people stop responding to questions. For deeper discussion of mainstream concepts, there are the Q&A and Astronomy sections. Interestingly, I've noticed that ATM proponents often either don't ask questions there, or if they do, are likely to attack or ignore the answers.

What if the mainstream proponent's critique is not based on what is already known but instead is just false?

Sounds to me like that isn't a mainstream proponent, and you can expect mainstream proponents to find issue with their argument. If they continue with false mainstream arguments, they will be asked to support them like any other ATM proponent.

What if the mainstream proponent presents the critique badly and ATM proponent doesn't quite understand it?

Then they should ask for clarification. However, they should be aware that there are concepts that just can't be explained in a short post and that they may need to do further research.

Yes, I think rule 13 exhibits a double standard, although I have thought of it more as a loophole. ATM proponents are held responsible of their sayings but mainstream proponents are not.

I disagree with that. I have been wrong before, and other people have pointed it out. I have pointed out errors by others, some of which are what you would probably call "mainstream proponents." The upshot is that nobody is ignoring what other people are posting just because they are in some mythical club.

[papageno]

Van Rijn and others have already addressed most of the points in your response.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Does that mean that mainstream proponents shouldn't be held responsible of their sayings?

No, ATM proponents are as responsible as their critics. But the ATM proponents have the burden to back up their claims, since their idea is not in general available as mainstream ideas.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

I was talking about things that happen in the ATM forum of this board.

I was pointing out that mainstream ideas have already been critically examined, just as it happens in the ATM forum.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Perhaps not, but I don't see where's the harm in giving that relevant reference. But I'm not talking about most of the critiques, I'm talking about some special occasions, such as the ones I gave examples of.

If it just some special occasions, why not let the moderators deal with it, instead of advocating a change of the rules?

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

No it doesn't, but for them there's rule 13, so that is not a problem. Are you suggesting that all ATM proponents behave this way?

On more than just a few special occasions.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Yes, I think rule 13 exhibits a double standard, although I have thought of it more as a loophole. ATM proponents are held responsible of their sayings but mainstream proponents are not.

If I started a thread about an ATM idea I have, I would have to follow the rules that apply to ATM proponents.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

How do you know that?

Personal experience in the ATM forum and other boards.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

How many? How is that relevant to what I said?

"How many" does not matter, since you are advocating a change of the rules based on a few special occasions.
It is relevant because what some ATM proponents perceive as fair, might not be actually fair.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Rule 13 says...snip...Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner...

I think this should be applied also to the mainstream proponents posting in ATM threads.

Assuming that you mean "questions posed to mainstream proponents by ATM'ers", then I certainly have no problem with that except in cases where those "questions" are an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the ATM proponent...

[hhEb09'1]

I just reviewed this, and you're probably right that there is no actual rule about "lying". However, it is difficult in practice to distinguish between lying and just being wrong--and there are plenty of rules about how to deal with posters who are wrong. Plus, we have rule 14 (Disruptive Behavior): "The moderators and administrators reserve the right to take action against a poster who is disrupting the normal flow of the board. This includes violations listed in the other rules (trolling, use of ad hominems, posting copyrighted materials, etc.), but may also include behavior we have not yet foreseen." I can't imagine a moderator ever proving that a poster was lying (as opposed to just being wrong), but I'm pretty sure that if they ever did, that that would fall under the general category of disruptive behavior.

Originally Posted by Gillianren

For example, "Go read a basic text on the subject in question" is just as much an answer, at least in my opinion, as "I don't know."

And from my experience, they probably mean the same thing.

[Celestial Mechanic]

The ATM forum keeps me out of dens of vice and iniquity -- such as godlikeproductions.com!

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

And let's return to the topic, "Why there is an ATM section at all?", shall we?

Pretty much established, I'd say.

[ToSeek]

lyndonashmore's posts hijacking this thread to discuss the color of the sky and responses thereto have been moved here.

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

And from my experience, they probably mean the same thing.

In my experience, "go read a textbook" more frequently means, "Wow, this would take more than 5000 characters to explain, and you really ought to have an in-depth knowledge of it before claiming it's wrong," but that could be just me.