Less promotion of ATM outside of ATM, please?

[01101001]

I tried to get this discussed once before, diverting/hijacking the Rules Discussion thread with this article and forward. I'm not sure it produced a conclusion. Now, ATM (Edit: Against the Mainstream) is different, and the incentives for ATM promotion to stray out of ATM are greater, so, I'll try this separate topic.

Are the new controls on ATM promotion in the ATM Forum inspiring ATM promotion to leak into other groups?

I feel like I've been seeing more lately. Anyone else? I can't quantify it. (Any statisticians want a task?) Here's a precious, fun anecdote, though, which, of course, is not data:

In the Is the Earth growing? I challenged ExpErdMann to keep ATM promotion out of Q&A, after ExpErdMann admitted:

Originally Posted by ExpErdMann

I don't want to debate the matter here (it's not the right forum anyway), but I just wanted you to have some of the right A in this Q&A thread.

So ExpErdMann knows it doesn't belong. Yet, ExpErdMann calls it the right answer, even though Q&A is for mainstream answers. How could it be right and ATM? That's promotion. And ExpErdMann got a warning:

ExpErdMann do not insert ATM ideas into the Q&A forum. Q&A is strictly for mainstream answers.

Not long after, ExpErdMann promotes the ATM idea again with data:

Originally Posted by ExpErdMann

For each of the GPS stations, you can take the annual height change and average them out. When this is done, it comes to about a 1.7 mm/yr average increase in altitude per year. Admittedly, the GPS stations are all on land, so the seafloor motions are undetermined. The 1.7 mm/yr value is too small from the fast expansion side (1-2 cm/yr) and a little too much for the slow expansion prediction (.5-.7 mm/yr). Still, it seems to indicate expansion.

Boy that sounds familiar. Wasn't there a whole ATM thread kicked off by this data? Seems so, 2004, November 5:

Originally Posted by ExpErdMann

Ray Tomes has done a study on GPS data for over 1,000 stations and reports that the average rate of expansion is 1.77 mm/yr. That would be consistent with slow expansion models, but not fast expansion models, unless the fast expansion is punctuated. The interesting graphs are halfway down the page.

So what gives? Must we endure ATM-promotion data introduced a few years ago, in an ATM thread, yet again, in Q&A, the place for mainstream answers?

Once again, ExpErdMann goes "Oops":

Originally Posted by ExpErdMann

I promised above not to be debating EE here (and yet here I'm doing it). So I'll try to minimize my further comments in this thread.

I'm so glad that ExpErdMann is going be be responsible and minimize comments, after debating the Expanding Earth ATM issue, after introducing it yet again, post-warning, after presenting it to the members years ago in an ATM topic. Oops.

Why is this appropriate? If endless-ATM promotion is enough of a problem that we are experimenting with closing ATM threads after 30 days of discussion, isn't ATM promotion -- in Q&A threads -- of ideas presented circa 30 months ago also a problem?

That's one instance of ATM promotion leaking out of ATM recently. But it's not the only one. Want more?

Anyone else? Or, should we change Q&A so any-sort-of-answer is OK?

[Edit: Defined ATM.]

[Fraser]

This is going to take some time to adapt. Report the threads going ATM and we'll deal with them.

[ToSeek]

To be fair, EEM's comment about the GPS stations was motivated by Swift's post that concluded with the sentence "Someone show me one measurement that shows the Earth is expanding." It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable for EEM to respond to that.

[Pinemarten]

I just spent 20 minutes and got a headache trying to figure out what ATM is. It was much easier to follow once I did this. I have not been on the board for a while, but I do remember a thread or two about defining acronyms used in posts. I think the consensus was to put the definition in the first post. Was it ever resolved?

OTT = off the topic

[Thanatos]

ATM used to mean Amateur Telescope Maker. Nowadays, it's Against The Mainstream. 30 years ago a lens wipe would have resolved most such controversies.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

To be fair, EEM's comment about the GPS stations was motivated by Swift's post that concluded with the sentence "Someone show me one measurement that shows the Earth is expanding." It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable for EEM to respond to that.

See a problem?

If anyone can ask a question in Q&A that is answered by tired old ATM promotion, why won't ATM-ers team up, or feel the need to sock puppet, or slyly fish for questions, to keep the promotion going?

Now, if someone asks about Expanding Earth GPS measurements inside ATM, would not ExpErdMann be wrong to haul out the GPS measurements again, and the claims? That ATM idea has been done long ago. It had its 30-day run. There'd be some action taken to discourage that, no?

But, it sounds like you're saying that if someone asks the same in Q&A, then... why... just bring out the old tired ATM promotion! And, don't just cite the previous locked thread (heck, I did that a few posts before ExpErdMann started promoting; it was already there for all curious minds), actually bring out the old data and make the old claims, and call them correct. Assert the same old tired garbage. It's OK. It's Q&A. Just don't do it in ATM.

So, it's: ATM in Q&A is OK if someone asks? I don't like this policy one bit. In my opinion, it needs to change.

If it's wrong inside ATM, then it's really wrong inside Q&A.

ATM out of Q&A now!

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Fraser

This is going to take some time to adapt. Report the threads going ATM and we'll deal with them.

Promise? Yeah, I know you all will try. OK. It's a deal.

Originally Posted by Pinemarten

I just spent 20 minutes and got a headache trying to figure out what ATM is.

I apologize. With all the active and heated discussion of ATM (that's Automatic Teller Machine... no, wait... Against the Mainstream) going on, I forgot that not everyone knew the jargon. I forgot ATM wasn't a word. I hate when others do what I did. I hate myself. A little.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by 01101001

So, it's: ATM in Q&A is OK if someone asks? I don't like this policy one bit. In my opinion, it needs to change.

Well, the consensus among the moderators with regard to a related issue was that if someone asks an ATM-related question, it's okay to give an ATM response so long as:

- It's clearly indicated as an ATM response.
- No attempt is made to promote the ATMer's own hypothesis.

I'm not sure what else to do under the circumstances, but then I have a much longer fuse than a lot of people about the ATM stuff because I avoid that forum like the plague. I figure that if anyone comes up with something worthwhile I'll eventually hear about it from Stockholm.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

Well, the consensus among the moderators with regard to a related issue was that if someone asks an ATM-related question, it's okay to give an ATM response so long as:

- It's clearly indicated as an ATM response.
- No attempt is made to promote the ATMer's own hypothesis.

I'm not sure what else to do under the circumstances, but then I have a much longer fuse than a lot of people about the ATM stuff because I avoid that forum like the plague.

Thanks for reporting the thinking that's been done. I can understand that policy, sort of, but I still think it's abusable. We'll see.

Heck, I sort of did give an ATM response myself in the... exemplary thread, early, when I listed many other preceding Expanding Earth threads, though I didn't go so far as tagging them ATM; I just let them speak on their own. I didn't promote ATM. Just pointed at it.

As Fraser urged, I sure will report what doesn't seem to conform to that above, or even borderline cases. I urge everyone to do so. I'm not very flexible on ATM-outside-of-ATM -- hint to those that may think they want to test the bounds.

Originally Posted by ToSeek

I figure that if anyone comes up with something worthwhile I'll eventually hear about it from Stockholm.

I figure I'll hear about it very soon thereafter from ToSeek -- and some other members who were probably ToSeeked by ToSeek.

Oops. The thread moved on over to ATM. By... ToSeek. Gosh, hope I had something to do with that.

Funny. Hey, now go for it, folks. Have your ATM fun! Mainstream answers are no longer expected there.

I didn't want this thread to be about one other thread, but I think I got Fraser's answer early, and that was really all I was after. It wasn't clear. Bears repeating.

Originally Posted by Fraser

Report the threads going ATM and we'll deal with them.

But, it's good to know about that new moderator consensus, too. Thanks.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Bears repeating.

Uh-huh. Seems to be yet another rash of it. Are people forgetting?

Originally Posted by 01101001

Love to! Hope it helps.

With renewed vigilance:

Originally Posted by 01101001

As Fraser urged, I sure will report what doesn't seem to conform to that above, or even borderline cases. I urge everyone to do so. I'm not very flexible on ATM-outside-of-ATM -- hint to those that may think they want to test the bounds.

[Jerry]

I'm very uncomfortable with this...I don't see 'Is the earth growing?' as an ATM concept.

1) This is a curious observational phenomenon. Is there an ATM theory that explains or predicts this?

2) I don't know of any mainstream concepts that would forbid the earth from being in a period of expansion.

3) The data in-hand is ambiguous - The tectonic plates do have stretch marks, and satellites have measured an increase in the global girth.

Is it clear that there is enough displacement of material from the poles to explain the broadening at the belt? This seems to me to be a subject that needs to be understood, not counter bb/gr/whatever drool.

Most important, the data is coming in on this subject all the time - a 30 day timer is very inappropriated for a topic that is actively being investigated.

Enceladus has very obvious stretch marks. What is happening? How do we find out? Is it ATM to suggest Enceladus is expanding?

[captain swoop]

this is the wrong forum to be asking these questions Jerry.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Jerry

I'm very uncomfortable with this...I don't see 'Is the earth growing?' as an ATM concept.

Right, the way you've phrased it, it's a question, not a concept. "The earth is/has been growing" is a concept, and it is currently ATM, no doubt about it.

1) This is a curious observational phenomenon. Is there an ATM theory that explains or predicts this?

The Expanding Earth concept was heavily promoted by one of the most tireless advocates of Wegener's continental drift--he became disillusioned with drift.

2) I don't know of any mainstream concepts that would forbid the earth from being in a period of expansion.

There is no data that unequivocally supports it.

3) The data in-hand is ambiguous - The tectonic plates do have stretch marks, and satellites have measured an increase in the global girth.

The plates also have compression marks. The satellite data is still equivocal.

Most important, the data is coming in on this subject all the time - a 30 day timer is very inappropriated for a topic that is actively being investigated.

The 30 day timer is inappropriate, period. It appears to be the result of a frustrated response to overzealous promotion of individual theories.

This website has limited resources, and its main mission is weakened by its support for ATM, to the extent that ATM draws on a disproportionate share of those resources.

PS: And, as captain swoop says, this discussion shouldn't happen here.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

The 30 day timer is inappropriate, period. It appears to be the result of a frustrated response to overzealous promotion of individual theories.

This website has limited resources, and its main mission is weakened by its support for ATM, to the extent that ATM draws on a disproportionate share of those resources.

I see it as an imperfect solution to a problem where there are no perfect solutions. As an alternative, I wouldn't have a problem with moderators more aggresively shutting down "shouting match" threads that don't go anywhere, but it would be a lot of work for them, they probably wouldn't like shutting down so many threads, and it naturally would lead to claims that some were being "singled out."

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

I wouldn't have a problem with moderators more aggresively shutting down "shouting match" threads that don't go anywhere, but it would be a lot of work for them...

As ToSeek said, he avoids the ATM forum like the plague, which raises the question , "are there any mods who actually monitor the ATM forum"??

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

this is the wrong forum to be asking these questions Jerry.

Discussion of papers reporting observational data do not belong in the ATM forum; at least not as the forum is currently constructed. If I want to discuss an atm concept in conjunction with a paper, yes, that discussion is subject to forum atm rules. But as I understand the situation regarding the earth's volume today, there is not a good physical explanation for why the earth appears to be expanding.

Under the current rules, an unexplained mystery should not be characterized as an atm subject. (We cannot discuss that because it was already discussed more than thirty days ago!) Good heavens, how would we ever figure out anything?

[01101001]

This thread used one example of bad behavior by one advocate to make a point about rule enforcement. It's not about dissecting the example.

If you disagree with how the example was classified, disagree somewhere else. Thanks.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Discussion of papers reporting observational data do not belong in the ATM forum

It depends on the paper, and how you are discussing it.

If I want to discuss an atm concept in conjunction with a paper, yes, that discussion is subject to forum atm rules.

My experience is that is what you usually do.

But as I understand the situation regarding the earth's volume today, there is not a good physical explanation for why the earth appears to be expanding.

Case in point.

Under the current rules, an unexplained mystery should not be characterized as an atm subject. (We cannot discuss that because it was already discussed more than thirty days ago!) Good heavens, how would we ever figure out anything?

If it is generally agreed that there is something that is not fully explained with current models and if it is discussed without insistence on ATM solutions, my experience is that it is usually not classified as an ATM concept.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by Jerry

But as I understand the situation regarding the earth's volume today, there is not a good physical explanation for why the earth appears to be expanding.

To make Van Rijn's point again, in this more specific example, I looked over the claims that the data showed, and I couldn't see anything in it. For instance, most of the data points that are used to show that "expansion" are on land, in active areas, and it is generally agreed in the mainstream that the ocean bottoms are subsiding due to cooling--so, in the mainstream version, there is a clear bias. In the ATM version, there isn't, but instead it's strong evidence for expansion. That just means that the advocates don't understand the mainstream, and they don't understand the data. But that's how it usually goes, in ATM. That's why we have ATM.