What to do about 'Jerry posts'

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

I want to be on the record as being completely uncomfortable with, and officially against, public discussion of a poster's habit or tendencies. I do not like the precedent set of opening threads expressing dislike of a community member, or critiquing a community member, for any reason, and then the community chiming in. These are issues best left to PMs with moderators wrt individuals. I think this issue could have been handled as a generic example, without singling out a specific forum member.

I wasn't sure if I should say anything, but I agree completely with the point of view expressed here by Serenitude. This forum has a large variety of posters, posting styles, and personal habits. If the community begins to discuss the behavior or posting style of any individual poster it sets a precedent for the discussion of the posting style or attitude of any individual poster that someone dislikes. I don't see how this would be a good idea for the health of these forums...

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Such as this one.

Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:

1) Oblique (and sometimes not so oblique) references to concerns over mainstream astronomy or space science (or astrophysics, or cosmology) that have been raised, many times, in many threads, in several BAUT sections, before. In this particular case, it is 'gravity behaving badly'.

Sometimes the post does seem to have direct pertinence to the thread; many times its pertinence seems to be perceived only by the BAUT member who posted it.

2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before. Examples include *quasar proper motions; *(lack of) time dilation in quasars; *Pioneer 6.

What concerns me is that there's nothing new introduced, as could be seen by copying and pasting from earlier threads. It gets tiring to have to keep responding to this, over and over again, yet if someone doesn't do it, folk reading these new instances for the first time may form the impression that there's something unaddressed, some big question that is going unanswered.

And for avoidance of doubt, my concern is over the repetitious posting of the same material by the same BAUT member(s) (not a new member posting such material for the first time).

Note too that most times there is not an explicit ATM idea being presented (such presentations are easily handled within BAUT's rules), or even hinted at or implied.

Is anyone else concerned about this?

If so, what to do about it?

Nereid,

I really think you get way too concerned about these types of issues. Since the merger of BABB and UT there have been a ton of changes - changes that you always seem to feel very strongly in favor of.

You've supported an ATM policy that modifies the old BABB approach - now only the ATM proponents must defend their statements on the threads in ATM. Mainstream defenders are under no obligation to admit mistaken statements or defend their statements when an ATM proponent shows potential flaws.

But that wasn't good enough. There were still perceived "problems" so now we have a 30 day rule for ATM threads.

Apparently the 30 day rule for ATM isn't fixing all the problems either because now people complain about ATM spillover into other forums.

And now you're complaining about what you define as "Jerry posts".

It doesn't need to be this complicated and there doesn't need to be a constant push to add more rules every time somebody finds some new variant of "problem" to get tweaked about.

It really can be this simple: Be polite. Polite means:

1. No ad homs and insults. Why? Such behavior encourages antagonistic debate which is no fun for the participants or the lurkers and distracts from the discussion of science.

2. When you choose to participate in a discussion be prepared to defend your statements - whether you are defending the mainstream or some ATM idea. Why? The people that respond to your statements are looking to make a point. If you choose to engage in that debate, then you should accept the responsibility of debating.

3. If you need more time to look into something say so. Why? It's nice to have some idea of when you might expect a response to a point you've made.

4. If you are shown to be wrong admit it. Why? It frustrates your debate opponent to have valid points your opponent has made ignored.

5. Ask the person you're debating to clarify rather than accuse the person of "personal bias"; "straw man arguments"; "intentionally misleading BAUT readers" .... Why? This is an internet message board. Unless the person states their motives you're making an inference about their personal objectives. Such inferences leveled as accusations only anger people and again distract from the discussion of science. Instead of questioning a person's motives, it is better to simply tell them you disagree - and where you think they are wrong.

[Disinfo Agent]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

You've supported an ATM policy that modifies the old BABB approach - now only the ATM proponents must defend their statements on the threads in ATM. Mainstream defenders are under no obligation to admit mistaken statements or defend their statements when an ATM proponent shows potential flaws.

As I recall, mainstream defenders were under no such obligation in the previous incarnations of the forum, either. I may be misremembering...

Still, I join my voice to those who felt that singling out particular individuals to discuss was a tad distateful, although I understand the general concerns which motivated this thread.

[Ari Jokimaki]

I agree with Serenitude and Lurker on discussing publicly about poster's habits. I find it annoying to see posts like that in the middle of interesting discussion about astronomy. Jerry has especially been a target for that kind of posts, it seems that Jerry can't participate any discussion without the "Jerry haters" starting to post about Jerry's person and/or his posting style (you can see posts like that in this thread too). I have to wonder why some people seem to think that someone posting about ATM subjects is a free target for insults.

I don't have problems with Jerry's posts. Jerry points out problematic points about theories (and problematic observations for them), and that is what I find interesting. I don't have much interest in discussions where someone posts results of a new study, and then few posters praise it, and everything is just peachy. I'm interested in problems of (any) theories, and that's what Jerry talks about. Sometimes it turns out that Jerry's problems are not real problems, and in those cases Jerry has admitted being wrong (at least in those that I have seen lately).

I also agree with dgruss23's post above.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

You've supported an ATM policy that modifies the old BABB approach - now only the ATM proponents must defend their statements on the threads in ATM. Mainstream defenders are under no obligation to admit mistaken statements or defend their statements when an ATM proponent shows potential flaws.

The BABB approach was basically a free-for-all until and unless the BA got fed up with the ATMer. That was primarily because the BA had limited time to cover the forum. Here, if an ATMer has questions about the mainstream, they can ask in Q&A. If a "mainstream defender" makes a mistake, the ATM proponent can show the reason, per the mainstream. The problems with requiring mainstream folks to defend all their arguments in ATM are that (1) answering a question with a question is a common tactic to avoid answering questions about an ATM topic and (2) most of the questions are best answered with "read a basic physics or astronomy text." That is, the ATMer should already have known the answer before he started the thread, and it isn't the place to waste time answering such questions. To be sure, there are exceptions to this, but I do see this over and over.

But that wasn't good enough. There were still perceived "problems" so now we have a 30 day rule for ATM threads.

Apparently the 30 day rule for ATM isn't fixing all the problems either because now people complain about ATM spillover into other forums.

It seems obvious to me that there is no perfect solution to infinite loop ATM threads. It also seems obvious that spillover is because ATMers aren't happy with the 30 day limit and keep trying to promote their ideas after the limit.

[Disinfo Agent]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

The BABB approach was basically a free-for-all until and unless the BA got fed up with the ATMer.

Or the mainstreamer.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

I agree with Serenitude and Lurker on discussing publicly about poster's habits. I find it annoying to see posts like that in the middle of interesting discussion about astronomy. Jerry has especially been a target for that kind of posts, it seems that Jerry can't participate any discussion without the "Jerry haters" starting to post about Jerry's person and/or his posting style (you can see posts like that in this thread too). I have to wonder why some people seem to think that someone posting about ATM subjects is a free target for insults.

So, what do you suggest be done when someone is covering often repeated ground that has been answered already? I think Nereid is showing frustration dealing with this type of thing. I've run into this type of issue myself on a number of occasions with various posters, where a subject has been covered, an argument shown to be flawed, and yet the same poster makes the same argument a day, a week, or a month later as if the previous discussion never took place.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

I agree with Serenitude and Lurker on discussing publicly about poster's habits.

I agree it is unfortunate an individual was identified here.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

I find it annoying to see posts like that in the middle of interesting discussion about astronomy.

These are Q&A sessions. These aren't discussions about astronomy in which ATM ideas may be introduced.

I find it annoying to see good Q&A sessions about astronomy derailed due to the introduction of previously disproved ATM subject matter. Typically the poster posing the astronomy question is looking for an answer based on solid evidence, not speculation. When the ATM stuff shows up, it almost invariably leads to confusion on the part of the OP. This confusion is often evidenced by silence then lack of continuing participation by the OP. Confusing persons seeking knowledge about astronomy should not be the product of the Q&A forum.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Jerry has especially been a target for that kind of posts, it seems that Jerry can't participate any discussion without the "Jerry haters" starting to post about Jerry's person and/or his posting style (you can see posts like that in this thread too).

No "Jerry hater" (whoever those might be) here. Instead I intensely dislike posts that intrude into a Q&A session with material that is presented as substantial but is actually speculative. Such material is appropriate for ATM, but is definitely not fitting for Q&A.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

I have to wonder why some people seem to think that someone posting about ATM subjects is a free target for insults.

If ATMers are "free target[s] for insults", kindly refer these instances to the mods for appropriate actions.

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

I don't have problems with Jerry's posts. Jerry points out problematic points about theories (and problematic observations for them), and that is what I find interesting. I don't have much interest in discussions where someone posts results of a new study, and then few posters praise it, and everything is just peachy. I'm interested in problems of (any) theories, and that's what Jerry talks about. Sometimes it turns out that Jerry's problems are not real problems, and in those cases Jerry has admitted being wrong (at least in those that I have seen lately).

What you've just described is a typical ATM discussion and is as strong an argument as one could make for why such posts belong in ATM and not in Q&A.

In summary, it is obvious that certain posters typically post material of an ATM nature. Those posts belong in ATM, not in Q&A.

[Serenitude]

I do have to lend complete support of Nereid's frustration over the issue. I've taken to coming down hard on ATM promotion outside of the ATM forum recently, myself. Nereid's sentiments on this matter nearly universally reflect my own, and I wish this to be known.

My issue is singling out a specific poster, in the manner I covered above. Outside of that issue, Nereid has my full support and agreeance.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

I do have to lend complete support of Nereid's frustration over the issue. I've taken to coming down hard on ATM promotion outside of the ATM forum recently, myself. Nereid's sentiments on this matter nearly universally reflect my own, and I wish this to be known.

My issue is singling out a specific poster, in the manner I covered above. Outside of that issue, Nereid has my full support and agreeance.

Ditto. See my previous post.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

So, what do suggest be done when someone is covering often repeated ground that has been answered already? I think Nereid is showing frustration dealing with this type of thing. I've run into this type of issue myself on a number of occasions with various posters, where a subject has been covered, an argument shown to be flawed, and yet the same poster makes the same argument a day, a week, or a month later as if the previous discussion never took place.

I already have suggested a rule change in this forum (long time ago) that would take care of situation like that. Rules should be changed so that many of the responsibilities of ATM proponents in rule #13 would be expanded to cover all posters. That was then met with strong resistance because at the time I was talking about bad behavior of some people arguing against ATM proponents. It seems to me that the same rule change would suit to situations like the one you mention, it would give moderators a tool to deal with the situation.

Mind you, "an argument shown to be flawed" seems to be a relative concept in my opinion. The subjects Jerry talks about haven't always shown to be flawed. Of the three examples Nereid mentions in the opening post, two seem to be open questions (both have some observational evidence, although it's inconclusive), and the third one, Pioneer 6 anomaly, Jerry has himself admitted that it is not a problem anymore. What I frequently see here, in addition to many ATM arguments really being shown flawed, is people assuming ATM argument shown to be false prematurely (as just one example, quasar host galaxies are often mentioned showing Arp's model wrong, even if they are in fact expected in Arp's model).

[chriscurtis]

I like the way Jerry reasons and his apparent motivation.

I really, really enjoy this forum. Big thank you. Please keep it going!

I understand the need to remove the chaff that is rehashed and I don't think this includes Jerry's post that I have read but I've only been a member for a short while and stick mainly to the astronomy, universe today and questions page. I'm not sure if that is a typical user of course.

When you have the passion of the senior members and organizers that you have of this forum, I'd like to think many of you really, really knowing your stuff. However, there will always be 'eduacted' people who know a lot about many things but this 'what's out there and how does it work' will still seem either mystical or religious. I think these are the people who are pain because they seem to think that their theories or whatever they say has just as good a chance of being right as anyone else. I think these people fundmentally do not understand what science is but they have been told their whole lives that they are special and therefore they assume that what they say must sound quite reasoned (I think I'm doing it now).

Also, I think you should give Jerry his own section of BAUT. I would be happy to support that financially!

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by chriscurtis

Also, I think you should give Jerry his own section of BAUT. I would be happy to support that financially!

Phil and Fraser get their own sections; it's their board. Everyone else should start their own board if they want their own sections. That's just the way it works.

Add me to the list of "I'm uncomfortable isolating one person this way but I understand the frustration." I can think of several people around here with a knack for projecting their own issue into any conversation, whether it belongs there or not. I think it's a rules violation, though I haven't thought it through as to whether it's just disruptive or actually actively spam. I think it would probably be detrimental to my own understanding of what the mainstream actually says were it not for the valiant efforts of several others around here, and thanks to them for their hard work.

[galacsi]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

I agree with Serenitude and Lurker on discussing publicly about poster's habits. I find it annoying to see posts like that in the middle of interesting discussion about astronomy. Jerry has especially been a target for that kind of posts, it seems that Jerry can't participate any discussion without the "Jerry haters" starting to post about Jerry's person and/or his posting style (you can see posts like that in this thread too). I have to wonder why some people seem to think that someone posting about ATM subjects is a free target for insults.

I don't have problems with Jerry's posts. Jerry points out problematic points about theories (and problematic observations for them), and that is what I find interesting. I don't have much interest in discussions where someone posts results of a new study, and then few posters praise it, and everything is just peachy. I'm interested in problems of (any) theories, and that's what Jerry talks about. Sometimes it turns out that Jerry's problems are not real problems, and in those cases Jerry has admitted being wrong (at least in those that I have seen lately).

I also agree with dgruss23's post above.

I could not have said it better , and I too agree Dgruss's post.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

So, what do you suggest be done when someone is covering often repeated ground that has been answered already? I think Nereid is showing frustration dealing with this type of thing. I've run into this type of issue myself on a number of occasions with various posters, where a subject has been covered, an argument shown to be flawed, and yet the same poster makes the same argument a day, a week, or a month later as if the previous discussion never took place.

I've encountered the exact same thing in ATM, where the person doing this is the "mainstream defender". In fact, if you search my comments in one of the various what to do about ATM threads in this "about baut" section, you'll find I posted an identical statement to yours (in content) in one of those threads a while back.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

The BABB approach was basically a free-for-all until and unless the BA got fed up with the ATMer. That was primarily because the BA had limited time to cover the forum. Here, if an ATMer has questions about the mainstream, they can ask in Q&A. If a "mainstream defender" makes a mistake, the ATM proponent can show the reason, per the mainstream. The problems with requiring mainstream folks to defend all their arguments in ATM are that (1) answering a question with a question is a common tactic to avoid answering questions about an ATM topic and (2) most of the questions are best answered with "read a basic physics or astronomy text."

Those are different situations. I'm talking about actual give and take discussion in ATM or any other forum. If someone chooses to counter a point someone else has made by presenting some argument - and the other person responds with a counter argument that they are wrong. Then the person that jumped into the discussion should be willing to either (1) defend their statements or (2) admit their mistake or (3) run from the discussion and hide.

The latter choice is preferable to the poster who ignores all points that show them to be wrong, and continue to post on the thread making other arguments.

But I think you need to understand that there is a difference (admittedly difficult to draw a line separating them at times) between attempting to offer helpful commentary and choosing to engage in debate.

For example,

Person A makes some erroneous ATM statement.

Person B responds. "This is wrong because" and person B makes arguments as to why A is wrong. ...

Person A responds to B with a bunch of questions.

Now in this scenario I understand that people do not want to have to answer a bunch of questions that the person could read in a textbook. This is not what I'm talking about.

My concern is when person A responds with well reasoned arguments. My observations is that (and I'm not just talking about ATM) many posters will simply ignore the reasons provided by A as to why B was wrong when B disagreed with A - and yet B will continue posting on the thread as if those points were never made.

In I thread I've been involved in over the last month or so, I've repeatedly highlighted errors in my primary debate opponent. That person continues with various rude comments and refuses to admit mistakes. When I was called a "crackpot" I finally said "That's it - I'm done reading your posts". I'm not going to waste time having a "debate" with someone that will not admit mistakes and will be rude whenever possible.

It seems obvious to me that there is no perfect solution to infinite loop ATM threads. It also seems obvious that spillover is because ATMers aren't happy with the 30 day limit and keep trying to promote their ideas after the limit.

I don't know for sure that is the reason, but the first sentence was kind of my point. There is no perfect solution. You can keep trying to add new rules and something else will always pop up. Obviously in the legal system you need to keep stamping out the fires, but this is not the legal system. This is an internet discussion board.

I do not believe that all the rules changes have actually improved the nature of debate on this board. The emphasis on the ATM section has to change it from a forum where there might be debate to a "Thesis defense" approach.

[01101001]

As much as some may want to comment on a specific poster, and as much as some may want to rehash suggested ATM rule changes, could we instead refocus on finding for these types of articles a) whether they are undesirable -- does anyone hold they are beneficial? -- and b) if so, how this forum could experience far fewer:

Originally Posted by Nereid

1) Oblique (and sometimes not so oblique) references to concerns over mainstream astronomy or space science (or astrophysics, or cosmology) that have been raised, many times, in many threads, in several BAUT sections, before.

2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before.

[Launch window]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Such as

2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before. Examples include *quasar proper motions; *(lack of) time dilation in quasars; *Pioneer 6.

I think the mods could *pin* and few of the more active threads or make a *sticky* of the Pionner-anomaly so we don't have to go rehashing old ATMM topics whenever some controversial scientist publishes his latest Pioneer hunch

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

I've encountered the exact same thing in ATM, where the person doing this is the "mainstream defender".

How can someone stating the Mainstream be considered in the same way as rehashing an ATM claim?

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

How can someone stating the Mainstream be considered in the same way as rehashing an ATM claim?

Not rehashing an ATM claim - rehashing a faulty argument. Sometimes people supposedly defending the mainstream don't understand the mainstream. See this post and this post for a ridiculous example of a mainstream defender bringing up the same faulty argument repeatedly over the course of several months despite numerous explanations as to what was wrong with his argument and apparently several admissions on his own part that he was wrong - only to return to his same faulty argument again and again.

I think what this forum actually needs is a "Debate forum" in which any astronomy topic can be debated (ATM or otherwise), but it is understood that if you wish to participate in the debates you will be expected to respond to critiques of your statements. Perhaps have a forum closed to general comments from the BAUT community unless they "sign on" to the debate.

So for example, someone decides they want to debate the validity of dark matter. People interested in that debate could sign up as participants - with the understanding that they are expected to defend their arguments from attack from other participants. By keeping it closed to all but those that "sign up" it would prevent people from just parachuting into the discussion without feeling accountable for their statements. It would also encourage people participating to read their opponents comments more carefully and read the literature more carefully. With such a forum ad homs could be handled quite easily - you commit an ad hom our make rude comments and you're ejected from the debate - but not necessarily banned from BAUT.

[Serenitude]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

I think what this forum actually needs is a "Debate forum" in which any astronomy topic can be debated (ATM or otherwise), but it is understood that if you wish to participate in the debates you will be expected to respond to critiques of your statements...

We already have one to handle ATM claims - the ATM forum. The rest of the forum covers non-ATM versions of other subjects. The problem is most ATMers want to treat the ATM forum as a blog, and react violently when someone dares question their idea. Usually as something along the lines of "If it's not self-evident by reading my post containing only a rambling idea with no evidence or math, then you're stupid", and then going downhill from there.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

With such a forum ad homs could be handled quite easily - you commit an ad hom our make rude comments and you're ejected from the debate - but not necessarily banned from BAUT.

Don't like it. Ad-homs are ad-homs. Do it, and you get so many warnings, and you're gone. I don't like the idea of specialized places where one can get away with such behavior without it affecting good-status membership.

[galacsi]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

The problem is most ATMers want to treat the ATM forum as a blog, and react violently when someone dares question their idea. Usually as something along the lines of "If it's not self-evident by reading my post containing only a rambling idea with no evidence or math, then you're stupid", and then going downhill from there.

Thats a picture not so different from what many Mainstreamers show us !!!

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by galacsi

Thats a picture not so different from what many Mainstreamers show us !!!

Do you have examples of the "many mainstreamers" that do those things?

[galacsi]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Do you have examples of the "many mainstreamers" that do those things?

I dont want to give names : Just look at any UFO thread .

[folkhemmet]

The forum is broken up into different sections for the purpose of organizational clarity. BAUT has a vibrant voluminous ATM section. Off-topic babbling is a nice section for those of us who may want to take a break from science and discuss something less heavy than the origin and fate of the Universe. Sometimes by mistake, other times on purpose, members make posts in threads other than the ones in which the posts appropriately belong. Usually this occurs by mistake. However, it seems pretty clear by now that Jerry has been singled out here because he persistently inserts ATM ideas into non-ATM sections of the forum—especially in the astronomy/cosmology threads. It seems like nearly every time a cosmology story or result is posted in the astronomy section Jerry tries to morph the thread into an ATM anti-Big Bang thread which would be more appropriate to have in the ATM section of the website! To pretend that Jerry is not doing this because he has an ATM agenda requires a ridiculously large stretching of credulity.

Having said that, I've seen his views on others topics which I won't mention now but with which I agree I just wish he applied some of his ATM energy to rocket propulsion so we could be having this discussion on a planet circling Alpha Centauri (LOL)! The real test of his ATM ideas would be if they led to something concrete that would enable an extension of human capabilities in the same way that Einstein's work led to the development of new technologies even though it has disappointingly told us that some technological dreams may forever remain out of reach.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

We already have one to handle ATM claims - the ATM forum.

But the forum rules discourage actual debate in the ATM forum. The rules are such that ATMers must defend their ATM ideas in a thesis defense mode of "discussion". The people making arguments against the ATM idea are held accountable for nothing other than being polite. Thus they can make incorrect statements and then ignore the rebuttal when the ATM proponent shows their mistake. The mainstreamers attacking the ATM idea are under no obligation to defend their own arguments. That is not "debate". That is the ATMer sitting before a dissertation defense committee.

The rest of the forum covers non-ATM versions of other subjects. The problem is most ATMers want to treat the ATM forum as a blog, and react violently when someone dares question their idea. Usually as something along the lines of "If it's not self-evident by reading my post containing only a rambling idea with no evidence or math, then you're stupid", and then going downhill from there.

Obviously those types of ATMers have ATM to discuss their idea in. There is no place on this board where people can disagree with each other and both sides of the argument are held accountable for defending their statements. I was suggesting that an "Astronomy debate forum" would be a way to create those conditions.

Don't like it. Ad-homs are ad-homs. Do it, and you get so many warnings, and you're gone. I don't like the idea of specialized places where one can get away with such behavior without it affecting good-status membership.

I wasn't proposing they get away with such behavior. Quite the opposite. I was proposing that they are immediately ejected from the debate for any ad-homs - no warnings. That's very different from the rest of the board. I've been in a discussion over the last month in which my opponent has been warned about 3 times for ad-homs and rude behavior. He is not banned from the board and can still participate in the discussion.

My suggestion is that if there was a debate forum, and people sign up to debate a topic, then the participants have motivation to be very careful because - one ad hom - and they are gone from the discussion for good. That ejection from the debate also serves as a general warning to the poster as it would in any other part of the board. If it is a warning that has reached a level of suspension or banning, then it counts for that too.

If there is to be good debate on interesting scientific issues on this forum, there needs to be rules that hold all posters accountable for proper debate decorum - not just ATMers.

It is no better - in terms of having a quality debate - for a person to ignore when they are shown to be wrong than it is to include ad homs. Both behaviors are rude and frustrating to the debate opponent.

All I'm saying is a special forum for debates that requires a sign up to participate in a specific debate - eliminates the whole "ATMers are ignorant and will make us mainstreamers repeat the same arguments endlessly." But there are issues to debate that aren't ATM either. Right now, if the discussion is not ATM, there are no expectations that participants respond when asked questions, answer in a timely fashion, defend their statements when there is a rebuttal.

I'm just throwing an idea out there. Perhaps there would be little interest among BAUT members for such a forum. It seems that a forum devoted to debates could help all BAUT members sharpen their ability to carefully read opponents arguments and respond with reasoned arguments of their own.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

The problem is most ATMers want to treat the ATM forum as a blog, and react violently when someone dares question their idea. Usually as something along the lines of "If it's not self-evident by reading my post containing only a rambling idea with no evidence or math, then you're stupid", and then going downhill from there.

Originally Posted by galacsi

Thats a picture not so different from what many Mainstreamers show us !!!

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

Do you have examples of the "many mainstreamers" that do those things?

Originally Posted by galacsi

I dont want to give names : Just look at any UFO thread .

That's not "good enough", galacsi. If you are claiming (and it certainlty seems that YOU ARE) that "mainstreamers" behave "not so different" than ATMers behave when the subject is alien piloted UFO's, then you're going to have to produce that evidence.

Specifically which UFO thread?...and show examples of how the "mainstreamers" in that thread are acting as Serenitude posted.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

How can someone stating the Mainstream be considered in the same way as rehashing an ATM claim?

This is exactly the nature of the class system that has begun to build up here. All posters should be considered equal here. If someone is stating the Mainstream position they are just as responsible for the mistakes they make as anyone else. They should be taken to task for those mistakes and be required to admit their error as anyone else.

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Such as this one.

Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:

1) Oblique (and sometimes not so oblique) references to concerns over mainstream astronomy or space science (or astrophysics, or cosmology) that have been raised, many times, in many threads, in several BAUT sections, before. In this particular case, it is 'gravity behaving badly'.

Sometimes the post does seem to have direct pertinence to the thread; many times its pertinence seems to be perceived only by the BAUT member who posted it.

2) Rehashing of papers, or ideas, that have been discussed, in many contexts, in several threads, in several BAUT sections, before. Examples include *quasar proper motions; *(lack of) time dilation in quasars; *Pioneer 6.

What concerns me is that there's nothing new introduced, as could be seen by copying and pasting from earlier threads. It gets tiring to have to keep responding to this, over and over again, yet if someone doesn't do it, folk reading these new instances for the first time may form the impression that there's something unaddressed, some big question that is going unanswered.

And for avoidance of doubt, my concern is over the repetitious posting of the same material by the same BAUT member(s) (not a new member posting such material for the first time).

Note too that most times there is not an explicit ATM idea being presented (such presentations are easily handled within BAUT's rules), or even hinted at or implied.

Is anyone else concerned about this?

If so, what to do about it?

Look, for a forum that's been around a few years, there are precious few new things to talk about. But that's the nature of conversation; it just goes round and round and never goes anywhere in particular. If that's not a good thing, then ask yourself where the conversation should go? BAUT is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, and there's no point in trying to turn it into one. Moreover, it is not some kind of online encyclopedia--and trying to turn it into one will merely duplicate the effort on Wikipedia.

Indeed, the main theme of the forum is on the one hand, the Universe Today, a place to discuss the latest space news, and Bad Astronomy, a place where "bad" theories are debunked. Therefore, continually slapping down people with unorthodox ideas by shutting off the conversation rather than discussing such unorthodox ideas on their own merits or demerits defeats the very theme of this forum.

So what if some idea that was discussed earlier and was "proved" to be misguided in one debate, and then the same person brings up the same old idea, and a bunch of new people see it? What's wrong with that? Is it that that new faces can't be trusted to sort out the issues for themselves? Odds are that a fresh take will result, either a new, better argument for or against the old idea; saying the new discussion is a mere repetition is often a mischaracterization (cf. the new "tired light thread" in ATM).

Besides, the so-called mainstream and the ATM depend on and feed off each other. Why bother to talk to anyone who agrees with everything you believe in? That is boring. If unorthodox ideas are going to be constantly censored, then BAUT will become a very bland place indeed.

Beyond that, take a quick glance at the thread and post counts for the various sections. The top two are Off Topic Babbling, and ATM. Together they account for millions of page views. The mainstream astronomy sections have generated a small fraction in comparison. Is this regretable? Not if you're an advertiser; advertisers don't care if unorthodox ideas get repeated air time as long as new page views are generated as a result. Certainly, the consequences of any proposed changes to the "rules" should be weighed in this light.

If there's a threat to the future of BAUT, it seems to me that there's a danger that the forum will be taken over by an incestuous clique of self-appointed content police whose overall tone comes off as sour, nasty, and downright unfriendly that leaves freethinkers with a feeling of nausea and causes them to wonder why they're wasting hours of valuable time providing free content to a commercial site.

It's the diverse mix of personalities that makes BAUT a dynamic, interesting, and entertaining place to visit. There's Jerry, deeply skeptical that mainstream cosmology is going to withstand the test of time, there's Ken, the positivist defender of science against philosophical incursions, there's me, who's interested all the philosophical implications of space science, there's Doodler, the American imperialist (), etc. And then there are those whose primary contribution seems to carping about whether some ideas should be discussed at all, rather than discussing the ideas themselves.

Granted, there are times when a thread really becomes circular rather than helical in nature; where rather than letting the thread die a natural death, the conversation degenerates into a contest to see who will get the last word. In which case, the thing to do, if you're a moderator, is simply lock the thread up. And if you're not a moderator, then heed the old saying: don't feed the trolls! In either case, there's no need for this constant agonizing and mulling over metanonissues regarding the "rules".

I say again: Give Jerry a break! His posts are interesting, and they generate page-views. (And at least he's a nice guy. . . .) If you happen to disagree, then rather than trying to stifle him, try participating in any of the hundred other active threads that are going on at any given time.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by Lurker

This is exactly the nature of the class system that has begun to build up here. All posters should be considered equal here. If someone is stating the Mainstream position they are just as responsible for the mistakes they make as anyone else. They should be taken to task for those mistakes and be required to admit their error as anyone else.

I agree. When stating the mainstream position and debating the ATM one, the mainstream person should know WHY the mainstream position is accepted as mainstream and the evidence supporting it and the caveats in that evidence. 'Mainstream' science should not be defended as if it were religious dogma.