What to do about 'Jerry posts'

[Lurker]

One of the elements I dislike about this forum is that sometimes regular, well informed posters seem to be a bit smug and granted more leeway in that sumgness than those with less knowledge.

As an example I sight the following exchange with names removed:

How would fire appear in different oxygen content or pressure,for example, in an atmosphere with 6, 13 , 30 , 50 , 70 or 100 percents of oxygen instead of 21 percents?

Even less, less, more, even more, very, and explosively bright.

Did you skip science class the day the teacher burned steel wool in lesser and higher oxygen concentrations?

I think this unnecessarily harsh... such unnecessary and that posters that indulge in such unnecessary insults should be called to task for them. People young and old, well informed and not, come here asking questions. If the purpose is want to promote science and provide scientific answers, this sort of attitude is counter productive. It makes those in the sciences look arrogant and ugly. the gods know, I wouldn't ask questions at a forum if I felt this was the nature of the response I was going to get.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Lurker

One of the elements I dislike about this forum is that sometimes regular, well informed posters seem to be a bit smug and granted more leeway in that sumgness than those with less knowledge.

As an example I sight the following exchange with names removed:

[Example]

I think this unnecessarily harsh... such unnecessary and that posters that indulge in such unnecessary insults should be called to task for them. People young and old, well informed and not, come here asking questions. If the purpose is want to promote science and provide scientific answers, this sort of attitude is counter productive. It makes those in the sciences look arrogant and ugly. the gods know, I wouldn't ask questions at a forum if I felt this was the nature of the response I was going to get.

Put the names back on. I did it. I take full responsibility for it. I'm not even unproud of it. It was topic: Fire in different oxygen content. And, I disagree. Sorry. I don't think it was harsh.

It wasn't meant to be insulting. It's not an insult. I sincerely wondered if m1omg missed the demonstration of burning in various concentrations of oxygen. So, I asked. Was "skipped" a bad word? Does it imply sloth to you?

I'm sure I saw two different teachers demo that in my education. Is it no longer a part of curricula? It's a compelling demonstration and it was direct to the point of the question I thought. My mind boggles if it's no longer common experience. And I truly wonder that someone could have missed it -- but otherwise I don't think m1omg's question makes sense, so I asked. I tried to find some similar YouTube demos and didn't get as full a range, but some dramatic ones, nonetheless. And m1omg didn't find them helpful, apparently.

I didn't understand the question, I guess. I'm still not sure what m1omg's after, even now. I tried to help. I failed. If someone found insult, there may be skin too thin. But, it can happen. OK. If m1omg was insulted -- never heard so, but I'll allow it -- I apologize for asking, for trying to make sense of the question so I could help. No smugness was had. If you judge it was communicated, it was by a mistake in my writing or your reading.

I don't intend to change my arrogant and ugly style for you. I will continue to try to get to the point of a question without too much dancing around. Life is short. Sorry, if toes get stepped on along the way.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

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?

Umm, Warren...it's against the rules of this board. Are you sure you have read the rules??

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).

Your "odds" are faulty...and of course the mainstream is "famous" for mischaracterizing ATM ideas. Your argument is becoming very subjective.

Besides, the so-called mainstream and the ATM depend on and feed off each other.

????

If unorthodox ideas are going to be constantly censored, then BAUT will become a very bland place indeed.

Talk about "mischaracterization", unorthodox ideas are NOT censored here. But for you to say that is very "telling".

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.

Meaning "what" exactly? That this board should give a "break" to bad science because it is somehow more "popular"?? That's DOPEY.

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.

This board is being "run" by "advertisers"?? That's news to me.

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.

Then why don't you and Jerry, and Ken and Doodler pony up some cash and start your own board...and you can say ANYTHING you want to there.

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.

So we shouldn't criticize Jerry (or other ATMers), we should just find other threads to post to?

Hate to break this to ya, but not only is this is a science board...it is an OPEN BOARD, and as long as ATMers post ATM "stuff", then other posters will "task" them to demonstrate that those ideas have merit.

I really can't believe that you would think it reasonable that those of us who don't agree with ATM ideas should just "post elsewhere"...why don't YOU post "elsewhere"???...sheesh.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Put the names back on. I did it. I take full responsibility for it. I'm not even unproud of it. It was topic: Fire in different oxygen content. And, I disagree. Sorry. I don't think it was harsh.

It wasn't meant to be insulting. It's not an insult. I sincerely wondered if m1omg missed the demonstration of burning in various concentrations of oxygen. So, I asked. Was "skipped" a bad word? Does it imply sloth to you?

You said , "Did you skip science class the day..." and I think this does suggest that if the poster had gone to class as they were suppose to they would have been able to answer the question for themselves. It added nothing to the context of the discussion and it suggests that the poster should have seen such a demonstration. I did not see this demonstration until I was a freshman in college. If the poster was a bright young 5^th, they may well have never seen the demonstration in my school system. I am not suggesting it is a large issue, but it shows, in my opinion the disregard posters in this forum sometimes show for those who are looking to become informed.

[Paracelsus]

Frankly, Warren Platt may have a point. I have been enjoying the ATM section tremendously--haven't laughed so hard in months.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Lurker

You said , "Did you skip science class the day..." and I think this does suggest that if the poster had gone to class as they were suppose to they would have been able to answer the question for themselves. It added nothing to the context of the discussion and it suggests that the poster should have seen such a demonstration.

It surely wasn't my intended meaning. Next time, should it come up, I'll try to remember to use missed, as less open to an unfortunate misinterpretation. I meant to allow for skipping of the demo by virtue of necessity, like illness. That I recall, I never skipped a class for an illegitimate reason, so it's not the primary connotation of the word for me.

It was a struggle for me to understand the question, knowing that this is a common demonstration. I wondered how someone could have seen that demo and still asked that question. Thinking, on those lines, voicing them, I suspected it had been missed (right word?) and proceeded to find similar on the Net. I thought it added something, it helped -- until m1omg came back with a clarification that confused me further.

I saw the oxygen-concentration demos at a young age, grade school, when fire makes a great teaching tool. Is it college material now? Yikes!

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by 01101001

It surely wasn't my intended meaning. Next time, should it come up, I'll try to remember to use missed, as less open to an unfortunate misinterpretation. I meant to allow for skipping of the demo by virtue of necessity, like illness. That I recall, I never skipped a class for an illegitimate reason, so it's not the primary connotation of the word for me.

It was a struggle for me to understand the question, knowing that this is a common demonstration. I wondered how someone could have seen that demo and still asked that question. Thinking, on those lines, voicing them, I suspected it had been missed (right word?) and proceeded to find similar on the Net. I thought it added something, it helped -- until m1omg came back with a clarification that confused me further.

I saw the oxygen-concentration demos at a young age, grade school, when fire makes a great teaching tool. Is it college material now? Yikes!

I'm not going to debate this... I have better things to do with my life than debate every post I make here. You may not have meant that way, but to some casual observers, that's how it looks. If posters want to more careful consider their word choice in the future they will... if not they won't.

Personally I think that you are willing to debate this issue shows how many regular posters here are ready to debate the smallest point rather than consider that suggesting that a comment should not have been made.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Personally I think that you are willing to debate this issue shows how many regular posters here are ready to debate the smallest point rather than consider that suggesting that a comment should not have been made.

Don't use me as an example of bad behavior and I won't object to it.

I'm insulted. Apologize.

(No. I don't care.)

[Nereid]

That is from the second line of the OP. That line, sentence, (and paragraph) reads as follows: "Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:".

I repeat this because some BAUT members who have posted in this thread seem to have (persistently?) misunderstood the OP.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Nereid

That is from the second line of the OP. That line, sentence, (and paragraph) reads as follows: "Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:".

I repeat this because some BAUT members who have posted in this thread seem to have (persistently?) misunderstood the OP.

This is true, however, given the title of this thread and the fact that the examples all used the same poster it leaves the reader pondering the sincerity of the op's caveat...

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Nereid

That is from the second line of the OP. That line, sentence, (and paragraph) reads as follows: "Of course, I am not referring to any particular BAUT member, rather to two kinds of persistent postings:".

Nobody missed it. The OP was more than a bit like someone saying "I don't mean to be insulting, but [random insult]". It wasn't necessary to out Jerry in the subject line to raise this issue.

I repeat this because some BAUT members who have posted in this thread seem to have (persistently?) misunderstood the OP.

Nereid, you explicitly referred to a poster while claiming not to. What's to misunderstand?

[Paracelsus]

This thread is quickly spiraling down the drain/going in the toilet/whatever.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

This thread is quickly spiraling down the drain/going in the toilet/whatever.

I agree... once again it seems more important to stake out one's position and defend it to the bitter end then discuss the underlying issues...

[captain swoop]

You mean no one agrees with you?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

You mean no one agrees with you?

No... if you would bother to read the previous posts, though, you will see what I mean...

[Nereid]

Thanks to Moose and Lurker for highlighting an unfortunate consequence (at least to some) of the way the OP is worded.

To oversimplify, two choices: a vague, general statement, abstracted from the immediate reality of any post, or posts; or a concrete, specific example, followed by the general/abstract/up one level/etc point of the thread.

In the latter case, the danger is that, no matter what is written (including the use of quote marks around one word) concerning the intention, some readers will misunderstand, and misinterpret. It may be that such, or similar, misunderstandings (etc) would happen anyway.

In the former case, one danger is that, no matter what is written, the abstraction is so devoid of specific referents as to be nearly meaningless (to most readers), or some readers will make their own conclusions re which BAUT member(s) posts are being referred to anyway.

If I may ask, out of curiosity, how would you suggest the point of this thread should have been introduced, so as to ensure essentially no BAUT member misunderstands its intent?

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Nereid

If I may ask, out of curiosity, how would you suggest the point of this thread should have been introduced, so as to ensure essentially no BAUT member misunderstands its intent?

The way you did it, almost. Oh, you could have left off the attributions, but it's a searchable forum, and anybody who cared could have looked up ownership of the examples. Anyone who doesn't care, doesn't care. Maybe you could have found examples by two different slightly-anonymous authors to spread the fame around.

It's done. Jerry defended himself. What's the value in pressing it? Could we resume the point?

The point is not the who, but the what. I still don't think I've seen anyone respond to the invitation to defend those types of articles as being beneficial. They sap resources. They pollute. For what? Is there any reason to welcome them?

[Nereid]

Several posts in this thread touch on a related topic: what is the nature of astronomy and space science (and astrophysics, and cosmology) as sciences?

BAUT has quite a few threads on this, and related, topics; some date from before the BABB/UT merger, some are in the ATM section, some in the Q&A section, and some in other explicitly science-based sections. There are also quite a few sub-threads, in these sections.

At least some part of the concerns expressed in the OP are likely due to quite different perspectives on what 'astronomy as a science' is; for example, in many posts by at least one BAUT member, there is (to me) clear inconsistency sufficient to make the main point of the post essentially illogical*.

This is, I think, quite serious ... not much different from the apparent absurdity of an ATM claim of a comprehensive failure of Special Relativity posted in this forum!^

Perhaps we should devote several, hopefully quite long, threads to examining just what accepting 'astronomical observations' actually entails (other than 'here's the readout from {insert instrument here}')? In these threads we may look, hard, at just how much modern physics is threaded through the chain leading to a reported result, perhaps by looking at the relatively boring Section 2's of many published papers (these are, often, the parts of the papers which describe how the data were obtained, data which later are analysed, and from which conclusions are drawn).

*To give one (grossly?) oversimplified example: a result obtained by VLBI used to suggest that GR has serious problems, without acknowledging that if the problems (with GR) were so severe then the methods used (VBLI) to produce the results would render them untenable!
^Crudely, how does your PC+internet 'work', in the sense of you successfully posting here, if SR is such a comprehensive failure?

[Ari Jokimaki]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

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.

You demand this, and yet you yourself have ignored in this thread requests for details of your own claim.

Besides, galacsi's reason not to give too specific evidence was good one.

Originally Posted by folkhemmet

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!

If your interpretation of Jerry's posts would be correct (which I don't think it is) then Jerry's posts would be against rules of this forum. There's already a rule against posting ATM material outside ATM forum. Now, if you see such post, what do you think is the correct procedure:

a) report the post to the moderators and let them deal with it?

b) start making insulting posts about Jerry's person and/or motives?

Originally Posted by folkhemmet

To pretend that Jerry is not doing this because he has an ATM agenda requires a ridiculously large stretching of credulity.

I wholeheartedly disagree. You don't know what Jerry's motives are (unless Jerry has told you about them). There's no reason to assume that Jerry is talking about these things for other reasons than out of interest. Even if you assume that someone has sinister (or something like that) motives, there's no reason to go public with them. Well, ok, I guess wanting to insult the person in question is a reason.

------------------------

Nereid, I agree with Moose, you don't put people's names in titles of threads if you don't want the thread to be about any people specifically.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by galacsi

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

Okay, I have. I'm not seeing support for your statement. Now what?

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Besides, galacsi's reason not to give too specific evidence was good one.

I think it would have been better if he hadn't made the accusation in the first place. To be sure, this thread probably isn't the place to discuss it, but my reaction to his comment was honest puzzlement.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Perhaps we should devote several, hopefully quite long, threads to examining just what accepting 'astronomical observations' actually entails (other than 'here's the readout from {insert instrument here}')? In these threads we may look, hard, at just how much modern physics is threaded through the chain leading to a reported result, perhaps by looking at the relatively boring Section 2's of many published papers (these are, often, the parts of the papers which describe how the data were obtained, data which later are analysed, and from which conclusions are drawn).

I actually look forward to such threads, as I believe they'd be very educational.

As far as to OP goes, I hesitate many times to post things in the 'Astronomy' forum, as I am afraid of bringing up a point that has been brought up before (which I accidentally did yesterday), or of cluttering that forum with trivial threads. Also, if something interesting comes along, somebody usually beats me to the punch and posts it before I do. I think the 'post in the Q&A section instead' idea is a good one which I, for one, will try to follow in future.

As for beating up on Jerry, I don't think that was the OP's intention.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

You demand this, and yet you yourself have ignored in this thread requests for details of your own claim.

I didn't respond because I knew the "Jerry lovers" (if there can be "Jerry haters", there can be "Jerry lovers") couldn't relate, but to answer that, the totality of Jerry's posts don't give me ANY reason to believe that he is in any way objectively evaluating his variable gravity idea. it's his "one size fits all" theory for how everything "works". Yet all attempts to present evidence for that idea, fall flat. And unlike what others have said, I haven't seen him say "boy, was I wrong".

...and if he does/did say that, they why does he continue to promote the same idea?

Originally Posted by Paracelesus

As for beating up on Jerry, I don't think that was the OP's intention.

No, but unfortunately it has beome my intention, so I am removing myself from this thread.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

...the totality of Jerry's posts don't give me ANY reason to believe that he is in any way objectively evaluating his variable gravity idea.

Regardless of what "the totality of Jerry's posts" don't give you reason to believe, what is it about "totality of Jerry's posts" that tells you as a fact (that's how you presented it, as a fact) that Jerry "had to go on and on about how the descent was not "as it should be" in an effort to "save face" with his "variable gravity" idea"?

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

And unlike what others have said, I haven't seen him say "boy, was I wrong".

If you haven't seen Jerry admitting being wrong about some of his claims even once, that is indicative that you haven't actually followed things that closely. Are you aware that in this thread we are discussing Jerry's recent posts, not something that happened years ago during Huygens probe landing?

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

(snip)

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.

That made me think and as the list built, it occured to me that almost everyone does it at one time or another.

Reading the rest of these posts.. I'll throw in two bits of my own.
Everyone also sometimes makes a post that others question.
Lurker pointed what 01101001 said. 01101001 denied intent. In fact he sounded a lot like me there for a while.
Several pointed out that Nereid named them "Jerry posts" and put a link to one of Jerry's posts yet claimed no intent. Nereid replied with a continued denial of any intent to implicate Jerry in "Jerry posts" (I'm still scratching my head over how that one works out...)

I have pointed out things others have said...
They have pointed out what I have said...
Sometimes we see that we were wrong sometimes we don't and sometimes we aren't wrong even when it looked like we were.

What are you gonna do? I mean, REALLY!? Nothing can be done unless we could somehow read everyones mind and know how they are going to respond for a hundred posts after you make yours- before you make it.
If we could do that- we wouldn't be on a forum at all.

Ok well, life is tough. We take our chances and post. We defend what we can, admit when we can or if our ego allows- We try to learn and make the best of it <shrug>

But I can't think of a single poster here that I haven't seen guilty of making a questionable post at one time or another, over-reacting at one time or another, denying intent, assuming, misunderstanding, accusing or placing a thinly veiled insult. We are all guilty.

[captain swoop]

time to close this one maybe?

[Paracelsus]

I'd say that's an affirmative.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I'd say that's an affirmative.

Except for resolving the issue with member advice.

But, I'm fine with mods solving the issue on their own, since the members don't seem to be able to focus on the question.

[Moose]

*shrug* The OP was adequately answered by the first dozen or so posts. I've said my peace in post 4, except for this: ultimately, if the situation in the OP is a genuine problem not covered by the rules, it's the mods' to solve through a mandate from the admin.

If you really think there's anything more that needs saying, 01101001, now's the time.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Moose

If you really think there's anything more that needs saying, 01101001, now's the time.

I personally don't. I'm not so oblique as that. If I have something to say, I say it. Look, here I am saying something! How about that?

I wasn't thinking of me. I was thinking of the possible people who may not have liked the trend in the opening articles. They are the ones who might wish to say more. If they don't exist, or want to remain silent on the issue, that's cool. Ball's in their court.