Censorship here excessive?...

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

Hmmm, please excuse me saying so, but there is not one single word in your post that addresses anything I expressed in my post, at least as far as I can tell.

I agree. And, so does slang, in their post. Here is the post:

Originally Posted by abcdefg

You use universal generalizations here.

This would imply you have successfully changed the mainstream's mind with at least one ATM proposal to express such knowledge in 30 days.

May I see it?

I don't see any connection from this post to kleindoofy's quoted post. Was the response placed to the right post?

[abcdefg]

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

Hmmm, please excuse me saying so, but there is not one single word in your post that addresses anything I expressed in my post, at least as far as I can tell.

I was in fact assuming that in order to answer questions, proper research has to be done. If that research was not done ahead of time, i.e. before the ATM thread was started, then the ATMer will need his time, that most probably being a number of years.

Proper research takes a lot of time. One needs reproducible experiments or calculations, data, a ton of self-criticism, etc., etc. Just saying "I think it's like this: ...," and then throwing a hissy fit when people disagree isn't enough.

If it were enough, then my notion that Pluto is made of blue cheese would have become a fact years ago.

Therefore, your logical deduction is that the 30 day limit has not been researched enough.

OK

[abcdefg]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

You too?

These sallies from abcdefg look more and more like attempts to prolong discussion simply for the sake of attention. I hope it isn't so.

Grant Hutchison

My view of you is you think you are superior to others.

I hope it isn't so.


Otherwise, I have a post in Q&A you can address.

I operate by recursive decidability.

I am sure you know what this means.

Actually this means, when a question is answered the path is already known to the conclusion.

Now, I am certain you know what this means.

[kleindoofy]

Originally Posted by abcdefg

Therefore, your logical deduction is that the 30 day limit has not been researched enough. ...

I don't know how many studies or research projects the admins and mods have dedicated to substantiating the scientific validity of the 30 day limit, but that's not what I was talking about.

In fact, I would like to know what the heck you're talking about.

Or perhaps not.

[abcdefg]

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

I don't know how many studies or research projects the admins and mods have dedicated to substantiating the scientific validity of the 30 day limit, but that's not what I was talking about.

In fact, I would like to know what the heck you're talking about.

Or perhaps not.

then let's agree to not talk

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by PipeDream

Sorry to pick you up on this Gillian, but yes, it is possible. For example, at the time of writing there are 90 members and 571 guests (ie. lurkers) on the board, and 81 people in ATM and 53 people in CT (though you can't split the last two figures into members and lurkers).

Nor can you tell what percentage of the lurkers were return customers, so to speak, which is more what I meant.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by abcdefg

An idiot OP could go back and answer old questions to keep it on the list.

An OP posting in bad faith to get promotion for his idea will do this.

For people trying to change the rules, remember that they were mainly forced on us by people posting in bad faith and actively trying to game the system to their advantage.

New rules must not open those loopholes again and should be examined from the perspective of how could a scrupleless ATM proponent abuse this.

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by abcdefg

Without you realizing it, I can say that about you as well.

Further, the issue is whether anyone in the mainstream would like to continue the discussion.

If you do not, I assume you would execute free will and choose not to participate.

Why exactly is this a personal issue for you if you do not want to participate?

See, this is the problem: You keep changing your definition of "mainstream". You originally agreed with the Mod's definition of "mainstream", and here you are, yet again, saying that if someone "in the mainstream" is posting to a thread, then it's the "will of the mainstream".

Define.

Your.

Terms.

EDIT: I just realized he was suspended.

Oh well, I can wait.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by PipeDream

Sorry to pick you up on this Gillian, but yes, it is possible. For example, at the time of writing there are 90 members and 571 guests (ie. lurkers) on the board, and 81 people in ATM and 53 people in CT (though you can't split the last two figures into members and lurkers).

This site is aggressively indexed by Google and others so I suspect about 4-500 of those guests are actually spiders rather than lurkers.
There's also no indication whether the presence of a guest means someone who followed a link in a search engine, read one post 45 minutes ago and will never be back or is a repeat customer who just spent the last hour reading.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

This site is aggressively indexed by Google and others so I suspect about 4-500 of those guests are actually spiders rather than lurkers.
There's also no indication whether the presence of a guest means someone who followed a link in a search engine, read one post 45 minutes ago and will never be back or is a repeat customer who just spent the last hour reading.

The page of Currently Active Users breaks it down between members, guests, and search bots (with the Display button at the bottom) -- if it's accurate.

I just took a look, and where the front page indicated gross numbers of 88 members and 561 guests for 649 total, the active-users display had it, roughly, 90 members, 70 bots and 520 guests. I didn't make careful counts of lines displayed.

The bots were mostly MSN, but there were some Yahoo and Google indicated too, and one lonely AskJeeves. It seemed to be recognizing a variety of bots. Its opinion was that most of the guests were not bots -- but I suppose it could be fooled.

I don't believe those statistics inform as to what the ratio of active members to active lurkers is over time, i.e. how large are the respective pools from which any snapshot activity sample is drawn. For instance, lurkers might be hugely larger in number, but as individuals happen to visit less frequently.

[pipedream]

Just while we are on this subject, does anyone know what happened on 25th August this year to get the record number of users to BAUT?

"Most users ever online was 2,260, 25-August-2009"

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

As for the AGW thread if it was up to me I would like to see a sub clause added to rule 13 forcing those taking part to backup their assertions with refs and answer questions as in the ATM fgorum.

Only for AGW, eh? Ah, global warming's chilling effect on free speech....

Congratulations, Captain Swoop - friends of yours have made the headlines!

This brings up a good point: Why are some people so vastly afraid of objectivity on the issue of global warming?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Why are some people so vastly afraid of objectivity on the issue of global warming?

Backing up your claims isn't objective?

[korjik]

heck, I pretty much hold the opposite beliefs on AGW as captain swoop, except for the idea that all parties should have to back up their claims.

The whole prob with AGW threads here is there is too little backing up claims to allow for resolution

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by PipeDream

Just while we are on this subject, does anyone know what happened on 25th August this year to get the record number of users to BAUT?

"Most users ever online was 2,260, 25-August-2009"

Mars wasn't as big as a full moon?

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Only for AGW, eh? Ah, global warming's chilling effect on free speech....

Congratulations, Captain Swoop - friends of yours have made the headlines!

This brings up a good point: Why are some people so vastly afraid of objectivity on the issue of global warming?

Only for the AGW threads that BAUT seems to generate. .

What friends of mine?

Whats wrong with asking people to back up their claims?

Would they be the ones afraid of objectivity?

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Moose

Backing up your claims isn't objective?

Why, sure it is!

However, once is enough. I'm not a personal secretary for those too lazy to look up the links/papers/comments I put in the appropriate threads.

Nor will I endlessly substantiate the same thing in this or any other thread just because someone too lazy to scroll up chooses to post comments such as "care to back up your claims?"

Perhaps a response such as "I care enough to have done it once, but refuse to repeat that feat at every beck and call" might be more appropriate.

Gee, Moose, this entire forum is beginning to look like the ATM section. I've repeatedly said if the ATM rules weren't changed, the demeaning behavior would spill over to the rest of the board.

Now look at the mess it's become.

[captain swoop]

So no backing up then? or response to my questions?

[01101001]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

So no backing up then? or response to my questions?

You may have to wait a wee bit for more response than this: topic Good-bye.

Speaking of goodbye topics... what's the deal with closing them? (Oh, noes! Locked threads!) Yeah, I see the rationale to prevent parting shots, but why give the parter a free shot at the partees?

Oh, that's OK. No need to suppress them. Lock the farewells. The couth will out. (Hmm. My Googling thinks I coined that.)

[pzkpfw]

Maybe if the repartee were better...

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by 01101001

... Yeah, I see the rationale to prevent parting shots, but why give the parter a free shot at the partees? ...

My feeling about this is that it's not a secret that some people feel that this forum doesn't work for them. It is often the case that someone who is feeling that way will do some irritating things as they get up to the point of leaving, but they were here and cared about this place, sometimes for years. I don't want the negative comments that might follow from people that were put off by the final days.

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by 01101001

You may have to wait a wee bit for more response than this: topic Good-bye.

Speaking of goodbye topics... what's the deal with closing them? (Oh, noes! Locked threads!) Yeah, I see the rationale to prevent parting shots, but why give the parter a free shot at the partees?

Oh, that's OK. No need to suppress them. Lock the farewells. The couth will out. (Hmm. My Googling thinks I coined that.)

Yeah, especially when TheHalcyonYear made direct references to BigDon and Gillian before storming out. Such posts alone would have been actionable in a normal thread, but now they're there for all to see, like some huge zits on a hygiene-deprived schoolboy.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

My feeling about this is that it's not a secret that some people feel that this forum doesn't work for them. It is often the case that someone who is feeling that way will do some irritating things as they get up to the point of leaving, but they were here and cared about this place, sometimes for years. I don't want the negative comments that might follow from people that were put off by the final days.

And such a policy, if widely advertised, might make some departing parties less inclined to fire off parting shots. Where's the fun in stirring the termite's nest with a stick, if you know there will be no response at all?
I know I've already reassessed my own departure plans in the light of this new information.
Or is that just me?

Grant Hutchison

[kleindoofy]

Often enough, when a long term member of a club, forum, team, or whatever doesn't get his way, tosses his toys out of the pram, and stomps off in a huff, he not only leaves with a dactylic gesture, he also tries to convince his friends to go with him.

Then again, one has to have some friends to be able to do that.

[Neverfly]

DragonStar, Salty, Bogie, THY and others...

People I often disagreed with.
It's a shame, it really is.


Closing the thread is helpful, too, in case one day they decide to come back and make us all miserable some more.

[grant hutchison]

It seems that locking the "goodbye" thread has simply shifted the commentary to this thread. I'm pretty sure that isn't the desired outcome.

Grant Hutchison

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Now look at the mess it's become.

It has become a mess.

I don't read much anymore. Not like I used to.

I actually had trouble in the past, because I'd have to tear myself away from the board to get work done.

Now I skim. I don't read the majority of what I see. I graze on the forum like a disenchanted goat that lost its appetite for grass.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

It seems that locking the "goodbye" thread has simply shifted the commentary to this thread. I'm pretty sure that isn't the desired outcome.

That is definitely not the desired outcome. No warnings or infractions levied... this time... but everybody needs to lay off the jabs and digs.

As always, if anybody has a compelling reason to reopen this particular thread, please report this post.