Unlucky? (to have someone put your ATM idea through the wringer)

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

Ditto here. I had two posts in the previous thread deleted because they were promoting an ATM idea outside the ATM forum. Can you point to anything in either post that could be considered promotional of an ATM idea?

Me?

No ... I didn't even read them (before the mod edited them) ...

[Bob Angstrom]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Me? No ... I didn't even read them (before the mod edited them) ...

Then that's a question for the mods because there was nothing ATM in either post. The first post mentioned some names in a historical context but I don't see how mentioning names could be promoting an ATM theory. There was nothing at all ATM in the second post and the posts were not edited of ATM content. They were deleted entirely.

[Bob Angstrom]

These are Viv Pope comments about his lucky experience with an AMT thread:

Now that this discussion on POAMS is about to close, I had perhaps better say something about my 'take' on the whole thing.

For me this thread has been like the Curate's egg: good in parts but rotten as a whole. When I first encountered this forum I had been led to expect some fairly high level of intelligent interaction. However, in that respect, I (and some other readers of these posts) have found it very disappointing. On the other hand, some of the reactions against POAMS have been the source of of much amusement and light relief.

It is noticeable that right at the close of this thread questions are still being asked that have already been answered over and over. Some of these questions have been completely ridiculous, making me feel as if I had written my responses in something like Egyptian Serbo-Croat!

The lack of logical acumen in some cases is something that, I'm afraid, I have found appalling. What has shone out at me is the extreme narrow-mindedness in some cases, as though these people had been educated down a hole. And that is a shame, because POAMS is essentially holistic and cannot be understood in these narrow perspectives any more than a pointiliste painting can be understood by examining and criticising each dot.

More disapponting than anything is the evident suspicion that critics have evinced right at the start. To me it signifies much about the mind-sets of these people.

What stands out most, however, is the level of sheer hostility that this POAMS thread has generated, sometimes under the guise of 'genuine questions'. I can see no reason for that other than that it presents a threat to these people who adopt the pose of defenders of the status quo – surprisingly, not least from those who claim to be ATM!

So in that regard, I see POAMS as a success. If these critics really thought it was the rubbish they make out, they would simply walk away from it. The fact that they don't therefore speaks volumes!

Anyway, I can't keep on answering questions that have already been answered over and over, so this is where I have to stop. If anyone really wishes to know what POAMS is about they may read it soon in published form, to be advertised on INTERNET. There you may read the whole thing, maths and all (too mathematical, perhaps, for some.)

So now, I'm off. Those who wish to slag-off POAMS will no doubt 'have a ball' without fear of their missives being responded to.

Finally, however, I would like to express my gratitude to those who invited me to start this thread and who have supported me (in my intention, at least) and I regret that we did not get far towards consummation of the issue. I just hope you get to reading the book.
Thanks for having me,
Viv Pope
__________________

[Bob Angstrom]

And these are two comments from followers of the POAMS thread.

(1)
I have been viewing the POAMS thread on the BAUT Forum for a number of weeks, and what has struck me most forcibly is the reluctance, perhaps inability, of many of the contributors to the discussion to take a broader view of science. For example, few seem able to appreciate that all observations and experiments are interpreted according to some preconceived idea or other about the nature of the world. This fact applies as much to the classical view as it does to any other, newer theory, and means that every scientist who analyses data from an experiment is taking a philosophical stance, whether he recognises it or not. It is both sad and frustrating that there appears to be a failure to acknowledge the role that philosophy and logic inevitably play in the scientific enterprise. Such a failure surely hampers scientific progress. After all, we live in a holistic world where everything affects everything else. We cannot, without doing an injustice to Nature, imagine that scientific endeavour is somehow totally unconnected to the rationality demanded by Philosophy and which Nature herself demonstrates. This is not to say that Philosophy is superior to experimentation, but that the two should go hand-in-hand. Furthermore it has been painfully obvious in this Forum, that there are some scientists who seem more concerned about protecting their own narrow preserve and their own unconsciously-held philosophical position than engaging in honest and robust debate.

(2)
‘I have followed this thread with both interest and dismay. Although there have been some intelligent responses to the ideas put forward by POAMS the number of, quite frankly puerile responses is surprising. A forum such as BAUT is, of course, democratic and open to all comers. The down-side of this is that maintaining a well-thought-out fruitful discussion would seem to be impossible with such a disparity in the level of competence and intelligence of the participants.’

[Bob Angstrom]

These are two comments of a similar nature from Forrest Noble's thread.

(1)
I'm following this thread from its start, and I found it very interesting, so I forced myself not to miss a post, even though it soon became a very painful task, especially because of the repeated superimposition of questions and answers (and maybe para-answers), seemingly due -IMHO- to an overwhelming vis polemica rather than a bold and healthy confrontation.

(2)
Where does it say in the rules of the forum that ATMers will be so fervently attacked for miniscule errors in english or for quoting from ones memory an article they may have read? Rather than continuously dog the presenter for trivial inconsistencies ,why not examine the possibilities that FN has posted in his summation? One can only ascertain that any attempt at a logical discussion of ANY theory that goes against the popular view will be met with such aggression. Furthermore Mods should be neutral in their bias and not beckoned as muscle to intimidate. This seems to be a recurring and perhaps organized occurrence in many threads including my own. Perhaps science does guard its secrets carefully and when one treads too closely to the truth, they are promptly discredited? How can you accuse FN of lying and deliberately misleading simply for the sake of the ideas he is trying to discuss. If this is the kind of help one can expect then what motivation does one have to even try? These are my thoughts and expressions and not those of FN. But it needed to be said, and I said it. If you want to suspend me, thats your perogitive. But you should all be ashamed... it seems almost tantamount to a bunch of bullys on a schoolyard... rather than scientists, and mentors as you should be.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by aastrotech

When they argue falsely I consider myself unlucky. Because false arguments in dispute of ATM posters is validated and encouraged.

aastrotech, you are to refrain from these kind of remarks.
false arguments are neither validated nor encouraged by BAUT.
false accusations are also not allowed.

[agingjb]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

... Where does it say in the rules of the forum that ATMers will be so fervently attacked for miniscule errors in english ...

It doesn't; perhaps it ought to.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

(2)
Where does it say in the rules of the forum that ATMers will be so fervently attacked for miniscule errors in english or for quoting from ones memory an article they may have read?

If the "miniscule" error in English is to not understand the meaning of the word energy, it really needs to be addressed.

Quoting from memory is a major nono in scientific arguing, as you're highly likely to misrepresent what author wrote and you're making it impossible for others to check the context of what you're quoting.
It's like the recent thread where abcdef kept repeating a single sentence from a book which on its own and taken out of context had the exact opposite meaning of the chapter it was taken from.
Without proper attribution there's no way to check if that's what's happening or for that matter if the article has been understood by the person using it as an argument.

[ineluki]

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

I find the typical ATMer impervious to critique and admitting error. They are out to push their "theory", if it can be called that, usually it is just a fantasy.

Exactly, the typical ATMer does not care about the truth, they want to feel smart.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

Then that's a question for the mods because there was nothing ATM in either post. The first post mentioned some names in a historical context but I don't see how mentioning names could be promoting an ATM theory. There was nothing at all ATM in the second post and the posts were not edited of ATM content. They were deleted entirely.

Did you take that up with the mod team, per the established procedure on disagreements with mod decisions?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

These are Viv Pope comments about his lucky experience with an AMT thread:

Now that this discussion on POAMS is about to close, I had perhaps better say something about my 'take' on the whole thing.

For me this thread has been like the Curate's egg: good in parts but rotten as a whole. When I first encountered this forum I had been led to expect some fairly high level of intelligent interaction. However, in that respect, I (and some other readers of these posts) have found it very disappointing. On the other hand, some of the reactions against POAMS have been the source of of much amusement and light relief.

It is noticeable that right at the close of this thread questions are still being asked that have already been answered over and over. Some of these questions have been completely ridiculous, making me feel as if I had written my responses in something like Egyptian Serbo-Croat!

The lack of logical acumen in some cases is something that, I'm afraid, I have found appalling. What has shone out at me is the extreme narrow-mindedness in some cases, as though these people had been educated down a hole. And that is a shame, because POAMS is essentially holistic and cannot be understood in these narrow perspectives any more than a pointiliste painting can be understood by examining and criticising each dot.

More disapponting than anything is the evident suspicion that critics have evinced right at the start. To me it signifies much about the mind-sets of these people.

What stands out most, however, is the level of sheer hostility that this POAMS thread has generated, sometimes under the guise of 'genuine questions'. I can see no reason for that other than that it presents a threat to these people who adopt the pose of defenders of the status quo – surprisingly, not least from those who claim to be ATM!

So in that regard, I see POAMS as a success. If these critics really thought it was the rubbish they make out, they would simply walk away from it. The fact that they don't therefore speaks volumes!

Anyway, I can't keep on answering questions that have already been answered over and over, so this is where I have to stop. If anyone really wishes to know what POAMS is about they may read it soon in published form, to be advertised on INTERNET. There you may read the whole thing, maths and all (too mathematical, perhaps, for some.)

So now, I'm off. Those who wish to slag-off POAMS will no doubt 'have a ball' without fear of their missives being responded to.

Finally, however, I would like to express my gratitude to those who invited me to start this thread and who have supported me (in my intention, at least) and I regret that we did not get far towards consummation of the issue. I just hope you get to reading the book.
Thanks for having me,
Viv Pope
__________________

It seems that BA omitted the all too important reference; source.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

And these are two comments from followers of the POAMS thread.

(1)
I have been viewing the POAMS thread on the BAUT Forum for a number of weeks, and what has struck me most forcibly is the reluctance, perhaps inability, of many of the contributors to the discussion to take a broader view of science. For example, few seem able to appreciate that all observations and experiments are interpreted according to some preconceived idea or other about the nature of the world. This fact applies as much to the classical view as it does to any other, newer theory, and means that every scientist who analyses data from an experiment is taking a philosophical stance, whether he recognises it or not. It is both sad and frustrating that there appears to be a failure to acknowledge the role that philosophy and logic inevitably play in the scientific enterprise. Such a failure surely hampers scientific progress. After all, we live in a holistic world where everything affects everything else. We cannot, without doing an injustice to Nature, imagine that scientific endeavour is somehow totally unconnected to the rationality demanded by Philosophy and which Nature herself demonstrates. This is not to say that Philosophy is superior to experimentation, but that the two should go hand-in-hand. Furthermore it has been painfully obvious in this Forum, that there are some scientists who seem more concerned about protecting their own narrow preserve and their own unconsciously-held philosophical position than engaging in honest and robust debate.

No doubt well intentioned; the post itself is by VivPope, and begins "Here is an e-mail I received from another watcher of these discussions".

(2)
‘I have followed this thread with both interest and dismay. Although there have been some intelligent responses to the ideas put forward by POAMS the number of, quite frankly puerile responses is surprising. A forum such as BAUT is, of course, democratic and open to all comers. The down-side of this is that maintaining a well-thought-out fruitful discussion would seem to be impossible with such a disparity in the level of competence and intelligence of the participants.’

Also a post by VivPope himself; this part of the post begins "NOTE;Here is an e-mail that has just now come in (from ‘M’):".

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Bob Angstrom

These are two comments of a similar nature from Forrest Noble's thread.

(1)
I'm following this thread from its start, and I found it very interesting, so I forced myself not to miss a post, even though it soon became a very painful task, especially because of the repeated superimposition of questions and answers (and maybe para-answers), seemingly due -IMHO- to an overwhelming vis polemica rather than a bold and healthy confrontation.

This is from a post is by Bancor, and is #441.

(2)
Where does it say in the rules of the forum that ATMers will be so fervently attacked for miniscule errors in english or for quoting from ones memory an article they may have read? Rather than continuously dog the presenter for trivial inconsistencies ,why not examine the possibilities that FN has posted in his summation? One can only ascertain that any attempt at a logical discussion of ANY theory that goes against the popular view will be met with such aggression. Furthermore Mods should be neutral in their bias and not beckoned as muscle to intimidate. This seems to be a recurring and perhaps organized occurrence in many threads including my own. Perhaps science does guard its secrets carefully and when one treads too closely to the truth, they are promptly discredited? How can you accuse FN of lying and deliberately misleading simply for the sake of the ideas he is trying to discuss. If this is the kind of help one can expect then what motivation does one have to even try? These are my thoughts and expressions and not those of FN. But it needed to be said, and I said it. If you want to suspend me, thats your perogitive. But you should all be ashamed... it seems almost tantamount to a bunch of bullys on a schoolyard... rather than scientists, and mentors as you should be.

This is the entirety of a post by coliver, #781.

[Nereid]

BobA, would you please confirm that, in your opinion, both VivPope and fn "really, truly believed [they] had developed a really good ATM idea" (and that this really good ATM idea was presented in the respective threads)?

If not, then what relevance do the two example have, to the OP?

If so, even if so in only one case, do you consider the ATM proponent (VivPope, fn) "'to come up against' a BAUT member - 'a proponent of the mainstream position' - who 'argues strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but is also ruthless and relentless'"?

Of course, there were many "proponents of the mainstream position", in each thread; my question concerns whether at least one fits the above description.

[Arnold Layne]

I really have to go see a psychiatrist to figure out why I want to debate some of the evidence-free arguments that are coming up in ATM, or against-the-mainstram arguments outside of ATM. One of the main techniques is argumentum ad verecundiam, which doesn't seem to work really well when the authority appealed to is someone nobody ever heard of who joined an internet message board. But the other fallacious form of argument that seems to come up a lot (does it have a name) is the "Then according to you, <blatant misinterpretation of well-known standard scientific theory>, and this is obviously ridiculous. Therefore <well-known standard scientific theory> is wrong." So the "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong" argument.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Arnold Layne

I really have to go see a psychiatrist to figure out why I want to debate some of the evidence-free arguments that are coming up in ATM, or against-the-mainstram arguments outside of ATM. One of the main techniques is argumentum ad verecundiam, which doesn't seem to work really well when the authority appealed to is someone nobody ever heard of who joined an internet message board. But the other fallacious form of argument that seems to come up a lot (does it have a name) is the "Then according to you, <blatant misinterpretation of well-known standard scientific theory>, and this is obviously ridiculous. Therefore <well-known standard scientific theory> is wrong." So the "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong" argument.

(bold added)

Strawman?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Arnold Layne

But the other fallacious form of argument that seems to come up a lot (does it have a name) is the "Then according to you, <blatant misinterpretation of well-known standard scientific theory>, and this is obviously ridiculous.

Strawman argument.

Therefore <well-known standard scientific theory> is wrong." So the "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong" argument.

Argument from ignorance, similar to the argument from personal incredulity: "I can't believe it's true, therefore it's wrong".

[uncommonsense]

Regargless of intent, BAUT ATM operates de facto like some new reality show, "Scientific Idol"

BAUT is highly visable, very findable, (comes up real quick from a google search for many science related words) and easy to join. I don't know for a fact, but I will speculate that it is designed that way - as it has advertisers that pay more with greater visits. Standard web page stuff 101.

Scenario: Stu has an epiphany regarding the nature of light. Stu is not a professional scientist, but like all humans has an unexplainable attraction to science (human nature, survival instinct). He goes online and searches for a place where he can express some of his ideas. He lands on BAUT Q & A, but his ideas are immidiately transfered to ATM, where the barrage - that several members, in this very thread promised to launch - begins.

I understand that because BAUT is public - the members need to clarify the mainstream view and operate scientifically throughout the questioning and criticizm of an ATM idea. I advocate so doing.

However, it is too often obvious that some citicizm offered in ATM posts came from a very learned, obviously experienced, concise with language, most likely well respected member of the scientific community - call this person Simon Cowell. Yes, the wonderfully rude, sarcastic, villian from American Idol. However the real Simon was simply out for ratings and although he was extremely insulting, it was a show!

IMHO a few of these great scientists, who I feel bring imeasurable credibility to the site, need to think about the BAUT ATM context before imagining they are on the faculty charged with attacking a dissertation. Come on. That is not how BAUT set up, de facto any way. Instead we have mostly unknowlegable menbers of the public who were INVITED in to express their scientist within.

So fire away, but you are doing the site an injustice if you use ammunition that is way out of context.

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

BAUT is highly visable, very findable, (comes up real quick from a google search for many science related words) and easy to join. I don't know for a fact, but I will speculate that it is designed that way - as it has advertisers that pay more with greater visits. Standard web page stuff 101.

Actually; advertisement has been fairly recent. It was designed as easy to join and participate long before the ads.

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

but his ideas are immidiately transfered to ATM, where the barrage - that several members, in this very thread promised to launch - begins.

I don't see this being any different in ATM vs anywhere else. If the statement being made is contradicting accepted practice, then the barrage is going to happen.
If ths statement being made is leaving open room for education, then the barrage is going to be explainations rather than questions.

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

So fire away, but you are doing the site an injustice if you use ammunition that is way out of context.

I agree. Too many times I see the discussions stray away from the idea and drift into the presentation. But; many times it's the OP that is more worried about defending the self, rather than the idea.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

He lands on BAUT Q & A, but his ideas are immidiately transfered to ATM, where the barrage - that several members, in this very thread promised to launch - begins.

Then it wasn't a series of questions but a series of assertions. I know that's the nature of some people, telling instead of asking, and that's cool, but in my experience the gradual transfer to ATM is always accompanied by moderator advice as to why the topic is being transferred and what happens next.

Now that something non-immediate has befallen the once-Q&A topic, does the original owner then get barraged mysteriously, or does it happen in the context of the ATM subforum, where there is plenty more advice about operations there, reasons, methods, expectations? If the proponent is slow to recognize the different environment, and similar unfounded assertions continue to come, then the reviewers there will be quick to explain the process again. And again.

The seeker of knowledge is given plenty of time to adjust to a well regulated process.

[slang]

(Please note: this is not aimed at any particular ATM presenter personally, it is an exaggerated fictional description to explore the question in the OP.)

Suppose, as non-scientist, you have worked/hobbied alone for many years on your idea/theory/alternate/Einstein++... to plug up all the holes, tie up all loose ends, fit all the new discoveries in, all that in such a way that you are completely satisfied that all verbal explanations are there, that it's entirely logical. Well, worked from all the pop-sci available. What next? Ask yourself questions! Make sure you have an answer for every question you can think of. Keep news clippings of the important stuff. You know your idea must be true, everything fits. (How could they have missed it so long?). Every friend you explained it to agreed that it is reasonable.

I suppose it's a bit disconcerting to find out that when you present your idea, people ask quite different questions. That short quotes from popsci articles don't cut it. That you were supposed to have tested with actual numbers. That there is not one devil in the details, but entire dungeon dimensions of them. That someone had your idea 100 years ago. That you misunderstood the implications of some discovery. That Law X or Theory Y does not mean what you think it means. Math... In short, you suddenly encounter the massive body of experiment and evidence that is science. Well, a small part of it. What choice but to dismiss it, to see personal attacks everywhere, to steer answers to those that fit the questions you asked yourself? To acknowledge is admitting failure.

Now, the above will probably not fit any ATM posters, it's quite an extreme fictional exercise. But take out several factors, turn down the scope of the idea a little, change popsci to abstracts, etc. etc., and the match becomes bigger. Of course there are other ends of the spectrum: cran with an idea, limited in scope, educated on the topic, understanding the reasoning behind questions, calmly discussing, acknowledging problems, only disappointed at the lack of participation. And at the other end: the earth grows from a seed like a tree because of the rings. And inbetween: those who have the grace to say "I didn't know that. Let me think about it".

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

Scenario: Stu has an epiphany regarding the nature of light. Stu is not a professional scientist, but like all humans has an unexplainable attraction to science (human nature, survival instinct). He goes online and searches for a place where he can express some of his ideas. He lands on BAUT Q & A, but his ideas are immidiately transfered to ATM, where the barrage - that several members, in this very thread promised to launch - begins.

I'm largely echoing Binary Man here.

I don't recognise this scenario. If it has happened, please provide a link.

What I think happens is this:

Person A posts a question to Q&A, something like this: "Last night I was admiring a really bright star. But my neighbour said it was Jupiter. How come? Jupiter's a planet, isn't it? Help!"

The likely response, as I see it, is a helpful, unpatronising explanation of the difference between a planet and a star, and how the term "the stars" is often used loosely to mean all those points of light in the sky.

If someone posts, "Good grief, are you a bit simple? Don't you know the difference between a star and a planet?" said poster will probably get a reprimand.

All this is worlds away from the poster who forcefully states that Jupiter is a star and we astronomers don't know what we're talking about. Such a post would be transferred to ATM and duly shredded.

[peteshimmon]

Heres me always trying to reduce to what seems
the basic tripping point. Everyone must know
the difference between Qualitative and
Quantitive. I do not look in ATM much but my
few forays sees mainly Qualitative stuff, ie
ideas describing a new approach. But Physics
and Astronomy wants lots of things to be
measured and mathematics applied to see that
things "add up" with any theory.

This sometimes seems outside of the scope of
some ATM proponents. Perhaps some minion will
indeed deal with the sums, the point is "I"
have a great idea. But the trouble is the
prospective recipients want the sums
straightaway.

Yet it still seems a good thing to have
everybodies thoughts on fundamental things.

[uncommonsense]

I have learned so much at BAUT from genuine dialog offered -free of charge -by the many experts that peruse these posts. I have little to complain about - and have little to offer in return except suggestions that are from a different perspective.

My appologies for not being clear in my last post. The focus was not that Stu was swithced from Q & A to ATM, that was a fact of little importance; but rather to proceed with empathy - as you all are the ones with the power in a physics forum. But since few got my point, I must have done a poor job of making it.

[HenrikOlsen]

From what I remember on reading the ATM board, the real tearing into ideas with glee happens around the third thread someone opens on a similar idea.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by uncommonsense

The focus was not that Stu was swithced from Q & A to ATM, that was a fact of little importance; but rather to proceed with empathy - as you all are the ones with the power in a physics forum.

Sorry. The mechanics of the scenario didn't match my observations.

If the important thing is the feelings, that also doesn't match my observations. I'm curious if examples of bad treatment exist. I think there is plenty of empathy for newbies who appear tentative with their ATM presentations. They're not going to be greeted as conquering heroes for their new ideas, but they can't be expecting that. I think they are simply treated as people with misguided ideas.

Even those new people who forcefully make bold, false statements have some time to adjust in ATM, but maybe less, depending on how brash and incorrect they are. Those higher up the obnoxiousness scale may well be assisted in coming up to science-speed faster, but if they are that sort of person, if head-butting is their approach to life, then BAUT's ATM forum won't be the first time that their personal style has caused them to run aground. I expect they can handle their accelerated learning process, and won't wilt like hothouse orchids.

[uncommonsense]

Well said. Now, as the OP requested, we have each shared, and memorialized, what we "think" about these volitile issues; and futhermore how we "feel" about posting and responding in ATM. There are no wrong or right answers, only reveiling ones.

[Nereid]

In summary, then, the circumstance described in the OP is rare (<1 in 100, maybe 1 in 1,000?) ... so the question is essentially moot?

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Nereid

In summary, then, the circumstance described in the OP is rare (<1 in 100, maybe 1 in 1,000?) ... so the question is essentially moot?

No.

Because your OP claims that ATM ideas are being attacked Scientifically- etc...

This is simply not always the case.

Your OP demands response based upon the assumption that your claim is true.
In fact, in the other thread, you admitted your own posting style has changed quite a bit to include what appears to be semantic-lawsuit avoidance more than science and links.

Your op presents the claim that ATM'ers come along and complain when they are scientifically refuted. Ok... this is pretty true...
But the recent complaints we've seen are not based upon scientific refutation, are they?

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

No.

Because your OP claims that ATM ideas are being attacked Scientifically- etc...

I'm not sure I follow ...

The OP says "would you consider yourself unlucky 'to come up against' a BAUT member - 'a proponent of the mainstream position' - who 'argues strongly, forcefully, factually, scientifically and any other -ally you care to think of, but is also ruthless and relentless'?"

IOW, the question has a restricted scope; IF "ATM ideas are being attacked Scientifically- etc", THEN would you ...

This is simply not always the case.

Indeed.

And such cases were not part of the scope of the question in the OP ...

Your OP demands response based upon the assumption that your claim is true.

There are no "demands" Nev, just a simple question.

In fact, in the other thread, you admitted your own posting style has changed quite a bit to include what appears to be semantic-lawsuit avoidance more than science and links.

I did?

Can you, perhaps, give some examples? Post numbers will do (for starters).

Your op presents the claim that ATM'ers come along and complain when they are scientifically refuted.

It does?

My only "claim" is an impression ("I have the impression that many proponents of ATM ideas would, indeed, consider themselves unlucky to be in such a situation ..."); there's no 'ATMers complaining (about being scientifically refuted)' in that, is there?

Ok... this is pretty true...
But the recent complaints we've seen are not based upon scientific refutation, are they?

I don't know, and, frankly, for this thread, I don't care ... I'm only curious about the situation described in the OP ...