Two word titles may be deleted aka Constructive Feedback

[Jimmy Snyder]

be descriptive! one/two word titles may be deleted!):
and when 2 words is enough to be descriptive?

In that case they may not be deleted. I don't see any problem here.

edit: I found 3 threads on the home page with 2 word titles.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Don't forget, an idea could be legitimate dissent without technical journals or recognized scientific sources. They could say "I've done this new experiment to prove it and am looking for alternate hypothesis as to the result or for someone to repeat the experiment that has more experience in the field."

For many years we had this in the form of an independent research forum. However it was a nightmare to moderate and became packed full of crackpots seeking to prove their own crazy ideas and then crying censorship, lack of imagination and all sorts of other nonsense when they were removed.

Rather than be defensive such as Drakkith you are willing to hear out the point of view.
Rather than post mockery as DaveC426913's http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" , you are specific as to what you regard as a
"Crackpot" in a more recognizable criteria.
Rather than group all "CrackPottery" cause and effect together as Greg Bernhardt had, you
specified reasons, justifications, and limitations that are not so subjective or vague but
more "these are the guidelines" specific.
Better written than Ryan_m_b, more willing to speculate than Greg Bernhardt, more familiar
with the original post than russ_watters (you missed the point that great minds have often
been called crackpots, dear russ), and also a general pleasant read.

So instead of replying to all the legitimate responses to your post you are just going to judge each one of us with a couple of words and pretend that we said nothing of value? I'm out.

 

[DaveC426913]

I must say yours has been the most fulfilling and insightful of replies to my post.
While others have become defensive, generalized, hostile, vague, touching on flaming, or
poorly expressed; your reply as been the most specific, professional, and respectful.

When you first started this post, you made a decision whether you wanted to engage in a discussion that was specific, professional and respectful - or complain and make accusations and tell us that you probably wouldn't stick around to discuss them.

So, you can say what you want however you want, but you expect responses to be respectful...

 

[Evo]

Don't forget, an idea could be legitimate dissent without technical journals or
recognized scientific sources. They could say "I've done this new experiment
to prove it and am looking for alternate hypothesis as to the result or for
someone to repeat the experiment that has more experience in the field."

You seem to have misunderstood what astronuc said. You cannot post new ideas or dissent of established, mainstream science unless such is published in a well known, mainstream, peer reviewed journal. And as Astronuc pointed out, even that may not be allowed if the material is questionable. You would definitely not be able to post your own speculation.

I'll likely
return in a month or two under a new name and ask some of those serious
questions on my mind

Sorry, sockpuppets are not allowed and will be banned.

I suggest you read the rules.

Before there is any more misunderstanding of the rules, thread closed.