# Someone credentialed to take it on

1. Jul 15, 2009

### Cryptonic

someone "credentialed" to take it on

I'm disappointed that https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=324921" thread got locked, without anyone here actually disproving the OP's idea!?

I thought it was an interesting idea, and I was hoping for someone "credentialed" to take it on, perhaps giving good solid sound reasons why OP was wrong with his/her idea!?

Instead it was like "Nope = locked".

Gee, that is not very educational for us layfolk! There's a lot of folk here who want to learn. At least give a sound argument against a "silly" idea, THEN lock the thread!

Thanks, sorry for my rant. I would hate to see this wonderful science forum degenerate into something nasty like bautforum.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
2. Jul 15, 2009

### Kurdt

Staff Emeritus
Re: Disappointed!

It is actually the job of the OP to provide supporting evidence for their idea. That aside however we have rules in place about overly speculative posts and ideas. These rules are designed to maintain the academic integrity of the forum. If you wish to discuss speculative ideas then there are plenty of other forums out there that allow this. However, you will find the quality of discussion distinctly less informative than you would hope.

3. Jul 15, 2009

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Re: Disappointed!

There are also a lot of people who don't -- and the opening poster looks like he was one of those people.

And besides, I'd place his idea in the category of "not even wrong" -- it's sufficiently vague that it's impossible to pin it down well enough to give even a rough evaluation of whether or not it might agree with reality.

And do note that he was given a link to our independent research forum on the chance that he was really serious about trying to develop his theory.

4. Jul 15, 2009

### OmCheeto

Re: Disappointed!

That only happens when we show up for chat.

5. Jul 15, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Disappointed!

If you don't like the anti-crackpot rules and moderation at BAUT, then you won't like our anti-crackpot rules either.

6. Jul 15, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Re: Disappointed!

That is the point at which virtually everyone offering personal theories lose interest - when actual work is required.

7. Jul 15, 2009

### DaveC426913

Re: Disappointed!

What is there to disprove?

"I think gravity is the result of invisible elves. Please state why it's wrong."

"OK, for one, what's wrong with the theory we have? For two, does yours make any better predictions? No and no? Well, come back when it does."

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
8. Jul 15, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Disappointed!

They also have a strict anti-anti-crackpot policy too. After banning a crackpot, BA banned me for calling the crackpot a crackpot!

9. Jul 15, 2009

### DaveC426913

Re: Disappointed!

:rofl:

Wait. Who did the banning? You banned him, or they banned him?

You must have meant they banned him.

I guess they probably banned him for something more concrete that actually violated forum rules, not merely for "being a crackpot".

10. Jul 16, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Disappointed!

BA is The Bad Astronomer. He's the owner and sole operator of the site. He banned both me and the crackpot.
I don't remember the specifics of the situation, but iirc, the guy was a babbling/trolling philosopher type who used dishonest arguments. He misquoted me and basically got banned for lying and I got banned for calling him a liar.

11. Jul 16, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Disappointed!

That must have been quite the discussion! :tongue2:

12. Jul 16, 2009

### OmCheeto

Re: Disappointed!

Did you make the "http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/30979-baut-banned-suspended-posters-log.html"" thread?

Some of the comments can be somewhat entertaining.

I think I stated once that it would be fun to have a similar thread here also, but I decided it would take all of the mystery out of Cyrus's monthly kick-boots.

And to the OP: I've stated it before that I contribute  to this forum, and no other, because they are quite good at keeping the riffraff out of here.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
13. Jul 16, 2009

### Pengwuino

Re: Disappointed!

Wow that banned/suspended log is interesting. Although what the hell is this:

:rofl:

14. Jul 16, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
15. Jul 16, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Disappointed!

A sock puppet is a reincarnation of a previously banned person. Ie, an attempt to circumvent the ban.

16. Jul 16, 2009

### OmCheeto

Re: Disappointed!

They can also be created while still a user, to act as a yes man to all of ones imbecilic arguments.
I created a sock puppet for fun at another forum, simply because they had no rule against it, and everyone was accusing everyone else at the time of having multiple puppets.

Someone got pissy about mine, even though I named it the equivalent of "OmCheetos Sockpuppet".

It was like jeesh. I even reported myself to the moderators right after I created it, just to make sure it was ok. And that they could delete the account if it offended them.

They finally shut the forum down, I suspect due to insufficient moderation/admin control.

Which is why I seldom argue with the moderators here. Even when I thought my tomato post was hilarious, and they didn't find it funny, at all.....

17. Jul 16, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Disappointed!

I don't remember the tomato.

18. Jul 16, 2009

### OmCheeto

Re: Disappointed!

I do believe forum etiquette dictates that I am not at liberty to publicly discuss the tomato, nor specifically, the growing of tomatoes, at this time.

19. Jul 16, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Re: Disappointed!

Oh, I found it. I agreed with your post. How can someone work themselves to death growing cherry tomatoes in a greenhouse? :uhh:

20. Jul 16, 2009

### turbo

Re: Disappointed!

I grow them in pots on my back deck. I could fall and break my neck, I suppose.