posted 10-27-2001 01:30 PM            

I thought Duncan would see the error
of his way's and apologize to you.

I expected reasonability from the
moderator regarding your post in
question.
Facts and truth - that's what they want..? you know ....that standard of truth exemplifed from the highest level's
of our government and fed to us thur
all of our media outlet's.....hmmm

I thought Bradley (nasasucks) was
treated unfairly. Noone come to his
rescue! The personal attacks continued
without any intervention from the
moderator's. I complained about that -
Thermit said he could not moderate the
going's on of the board 24/7.

It's hard for me to remain silent when
I see someone treated unfairly. I hate
bullies.... but I'm not here to be the
board bitch either.... I'm tempted to butt
out but that would be a struggle.

Keep on posting David ...... but where
were you when Bradley was going
thru hell?

posted 10-27-2001 04:29 PM            

Please help me, everyone. I've learned that it's okay to copy and paste material here without checking it first.

posted 10-27-2001 04:38 PM            

'Please don't just pass along things you find on the internet. Do the research, too'.

There's a huge difference

posted 10-27-2001 05:03 PM            

And Duncan, you can flame me as much as you like...but I HAVE to say this....You are obviously a very intelligent man....so I KNOW that you KNEW that placing David's name alongside that accusation WOULD upset him. And when it did you feigned intellectual outrage and condescension -

Quote - 'You appear to have no concept of analogy or even the ability to understand what most people consider plain and straightforward writing.'

This was sooooo not worthy of a person of your standing And totally provocative. It's up to you but I think you owe him an apology.

posted 10-28-2001 03:47 AM            

YOU were going by scientific protocol - but normal, everyday, non-scientific posters were not aware of this new standard. And I thought that the Science forum was set up to meet those evidential standards?
I'm sorry but it comes across as a little superior...to imply that only information gained through following the rules of scientific protocol is valid and acceptable...And that posters who do not or won't follow these rules are somehow not entitled to post unless they follow your rules. I'm sorry bit that it is how it comes across to me.

'I didn't realize that it was fine to just post things you find on the internet without researching them. Now I know better.'

You keep repeating this phrase as if you are pandering to the small minded or lowest common denominator...and don't really mean it...or are you simply being sarcastic?

'But if one questions information which has been copied, pasted, and not checked, apparently that makes him/her mean-spirited, bitchy and causing dissention in the ranks.'

I don't condone personal name calling it is unnecessary. AND I SAY AGAIN - no one said DON't question...The crux of this whole argument is that YOU said don't post unless you have done the RESEARCH. You could reply to David's post by saying I don't believe that the source of this information is reliable - but to say DON'T post until YOU HAVE RESEARCHED ITS VERACITY is completely different. To say you cannot trust David's posts as a result is bizzare - David was not the message, he was the messenger!
The bad feeling has come from a) David was suddenly singled out - the new copy and paste with research rule came as a shock to the rest of us who had been happily copying and pasting sans research for eons!
And b) from the reckless association of David's name with THAT accusation. You would have to be quite dim not to foresee that David's name,( or anybody eles's, name for that matter) in that sentence would cause offence. So either that person is dim or did it to cause deliberate personal distress?

'Should David's news that Bin Laden and Mullah Omar had been killed not have been refuted in any way?'

Again and again and again...No one said don't refute, don't question....Short of going to look for the corpse I can't see how David could possibly 'research' the veracity of that post. You could argue you find the info hard to believe, or that it is highly unlikely...etc...but there is no earthly reason to attack David for posting it with or without his having researched it!

You are obviously an intelligent person with a strong scientific background. This gives you a unique way of looking at and testing the world around you. BUT not everyone has that training or experience of looking at the world that way...that doesn't make them more or less intelligent...that doesn't make what they have to say more or less valid...it's simply a different way of approaching things...I totally understand where you are coming from with the rules for verifying whether something is valid or not - I have to apply those rules in my academic career....but this forum is not the place for the strict adherence to those rules, IMHO

posted 10-28-2001 09:29 AM            

It wasn't until sometime last night that my mind cleared enough to realize why David's post has pushed my buttons so badly. This week at the hospital, my husband received a hand-addressed letter, with no return address, and postmarked from the Washington, D.C. area. When the police opened the envelope, the letter it contained was from a group which my husband never heard of, and which should have been big enough to use standard computerized mailing systems if it were a real entitiy. My husband has purchased a supply of doxycycline, to take if he comes down with the symptoms of anthrax.