Quote Originally Posted by Quagmire
As far as I'm concerned, they've just entered into the classic argument which we sometimes refer to as the "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" or "naysayer -vs- yeasayer" debate. Now I don't say that they shouldn't have this discussion, just the opposite: I would like to see them argue this point if that's what they wish to do. If you see how easily they slipped into this mode on this thread, perhaps unintentionally even, then you can't tell me there is not ample material for discussion to justify having a board dedicated to this topic.

So I ask all of you members, respectfully and sincerely, where is the big rub in asking them to have this debate on the newly created "Science Lab" board instead? What difference does it make that the name of the board is "Science Lab" instead of "General Forum" except that the discussion they want to have would be less of a disruption if it took place on the board which is intended to cater to this very debate? The only other qualifier or constraint is that they have this debate in a reasonably civil manner -- not resorting to personal attacks. That these two posts are somewhat off topic to the rest of the discussion which was taking place here is no big deal. They are only two of over fifty threads. But anyone who is being honest, knows that this classic debate can often, has often, completely overrun a thread -- what I call hijacking a thread or what WmAx calls threadjacking. (I like his term better. Hope you don't mind that I borrowed it Chris?)

The old adage rings true... "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." I find it very ironic that the group of people who have demonstrated the greatest desire to have this debate have raised such a vocal protest to finally being given a legitimate platform from which to do so. I didn't bring it up before, but I was a little disturbed in Skeptic's reply to me on this thread, that he took such pride in his achievement of running Jon Risch off of this forum. Is that really the goal? To aleinate people from this forum? To have only one side of an argument heard? I thought that was the objection to censorship which was so vehemently decried before. Skep shouldn't want Jon gone; he should want Jon back here so that he can take him on issue by issue. After all, who better than Jon to represent the most "left wing" element of the subjectivist camp? Jon is the perfect embodiment of those subjective ideals which Skep can contrast against his own -- to help make his most effective case for the merits of the objectivist's point of view. By the way, I hadn't brought it up yet, but for the record I am sorry to see Skeptic go. I realize that I'm opening myself up for a lot of criticism, but this is honestly my point of view and before we see yet another mass exodus, I ask that you at least consider what I have to say. Thank you.>

Q
Sorry, but I need to disagree most vigourously with this post. This line of reasoning is extremely POORLY thought out. To say that it is OK to marginalize one side of the debate by exiling the discussions to the Science Lab is absolutely ridiculous. And make no bones about it, marginalization of the objectivist point of view is what has happened. A rough parallel in the real world would be if a TV station liked one political party, but didn't like what another political party was saying. During the election campaign, they would play the the first party's ads in prime time, and then play the other party's ads at 3AM. You can say that this is a fair shake and that they are getting equal treatment because the total time the ads are shown are the same, but in fact the total exposure isn't even remotely the same.

I'm sure that eric has all the traffic stats for this site, and he could say without a doubt that page views in the Science Lab are WAY less than say General, Cables, or HT. By putting discussions of objectivist cable theory in this forum, they effectively neuter this POV. I had a suggestion when the new changes were first instituted: why not have free reign in all the other fora, and make not just one new forum, but rather have two new fora. The first the Science Lab for the objectivist crowd; the second the Subjectivist Lab or some such name for the subjectivist crowd. This way both points of view get equal coverage and debate. I'm not sure if the powers above decreed it otherwise due to advertiser pressure or what not, but this is by far the most equitable way of dealing with the situation.

I know that I'm not really a high profile member of these groups, but ever since the changes to forum policy, I've visited this site a lot less than I used to. A number of other more well respected members have left permanently, although they may still lurk about once in a while. This is both sad and terrible.

Let me state that for my part, I am not really naysayer nor yeasayer. I don't believe anything that either group says until I test it out for myself. However, the only thing that I strongly believe in is the BLIND TEST. To do anything other than blind testing is to do practically nothing.

E-Stat, I made some points in the power cable discussion that you didn't reply to so I will repeat myself here in hopes that somebody in the subjectivist camp replies:

Sighted testing is such a bogus load of crap that I find it absolutely mind boggling that people still do and believe in it. Case(s) in point. I had a patient today tell me that this "magical" cold medication worked wonders. They could only buy it in the US so they stocked up on it last time they were down. They said that Neo-Citran (the Canadian brand) didn't do a thing, but that this US brand fixed them up in no time. Looking at the label, the product was Neo-Citran rebranded for the US. Exactly the same manufacturer and exactly the same formulation. Probably came from the same plant. In the same vein, I can't tell you how many times I've had people tell me that Advil works great for them, but Motrin doesn't touch the pain at all. It's really amazing how the mind can trick the body.

Goethe once pointed out that, "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." It's surprising that some people who seem so well informed just absolutely refuse to even contemplate trying a new or different testing methodology. They say, "I know what I know, and I know what I hear so why bother listening to what others may have to say about a subject."