Problems with moderating/moderators

[Geoffcin]

Should have been more clear, sorry:

1) Viable reference that says the ear/bran interface shuts down

2) A "Science Book" that makes the claim differences can't be heard.

With what people say in this forum, then take it to the "Audio Lab" forum.

There will be no more telling people off here.

[Pat D]

With what people say in this forum, then take it to the "Audio Lab" forum.

There will be no more telling people off here.

Send 'em to the ghetto, eh?

[jneutron]

With what people say in this forum, then take it to the "Audio Lab" forum.

There will be no more telling people off here.

He did not have a problem with what people say.

A "person" stated that science books tell us that we cannot hear a difference, so that person was asked....what book? Simple.

That person also said that as a result of reading that "science book", the ear/brain interface shuts down. Again, what is the basis for that connection.

This is not a technical discussion, which was the premise for the creation of the "audio lab". It is a simpler one...Science (in a book) was invoked to splain sumptin...begging the question...what book?

I certainly wouldn't cite Roger Russell's "paper, or article, or whatever...I can drive a mack truck through many of the holes in it..

Now a question asked is "having a problem with another?? Haven't the owners of this site learned anything yet?? That attitude has converted this forum from an active one to a wasteland..individual subthreads at AA and DIY have more posts in half an hour than you get here in a week. I would have hoped that the owners would have caught on to the fact that this place has been rendered DEAD by the change in rules. It's been how long?

I take it that should someone post that their cable sounds better because of ...length, plating, stranding, skin effect, grain boundaries, conductivity, resistivity, cryogenic immersion, metals, whatever....that you'll also warn them to take it to the "lab"? After all, they are bringing in "dat techneeekal stuff" to the FFKAAR (forum formerly known as AR.)

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

He did not have a problem with what people say.

A "person" stated that science books tell us that we cannot hear a difference, so that person was asked....what book? Simple.

That person also said that as a result of reading that "science book", the ear/brain interface shuts down. Again, what is the basis for that connection.

This is not a technical discussion, which was the premise for the creation of the "audio lab". It is a simpler one...Science (in a book) was invoked to splain sumptin...begging the question...what book?

I certainly wouldn't cite Roger Russell's "paper, or article, or whatever...I can drive a mack truck through many of the holes in it..

Now a question asked is "having a problem with another?? Haven't the owners of this site learned anything yet?? That attitude has converted this forum from an active one to a wasteland..individual subthreads at AA and DIY have more posts in half an hour than you get here in a week. I would have hoped that the owners would have caught on to the fact that this place has been rendered DEAD by the change in rules. It's been how long?

I take it that should someone post that their cable sounds better because of ...length, plating, stranding, skin effect, grain boundaries, conductivity, resistivity, cryogenic immersion, metals, whatever....that you'll also warn them to take it to the "lab"? After all, they are bringing in "dat techneeekal stuff" to the FFKAAR (forum formerly known as AR.)

Cheers, John

...tee-hee...or was it nyuck, nyuck...

jimHJJ(...but then again, I think wire is wire...Que pasa? hombre...Why you wake me from my siesta in this sleepy border town...Trouble at the mill?...)

[Geoffcin]

Now a question asked is "having a problem with another?? Haven't the owners of this site learned anything yet?? That attitude has converted this forum from an active one to a wasteland..individual subthreads at AA and DIY have more posts in half an hour than you get here in a week. I would have hoped that the owners would have caught on to the fact that this place has been rendered DEAD by the change in rules. It's been how long?

I take it that should someone post that their cable sounds better because of ...length, plating, stranding, skin effect, grain boundaries, conductivity, resistivity, cryogenic immersion, metals, whatever....that you'll also warn them to take it to the "lab"? After all, they are bringing in "dat techneeekal stuff" to the FFKAAR (forum formerly known as AR.)

Cheers, John

This isn't the forum for debate on the science of cable mechanics, as you well know. If you read the title of the thread, you will see that it is the "What do you use" thread.

Want to talk technical? By all means take it to the Lab.

I'm sorry but AR is not going to be the flame-fest that it used to be. If you want that kind of fun your going to have to go somewhere else.

[jneutron]

This isn't the forum for debate on the science of cable mechanics, as you well know. If you read the title of the thread, you will see that it is the "What do you use" thread. .

I did not say it was.

I said that someone invoked a science book as proof of something, begging the question, what book.

Want to talk technical? By all means take it to the Lab..

I do not enjoy talking to myself.

I'm sorry but AR is not going to be the flame-fest that it used to be. If you want that kind of fun your going to have to go somewhere else.

There were no flames for you to douse. A simple question was asked. Your response was inappropriate to the discussion at hand.

I am not "hot under the collar". I simply pointed out your overboard reaction..no more, no less.

I expect moderation here to be one of .....moderating..

Not censure.

Cheers, John

[Geoffcin]

I did not say it was.

I said that someone invoked a science book as proof of something, begging the question, what book.

I do not enjoy talking to myself.

There were no flames for you to douse. A simple question was asked. Your response was inappropriate to the discussion at hand.

I am not "hot under the collar". I simply pointed out your overboard reaction..no more, no less.

I expect moderation here to be one of .....moderating..

Not censure.

Cheers, John

Deleting the posts would have been, or even moving it to the Audio Lab, where you have so kindly pointed out is a dead zone. Nobody post was censured, and the thread continues unaffected.

The only thing different now is that people know that it's a moderated forum.

[jneutron]

Deleting the posts would have been, or even moving it to the Audio Lab, where you have so kindly pointed out is a dead zone. Nobody post was censured, and the thread continues unaffected.

The only thing different now is that people know that it's a moderated forum.

Censure also comes in the form of telling others to take a specific topic elsewhere, which is what you have done.. The essence of good moderation requires good decisions on when to act, based on rules of engagement set up for the moderators.

If you are going to allow people on one side of the fence to invoke "science", but then not allow people on the other side of the fence to ask for specifics, that is not moderation...it is censure.

I believe it is in the better interest of this forum, and the members, for all discussion to be allowed, not castrated by the removal of one hand in the clapping equation.

This is, of course, the decision of the owners. However, their last decision made this forum the wasteland it currently is. I lament the loss of active dialogue here.

I also dislike flamefests, and reserve engaging in them as a last resort. They rarely bear fruit.

Examine diyaudio for good moderation. Examine here and AA for bad. (Note, I do not specifically blame the moderators for the shortcomings, most of them are following the rules laid out for them.

Cheers, John

[Geoffcin]

Censure also comes in the form of telling others to take a specific topic elsewhere, which is what you have done.. The essence of good moderation requires good decisions on when to act, based on rules of engagement set up for the moderators.

If you are going to allow people on one side of the fence to invoke "science", but then not allow people on the other side of the fence to ask for specifics, that is not moderation...it is censure.

I believe it is in the better interest of this forum, and the members, for all discussion to be allowed, not castrated by the removal of one hand in the clapping equation.

This is, of course, the decision of the owners. However, their last decision made this forum the wasteland it currently is. I lament the loss of active dialogue here.

I also dislike flamefests, and reserve engaging in them as a last resort. They rarely bear fruit.

Examine diyaudio for good moderation. Examine here and AA for bad. (Note, I do not specifically blame the moderators for the shortcomings, most of them are following the rules laid out for them.

Cheers, John

Telling people that this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion is central to moderation. Notice I did not invoke my powers to move the thread summarily. That would have been within a moderators right, but I did not do it. I don't see any argument coming from the protagonists, so I don't understand why you've got your knickers in a twist over it.

You accuse me of being one sided? I assure you that is not the case. Anyone is free to post scientific arguments to refute claims in the Audio Lab forum. Which is EXACTLY what I stated. Your idea that the protagonists were "castrated" by my asking them to take it to the appropriate forum is highly ludicrous

You may believe that it's in the best interest of the forums to allow off topic discussions to continue in the forums, but you are not in the majority there. AR members have seen what that can lead to.

I was here during the "old days" AR has become a much better place since moderation.
I take my moderating position here seriously, as do all the other moderators. To claim that we are doing a poor job may be your opinion, but at least we can both agree that flamefests lead nowhere.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

Jeeezz, somethings never change. The header reads "Speaker cables - what do you use?" Not "Let's recycle the tired cable debate". If you want to discuss that - fine - start you're own thread and do so in the appropriate forum. Is it that you have a problem with simple directions or that you just don't care? The sound you hear must be that of your voice speaking to itself.

MikE [justify this]

[jneutron]

Telling people that this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion is central to moderation. Notice I did not invoke my powers to move the thread summarily. That would have been within a moderators right, but I did not do it. I don't see any argument coming from the protagonists, so I don't understand why you've got your knickers in a twist over it..

Again, this is not an emotional discussion, please stop attempting to portray it as such.

You accuse me of being one sided? I assure you that is not the case. Anyone is free to post scientific arguments to refute claims in the Audio Lab forum. Which is EXACTLY what I stated. Your idea that the protagonists were "castrated" by my asking them to take it to the appropriate forum is highly ludicrous.

Again, I ask you to read carefully. I accused you of nothing other than following the rules and guidelines that have been set for you by higher powers.

The rules that you are enforcing have hamstrung this forum.

You may believe that it's in the best interest of the forums to allow off topic discussions to continue in the forums, but you are not in the majority there. AR members have seen what that can lead to..

Yes, we have all seen the flamefests. The problem is what has been deemed "off topic". The criteria for that category is different depending on which side of the fence one resides..a pro cable person is allowed to state that science backs a specific concept, while a person who is not pro cable cannot respond by saying the converse without being told to take it to the lab.

I was here during the "old days" AR has become a much better place since moderation..

Sometimes, silence is not better.

I take my moderating position here seriously, as do all the other moderators. To claim that we are doing a poor job may be your opinion, but at least we can both agree that flamefests lead nowhere.

You are still attempting to introduce emotionalism into the argument. How many times will it be necessary for me to say that the rules under which you are working are what I take issue with, not the actual moderators?

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

Jeeezz, somethings never change. The header reads "Speaker cables - what do you use?" Not "Let's recycle the tired cable debate". If you want to discuss that - fine - start you're own thread and do so in the appropriate forum. Is it that you have a problem with simple directions or that you just don't care? The sound you hear must be that of your voice speaking to itself.

MikE [justify this]

To whom are you addressing this?

My interest in the discussion as it unfolds was with respect to this statement.

""Science books tell them they shouldn't be able to and their ear/brain interface simply shuts down as a result.""

The reason I was interested in this statement, is that I have not encountered a science book that stated that. Nor, have I found a "white paper", a datasheet, an article, or even simple musings, which were accurate enough in content to show that cables cannot make a difference.

In point of fact, the articles that are consistently used as backup for the "cables don't make a diff" posturing are so full of holes in scientific theory, that I no longer bother responding to their invocation..the Roger Russell paper being one of them..some reasonably accurate stuff within it, but lots of errors as well...errors which certainly trash the hypothesis which was attempted by writing the article.

Fred Davis...significant errors.

Steve Lampen...significant errors.

Am I allowed to discuss how botched those articles, which profess "all cables are alike" on this forum? NO. That would be a technical argument, and against the rules being enforced.

Am I allowed to discuss here why I believe cables can make a difference, be they PC's, IC's, or speaker runs? No, again, that would be a technical discussion.

If I were allowed to discuss the shortcomings of the so called "naysayer camp", entirely trashing their conceptually inaccurate proclamations, that would be morally objectionable.

Yes, I could take it to the lab. But I would be alone.

Cheers, John

[Geoffcin]

Look guys, a new thread where you can complain all you want about us.

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator!

[Geoffcin]

Again, this is not an emotional discussion, please stop attempting to portray it as such.


Again, I ask you to read carefully. I accused you of nothing other than following the rules and guidelines that have been set for you by higher powers.

The rules that you are enforcing have hamstrung this forum.


Yes, we have all seen the flamefests. The problem is what has been deemed "off topic". The criteria for that category is different depending on which side of the fence one resides..a pro cable person is allowed to state that science backs a specific concept, while a person who is not pro cable cannot respond by saying the converse without being told to take it to the lab.



Sometimes, silence is not better.



You are still attempting to introduce emotionalism into the argument. How many times will it be necessary for me to say that the rules under which you are working are what I take issue with, not the actual moderators?

Cheers, John

Your posts read otherwise. You've accused me of being a "bad" moderator, and that the rules that the AR Forums are run by are poorly chosen.

I disagree.

The rules have not "hamstrung" anyone here. Far from it, they have allowed people to ask questions without the fear of being ridiculed. AR is a much better place because of it.

[jneutron]

Your posts read otherwise. You've accused me of being a "bad" moderator, and that the rules that the AR Forums are run by are poorly chosen..

Is it possible that you have a reading comprehension issue??? (hey, I hadta flame someone, now didn't I?) After all, you are expecting some from me, I'm just soooo hot under the collar..

I have said, in time sequence, the following:

1. (Note, I do not specifically blame the moderators for the shortcomings, most of them are following the rules laid out for them.

and

2.How many times will it be necessary for me to say that the rules under which you are working are what I take issue with, not the actual moderators?

Nowhere have I accused you of being a bad moderator.. Please desist in your inaccurate statements to the contrary.

The rules have not "hamstrung" anyone here. Far from it, they have allowed people to ask questions without the fear of being ridiculed. AR is a much better place because of it.

No, but it is certainly a quieter one. If you definition of better is a forum which has on the primary page, last posts dating back a calendar year, then it is indeed a better forum.

At diy and AA, you have to click on "previous page" to find posts that are a week old, sometimes a day old..

That used to be the case here. No longer. I blame the excessive swing in moderation rules for that plunge in dialogue, and explained the danger of swinging so far.

It is unfortunate that my expectation of the results was so dead on.

Cheers, John

[kexodusc]

FWIW,

I actually agree with the points Jneutron is making - way back when the Eric came on and the new rules were made, rather than sending everything to an audio lab, they should have forced people who want to avoid issues of science to post in a science-free forum or DBT-free forum or something rather than forcing censorship and limiting posts to the Audio Lab. The Audio Lab has been a huge bust for the most part - and more harm was done than good. The flame wars got to be stupid, but that's where moderation should have come in, closing threads, redirecting threads to the original subject if they were too OT, or doing as Geoffcin does - moving OT posts to new threads altogether.

If we were to take a snapshot of 50 random threads here, I'm pretty sure at least half of them would go quite off topic somewhere between the first and last post without a moderator getting involved - and the moderators themselves have contributed to this from time to time. And that's a good thing - some of the best discussions/conversations occur that way. At the very worst, it just takes up a bit of cyberspace. I've never had a problem taking a few microseconds to scan a post and then skipping it once I realized it wasn't what I was looking for.

Going off topic with good intention (as opposed to just going OT for the sake of starting a flame war) isn't always a bad thing - if it gets too disruptive, moderate it. With moderation. Moderately. There were a few DBT trolls who seemingly invoked the DBT argument in every thread - let them post their thoughts once - if they continue, open a new thread for them. If someone replied to their opinion in a manner that would create an OT discussion- move the reply to the new thread. That's the point it goes OT. What's the worst thing that could happen.

As I recall, the vast majority of users were neither for nor opposed to threads going OT a bit - they were mostly indifferent, not even recognizing a problem existed.

While I appreciate the need for better moderation than what we had, I always felt the site went a bit too far. Too bad a lot of the regulars just decided to quit for whatever reason. I for one do believe the ar.com was a bit better off having more people and more different opinions with the odd flame war, than the alternative - and a different approach could have been, and still should be taken.

Not going to lose any sleep over it - and I'm certainly not going to leave, but in my experience the new rules have been enforced rather selectively, and really does seem that one group was targeted a bit unfairly. I believe I have personally taken threads off topic dozens of times, and no action has ever been taken against me. Just seems a bit odd.

Just my opinion, FWIW...But I don't make the rules.

[Geoffcin]

I haven't deleted a thread, or suspended a member in a coons age. Mostly I wipe out spam, occasionally move threads so that they make better sense (and get more replies)
and on the rarest of occasions tell someone to play nice. The way this has been posted you would have thought that I was deleting posts on some mad streak, hell bent to purge AR of any vestage of the former raucous times.

IT JUST AIN'T SO!

[jneutron]

I haven't deleted a thread, or suspended a member in a coons age. Mostly I wipe out spam, occasionally move threads so that they make better sense (and get more replies)
and on the rarest of occasions tell someone to play nice. The way this has been posted you would have thought that I was deleting posts on some mad streak, hell bent to purge AR of any vestage of the former raucous times.

IT JUST AIN'T SO!

Nobody has accused you of untoward behaviour. Please stop, you are stuck in a defense "loop".

What this forum has done is this:

Poster A: The reason (some sound) occurs is that science has proven that (some piece of garbage) is causing this..

Poster B: Please provide us a source of this science.

Moderator,( according to the rules now in place

Poster B, "take it to the lab".

Result: An unsupported statement is allowed to remain in place, while anyone with any knowledge, or understanding of the science being discussed, is censured.


So, If a silly, inaccurate, made up "scientific explanation" is provided on cables, the only recourse for discussion of that "scientific explanation", is to start a new thread, in a different forum..where it will not be seen.

Hmmm.

That is directed censure.

It also prevents ME from countering any "cables can't make a difference" posts, as I can easily point out the irregularities in the vast majority of the anti cable tech talk rebuttals. But even though my statements (while technical) are in direct support of the desires of the members you wish to shield, I technically, am not allowed to post them.

Cheers, John

[kexodusc]

I should have clarified...I don't think there's a moderator issue, just a policy issue.
The moderating's actually been pretty good near as I can tell - busting foul language, exposing that wanker Lexmark, killing spammers...and ironically it's been my experience that the moderating leans more to the policy I wish ar.com had rather than the policy I believe was put in place - so I ain't referring to moderating.

I know I've personally held back from posting some alternative opinions of a more scientific and skeptical nature just out of fear they'd be moved to Audio Lab. I wouldn't mind reading more replies of that nature to balance with the stuff we have now, is all...

Just as an independant observer to this thread, jneutron is coming across as sincere that his beef isn't with any of the mods, but the rules/policy they have to work with.

Let's be honest, his OT trip was a walk in the park compared to some of the excursions Sir T has been involved in

[kexodusc]

What this forum has done is this:

Poster A: The reason (some sound) occurs is that science has proven that (some piece of garbage) is causing this..

Poster B: Please provide us a source of this science.

Moderator,( according to the rules now in place

Poster B, "take it to the lab".

Result: An unsupported statement is allowed to remain in place, while anyone with any knowledge, or understanding of the science being discussed, is censured.

Taken a step further:
Poser A: makes a claim that the Pioneer VSX-1015TX receiver comes with 3 HDMI inputs,
Poster B: wants to dispute this claim - they're permitted to do so.
Poster B: Could ask for a link or a "source" verifying Poster A's claim without being moved to another forum
Result: the proper information has a better chance of being reported in the forum.

For matters of technical/scientific truth, the standing policy dictates members are not permitted to behave in the same fashion...the policy seems inconsistent, if not biased.

[Geoffcin]

You want to debate DBX on cables, refute the claim that tube amps are any good at following a waveform. Want smack each other in the head with white papers & abstracts? then there's a forum JUST for that, the Audio Lab!

Science reigns supreme in there, and you can gloat over the corpses of the fallen theorists all you want without fear of being told to play nice.

Need even more blood? Take it to the Steel Cage, where you can beat your opponents over the head with spectrum analizers and osiliscopes.

Isn't AR wonderful!

[jneutron]

You want to debate DBX on cables, refute the claim that tube amps are any good at following a waveform. Want smack each other in the head with white papers & abstracts? then there's a forum JUST for that, the Audio Lab!!

The audio lab was created as a place to send those who dare ask embarrassing questions as to the validity of an explanation that is without merit.

Science reigns supreme in there, and you can gloat over the corpses of the fallen theorists all you want without fear of being told to play nice.!

Reigns supreme..hmmm...when was there last a post there?

Need even more blood? Take it to the Steel Cage, where you can beat your opponents over the head with spectrum analizers and osiliscopes. .

It would appear from your words, that all you want to do is demonize anybody who wishes to provide a post of any technical merit. There are no demons from without..

Isn't AR wonderful!

That depends on one's definition of wonderful. Is it wonderful being the moderator of a forum which has about three active members?

Moderation can be used to provide a wonderful environment for spirited and engaging dialogue. That is not the case at ar cables. How long will it be until the lack of discussion within the forum is determined to be the result of the rules imposed on it?

At some point, the owners will have to admit that perhaps, the response to the problem of flamefests was worse than the disease..and yes, the excessive flamefests were indeed a disease. That is why I pointed to diyaudio as an example of moderation which does not practice one sided censureship, but does seem to enjoy lots and lots of dialogue without aninmosity destroying the forum.

The descriptors you choose (smack..gloat, corpses, fallen, fear, blood, beat), and your unwarranted defensive posturing do not put you in a very good light. Clearly illogical by nature.

Cheers, John

[ericl]

sorry, but you guys know full well why i created the lab.. People were just trying to talk about what cable or receiver to buy and idiots like mtry are coming and saying "prove your claim that this sounds better than that" when this is a HOBBY, based on SUBJECTIVE experience.

DBTer's were just beating everyone over the head with the words "prove it" and it was obnoxious and childish. and really, it wasn't even the cable/dbt debate, i honestly don't care either way about it. It was the fact that many of those pushing that line were obnoxious little children, and bullies to those just trying to have FUN with their HOBBY. If people could have carried on these discussions with a bit of CIVILITY we would not be in this position.

When I came in, everyone started crying about the rules and censorship, but all i really did was introduce some moderation (and contrary to claims that this forum is now "dead" it's getting more traffic now than in years). The little schoolyard bullies (who'd already been banned from many other sites) didn't rule the playground anymore, so they took their balls and went home.

Generally those of you who have stuck around have been cool, and I appreciate that. The losers and children left. No one is here to censor anything, just to make sure children like mtry don't act like idiots and scare off new users. The Audio Lab was meant for more advanced and heated discussion. it's not a "ghetto", it's just a forum like the rest of them. I don't know why it's so horrible to carry on conversations there.

eric

[kexodusc]

You want to debate DBX on cables, refute the claim that tube amps are any good at following a waveform. Want smack each other in the head with white papers & abstracts? then there's a forum JUST for that, the Audio Lab!

Science reigns supreme in there, and you can gloat over the corpses of the fallen theorists all you want without fear of being told to play nice.

Need even more blood? Take it to the Steel Cage, where you can beat your opponents over the head with spectrum analizers and osiliscopes.

Isn't AR wonderful!

There are instances where taking it to the Audio Lab or Steel Cage is defeats the purpose and just isn't good enough! Geoff, if you wanted to post an explanation to a newb's question about a particular receiver's power capability into certain speakers of different impedances, we wouldn't ask you to take it to the Audio Lab - you should do so right in the immediate thread. And as you know, most threads tend to continue with follow-up questions, discussion, the inevitable corrections, differences of opinion (provided they remain respectful) etc, the logical and best place for any replies is in that same thread, not in some other forum.

When I look for replies to my post, I certainly don't look for them in other forums, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

So redirecting the posters to the Audio Lab is just terribly insufficient. All it does is limit the subject matter in existing threads - you can call it censorship if you want - IMO that's an abuse of the word - but it's a pain in the ass if nothing else.

I agree - if the original topic of the post is to debate cable DBT's nuances etc, it should be posted in the Audio Lab. But so, too, should every thread that contains any question or explanation of a technical or scientific nature. And so, too, should every thread that POTENTIALLY COULD contian questions, explanations, and discussion of a scientific nature so that the thread is allowed to naturally evolve, respectfully and without turning into a flame war, in order to ensure that every opportunity to provide responses from any perspective is provided.

How many explanations of watts, ohms, decibels, digital cables, frequency response, harmonic distortion, etc do we see in a year? If the site's authorities are prepared to ensure that all of these threads are redirected to the Audio Lab, to perfection, then anyone who posts something invoking science in the other forums deserves what they get. But if a thread isn't redirected by the moderators, they shouldn't have to wait indefinitely - let them post. Nobody's going to get hurt.

For example, it's very possible that 2 people will discuss the merits of a few amps - one a tight measuring Adcom with super low THD and high wattage, the other a less lab test impressive Krell of similar size, wattage, but higher THD. Someone might want to know why the Adcom measures better but sounds worse and doesn't play as loudly. What are we to respond? "Please see my post in the Audio Lab on this very subject?" Or "Magic pixie dust"? Or can we go further into explaining two diverging theories about the importance or insignificance of THD without fear of being asked to go to the Audio Lab. When do we cross the line? I dont' think that's ever been clearly defined or explained, and for the most part, I think the whole notion of keeping certain topics in the Audio Lab has been ignored (and I'm quite OK with that)

Am I allowed to make a claim that such and such white paper says this without being redirected? Sir T (a moderator) seems permitted to discuss the Toole White Papers wherever and whenever he pleases...he'll post links, challenge people's claims that contradict the papers, etc. And rightfully so. I trust the example he provides.

I really don't think this is a problem 99% of the time, but that 1% of the time it just seems what we say and what we do are two different things. This is one of those times.

[ericl]

Discussions where scientific stuff comes up is fine, the rules are really just guidelines, and I am not opposed to changing the rules.

I just don't want people beating newbies over the head with science whenever someone says: "what should i buy" or "i liked brand x better than y"