Proposal to exclude pseudoscientists from posting in Science subforums

What do you think of the proposal in the opening post of this thread?

  • It is a good idea and should be implemented.

    Votes: 32 88.9%

  • It is a bad idea and should NOT go ahead.

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • No opinion / Abstain from voting / Just show me the results of the poll.

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I misunderstood the question and voted no.
Please change my vote to yes.

So long as people post in the right subforums they will be left alone, but if they create a constant nuisance by posting in the wrong subforums their freedom will be limited.
Good idea.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
I misunderstood the question and voted no.
Please change my vote to yes.

So long as people post in the right subforums they will be left alone, but if they create a constant nuisance by posting in the wrong subforums their freedom will be limited.
Good idea.
Click to expand...
There should be an option to change your vote yourself, right under the results top of the page.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
So long as people post in the right subforums they will be left alone, but if they create a constant nuisance by posting in the wrong subforums their freedom will be limited.
Click to expand...
Would the post below be an example of a "constant nuisance"?
leopold said:
it is?
it's unreasonable for me to expect a respected source to retract an untrue statement?
the circumstances surrounding this ARE relevant geoff.
ayala writes to NAIG but not to science?
on top of that, why didn't NAIG write to science?
lewin was a good science journalist, until he wrote this particular piece.
all of a sudden he lies like a rug.
yes geoff, the circumstances are very relevant.

what am i imagining geoff?
everything i've said about this article is FACTUAL.

yes, preferably the issue of science where it states "lewin misquoted ayala".

the source of the alleged misquote is science, science posted no retraction geoff

so, everyone gets to wave this "retraction" that is sourced from personal website and parade it around like it's official? ? ?

there is no mystery why science hasn't said a word about the ayala quote?
even in the face of those red hot letters, and the source of trippys?

i will come right out and say it, the "retraction" sourced from NAIG is not an official document.
Click to expand...
 
I think with a 90% vote for, it's safe to say we should do this :)
 
It looks like we're unlikely to get many more votes on this in the next few days, so I'll work on getting the system up and running in that time frame.
 
This proposal may fall into the elitist category. The ol’ “my way or the highway” attitude. I contend that the pseudoscience post help to make the scientific point of the thread. The earth is round and we have scientific proof that has withstood the all the pseudoscience/theological arguments against it. Cigarettes’ are not harmful to humans, as a paid group of “scientist” once posted as science is an example of the need to open the forum to all credible post. After all science is the process of understanding and proving theories with physical proven evidence and subject to peer review. I say let the wackos stay.
 
sandoval10 said:
This proposal may fall into the elitist category. The ol’ “my way or the highway” attitude. I contend that the pseudoscience post help to make the scientific point of the thread. The earth is round and we have scientific proof that has withstood the all the pseudoscience/theological arguments against it. Cigarettes’ are not harmful to humans, as a paid group of “scientist” once posted as science is an example of the need to open the forum to all credible post. After all science is the process of understanding and proving theories with physical proven evidence and subject to peer review. I say let the wackos stay.
Click to expand...

sandoval - if they have any sort of credible, actual, factual evidence, then what they are saying isn't pseudoscience. This is geared more towards the ones that consistently try to "prove" their "theories" using faulty math, shoddy statistics, or otherwise outright wrong information.
 
The poll is now closed. Considering the overwhelming support for the proposal, we will move to implement it. Stay tuned for a new thread announcing the change in policy. This will appear in the current subforum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top