Mod Hat ― Quit Mucking Up My Queue The big joke about these discussions is the number of complaints rolling in compared to what everyone else around this site is expected to put up with. Do people understand that if we enforced the rules according to people's complaints, virtually nobody would be left? So let me tell you what I see, when I find this stack of back and forth complaints: What I see is a topic post using a news article as reference point. Indeed, my only complaint here is personal, as I would much prefer people strip out the data-tracking targets from the links they post. But I also see a preprint of an accepted scientific paper in the second post. The third post is an interesting proposition referring entirely to a member's own outlook, with no support. I see a NASA press release. So as we start to count up "points" of some abstract sort, let's note at this point it's Proposition 3 - 0 Objection. There is an unsupported counterpoint; DMoE checks in to make certain the situation goes downhill some, because that's pretty much all he's good for. The unsupported counterpoint meets a reiteration and an expression of the crux of disagreement; for some reason, the Icicle question comes to mind: The one thing nobody can argue is that nothing penetrated the chest cavity. At this point one of the disputing parties launches a personalized condemnation of another member, offering exactly no support. When presented with yet more scientific evidence, we see a reiteration of personal attack in lieu of scientific support for the counterargument. Proposition 4 - 0 Objection. Another paper, another attack: Proposition 5 - 0 Objection. Another iteration of the crux,another attack posted without any manner of evidence. The score remains five-nil because I didn't work that sort of deduction into the system. But it's worth noting two attack posts against the same point, neither with any scientific support. We see some back and forth, followed by five more articles to support the proposition; Proposition 10 - 0 Objection. To count the next big offering as one point understates its magnitude; counting seventy-three points would be excessive. Then again, we can go with Proposition 11 - 0 Objection, anyway, because it would also be an underestimation or underassessment to suggest that a pattern is emerging. At the end of page one (another attack) we can count the score as Proposition 11 - 0 Objection. Yet another attack leads off page two, and what's missing from any of these attacks is any supporting evidence. Another member attempts another attack, and this one has no science, either. Another article, call it twelve. And another; thirteen. Another attack in retort. And then another in which an author appears to reject the proposition of providing or accepting evidence And then yet another attack. Again, no evidence. Met by yet another scientific paper. Proposition 13 - 0 Objection. We might note a reply here arguing that all this information being presented "obviously hasn't caught up" with new information, but provides exactly none of that information. Again, no negative points are being assessed, but at this point we would be somewhere around minus three for this attacking, unsupported, apparently insupportable troll job. At some point, commiseration invokes an objection that has something to do with the moderators, yet still offers no actual scientific discussion. There is an hilarious bit in there where someone else enters the discussion, and an objecting member who offers nothing scientific and bases his objections, apparently, on something having to do with moderators, decides to complain about expertise. The main objection, however, insists on itself while still failing or refusing to offer any supporting evidence. We see at page two a reiteration of the crux, and again I pause to consider the Icicle argument. There is some personal back and forth suggesting one among the objectors really doesn't have any clue what's going on in the discussion, and the other offers yet another response to the someone else who entered the discussion, but it's just another attack against the member authoring the proposition, and offered without any scientific support. What follows is a series of unsupported personal attacks as primary objection; we get a scientific paper that seems to smack down the unsupported counterpoint about information failing to catch up; it is a paper already posted to this thread the day before. And, quite honestly, if we should assess negative points, that would certainly be another. Meanwhile, that reiteration is followed up with another scientific paper. Proposition 14 - 0 Objection. There is a response playing to the gallery, but offering no evidence whatsoever. Another paper; fifteen. At this point the Objection seems to fold, begging the Proposition to drop out of the discussion. Again, I should be assessing negative points, but at this point we're somewhere between minus four and, oh, I don't know, minus ten? Counting up all these attack posts without support suggests an interesting sum. Another one of these blithering, bawling attack posts in lieu of a proper scientific objection. A post positing an objection without any supporting evidence. At the point we begin this exploration, it would seem the current status is #60, in which an objecting member comments on the personal aspects of the dispute, but offers no support for the objection. The score, at a minimum, appears to be Proposition 15 - 0 Objection, and this is simply one basic definition, and as to that, here's the tricky part: • If the Objection wishes to be taken credibly, then the Objection must necessarily give scientific address to the Proposition. • Because you say so is not a sufficient scientific argument. Fifteen-nil sounds bad, but it could also be eighty-six over zed. Or something between four and twenty points to the negative for the Objection, but that's a different scale. The problem is that for all anyone wants to object, there is nothing to support the objection but egotism. So let us try, please, the obvious: Members should not need to be reminded that "argument" means more than petulant sloth. It's like in political dispute or artistic criticism, when every once in a while we encounter advocates who behave as if "free speech" means "words devoid of any value". I mean, yeah, we get it, being utterly meaningless and, functionally, a detriment to the human species is a person's right according to free speech, but neither is that the whole of what constitutes free speech. And in questions of free speech, it helps to actually bring sausage to a sausage fight. It's one thing to act like a child pretending to imitate parents for the thrill of believing one is scolding another, but in an actual sausage fight you're going to need something meatier than petulant fantasy. Anybody who wants to make the point that the Proposition is wrong ought to be able to provide some manner of scientific evidence and argument, and after this extended trolling tantrum in lieu of a proper Objection I am not inclined to tolerate any excuses. The Objection needs to either get its dignity and intelligence together or else cease and desist.