Thanks to everyone who participated in my closed thread

My thread got closed!

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?123110-Why-Do-Many-Reasonable-People-Doubt-Science

Oh, well...

I wanted to thank everyone who posted. I thought it was a lively conversation and was pretty much on track (with maybe a few minor exceptions). Most people were respectful even when disagreeing, and I think the topic was definitely worth thinking about. It's too bad someone got offended, but the thread contained not just a third rail, but probably a fourth, fifth, and maybe even sixth rail, and it's hard to steer clear of that many rails!

Thanks again.

Curious - why bring that type of conversation to TRF when it was stated at the very beginning by a moderator it would probably get locked after 2 pages? Why not just take it to a forum that allows open conversation with no moderation?

ThirstyBarbarian said:

My thread got closed!

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?123110-Why-Do-Many-Reasonable-People-Doubt-Science

Oh, well...

I wanted to thank everyone who posted. I thought it was a lively conversation and was pretty much on track (with maybe a few minor exceptions). Most people were respectful even when disagreeing, and I think the topic was definitely worth thinking about. It's too bad someone got offended, but the thread contained not just a third rail, but probably a fourth, fifth, and maybe even sixth rail, and it's hard to steer clear of that many rails!

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Barbarian for an interesting read!

Nate

timbucktoo said:

Curious - why bring that type of conversation to TRF when it was stated at the very beginning by a moderator it would probably get locked after 2 pages? Why not just take it to a forum that allows open conversation with no moderation?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is more interesting to dance on pins...

It was a fun read.

To bad it got locked just as the discussion was coming full circle on the problem of global warming. Cows in the meat case don't fart.

Well one thing is for sure on Global Warming is that if its not bought to an end soon documentary makers and news broadcasters will run out of stock footage of extreme weather

Thank you Mr Barbarian as well for raising an interesting topic - it was interesting to see peoples responses.

It was -11 the other morning when I went to work. It is supposed be colder tomorrow. Someone here is bogarting my Global Warming and I want you to give it back.

Speaking of the article in the original thread, fluoridation and all, Dr. Strangelove comes on in an hour (7:00 CST) on TMC.

KidRockET said:

Perhaps it is more interesting to dance on pins...

Click to expand...

Ooh, that sounds like fun!

sooner.boomer said:

Speaking of the article in the original thread, fluoridation and all, Dr. Strangelove comes on in an hour (7:00 CST) on TMC.

Click to expand...

Man, I saw that at the theater.

timbucktoo said:

Curious - why bring that type of conversation to TRF when it was stated at the very beginning by a moderator it would probably get locked after 2 pages? Why not just take it to a forum that allows open conversation with no moderation?

Click to expand...

The main reason for bringing it up here was that I read the article, found it very interesting, and thought other people on the forum would find it interesting too, which proved to be true. Also, part of the reason I found it so interesting is that it dealt with a subject that has been on my mind a lot lately specifically due to posts I have seen recently on this forum in other threads that have been locked or deleted. I'm trying to understand the thinking of other forum members on certain topic, and I found the article helpful in that.

My feeling is that the moderator overreacted in the warning at the beginning. The thread topic is not a banned topic, the post and article were not insulting to anyone, and if everyone had followed my request to keep off of the side topics and focus on the article itself, the thread would not be closed now. But the side topics just proved too tempting for some, I guess.

The truth is, we aren't going to know what the complaint was about. Was it about the political side issues that got dragged in? Was it the religious posts that violated the TRF guidelines? Was it the responses to those religious posts? Could it have been someone just didn't like the conversation even taking place? Who knows? My feeling is it's a topic we should have been able to discuss without going off the rails, but it didn't work out.

I'm not upset about it in the least. And I'm glad a lot of people enjoyed the topic.

There two complaints. I closed it.

nute said:

Thank you Mr. Barbarian for an interesting read!

Nate

Click to expand...

rocketed said:

It was a fun read.

Click to expand...

rcktnut said:

To bad it got locked just as the discussion was coming full circle on the problem of global warming. Cows in the meat case don't fart.

Click to expand...

Astro-Baby said:

Well one thing is for sure on Global Warming is that if its not bought to an end soon documentary makers and news broadcasters will run out of stock footage of extreme weather

Thank you Mr Barbarian as well for raising an interesting topic - it was interesting to see peoples responses.

Click to expand...

sooner.boomer said:

Speaking of the article in the original thread, fluoridation and all, Dr. Strangelove comes on in an hour (7:00 CST) on TMC.

Click to expand...

Thanks guys. I'm glad people got something out of it.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

My thread got closed!

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?123110-Why-Do-Many-Reasonable-People-Doubt-Science

Oh, well...

I wanted to thank everyone who posted. I thought it was a lively conversation and was pretty much on track (with maybe a few minor exceptions). Most people were respectful even when disagreeing, and I think the topic was definitely worth thinking about. It's too bad someone got offended, but the thread contained not just a third rail, but probably a fourth, fifth, and maybe even sixth rail, and it's hard to steer clear of that many rails!

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Dude! You haven't lived until you've had a thread closed!

In fact, I'm putting that on my bucket list...can't be a thread on global warming though, I'll have to find an original topic!

Cheers!

cwbullet said:

There two complaints. I closed it.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know the nature of the complaints. I realize there is a bit of privacy, however understanding why the reaction merited closure could be informative.

Funny, TRF is asking for money, yet telling you what you can and can't say. Interesting business model.

Interesting business model.

Click to expand...

Seems to be the same model as every place in the world. You might donate to the library, but they don't let you tap dance naked in the place. They have rules about how you act when you're there.

Two complaints? Hmmmmm?

Reminds me of a story. There was a little old lady who lived on the 8th floor of her apartment building. One night she called the police to complain about a man across the way in another apartment building who was completely nude and looking out of his apartment window for all the world to see. When the police arrived they followed the little old lady into her bedroom where she told them to look out of her window and across the alley. They did as she asked and then reported to her, "We're sorry ma'am but we don't see what you told our dispatcher."

Frustrated, she told the officers, "Well just get up here on this stool and look down!"

I found the thread interesting and at first respectful, I even didn't mind the first post mentioning religion, even though my personal beliefs differ, because it was discussing how their religious views informed their decision making which was done respectfully and on topic without trying to force that view on others. It was after that things fell apart because the very mention of religion seemed to much temptation to respond to.

Ravenex said:

I found the thread interesting and at first respectful, I even didn't mind the first post mentioning religion, even though my personal beliefs differ, because it was discussing how their religious views informed their decision making which was done respectfully and on topic without trying to force that view on others. It was after that things fell apart because the very mention of religion seemed to much temptation to respond to.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I appreciate that.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

The main reason for bringing it up here was that I read the article, found it very interesting, and thought other people on the forum would find it interesting too, which proved to be true.

Click to expand...

IOW, 'thought provoking' - to which I agree.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

The truth is, we aren't going to know what the complaint was about. Was it about the political side issues that got dragged in? Was it the religious posts that violated the TRF guidelines? Was it the responses to those religious posts? Could it have been someone just didn't like the conversation even taking place?

Click to expand...

From my seat, I think you get closer and closer to the truth with each possibility (with the last being the closest). It has been my experience that there are far too many who simply don't like to think - and, by that, I mean they don't like to wrestle with complex and difficult issues - and having to face the potential realities the NatlGeog article put forth is very complex. Far too many become unnerved with having to deal with that - so they just 'shut down' on it.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

Who knows? My feeling is it's a topic we should have been able to discuss without going off the rails, but it didn't work out.

Click to expand...

Well, I was thinking of chiming in on it, but the doors closed before I could get in. The one point I was going to add is that over the last so many years, I've come to the belief that the human mind works on two levels: the emotional and the rational. In far too many instances, when we *think* we're thinking 'rationally', we're not - it's all 'emotional' (and I'll include myself in that as well at various times). It's a real trick to be able to recognize and distinguish that. If the topic is complex (and what isn't any more?), trying to hang on to that 'rational' side gets harder and harder - it's far easier to just 'emote'.

Looks like the end result here proved it once again. <sigh>

cwbullet said:

There two complaints. I closed it.

Click to expand...

Well, I must admit I'm not overly surprised (a little disappointed, though). Just please don't delete it - that would mean that the cowards win.

-----

Thanks for pushing us to think a little more, Thirsty.

-- john.

I thought the whole thread was funnier than hell.

sooner.boomer said:

Speaking of the article in the original thread, fluoridation and all, Dr. Strangelove comes on in an hour (7:00 CST) on TMC.

Click to expand...

It's all a communist plot, to contaminate our precious bodily fluids...

I knew that's what it had to be!

Later! OL JR

shrox said:

Funny, TRF is asking for money, yet telling you what you can and can't say. Interesting business model.

Click to expand...

Yes, isn't it??

ANY business model is acceptable nowdays, unless you happen to be a baker or florist who doesn't care to provide services for a homosexual "wedding" (whatever that abomination is supposed to be).

THEN, of course, it's just WRONG.

Oh well... what can you expect nowdays in this country... nothing different I suppose.

later! OL JR

Ravenex said:

I found the thread interesting and at first respectful, I even didn't mind the first post mentioning religion, even though my personal beliefs differ, because it was discussing how their religious views informed their decision making which was done respectfully and on topic without trying to force that view on others. It was after that things fell apart because the very mention of religion seemed to much temptation to respond to.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did as well...

It's not enough apparently to explain one's viewpoints without trying to "proselytize" others or whatever... merely mentioning religion AT ALL seems enough to send people over the edge nowdays...


Later! OL JR

Ravenex said:

... <snip> ...because it was discussing how their religious views informed their decision making which was done respectfully and on topic without trying to force that view on others. <snip>

Click to expand...

Bat-mite said:

Thanks. I appreciate that.

Click to expand...

Fear not, John. You did good.

-- john.

You believe the first thing you are told and won't change it until there is enough evidence to sever the attachment to your first belief.
So you first have to admit you were wrong before you can change your mind.--Yeah, that ain't happening.

Ravenex said:

I found the thread interesting and at first respectful, I even didn't mind the first post mentioning religion, even though my personal beliefs differ, because it was discussing how their religious views informed their decision making which was done respectfully and on topic without trying to force that view on others. It was after that things fell apart because the very mention of religion seemed to much temptation to respond to.

Click to expand...

I had written a response that I was not able to post due to the thread being locked, and it covered basically the same points you just made. From my point of view, that post was on topic, because it was about how that member came to his own beliefs, which was the topic of the thread. I also agree that that particular post did not try to push a religious agenda on others. I don't know if it may have violated TRF rules, but it was on topic. I do disagree with the post on several points, but it was on topic.

There was another religious post following that one that was not on topic and more of a proselytizing nature, and that one I think probably triggered the eventual demise of the thread by baiting others into a religious argument.

Bat-mite said:

Thanks. I appreciate that.

Click to expand...

I think your post was on topic and was not about preaching. Thanks for providing your point of view. Things went off the rails later with other religious posts that weren't as on point and were more proselytizing in nature.

That article wasn't as inoccuous as is being remembered. Statements like, "there is no other side of the argument," should speak for themselves. Lumping easily disproved idiots together with centuries-held, respected, and deeply-held beliefs could be seen as a problem. Also, the whole article had a very thinly veiled implication that people who did not believe the same as the author are intolerant backward rubes.

For the record, I did not complain, but looking at the article,I can't understand how you guys would be all "Oh, I'm shocked people were offended."