TIGHAR
Chatterbox => Extraneous exchanges => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on September 28, 2012, 10:14:46 AM
-
Perhaps we need a Too Dumb To Live rule for threads that drag on and on when the basic premise of the thread has been shown to be invalid.
In this case we have a thread that asked the question, "Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?"
I think the answer has been clearly established. The answer is, "Maybe. Maybe not." Putnam said she had a life raft but there's no way he could know whether she carried it on the Lae/Howland flight. There is no life raft on the Luke Field inventory so we can be quite sure that, at least for that attempt to fly to Howland, a life raft was not considered necessary. So - the question "Did Earhart Leave Her Life Raft Behind?" is one of the many imponderables of the Earhart mysteries. Ditto for "Did Earhart Leave Her Parachutes Behind?"
Nothing resembling a life raft or parachute was apparently seen by the Colorado aerial search and we've found nothing on the island that can be identified as either life raft or parachute hardware. That may be because the airplane was never there. Or, it may mean that the airplane was there but no life raft or parachutes were aboard. Or, it may mean that a life raft and/or parachutes were aboard but went down with the plane, or any of a dozen other possible explanations for why they were not seen and haven't been found. Arguing that any conclusion can be drawn from the fact that no life raft or parachutes were seen or found is so transparently invalid that I'm surprised anyone on this forum - even those who are dedicated to challenging TIGHAR's hypothesis - would advance such an idea. How much time do we need to waste debating challenges that are based on invalid assertions?
I'm not stating a new policy. I'm asking a question. Would the subscribers to this forum appreciate more "thread discipline" from the moderators, not to stifle discussion or criticism but rather to direct discussion and criticism to topics that may actually be productive?
-
quote author=Ric Gillespie link=topic=967.msg20211#msg20211 date=1348848886]
I'm not stating a new policy. I'm asking a question. Would the subscribers to this forum appreciate more "thread discipline" from the moderators, not to stifle discussion or criticism but rather to direct discussion and criticism to topics that may actually be productive?
Yes.
OK - everybody's gone to lunch - so I'm modifying my "yes" .. I think we needs to have mods gather a consensus of their opinons on some of the very long threads and then if they so decide, terminate such threads with a statement that they have run their course etc etc and put on the lock.
-
I'm not stating a new policy. I'm asking a question. Would the subscribers to this forum appreciate more "thread discipline" from the moderators, not to stifle discussion or criticism but rather to direct discussion and criticism to topics that may actually be productive?
Yes.
PS - maybe mods could do a consensus of their opinons and then complete the thread with a statement that it had run it's course and - put on the lock.
Monte, yes it has, and yes it should I believe, but I will not make that call unless the quorum agrees.
And I add, as a subscriber, I say yes to Ric's question.
-
Yes and No!!!!
What if a thread was closed off stopping a potential Eureka moment when someone finds a new nuggett of gold while taking part in one of these threads?
-
Yes and No!!!!
What if a thread was closed off stopping a potential Eureka moment when someone finds a new nuggett of gold while taking part in one of these threads?
Could always start a new one. :)
-
Yes and No!!!!
What if a thread was closed off stopping a potential Eureka moment when someone finds a new nuggett of gold while taking part in one of these threads?
Chris, when and if you or anyone else find that "Gold Nugget", feel free to start a new thread about it.
-
Yes and No!!!!
What if a thread was closed off stopping a potential Eureka moment when someone finds a new nuggett of gold while taking part in one of these threads?
Could always start a new one. :)
What i mean is that someone partaking in such a thread that could be closed. They may not get the opportunity to have that moment.
An alternative could be a new area called 'going round in circles' where these threads could be deposited and those who wish to play in them can whilst others can concentrate on more pressing matters.
Bob! Man up, you know you can ;)
-
Yes and No!!!!
What if a thread was closed off stopping a potential Eureka moment when someone finds a new nuggett of gold while taking part in one of these threads?
Chris, when and if you or anyone else find that "Gold Nugget", feel free to start a new thread about it.
See next post ;D
-
Would the subscribers to this forum appreciate more "thread discipline" from the moderators, not to stifle discussion or criticism but rather to direct discussion and criticism to topics that may actually be productive?
You know, if I owned this forum and were in the business of attracting new members and donations, I think I'd have the tendency to let a thread run its course including the occasional drift. For a very few here, this is a business. For most, it's entertainment. Entertainment as such that this is a place for involvement. By terminating a thread because of the appearance of completion when there is still involvement, stifles the purpose of the forum.
Threads have a tendency to die naturally anyway - take a look at all the pages of dead threads.
-
Good call Bill. People don't have to a. read threads or b. contribute if they don't want to.
-
There is something to be said for allowing people to flog a dead horse. It doesn't hurt the horse and it provides them with an opportunity to demonstrate their intelligence.
-
"But I don't want to get on the cart ..."
"Oh, don't be such a baby!"
LTM, who gave up cart rides awhile ago,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
This horse was kicked out of one thread into another and then flogged to death
Can it be locked away with a notice that it can be re opened if there is any new evidence?
-
Lock it :)
-
This horse was kicked out of one thread into another and then flogged to death
Can it be locked away with a notice that it can be re opened if there is any new evidence?
Yes Greg, I was the one who kicked the horse out of the barn on the other thread. Of course if locked, it can be re-opened if the "Nugget" found relates to what was left behind. Otherwise a new topic would be appropriate.
-
I didn't get a chance to put in my two cents worth before you locked the life raft thread so I had to start this new thread.
I would recommend just leaving the threads open for a number of reasons.
1. New people come to the forum and might have some new insight on the old topic.
2. Even older posters might see something in a new post on an old thread that gives him an insight and something entirely new to add to the discussion.
3. Who knows then something important might be posted (even if the ground seems well plowed.) Remember the guy at the patent office about a hundred years ago who wanted to close the patent office because everything had already been invented.
4. If something new comes up on the old topic it is better to post it on the original topic because then all of the prior discussions will be available to anyone then reading the new post with new information. If the new information is on a brand new topic it will not be obvious that there was additional information previously presented and discussed on the topic.
5. Without being on the same thread, new information posted on a new thread but on the old topic will lack the context, especially to those new to the forum. Some of the old timers might remember that there had been a prior discussion of the topic and so know to go and look for it but it seems unreasonable to me to expect new forum members to read the list of all the old threads.
6. What extra does it cost to keep the thread alive, nothing.
gl
-
6. What extra does it cost to keep the thread alive, nothing.
I'm not suggesting that all threads be closed at some point - only threads where the question raised has been answered as best it can be answered unless new evidence turns up. Leaving a thread like "Did Amelia Leave Her Life Raft Behind?" open invites further pointless discussion and could lead to the misconception among some readers that invalid arguments expressed on the thread have some legitimacy.
-
6. What extra does it cost to keep the thread alive, nothing.
I'm not suggesting that all threads be closed at some point - only threads where the question raised has been answered as best it can be answered unless new evidence turns up. Leaving a thread like "Did Amelia Leave Her Life Raft Behind?" open invites further pointless discussion and could lead to the misconception among some readers that invalid arguments expressed on the thread have some legitimacy.
That doesn't make a whole lot of since locking the thread (unless you erase it) still leaves it there for people to read and believe that the posts are legitimate. And which ones on the thread are "legitimate" and which are not. When you lock a thread are you going to place a header to the effect, "posts 1,2,45,67,and 101 on this thread are considered not to be legitimate as determined by Ric Gillespie?"
gl
-
That doesn't make a whole lot of since locking the thread (unless you erase it) still leaves it there for people to read and believe that the posts are legitimate. And which ones on the thread are "legitimate" and which are not. When you lock a thread are you going to place a header to the effect, "posts 1,2,45,67,and 101 on this thread are considered not to be legitimate as determined by Ric Gillespie?"
No. Anyone is free to read the entire thread and see that it was terminated by the moderators at a certain point for a stated reason. They can decide for themselves whether the termination was justified.
-
From GLP
5. Without being on the same thread, new information posted on a new thread but on the old topic will lack the context, especially to those new to the forum. Some of the old timers might remember that there had been a prior discussion of the topic and so know to go and look for it but it seems unreasonable to me to expect new forum members to read the list of all the old threads.
That was what I was trying to put accross but words arn'y my career.
However saying that i'm begining to see the benefit of mods/members asking for threads to be locked until 'fresh' evidence is found.
This forum is quite evolutionary and i'm sure we'll find a way that suits most.
Here's a suggestion that is used in a soccor site that I frequent. They have a 'rumors and other stuff' section where unsubstantiated posts are put until the evidence stacks up to put them on the main sections. We could try something like this? or not!
-
I would simply suggest that people read the comments other people have posted more carefully. Quite a few statements made during the life raft thread have pointed out things that have already been agreed, as if they were new revelations. If some one posts an idea that hasn't been considered yet, that doesn't automatically mean that what has already been agreed is being challenged, it just opens up another avenue.