I was not thinking about that claim when I wrote that (“inconsequential claim”). I tried to clarify the new rule because it looked to me to not be entirely clear. If you put every small claim under a microscope, and so have to reference everything you claim, your posts turn into mini papers quickly and for better or for worse that doesn’t seem to be the intent of this forum.
So from that post you cannot infer what I think about the claim about Wayne. I guess I don’t find it inconsequential.
In an ideal world any reference to authority or association with authority should be irrelevant though, and thus should be avoided and is bad practice, because the credibility of your claims should only rely on the quality of your reasoning and the quality of your research, but I digress.
Practically now, the new rule is in place (the burden of proof lies with the poster, not the reader), you questioned the claim, the poster could not prove the claim, and consequently the claim was moderated. If you flag a comment that helps because no one reads everything. In the future if you find any claim you find objectionable and is not supported, you can ask the poster to support it (nicely) and if they can’t or won’t, the claim could be moderated, if a moderator agrees that the claim should be supported better.
Be good about it though, I won’t be very inclined to be patient with someone asking for proof of my claims if they do it with an attitude. I’m sure others are the same.
I think your grievance could be with the Yahoo forum, lesser so with this forum before the new rule was in place, and least of all with this forum as it is now.
Thank you for understanding. I feel bad spending the time and energy to express this tidbit after years of trying to stand up for simple things like basic honesty.
By the way, you have explained exactly the problem, that I have described many times as trying to counter the ability to combine so many falsehoods into a single sentence that it could take all day to untangle the mess. Let alone deal with the next sentence. When flagging the falsehoods is in turn responded to with further false statements, starting with mischaracterizing what I had said trying to detangle the first statement, you end up realizing you either have to just give in, and not flag these false statements, or spend all you time debunking the bunk, and never get anything else done. Pierre says it is “like a drug”. This hit home when I saw Marc Benioff of SalesForce interviewed on Bloomberg calling Facebook “the new cigarettes”, saying it is “habit-forming” and “bad for you”. I agree. Like cigarettes, fighting online falsehoods leaves me feeling sick. Seems like an impossible battle to win.
Yes, I rarely participate in conversations online because of the addictiveness of it. I decided to make an exception for this forum.
I have intermittently followed the Yahoo forum over the years so I have seen this played out many times. But also I was only visiting because everyone was discussing some random ideas, some of which held some promise to me. If only they (mostly Dave) had referenced the ideas and wrote out their acronyms I could have learned a little more from their efforts.
The environment we’re in partly guides our behavior. This not the Yahoo forum and this is not Facebook. The surroundings have changed and I am seeing improvements from everyone. I think we all like this forum to be somewhere where we can say what we want to say related to AWE and understand that if we stay in the safe part of the sea we have absolutely nothing to worry about, but also that if we repeatedly go into the (clearly delineated) dangerous part of the sea, chances are that we will probably eventually get chomped (not fatally) by the creatures there, but also that even that is not the end of the world.
You have been a terrible Moderator, and not resolved any complaints. Now you are demanding 2030 predictions be repeated because you overlooked them when first discussed on this forum.
Lots of superior technical information, like about kite knots, is publicly lost, but would be available, had you not been so wrongly obsessed with false Netiquette concerns. Worst of all is your continued undeserved Moderation power over others, as an “anonymous authority”.
Only if the censored technical content you caused is restored is the serious damage corrected.
Doug’s Netiquette is the poorest in all AWE, and his postings rarely technically helpful. Let him accordingly be the one to praise you for the ongoing damage your mis-moderation abuses are causing.
I have addressed most of your concerns in this thread. I’m of course not going to keep replying to the same concerns when I have already addressed them.
You may not like how I addressed them but I did address them. Look through the thread again if you like some clarification on why this forum is moderated or why I choose to be anonymous for example.
Your censorship has not been reversed at all. Your anonymity is not addressed. Its only established that you are not very knowledgeable about AWE.
Your moderation continues apalling. All you have done here is empty lip-service to serious complaints. The more you mis-moderate the worse it has gotten.
Why are you hiding behind a secret identity to censor AWE so unproductively?
Severe moderation restrictions on new (aerodynamicist, Rob Palin) or protesting users has gotten worse. New Topics are not allowed according to need or competence, but as disciplinary reward or punishment. Less competent users are not restricted.
This hidden complaint topic is a deal-letter-box. Moderation is not sensitive to any issue except false Netiquette. Someday AWE historians will note with dismay how the Discourse software was abused and perverted by false moderation values.
Sample prevented topic-
Interesting NASA background source, “1800 TW” in upper wind.
Flags by themselves are not enough justification for censorship. There are flags being thrown without any serious problem in the original texts, and then technical content is lost.
If you want to argue your point you should do that here and reference the FAQ. Repeatedly pasting in the same comment, like you did in the topic, is no good.
So I find this to be off-topic. The topic is about a particular type of generator after all. It is not about rigging-triangles, nor about angles processing forces mathematically, nor about whether gears are substitutes for rigging-triangles, and also not about whether talking about generators is a side issue in AWE.
Again, the public does not get to learn as much under censorship.
The novel magnetic drive cited mainly reconfigures standard functions into a pancake format. That’s quite useful for fitting into an engine space, but no big deal otherwise. I would rather be able to switch out clutch or motorgen separately, if its prototype AWE R&D that matters.
Stop crapping on technical knowledge, Windy Skies.