The use of references on this board

[Ed]

It do not know if it is a growing behavior or not but I have noticed that there is a tendency for some to simply post a link and ask for commentary and sometimes not even that much. Similarly, it sometimes occurs that a poster will provide a googol list of references in support of some contention or the other with no commentary.

I certainly do not believe in censoring posts but I must object to these practices in the strongest terms. They waste my time but moreso, the practice is rude.

Though it may not seem like it, I do not have infinate amounts of time to spend reading abstruce papers without some guidence as to what I am looking for. Please tell me why I should care about a given reference, or what you want from me. Posting "A Further Study in Anomolous Whatsits" does not tell me if there is a point to be made (ie. a good example of research, a different take on other research, an egregiously bad example) or not and would necessesitate my reading the entire thing (and maybe unraveling some stats) to figure out what the point is. I for one don't do that anymore.

Similarly, posting 100+ references in support of some point is, for me at least, posting nothing. Pick a couple and give me a precis of their argument and why they should be read. Then, by all means, post references to the other 97 and say that they support the first three (Assuming you have read them).

Which brings me to another point. I would really appreciate it if papers would not be posted where the poster has not, at least, skimmed them. That is really rude.

Naturally, some papers only require a :eek: or a :roll: as commentary.

Am I alone on this?

[CFLarsen]

Nope. I quite agree.

I'd like to propose a few additional rules (or, if you like, amendments, since this is an American board! :)):


When you post a link, also post a short summary (2-3 lines should be sufficient), as well as what your take is.
Nobody can expect others to spend their time looking at links and figure out for themselves if it is worth it.

When asked for evidence, a Google-search is not sufficient. You must either provide links or references, e.g. books, magazines, TV-programs, etc.
Of course, you must also quote appropriately, but not in extenso.


JREF is for education, so we should educate each other. If we know something about a subject, we should share it.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nope. I quite agree.

I'd like to propose a few additional rules (or, if you like, amendments, since this is an American board! :)):


When you post a link, also post a short summary (2-3 lines should be sufficient), as well as what your take is.
Nobody can expect others to spend their time looking at links and figure out for themselves if it is worth it.

When asked for evidence, a Google-search is not sufficient. You must either provide links or references, e.g. books, magazines, TV-programs, etc.
Of course, you must also quote appropriately, but not in extenso.


JREF is for education, so we should educate each other. If we know something about a subject, we should share it.




Yes. It is pretty much what you would say at a party. "Hey you ought to read this because ....".

If one does not have an opinion of their own it should not be posted.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Ed
It do not know if it is a growing behavior or not but I have noticed that there is a tendency for some to simply post a link and ask for commentary and sometimes not even that much. Similarly, it sometimes occurs that a poster will provide a googol list of references in support of some contention or the other with no commentary.

I certainly do not believe in censoring posts but I must object to these practices in the strongest terms. They waste my time but moreso, the practice is rude.

Though it may not seem like it, I do not have infinate amounts of time to spend reading abstruce papers without some guidence as to what I am looking for. Please tell me why I should care about a given reference, or what you want from me. Posting "A Further Study in Anomolous Whatsits" does not tell me if there is a point to be made (ie. a good example of research, a different take on other research, an egregiously bad example) or not and would necessesitate my reading the entire thing (and maybe unraveling some stats) to figure out what the point is. I for one don't do that anymore.

Similarly, posting 100+ references in support of some point is, for me at least, posting nothing. Pick a couple and give me a precis of their argument and why they should be read. Then, by all means, post references to the other 97 and say that they support the first three (Assuming you have read them).

Which brings me to another point. I would really appreciate it if papers would not be posted where the poster has not, at least, skimmed them. That is really rude.

Naturally, some papers only require a :eek: or a :roll: as commentary.

Am I alone on this?
Ed,

Alone? Not at all. I echo Claus' remarks. This is an educational forum and neither a kaffee klatch nor a home for wayward woos. Unfortunately, we've overrun by children (both emotionally and chronologically.) It will take a while to turn the board back around.

The pretend evidence is incredibly irksome. ("I'm not really a piece of evidence. I just play one on the net." ) I notice that some of us have begun to react to it by completely dismissing it, unread. I think that response may be coming from having too little time to chase down the kiddies and being ticked off at the "keep the skeptic busy" game.

When I get blizzard citations, I usually scan through them quickly, looking for the bullsh. When I spot them, I simply call the poster out on it. I'm not wasting my time with such pap. If I see newspaper and magazine article citations mixed in with popular books and such, I zero in on that. If the poster is a newbie, I remind them of the terms of the challenge. (I try to remember to give them the full "miranda" version of the challenge: "peer-reviewed journal or textbook yada yada...") If I don't take that stance, I end up in an endless"keep the skeptic busy" game.

Cheers,

[Jeff Corey]

I agree. It's especially frustrating when the links don't work or merely include an abstract.
I think that you are correct in the assertion that most of the "references" are a smokescreen to attempt to bamboozle(TM) us.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I agree. It's especially frustrating when the links don't work or merely include an abstract.
I think that you are correct in the assertion that most of the "references" are a smokescreen to attempt to bamboozle(TM) us.

I agree. I haven't made a comparable analysis, but it is my perception that the posters who use these strategies are woowoos.

[xouper]

Ed: It do not know if it is a growing behavior or not but I have noticed that there is a tendency for some to simply post a link and ask for commentary and sometimes not even that much.If I may ask for clarification, is the following thread an example of what you are referring to (and by that I mean the short post that started it)?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28058

I assume the preference here is that I should post a short summary of why I think the article I linked may be of interest, which is something I didn't do because I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) the intent was obvious.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by xouper
If I may ask for clarification, is the following thread an example of what you are referring to (and by that I mean the short post that started it)?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28058

I assume the preference here is that I should post a short summary of why I think the article I linked may be of interest, which is something I didn't do because I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) the intent was obvious.

Could be a contendah, but the link itself describes somewhat what it's about.

However, we cannot assume that all posters are on the same level, so a short summary might have been nice.

[Ed]

Originally posted by xouper
If I may ask for clarification, is the following thread an example of what you are referring to (and by that I mean the short post that started it)?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28058

I assume the preference here is that I should post a short summary of why I think the article I linked may be of interest, which is something I didn't do because I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) the intent was obvious.

Well, we all pretty much know Psitek and we know you and you did clarify. I hate to be judgemental but sometimes one has to consider the source (ie, you edit:I mean that as a good thing).

Let me pick on me so no feelings get hurt. If I posted
http://home13.inet.tele.dk/vanDijk/Istid.htm
With no explination at all you could rightly post "Ed you ****** idiot what is that crap"

Claus, DD and Ove would get the joke.

If I posted a link to a creationist site, those that know me would read my extreme exasperation into a lack of commentary. Though that would not be particularly fair to a newcomer.

The issue is more where there is some depth to the article. That silly DAT thing is a good example. No matter who posted that, some position/explination is really called for. Why, of all woo-woo papers was that posted? If it is interesting, why? In the absense of any position on the part of the poster it is a non-sequitor, insulting and rude. I am not here to provide a pavlovian response to just anything that is dropped, feces like, in front of me.

We are engaged in a dialectic exercise, There has to be some point to any discussion, even if it is preaching to the choir.

This is not entirely clear, I know. It is rather like porno, I know it when I see it.

I guess it comes down to respecting the reader enough to say why they should care. Even if it is :eek:

The frauds at Psitek need no intro.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed

That silly DAT thing is a good example. No matter who posted that, some position/explination is really called for. Why, of all woo-woo papers was that posted? If it is interesting, why? In the absense of any position on the part of the poster it is a non-sequitor, insulting and rude. I am not here to provide a pavlovian response to just anything that is dropped, feces like, in front of me.


You're correct in that it would have been a good idea for me to perhaps post a short summary on it. However, that is essentially contained in the paper's abstract. Moreover, there is no 'rule' anywhere that one has to post explanations of things they are interested in, and to propose that no articles can be linked to unless they are accompanied by some position/explanation is pretty strict in my opinion. In fact, it is farily instructive to not 'tip your hand' and not state a position and see how quickly people keep trying to force you into spelling out your position. Instead of them critiquing the contents of the paper, they critique your position on the paper. It is far easier.

You call it "silly" and "woo-woo", and that is fine, I have no problems with that opinion, but have you done that without posting a critical analysis on it? If so, that tells me that people really don't read such papers anyway after forming an impression on them by 'judging the book by its cover' or by 'guilt by association' of the poster, or by the topic (ESP and PK).

I posted the links to the pdfs because I thought it was an interesting use of statistical modelling, as I've already said, where if anomalous cognition and anomalous perterbation exist, then this model is a possible way to distinguish between them and what is expected by chance, and to attach numbers to the 'effect'. That is a huge, gigantic, large if I obviously admit, but that in no way takes away from the interesting-ness of the paper I feel.

I would welcome running this thread/issue by Hal or Randi, and see what their opinions are. I'd go with what they say, and I'd even go back and post the abstract of the DAT paper, in my own words. Sound fair? Sound good?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Troll Chi


Wah. wah. wah.

I would welcome running this thread/issue by Hal or Randi, and see what their opinions are. I'd go with what they say, and I'd even go back and post the abstract of the DAT paper, in my own words. Sound fair? Sound good? [/B]

Now do you see why I've taken to calling you "son," son? Thicken your skin and grow up. If you make claims here, expect them to be challenged. Vigorously. Don't cry about it. Back it up.

Now as to my calling you "Troll Chi", whodini:
In fact, it is farily instructive to not 'tip your hand' and not state a position and see how quickly people keep trying to force you into spelling out your position. Instead of them critiquing the contents of the paper, they critique your position on the paper.
That is the definition of... uh... c'mon, son, fill in the blank for us.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

You don't get it.

You are right, inasmuch as there is no current "rule" that people should post explanations to what they are posting. That is what is being proposed.

Nobody is saying that some posters are without "blame". What is proposed are some rules of debate: Something that will make it easier for everybody to know what is going on.

I am certain that you cannot have anything against that. I am certain that you do not want ignorance instead of knowledge.

I would welcome it, if you - since you posted in this thread, defending your (non)actions - would be the first to post a summary - dare I call it a "critique"? - of the studies you opened a thread with.

This should not develop - I will not call it "degrade" - into an attack on you, specifically. Others have been "guilty" of posting hit-and-run stuff before, and not just woowoos like yourself. But I - as well as others, it seems - would like to see some real, hard-core evidence.

Now, is that not what we are here for?

[xouper]

Ed: I guess it comes down to respecting the reader enough to say why they should care. Even if it is :eek: That pretty much clarifies it for me. Good point.

[Ed]

Originally posted by xouper
That pretty much clarifies it for me. Good point.

Thank you.

[Ed]

bump because I'd like more opinions

[Darat]

I think your suggestion is a sensible "best practise". It is also, in my opinion just good manners.

After all many people don't have time to read through whole reams of papers, links and the like so giving a summary and saying why you believe someone should spend their time to read it is being polite.

I would also suggest that if you want a good, open and honest discussion then spending time putting down your views is a very good way to achieve it.

There is a converse to this, for instance if someone posts a link to a paper I don't understand I think it would be fair enough to say something like:

"Can anyone help me understand why X says this [insert link] supports the case for purple unicorns?".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Ed
bump because I'd like more opinions

You need a breath mint, too.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Darat
I think your suggestion is a sensible "best practise". It is also, in my opinion just good manners.

After all many people don't have time to read through whole reams of papers, links and the like so giving a summary and saying why you believe someone should spend their time to read it is being polite.

I would also suggest that if you want a good, open and honest discussion then spending time putting down your views is a very good way to achieve it.

There is a converse to this, for instance if someone posts a link to a paper I don't understand I think it would be fair enough to say something like:

"Can anyone help me understand why X says this [insert link] supports the case for purple unicorns?".

I agree with all of the above.
Further, those who post reams of links etc do their cause absolutely no good whatsoever.
One of two things usually happens - other posters either ignore it as blather or dig into it and find a bit of nonsense with which to confront the perpetrator (who obviously hasn't read it all).
I wouldn't make a forum rule on this, though. Too difficult to interpret and too much for certain people to whine about. ;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


You need a breath mint, too.

My goodness. Did we get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

I am outraged at your allegation.

I am reporting this post, Hoyt. Watch it, buddy.:D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dragon


I agree with all of the above.
Further, those who post reams of links etc do their cause absolutely no good whatsoever.
One of two things usually happens - other posters either ignore it as blather or dig into it and find a bit of nonsense with which to confront the perpetrator (who obviously hasn't read it all).
I wouldn't make a forum rule on this, though. Too difficult to interpret and too much for certain people to whine about. ;)

I agree. Manners are not subject to the rule of law, just respect.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Ed


My goodness. Did we get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

I am outraged at your allegation.

I am reporting this post, Hoyt. Watch it, buddy.:D

Hey, you asked for an opinion. :wink8:

Cheers,

[xouper]

Ed: I agree. Manners are not subject to the rule of law, just respect.Agreed. Another (rather trivial) example of manners that isn't a forum rule, many people abide by the notion that it's rude to be nit-picky about spelling errors on message baords. Everyone makes them. Most are simply typos, and on rare occasions the person really doesn't know how to spell a word, but good manners calls for letting them slide on by.

That doesn't always stop me, however, from expressing my pet peeve about the misspellign of "noone" which should always be two words, not one word as is seen too many times on this forum.

http://www.xoup.net/peeves/noone.php

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Ed
It do not know if it is a growing behavior or not but I have noticed that there is a tendency for some to simply post a link and ask for commentary and sometimes not even that much. Similarly, it sometimes occurs that a poster will provide a googol list of references in support of some contention or the other with no commentary.

I certainly do not believe in censoring posts but I must object to these practices in the strongest terms. They waste my time but moreso, the practice is rude.

Though it may not seem like it, I do not have infinate amounts of time to spend reading abstruce papers without some guidence as to what I am looking for. Please tell me why I should care about a given reference, or what you want from me. Posting "A Further Study in Anomolous Whatsits" does not tell me if there is a point to be made (ie. a good example of research, a different take on other research, an egregiously bad example) or not and would necessesitate my reading the entire thing (and maybe unraveling some stats) to figure out what the point is. I for one don't do that anymore.

Similarly, posting 100+ references in support of some point is, for me at least, posting nothing. Pick a couple and give me a precis of their argument and why they should be read. Then, by all means, post references to the other 97 and say that they support the first three (Assuming you have read them).

Which brings me to another point. I would really appreciate it if papers would not be posted where the poster has not, at least, skimmed them. That is really rude.

Naturally, some papers only require a :eek: or a :roll: as commentary.

Am I alone on this?
The above opinions are foolish, pointless, and wholly without merit... as evidenced by the following references, which I have not bothered to read, but which I assume support my conclusions:

www.mainseek.com/accidentalist.html
... Home The Debunkers of the Debunkers: Winston Wu Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments
Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena Steve Grenard Rebuttal to book ...

www.survivalscience.org/debunk/torandi-3.shtml
SurvivalScience.org, Debunking the Debunkers Home, ...

www.johnedwardfriends.org/resources/booklist9.shtml
... Entertainment Weekly Attempting to dequackify the study of psychic phenomena, parapsychologist
Radin ... Submitted By: Steve Grenard (sgrenard) Science Moderator. ..

www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jecontradictions.htm
... books and workshops to teach people to develop their own psychic powers. ... Editor's
note: Steve Grenard, also a prolific writer on TVTalkshows, has witnessed a ...

www.cfpf.org.uk/letters/2002/2002-08-20_mr2jr-lst.html
... 2002). Psychic Jungle: E-mail to an Inquirer (July 30, 2002). ... 2002).
James "The Amazing" Randi: Letter to Steve Grenard (July 4, 2002). ...

www.hrvg.org/library/bulletin-board-message-archive/ 2002-10.html
... HRVG and Million Challnege by steve grenard on 2002-10-03 14:33 ... by Steve T on 2002-10-09
04:20 HST ... was supposed to be like, before being tainted by Psychic....

etc, etc... ad naseum

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by xouper
That doesn't always stop me, however, from expressing my pet peeve about the misspellign of "noone" which should always be two words, not one word as is seen too many times on this forum. http://www.xoup.net/peeves/noone.php
But what about a sentence starting, "Noone said..."?
Referring to the Artist Formerly Known As Herman.

[xouper]

Jeff Corey: But what about a sentence starting, "Noone said..."? Referring to the Artist Formerly Known As Herman.Did you click on my link? :) The answer to your question is already there.

xouper: ... my pet peeve about the misspellign of "noone" which should always be two words ...I should have qualified that as my pet peeve about the misspellign of "noone" which should always be two words when referring to "no one."