October, 1 2009



Comments & Other Things new

Our loyal PhysOrg.com readers may have noticed that we have introduced a new guideline for comments and some other minor changes to the comments system. We are constantly working to improve the quality of our website which includes our readers valuable input.
Our 1,000 character limit for comments has raised concerns among some of our readers. Therefore, we have some explaining to do.
The comment section is what it is. It's not a space to propose new theories or propound thoughtfully considered personal research. Simply put, the comment section is not intended to be a substitute for an article. A reader can put a link to a well respected source in the comment section. Also, a reader may include a link from a science based article published on their website or blog. Another good reason for limiting comments is that long comments tend to 'hijack' the discussion. Lastly, "brevity is the soul of wit".
Another new feature is the use of a moderator for our comments section. If a staff member moderator finds that your comment violates the comments guidelines -- it will be removed and you will receive a PM from PhysOrg Support, stating a reason (e.g. POINTLESS VERBIAGE, OFF TOPIC) and a link to the removed comment. You are welcomed to fix your comment and post it again.
The new guidelines also address pseudoscience posts. This means any serious statement or claim that is not supported by a reference to the scientific literature or peer-review journal. As our erudite readers know there are a lot of 'white spots' in science, but making 'raw' statements is not acceptable. We support mainstream science. Linking to 'crackpot' sites is also prohibited.
Other strict policy concerns political and religious discussions. We want to maintain neutrality, thus, any political or religious statements will be deleted.
We challenge everyone to come up with comments that are thought-provoking and educational. As always, we encourage all of our readers to send us comments and ideas.

Gee, that sounds vaugly familiar. Seems we're not the only site getting hammered by pseudo science.

 

Gee, that sounds vaugly familiar. Seems we're not the only site getting hammered by pseudo science.

Let me guess what aspects of pseudoscience they are getting lumbered with

Seems there is a mobilisation to get some credibility from reputable sites. We have wondered why we seem to get our fair share here at AAC.

Dave

 

We have a new policy in place as well. Scammers must be hungry for business.

 

I suspect for pseudoscience, PhysOrg may include such things a ionophoresis of your feet to get rid of harmful humors and so forth. As strongly as I agree with PhysOrg, I haven't seen that we have a problem with such rubbish here. At worst, they are an occasional amusing post.

I like our new policy, as I have said before, and I hope it is enforced. I would even go so far as to suggest that once you kill the weed, you should pull it from the garden, i.e., delete it. Maybe that will be a next step. Right now, it is great just seeing the threads locked.

John

 

It's been tempting to pull the plug on the whole mess, but the past threads are being left on as proof that there are no unexplored areas in the overunity/free energy/HHO spectrum.

Future OP's get moved to this forum and directed to cull through those old posts for every possible answer. I don't imagine anyone wants to repeat all that work of refutation and attempted education.

We are here as a resource, so the information is worth preserving - even if some of the OP's overstep the bounds.

 

I've seen several current posts where they are working on a HHO system, but as long as they are talking circuits I don't see the harm. It's their money to waste, and they will come away with skills.