Policies
There has been a spate of Blogging Policy posts today, with one from Louise Riofrio and another from Aaronson. Scott wants to discourage comments from people who have not published papers in peer reviewed journals on the subject in question. Hmmm. Banning people from the arxiv server isn't enough for some people.
The blogging policy here is very simple. Anybody is allowed to comment about the ideas under discussion. We do not discuss irrelevant personal issues such as what so-and-so had for breakfast this morning. Abusive comments will be deleted. Information dissemination is for the benefit of all. This is the Information Age.
Our recommended response to abuse and threats from private sources in public forums is to ignore them. Threats suggesting that we stop discussing new ideas will only encourage louder discussion. If this results in forced silence, may it be noticed.
The blogging policy here is very simple. Anybody is allowed to comment about the ideas under discussion. We do not discuss irrelevant personal issues such as what so-and-so had for breakfast this morning. Abusive comments will be deleted. Information dissemination is for the benefit of all. This is the Information Age.
Our recommended response to abuse and threats from private sources in public forums is to ignore them. Threats suggesting that we stop discussing new ideas will only encourage louder discussion. If this results in forced silence, may it be noticed.
posted by Kea | 11:38 AM
7 Comments:
Dear Kea,
this lust for power and the willingness to realize it as censorship is as amazing as the refusal to spend just a few minutes and really read what these new ideas are.
What makes me sad that even intelligent people like Scott Aaronson suffer from the same disease. I can only understand this
as an end of epoch. A new revolutionary ontology is emerging and reductionism is fighting desperately to keep its position as the Grand Meme. Individuals are only soldiers in its troops.
To me the sad situation in theoretical particle physics makes it clear how dreadful consequences the censoring of bottleneck ideas can have for once so vital field.
Matti
Kea, I think the time to complain about this sort of thing is long gone. I think I'm a few weeks away from solving the mass problem for the mesons and baryons. This will give several thousand "coincidences", and will be hard to ignore.
Truth is impossible to suppress.
Thank you both for your comments. It is a very frightening situation when the foot soldiers don't even realise that that's what they are. I hope you are right, Carl. But we have already seen many 'coincidences' being ignored.
Kea, this morning I had a coffee, a croissant, and a pee. Later, I briefly considered a model of the universe where dark energy is the result of the continuous annihilation of good ideas with incorrect implementations. And I really think all the readers of this blog are sexually unattractive - including myself.
Oh, and your spam filter continues to suck.
Have a nice day ;-)
T.
All things considered, Kea's policy is the best. Matti and Carl's posts give one hope that there is light at the end of this tunnel. "Foot soldiers" are like the guys in red jumpsuits in James Bond movies--you can't reason with them, so....
Tommaso and Louise, LOL! I guess we just need a good sense of humour.
It does not constitute 'censorship' to restrict comments on a private blog, or preprint submissions to an archive owned by Cornell.
Scott Aaronson has the right to use whatever comment policy he likes, Cornell have the right to use whatever policy they like (as long as it breaks no laws!), that is part of their freedom of speech.
You do not have the right to have your ideas hosted or distributed at their expense.
And whining about 'footsoldiers' (...it seems name-calling goes both ways!) is not going to get you anywhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home