Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 811:
Line 811: + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 17:00, August 16, 2010
, 17:00, August 16, 2010→Countering the counterexamples: Read up for my rebuttal to "frustrated with this opposition"
The content of this page aside, I question whether it serves the interests of CP for it to exist in its current form. CP has been lucky to attract a long string of competent math and physics editors. Yet once again it finds itself in the position of not having any except ASchlafly and Ed Poor. Many of these editors were good-faith contributors who wrote a lot of other science articles and generally improved the site, but were eventually driven out after becoming frustrated with this opposition to relativity (and its cousin, the pervasive skepticism about complex numbers).
The content of this page aside, I question whether it serves the interests of CP for it to exist in its current form. CP has been lucky to attract a long string of competent math and physics editors. Yet once again it finds itself in the position of not having any except ASchlafly and Ed Poor. Many of these editors were good-faith contributors who wrote a lot of other science articles and generally improved the site, but were eventually driven out after becoming frustrated with this opposition to relativity (and its cousin, the pervasive skepticism about complex numbers).
:Actually, it was their refusal to write articles on basic topics accessible to our average reader's background that sealed their doom. While Andy is much more tolerant of "advanced" articles on math, etc., I prefer that each article at least '''begin''' with an introduction that even a high school student can understand.
:I even started to suspect that this refusal went beyond mere inability to empathize with our readership, but could be a deliberate flouting of editorial policy.
:Bottom line: it's not the topic, but how it's described. No science topic is out of bounds here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:00, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Yes, maybe free speech dictates that this page ought to remain. But when the viewpoints of supporters of relativity have been ''without exception'' removed from the page, is there really free speech at all? ASchlafly, you remove these views on the grounds that they are not logical. But their proponents hold them surely as you hold your position, so would it not be reasonable to allow the other side to be posted somewhere, maybe on another page rebutting this one?
Yes, maybe free speech dictates that this page ought to remain. But when the viewpoints of supporters of relativity have been ''without exception'' removed from the page, is there really free speech at all? ASchlafly, you remove these views on the grounds that they are not logical. But their proponents hold them surely as you hold your position, so would it not be reasonable to allow the other side to be posted somewhere, maybe on another page rebutting this one?