CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › New NASA regulations

New NASA regulations

Started by ironmarlin1 · · 👁 4 views · 13 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants ironmarlin1hollowtrucker77Timothy Jackson2slycrane94
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active MemberOP
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#1 ·
Could someone please point me toward some actual guidelines regarding what kind of topics are permitted over on the Natural Science boards? I’m honestly a bit lost here; Kate Bishop76 keeps making these sweeping comments about "wannabe philosophers" and a mountain of "philosophical fluff," though if I recall correctly, it’s been ages since I even bothered to start a thread or post anything on Natural Science—certainly nothing remotely philosophical.

Now, don't take this as a provocation, because I am genuinely trying to figure out the boundaries of what’s acceptable to write about on Natural Science. It feels a bit like browsing through certain partisan political forums where everything seems strictly organized by party lines without any clear criteria, leaving the whole thing subject to the whims of whoever happens to be moderating at the moment. So, my question is simple: is it actually permissible to ask questions about physical laws on the Natural Science boards without having the entire thread shut down immediately?

If that’s off-limits, then where exactly can I go? 🤷

I really have no desire to get into whether my previous thread on Natural Science was closed unfairly—it seems all it takes is a moderator’s word for an admin to justify locking a grievance right here—but I truly just want to know where it is possible to open a discussion.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#2 ·
It’s not really about whether you can start a thread or not, it’s more about the actual way you go about opening one, if you catch my drift.
I mean, you really ought to provide some sort of proper introduction, a central concept or a core idea that acts as the backbone for the whole discussion moving forward.
And look, this isn't just some case of moderator power trips or arbitrary rules made up on the fly; it's about maintaining a certain standard of quality that applies far beyond just any single American message board.
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active MemberOP
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#3 ·
If only that were actually the case. But the moderators are insisting that isn't what's happening here at all. I mean, Kate Bishop76 already pointed out that's not even where the issue lies.
Timothy Jackson2 Timothy Jackson2 Member
24 messages
joined Jan 2009
#4 ·
This thread was closed for a good reason, and I stand by it. I already laid out exactly what the issue was. Just so we’re all on the same page moving forward: if a topic has absolutely nothing to do with Natural Science and starts turning into a pointless circular argument—much like those rambling threads on the NASA forums I used to let slide while putting up with nonsense from people without any formal training—I’m going to shut them down immediately, no questions asked. It seems some people are still struggling to grasp the current rules, so don't come complaining to the Board of Directors about my moderation style. If you had just been decent and sent me a private message, I would have been happy to walk you through it. But since you seem to enjoy publicly questioning my calls and trashing them right here, you've earned exactly zero credit with me. So, that’s my final word on the matter, and I don't plan on revisiting this or any similar topics again. Best regards.
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active MemberOP
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#5 ·
It seems some people are having a bit of trouble grasping the current guidelines.

I’d really love to know which specific rules you’re referring to, honestly, because nobody here has actually laid them out yet. hollowtrucker77 mentioned that this wasn't a great way to kick off the discussion, but I wouldn't say that's quite right, given how many times you've essentially contradicted him. So, help me out—which rule am I supposedly breaking here? That's my only real question, just so I can keep things straight moving forward. All this talk about what counts as "fair" or "unfair" feels a little silly to me, especially since you shut down my thread for violating absolutely nothing and then turned around to claim that *I'm* the one being unfair.

If you had been decent enough to send a PM, I would have been happy to walk you through it. But since you seem to enjoy publicly questioning my decisions and tearing them down right here, you haven't earned any credit with me.

Look, this is a forum designed for grievances and complaints. There’s nothing particularly "polite" about sending a private message, and frankly, I’m not interested in hoarding "credit" or playing nice just to shield my decisions from being publicly scrutinized or criticized.
slycrane94 slycrane94 Active Member
58 messages
joined Dec 2002
#6 ·
ironmarlin1 said:Can someone give me some guidelines on what topics are actually allowed over at Natural Science? I’m honestly lost. Kate Bishop76 keeps going on about "wannabe philosophers" and a bunch of "philosophical topics," though I can't remember the last time I even started a thread or posted anything there (especially nothing related to philosophy).

I'm not trying to be provocative here; I genuinely want to know the rules for posting on Natural Science. The situation there feels just like that Alternative forum—everything is strictly "partisan," organized without any real criteria, and it all seems to depend on whatever whim a moderator has at the moment. So, the question is: can you even ask something about physical laws on the Natural Science forum without getting the thread shut down?

If not, where am I supposed to go? 🤷

I don't even want to get into whether my previous thread on Natural Science was closed unfairly, because clearly, a moderator's word is enough to justify an admin locking an objection here. I just want to know where it's actually okay to start a discussion.


Your question is basically asking why an electron is an electron. That might be a fun little thought experiment for a philosophy board, but on Natural Science, it's absurd. Science deals with how things work. The "why" is left to religion and philosophers.
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active MemberOP
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#7 ·
Well, take a question like why water hits its maximum density at 4°C—that’s really more of a riddle for philosophers and theologians with a sense of humor, isn't it? Lately, I’ve noticed a bit of a shift in tactics, an attempt to claim my topics don't belong within the realm of Natural Science just because I tend to "philosophize" a little too much. If anyone is actually curious, I was revisiting Feynman's work on physical law characteristics, where he noted that even the law of inertia remains a profound puzzle, and he actually went looking for answers through NASA. Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Of course not, and it certainly doesn't make Feynman a philosopher.
slycrane94 slycrane94 Active Member
58 messages
joined Dec 2002
#8 ·
ironmarlin1 said:Well, for instance. Why? Water hits its peak density at 4°C—a fact that serves as a playground for any philosopher or theologian looking for a bit of fun. Lately, I’ve noticed a push to claim my topics don't belong in Natural Science because they involve too much "philosophy." If anyone is actually interested, I was reading Feynman's work on physical law characteristics where he noted that the law of inertia remains a mystery, prompting him to consult the principles of Natural Science itself. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really. And it certainly doesn't make Feynman a philosopher.

Just because you picked up a popular science book doesn't mean you've mastered the sum of human knowledge. Besides, science doesn't bow to authority the way you're trying to sell it here. Isn't experimental evidence the only thing that actually matters?

There’s a difference between a fundamental "why" and a "why" that just demands an explanation through basic physical laws. Isn't there?

Just because someone’s a physicist doesn't mean they don't enjoy a little philosophical wandering on the side.
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active MemberOP
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#9 ·
Where on earth did I get the idea that I’d somehow vacuumed up all the world's collective intelligence? I suppose by even asking a question like the one in this thread, I am effectively admitting there’s a gap in my knowledge. Honestly, what kind of authority was I trying to peddle here? Did I attempt to defend a single claim by leaning on some supposed status? Of course I didn't—you're imagining things, and if you stop to wonder why, you'll realize you're being just as narrow-minded as someone reading those fringe conspiracy PDFs.

Just because someone happens to be a physicist doesn't mean they don't enjoy a bit of side-track philosophizing now and then.

Alright, let's settle this. You claimed that any question starting with "why" is inherently philosophical, but I believe I've already provided a counterexample proving that isn't the case. Shall we continue debating why this topic qualifies as philosophy? Because, frankly, your first argument has already fallen flat on its face.
slycrane94 slycrane94 Active Member
58 messages
joined Dec 2002
#10 ·
Does the fact that I’m quoting one specific part of your post mean I’m addressing everything you’ve ever said?

Try reading for comprehension next time. If you stick to this approach, you'll just get the exact answer you're looking for, which gives you an excuse to cry about how the mods are being unfair.
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active MemberOP
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#11 ·
Look, you’re really the only one here playing the philosopher with all this "why" and "fundamentally why" business. Wouldn't it be much simpler to just admit you don't grasp the mechanics behind Newton's first law instead of spinning these grand theories? That would be a perfectly respectable answer; nobody is expected to have an answer for everything, nor is it even possible. Someone else could have easily weighed in on the thread by simply saying, "The answer to your question is unknown." That’s fine. But to toss out accusations of philosophizing, indulging in this pseudo-intellectual "fundamental why" nonsense, and then slamming the thread shut when no actual forum rules were broken? It's a bit much.

As for people weeping over being insulted by moderators, please, don't make me laugh. Let me remind you: the moderators over at Reddit and clearly over at the IRS are the only ones who need group therapy sessions just to console one another. Honestly, the only thing that amuses me is seeing how a bunch of unformed kids—hardly even on the threshold of maturity—can end up in charge of moderation.
slycrane94 slycrane94 Active Member
58 messages
joined Dec 2002
#12 ·
If you already know the answer, why bother asking? Maybe try thinking it through before hitting post next time.

If it’s too much to ask nicely, things can always be handled by force.🙂
ironmarlin1 ironmarlin1 Active MemberOP
196 messages
joined Aug 2007
#13 ·
If I even knew what question you were actually asking, let alone the answer...
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#14 ·
Dave, I’ve laid everything out for you, clear as day, and given you the full rundown
now it’s really up to you to wrap your head around it

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads