|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 12:21:53 GMT 1
It has happened twice on me now, where the reply button is missing from the bottom of a thread. It still appears in others and even if I log off and back on it may still be missing.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 12:23:18 GMT 1
There appear to be some 'locked' threads (little black padlock symbol on the folder icon)
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 12:25:40 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 12:26:36 GMT 1
lazarus, I see now the level of your abilities  |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 12:31:15 GMT 1
Any idea what causes them to be locked in the middle of viewing responding? Is this permanent or just until some moderation takes place I wonder.
I'm fairly sure it happened yesterday but was ok later.
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 12:34:51 GMT 1
The thread that got locked yesterday is still locked I thhink radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=8I assume the mods/administrators have stepped in to end the discussion but as it had not got to the stage of outright abuse, I'm not sure why. That's why I've asked if they could explain their action - so that we can avoid the same issues arising and maintain a flowing debate. At the moment, it's even more frustrating than Anna's "sadly off topic" |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 7, 2010 12:35:37 GMT 1
Lazarus, me old clock spring,
You may have also noted the lack of a 'CATP' button as well, it's all been designed for ease of operation, with the poster in mind. Technology moves on....
StuartG
The lock widget is a sign of it's chastity to keep it's virgin comments unsullied by people like me who have a tendency to scribble over the walls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joanne Byers on Sept 7, 2010 12:36:14 GMT 1
They got a bit samey and repetitive.
Time for a new topic, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 12:37:04 GMT 1
Stuart - there is a 'report to Mod' button though
I hadn't thought that the discussions that are locked had got into a cat fight (yet)
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 12:38:11 GMT 1
They got a bit samey and repetitive. Time for a new topic, perhaps? I don't agree I thought that as long as folk were polite (and kept away from religion), the discussion would be allowed to continue - is this not the case? |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 12:40:20 GMT 1
They got a bit samey and repetitive. Time for a new topic, perhaps? I thought at least Ocean Acidification is quite a current problem, though some more informed poster would help. |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 12:43:42 GMT 1
so this "Post what you like on science and chat in real time. No restrictions here except keep off religion! " from the opening thread wasn't actually true.
We can post here for as long as we don't bore the administrators - are we a form of free entertainment (dancing bears)?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 12:47:49 GMT 1
I agree with Joanne,
They had dissolved into the usual circular argument:
I'm a scientist, you're not.
Evidence?
That's just assertion
It's not peer reviewed
It is logical
No it's not
Here's more evidence - empirical evidence
And some logic
It's not from a recognised scientific journal
It's not peer reviewed
But peer review is no guarentee of veracity
Then it's not scientific.....
and on and on and on
Yawn
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 12:51:47 GMT 1
I assume that those bored by particular discussions do not need to either ead or participate in them.
The only reason to lock them from further comment would be if they had broken the rules of this board.
As the rules appear to be no religion and no abuse, I don't think these threads deserved to be locked.
I still can't find the rule that says 'no boring the administrators or other board members'
|
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 13:06:20 GMT 1
I agree with Joanne, They had dissolved into the usual circular argument: I'm a scientist, you're not. Evidence? That's just assertion It's not peer reviewed It is logical No it's not Here's more evidence - empirical evidence And some logic It's not from a recognised scientific journal It's not peer reviewed But peer review is no guarentee of veracity Then it's not scientific..... and on and on and on Yawn I'm not sure you can really claim it is a circular argument when you are asked for evidence form a scientifically peer reviewed source on a science forum, particularly when 'none came the reply'. But maybe you don't think it is logical for a rationally minded person to expect people to back up their assertions? |
|
