Blog commenting is how we reach for the conversation of the 21st century. When people learn not to respond to trolls, that’s one small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind.

But, hey!- it’s your blog, you can do what you want with it.

Late arrival here, though that’s not uncorrelated with my point … I’ve pretty much stopped reading cosmicvariance (at least regularly; just noticed this thread since I haven’t checked in for a while), and it’s essentially because the noise level is too high for my taste. Comments are my favorite part of the handful of blogs I read, and I haven’t really enjoyed comments here for a long time.

And don’t forget the -5 point starting credit.

It would need to be tweaked to work with CV, but it’s always nice to move some of the editing off into the hands of the readers.

People throw the term “crackpot” around quite loosely, as if it is “an idea.”

Do you realize how insulting this is to another human being? I really don’t care if your a “top notch scientist.” Is this the kind of thing supposed to be the standard?

#37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

I am sorry to say, by this index, all string theorists have 50 points against/for them?

So by using “this index” we see where stereotyping has taken place. An attitude about those who have spent a large part of their life learning. Maybe not to smart, about cosmology, or string theory, with just has a “little flavour” of them all. Certainly more, then just reading one book?

People attacked Peter Woit because he was relating “intelligent design” as the string theorists motto? But this has changed through dialogue? By example, those who are “far apart” in what they think, terming others, as a crackpot?

Shall I call the person who created the crackpot index a crackpot? It’s just not right.

So people had been “band” for such things?

Shall one make an exception for somebody who is a good craftsman? Or shall we leave them alone, and just exterminate those who are the seers?

Now you got to remember this definition is not mine, and by a consensus would you categorize the person who wrote it? Would you “categorize someone” who can do good calculations and is very smart about these abilities. “Possibly” the next Einstein? No, it’s not me:) #30 Whew!

Power to the people, Sean, power to the people. And that’s why we love you too, man.

Would this blog be a better place if the Heavy Hand of the State slapped down some of the noisier contributors,…

Slap those crackpot punks down, Sean, slap ‘em down like Dembski.

…or is the chaos part of the charm?

Or take a lesson from Demski’s commenter rules on how to convey to people that commenters are there for your own personal amusement.

Interpolate this: art is the means by which philosophy can be made palatable to the average person.

If people weren’t interested in being entertained a little, they would just buy your book.

On Plato (the commenter) in particular, I’ve never viewed him as a crank, but I do get the distinct impression that English isn’t his first language. Combine that with a flair for an elliptical turn of phrase, and his comments can present tough sledding, but I don’t think they are of the crackpot variety.

While I recognize the experts as well, it is the experts that decide where they will comment. Some how I controlled what they were going to say? Look at John no problem. Look at how good scientists speak to each other? Lee Smolin and Joe Polchinski. Who has not heard of them?

If you had stuck to learning then you would know of the respect I have had for them and how they have been leaders in my continued research.

Maybe asking them in regards to their respective areas of expertise if they felt that they were derailed.They can pick where they choose to respond and they did.

Joe may talk about string theory(an abstract world), and I liked JoAnne’s impute in regards to high energy because of the methods being developed to look at the physics. Like the group assembled here was the right blend? Your varied topics? Those of interest I respond a little too and those I thought each has their own idea of value of what life is to them. That the blended groups thoughts about other things which were of no interest so I skim over them.

It was more the idea sparked in my mind to continue my own search, the substance blog entries would send anyone looking into those general areas. Do more work in understanding topology, what the universe was actually doing.

Who of these experts could speak so clear that even the layperson could actually understand what they were saying? And you thought myself cryptic?:) It meant more homework. To see the basis of their thoughts. I tried my best. Shall I spell out for you the good scientists who have reach across the abyss of the most profound and abstract?

Not only are the craftsman reading and commenting on their expertise areas, but the seers are reading too pushing the boundaries. If you do not understand this statement here then you have not read Lee Smolin’s work. Maybe you can read more on that and background dependence/independence at a later time.

Lastly, notice the numbers besides the comments on the right? Now match them up, as you read the entires. They are already being deleted if not thought appropriate.

I too look at the expert explanations as well and truthfully read to see what tidbits will be of value. Help to lead me in new directions of science.

No I am not crazy and a crackpot, even if if the ground swell saids I am. I am truly thankful for my character name now.