Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of WaterStreet
WaterStreetFlag for United States of America

asked on

Guidelines and Practices for P&R and Politics

Any questions about the following guidelines and practices for the Politics and the Philosophy & Religion topic areas?


1.  Regarding the Zone Advisor and EE's "Other Zone":

The EE "Other Zone" includes Politics, Philosophy & Religion, Miscellaneous, Puzzles & Riddles, the Lounges and five other topic areas.

Refer to EE help at https://www.experts-exchange.com/help.jsp#hi92
"Experts Exchange makes the rules in consultation with the Moderators, Zone Advisors and Administrators, who interpret and enforce them." They know the customary ways in which Experts Exchange operates, and will provide direction on how to ask and answer questions...They also help keep questions and answers clear for future users....The Zone Advisors act as technical advisors to the Moderators with regard to the accuracy and appropriateness of comments in technical threads."

If you have complaints about my handling the job of Zone Advisor then you may either place them in Community Support or email them to me at my address in my profile.


2.  Regarding the question/answer process:
Note that EE treats the question/answer format of Philosophy & Religion and Politics the same as the other EE technical areas recognizing that the definitions of "technical" are wide in scope to include usage "in or peculiar to a specific field or profession...[or]...belonging or relating to a particular subject"  From http://www.answers.com/topic/technical

These areas are similar to the other technical areas in that they have a primary question to be addressed along with optional subsidiary questions/issues that help explain the primary question

These areas are different in two significant ways: (a) they can have extensive discussions in support of answering the primary thread question; and (b) the awarded answers are often the  best responses to the primary thread question as it was asked.  

If you primarily want to have a discussion about an appropriate subject for the topic area then figure out a meaningful primary question under which the discussion can be held and awarded.  Questions in the form of "what do you think of this" are not acceptable questions unless there is a further clarification as to what "this" is, and a clarification as to what  particular aspect of "this" should be responded to.

It is understood that often there may be no agreed upon answer, or that there is no answer, or that opposing responses can both be awarded in the same thread.  So, awards in these areas should highlight the most helpful and well thought-out responses to the primary thread question, as it was asked.

The Accepted Solutions and Assisted Solutions should be postings that reasonably address the primary question in a manner consistent with the topic area.  The Accepted Solution should be one of best responses to the primary question.

It is recognized that some participants in these threads expect to be awarded for their good efforts, in accordance with the implied EE contract, and that some receive their reward through the pleasure of participating.  We don't know what percentage of either.  But, the standard EE Q/A format with the possibility of extended discussion supports both interests.


3. Regarding thread content, and inactive threads.

One of the goals, if reasonably possible, is to never delete a thread so as to memorialize it in EE PAQ database.  However, it might have to unaccepted or moved to a more appropriate EE area based on its tone, content and Accepted Solution.

It is believed that active, on-topic, discussions in support of the primary thread question, and the prompt conclusion of inactive threads, will help maintain the vitality and interest in these areas.  If a previously active discussion with many postings results in no further postings for 10 days then the thread should be considered inactive, and that the asker has already received appropriate value from it, and that it is time to award the participants.

Askers and thread participants should speak-up when the thread drifts off topic, and participants should encourage others to open additional threads with new primary questions for these discussions.

Copyrighted pictures and visual insertions must be properly referenced as to source.  They can also be distracting and are generally discouraged.  A picture, visual insert or a web link can tell a 1000 words, but members who post them need to tell us which of those 1000 words are meant to be communicated and how the image/picture/link helps to answer the primary thread question.  And, this must be done without violating EE's "Terms of Use" (linked at the bottom of EE pages)*   Otherwise, these visuals/pictures/links will be deleted.  EE requires that copyrighted materials be properly referenced with a link and minimally quoted.  See EE help at https://www.experts-exchange.com/help.jsp?hi=605.  Going forward, quotes longer than several lines or more than  roughly 100 words are subject to deletion.  As stated above, deletion will also apply to copied visuals/quotes/pictures and those for which there is no explicit explanation as to why they were inserted in relation to the primary thread question.  An attempt will be made to leave the link and a comment  explaining how it relates to the primary thread question, as required above.  If there is no such comment about it then the link will be deleted.  I have no current intention of going back and addressing these issues for PAQ threads.

For active threads, if any members believe that postings or threads in the areas of Politics or Philosophy & Religion are not following these guidelines then please feel free to make a brief posting in that thread, or post a comment in Community Support or email me at the address in my profile.  If you have posted any such comment in the thread at issue and have not seen a reply from me then email me or post the comment in Community Support.

Complaints about how I handle this Other Zone, or EE complaints, should be made to Community Support, but not in the threads at issue where they are subject to be deleted.


4.  Personal attacks, insults, flaming and unprofessional behavior

There are three ways of dealing with this:

(a)  "Experts Exchange, like many web sites which have a lot of interactive traffic, has a "culture" all its own and does its best to make the site as user friendly as possible to ask and search for the best technical and IT solutions in the world. We ask that you treat others the way you want to be treated, and consider what you would think -- and do -- if you were on the receiving end of the comment you are about to make."

"If you feel you are on the receiving end of this type of behavior please report it to the Community Support Zone with the URL to the question and an explanation of the situation or use the Report Abuse button found at the bottom of the body of the question."
The paragraphs above are quoted from https://www.experts-exchange.com/help.jsp#hi322

(b)  Postings that contain personal attacks and/or name calling (as such would be recognized by EE Moderators or Admin) directed toward EE members and/or the groups they might represent are serious conduct / professionalism problems and are subject to be deleted at any time without further notice.  Such groups can include, but are not limited to, race, color, national origin, age, disability, gender, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, political orientation and sexual orientation.  This is in regard to comments about EE members and their groups, but is not about attacking their ideas.  However, simple, unsupported, declarative statements about the beliefs of an EE member or a group, without giving any particulars (i.e., "they have stupid beliefs") will usually be handled as the same serious problem as if directed toward an EE member or his group.

Some examples:

Not ok:      Mike is insane.
Ok:            Mike's idea about _________________ is insane.

Not ok:      NeoComs (or liberals) are trying to ruin this country
Ok:            NeoComs (or liberals) are trying to ruin this country when they say (or do) _____________

In each example, we go from a simple derogatory declaration to a statement that can be argued on its merits, attacked, debated, proven, or refuted.

(c)  Postings that have no contribution to the asker's intention for the primary thread question (as could be reasonably concluded by EE Moderators or Admin) are subject to be deleted.

Note: Deleted postings are only hidden.  PE's and other EE admin can still see them and possibly restore them.  There is often too much time involved to surgically delete parts of postings and to make appropriate comments.  Therefore, certain deletions mentioned above will be made without further comment.  Members are advised to make copies of their postings, if they think might be affected.


5. These are the current guidelines specific to the Politics and Philosophy & Religion topic areas, in addition to other EE guidelines.  They are subject to be changed.  Please subscribe/monitor.

* The two sentences immediately preceding the asterisk were inserted by WaterStreet on 8/13/10, as a replacement for the following sentence: "A picture, visual insert or a web link can tell a thousand words, but members who post them are required to tell us which of those 1000 words are meant to be communicated and how the visual/picture/link relates to the primary thread question."
Avatar of BigRat
BigRat
Flag of France image

I have a question: What is the raison d'être behind these guidelines? You say that E-E in conjunction with Moderators, etc., make these guidelines, but why?
Avatar of WaterStreet

ASKER

BigRat,

1.  "You say that E-E in conjunction with Moderators, etc., make these guidelines, but why?"

It's not me saying that; it's a quote from EE on its help page.


2.   "What is the raison d'être behind these guidelines?"

If you are asking in general, companies have guidelines and policies to help ensure their operations are compatible with their business model and mission.  I know that you know this, but for others, this notion of guidelines also applies to the subcomponents within the organization.

In order to answer regarding P&R and Politics, I think we need to step back a bit and see how we agree when trying to answer some very basic questions.

Why have a Lounge?
Why have a P&R and Politics area that operate differently than the Lounge?
Why have a P&R and a Politics area at all?
Why did you and others choose to ask certain questions in P&R rather than in the Lounge?
Why not have only one area for all three (no moderation and no guidelines)?
Why not do away with all three?
Why have a point cap in any of them?
Why give any points at all in any of these three?
Who cares what answer/response the asker found helpful in any of these areas?
Why bother to save their completed threads in the EE PAQ database -- i.e., why not delete when complete?
Why make EE threads of these areas available to Google, internal/external searches, etc?
Does EE care that someone's Google search shows EE to have goofy or repulsive content?
Does EE want Google searches hits to be attractive advertisements for using the site?
Does EE care that an EE thread might be a search hit for someone looking for violations of his copyrights?
How much human resources overhead should EE have to spend ensuring its operations meet its business model and mission?

I stopped participating in P&R because some treated it like the lounge and felt they were free to insult anyone and denigrate anything they didn't like personally.  As in real life, I walk away from people who act like 5-year olds who must have things their way and can't try to coexist with others who have different beliefs.  EE has a model of trying to provide information for those who are looking for it, and P&R could serve as an area to clear up misunderstandings that people may have about various religions, but only if the environment is conducive to it.
As an EE member and frequent contributor to P&R discussions, I, like BigRat, also wonder about the reason for publication and enforcement of these particular guidelines.
Placing the main focus on things like "thread title format" and "abandoned thread cleanup" seems unnecessary, and certainly secondary to what should be the main objectives of a list of guidelines.
I agree with Callandor's sentiment about insulting comments. I think that the critical guideline is one that is not mentioned at all: The P&R and Politics threads should be "monitored and moderated" for content and the elimination of bad words, rudeness and flamewars.
As they say in the argriculture industry, that's a hard "row to hoe."
What are the two topics that must be avoided at the Thanksgiving dinner table to avoid fistfights between the relatives?
      Religion and Politics
These are topics that inspire passion in people. And experiencing that passion is the very reason that people come to these two forums. So while a judicious eye to find the point where "discussion" turns to "flamewar" would be great -- and conducive to an enjoyable environment, a "too heavy hand" in moderating would actually drive people away from these sections.
As to the other guidelines:  
It seems to me that we are focusing on trivial sidebars -- addressing things that are easy to moderate, but not things that are useful to moderate.  For instance if a discussion was titled "Obama's flaws" rather than "What are Obama's flaws?" how would that detract from the hoped-for discussion about that presidential candidate?  If that thread was started by a new user and then abandoned when he quit the site, it would have full value in the PAQ even if no points were awarded.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Anyway, thank you for opening this topic up for discussion.  It is good to allow participants in these sections a chance to post feedback.
>How much overhead should EE have to spend ensuring its operations meet its business model and mission?

I almost forgot this...that EE is a commercial site. Server space costs money.
Disk storage is cheap... dirt cheap in comparison to other expenses such as bandwidth.  
Think of all of the sites that will give you free disk storage -- 5, 30, even 250 Gigabytes -- for the huge cost of giving them a free, one-time-use email address :-)  The cost of storing of the text of these discussions, and even the graphics, is basically irrelevant.
I meant human resources type of overhead.  I edited the comment and clarified it.
You ask me a lot of questions, WaterStreet, the same questions which I'd ask you, the other moderators and the owners - it's called in a nutshell the raison d´être. Since I don't own the site, nor am I a moderator, it is not me who can answer the questions. But clearly answers to these questions would determine what should or should not happen. That is why I asked what the raison d´être was.
I have been with the site some ten years now and I have noted that the site has had some serious "beefs" with some really excellent technical people who volunteered their time and expertise and were not willing to be insulted by paying customers who did not like their "non-script kiddie" answers.
The site also "gave in" to the tantrums of the Lounge, which ultimately gave them the right to insult anybody they liked. Having this freedom has not improved the Lounge, it has made it less attractive and boring. The more serious debate has moved to these two threads, the reason for their existance escapes me if they are to continue along the same lines as the Lounge did.
I firmly agree with Callandor, with whom I have had many an interesting discussion and with whom never a bad word was exchanged although be disagree fundamentally on many issues. But where we do agree is on the amount of bad manners which permeates these threads. This sort of behaviour is not allowed in most debating chambers - like Congress or the Houses of Parlement or even the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies - so why is it allowed here?
If the raison d´être for these threads is to create a debating environment where serious debate can thrive - possibly to the extent that E-E gets known for it - then moderation along the lines of serious debating institutions is called for.
So under that banner you can start in DanRollin's Torture thread and remove the insinuous remarkes and the downright rudeness. I don't mind a heavy hand, like I said E-E is a private site.
However I do have a suspicion that you might allay. Could it be that some of the worst offenders are so good in a technical TA that E-E does not want to offend them?
Here is an example of EXACTLY what I mean. It was published by NigelRocks in the thread http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Philosophy_Religion/Q_23295104.html#a22033038, which incidentally is his own :-
"It cracks me up to no end. Atheists demand "evidence" of God's existence, but when a scientist claims to have it, that scientist is written off as a non-scientist. I've never seen a group of people chase its own corporate ass around in a circle like this. I don't see profound thinkers here, I see philosophical midgets. I see willing self-deceivers. It's sad."
 This is a direct insult to all participants, whatever their views be.
Earlier in the thread he wrote : "All known science proves that objects can't move themselves". Now I ask you, should I respond to that? Should I point out that in the Quantum World this does not apply? The answer is no. What's the point if you are going to be insulted like that. And that's not the first time he's written things of that ilk. Moderation? Fehlanzeige - as they say here.

 
BigRat,

Thank you.

A big internal EE issue is the amount human overhead needed to spend in tending to things like this.  I've always been willing to do it, but it is intensive activity and often causes a separate debate of its own.

In the past, if we delete something, according to one view, the admin has to save a copy of the whole thread first then go in and surgically remove the offensive remark and show the time and date and by whom.  Nobody has the time to do that, and I still work full-time.  My inclination is to simply delete the posting (which is simply hidden and can be seen and restored by EE admin).  It seems that other sites also do it that way.

This will be a trial period for the next several weeks.  Keep an eye out for what happens during this period.  

So, these areas can't be half moderated.  Either it is or it isn't.  If not then these TA's can be eliminated and their participants can always try the Lounge.
>>So, these areas can't be half moderated.
 
Quite. You should publish the rules on how members have to respect each other and conduct themselves in the threads. After that I'd be totally draconian.
 
I'd have a tool with which a moderator would snip out a posting from a thread - sans regard on how it might disturb the flow - and e-mail it to the author with a standard warning that this is not allowed and clock up a counter on the members account. When the counter exceeds a certain threshold the member gets suspended for a week automatically. The counter gets decremented every day or so. I'd do this in ALL TAs except the Lounge. One negative posting one negative point irrespective of how often it happens. I'd put the threshold at about three points. So if I posted "Scott Pletcher is an idiot" in a thread four times I'd be banned for a week.  I'd have no warnings and no discussions. Members can always query their suspension in Community Support.
DanRollins said:

     These are topics that inspire passion in people. And experiencing that
     passion is the very reason that people come to these two forums. So
     while a judicious eye to find the point where "discussion" turns to
     "flamewar" would be great -- and conducive to an enjoyable environment,
     a "too heavy hand" in moderating would actually drive people away from
     these sections.

This about sums it up.  I've just started perusing this forum and I am already completely turned off -- not by any vitriolic jabs from fellow experts, but by the incessant nitpicking from WaterStreet.

My feelings are:
* Moderators: Let people discuss what they want to discuss.  Yes, even if it's cynical and ugly.
* Experts: If you are offended by something: a) get a thicker skin, or b) look elsewhere.

There is nothing more offensive than repression when people are talking about deep, subjective, personal issues like philosophy and religion.  This forum could easily be Pickiness & Repression the way it's currently being handled.

</soapbox>
jmundsack:
 
 If I was invited into your house and when I came in started insulting and yelling at you, just simply because we have different opinions, you'd never invite me in again? PAlmost certainly not! Is that repression on your part?
 
That's a strawman argument.  This place is NOTHING like having a houseguest.  Internet forums are intrinsically sterile and anonymous, and those who visit them need to expect that people are going to be much, much more liberal with their opinions (objectionable as they may be) than ANY in-person meeting, much less a meeting in someone's home!

I am not saying that if someone here "came in started insulting and yelling ... because we have different opinions" that it should be tolerated.  If someone is making wholesale insults without any philosophical discussion then they are a troll and should NOT be tolerated.  That is when a moderator SHOULD step in.

The "repression" I'm talking about is the nitpicky nagging of "ah-ah-ah...  you didn't ask a proper question," or "ah-ah-ah... you need to take this to the lounge because it doesn't fit here."  It's like every thread you look at in here, the first thing you see is this big orange diatribe about how someone didn't live up to the moderator's subjective opinion of what constitutes an "acceptable" question.

This is especially annoying on questions which, had they been allowed to EVOLVE with a dialog of opinions, would almost certainly have yielded an interesting discussion.  Also, in the technical EE forums, when the questioner doesn't state their question clearly, experts are advised to probe the questioner to clarify what it is they're asking.  Rather than immediately kick someone's question out of P&R and tell them to "take it to the lounge," why doesn't the moderator simply guide the questioner into honing his/her question into something that IS "appropriate" in the moderator's subjective view?

The less you see and hear from a moderator, the better --especially in an opinion-based forum such as this.  A moderator should let people discuss what they want to discuss for goodness sake -- and step in to mediate discussions that truly detract from thoughful dialog.
BigRat, DanRollins, Callandor and others

The guideline was renumbered with the addition of the following section:

4.  Personal attacks, insults, flaming and unprofessional behavior.

We'll give this entire guideline a trial for several weeks.

Who knows, if these don't work, jmundsack might have a lot of new friends in the Lounge with no points, no moderation and no PAQ's?

:-))
jmundsack,

"The less you see and hear from a moderator, the better"

Couldn't agree more.  It's like good government.  The best is the one you don't see.

I could make a number of comments to your posting.  Here are just a few.

"Rather than immediately kick someone's question out of P&R and tell them to "take it to the lounge," why doesn't the moderator simply guide the questioner into honing his/her question into something that IS "appropriate" in the moderator's subjective view?"

Why, because some members, who most of us have known for 4 years or more, will not cooperate or even respond.   The two orange postings you mentioned are no longer there, because their threads were deleted (was done before your posting here) but can still be seen by EE admin., and they were communicated to the member with a comment via email.  

Guidance was given to the questioner, but there was no response, as requested well into the 3rd and 5th day.  What's the saying; fish and company stink after three days?  What you experienced was two dead fish that someone intentionally left unattended until I cleaned it up.  What you can no longer see (but EE can see) is that the questioner had posted the same kind of problematic thread that I had pointed-out two days earlier.  This has the effect to turn-off new people like you.  So, as you asked "doesn't the moderator simply guide the questioner," it because some refuse to cooperate.

I'm a volunteer, and nobody has a lot of extra time to moderate an area like this, nor should it's participants let it become an area that needs lots of moderation.  If it is going to require a lot of moderation effort then there will be no EE support for it and it will (in my opinion) disappear so that P&R and Politics threads can be held un-moderated in the Lounge.  If people want something different from the Lounge then they need to accept guidelines that don't take a lot of effort to administer.  That means clear guidelines and some easy actions.  For example deleting certain kinds of postings without comment or protracted discussions about them.

You seem like a reasonable person.  Stick around to see what happens over the next couple weeks, and then make up your mind.

regards

I appreciate the explanation.  What triggered my posting was that I don't understand what is so objectionable about those particular posts you have since removed.  They didn't seem inflammatory or rude or crude.  While there wasn't much to them, I thought they were fairly provocative "hey-here's-a-topic-now-let's-discuss-it" styled posts.  In at least one of them (the George Carlin one) I found myself thinking, "oh this should be interesting" (as Carlin was quite opinionated about matters of religion).  But the first response was your admin comment about it being the wrong place for this.  The very next one I happened to looked at was the other topic from the same poster, with your same response.  Then I read the "Question for WaterStreet" thread and -- the cumulative effect was that almost every recent post was a discussion of what's appropriate for the Philosophy and Religion forum, but no discussion of the P&R subject matter.

Is there something terribly disruptive about the type of questions that were deleted?  This seems like a forum that people would converge upon to have a lively dialog on a number of topics.  The ones that were deleted could at least peripherally have been philosophical, especially because the people that come HERE would approach them from that angle.

(By the way, I do plan to stick around but usually I'm a lurker.)
I'd like to note that mandelia also posted in that Carlin thread (http:/Q_23560639.html) and he, too felt that the question was perfectly valid.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Site Administrator Netminder had quite a lot to say that concerned this topic.

    What makes a proper EE question in a subjective area like this?
    http:/Philosophy_Religion/Q_23478319.html#22033314

Although there is a lot there, one of the key messages was that sets of rules generally make things harder than they need to be -- for everybody involved. He would also recommend that the focus of the rules be on things that are important, not incidental to the major purpose (T-shirts tucked in, etc). Spending "administrative currency" on less-than-important items is unwise.

At the end of that comment, his summary was on point:  Do we, the current and future P&R and Politics participants (and lurkers) want these sections turned into Lounge-style crap, or do we cooperate to keep it as an excellent place for intellectually stimulating discussions?

>> We'll give this entire guideline a trial for several weeks.
>> Who knows, if these don't work, jmundsack might have a lot of new friends in the Lounge
      with no points, no moderation and no PAQ's?


  Aside: The Lounge does have points and PAQs, so that is not at issue.  It does not have
  abandoned-question cleanup, for the obvious reasons that are similar to here -- there is no
  logical, fair, non-disruptive way to do it.  All Lounge questions remain in the database, whether
  they are closed or not, so final closure is basically irrelevant.  As with P&R and Politics, it is
  nearly impossible to get Free PS on these points alone, so basically the points are irrelevant,
   too -- especially when talking about only those few that are associated with abandoned
  questions. With that comment, WaterStreet echoes Netminder in raising the spectre of these TAs being discontinued or worse, allowed to run wild.   Nobody here wants that.  The thing that people clearly want is a place that is not like the Lounge in one major way:  We want a place where intellectually-stimulating discussions can take place.
I don't see a multiple-page set of guidelines that focuses on mostly-irrelevant items moving us toward that goal.   It seems to me, a simple peer in these TAs, that items #2, and #3 -- and administrative enforcement of them -- could move us in the opposite direction.   Orange-bar intrusions for trivial purposes only disrupt the discussion flow and put a damper on things.  Deletion of comments and threads -- unless warranted under #4 -- is even worse.
I am all for cooperating with the ZA to make these TAs better.  It just does not seem to me that this particular set of guidelines (except for newly-added #4) helps us move toward that goal.



The whole tenor of the the debate is about control in an area of discussion that should be pretty well free of control. The idea that a discussion needs to be good enough to be PAQ'd is flawed. Just who bothers to do a search of P&R subjects? I'd guess vitually no one.

As for rule #4 - "4.  Personal attacks, insults, flaming and unprofessional behavior"

Lovely catch all at the end that will excuse the actions of any ZA or other control freak. 'Unprofessional behaviour' - ridiculous idea. That should be deleted as a reason.

We come here because we like a debate, an argument or we want advice on a matter that would not get a sensible quality of response in the Lounge.

There is nothing 'technical' about belief - it is just that. So please don't pretend that religion is technical.
patrickab,
It is perfectly possible to have lively, intriguing, informative, and even emotionally-charged discussions without the presence of foul language and personal insults.  These two items fit under the umbrella of "unprofessional behavior" so that is a reasonable phrase to use in a guideline.  In a formal debate, the participants are forced -- by the moderator -- to refrain from such things as calling the opponent an idiot.   A clever debater can make that point without ever saying it.  
The unmoderated Lounge is typified by three types of behavior:
 1) Foul language is allowed.
 2) Insults and flamewars are normal.
 3) Constant "noise" -- off-topic chatter, randomly-inserted catch phrases ("gimme poinx",
       "fdisk and format", etc.) -- and outright hijacking of threads.  There is no formal structure
     and the participants seem to like it that way.
That type of environment is not conducive to a reasoned dialog about religion and politics.  Think of a political "discussion" in a pub:  The big guy can win the debate at any time by slamming you in the head with a pool cue.  It's just no good.
The goal is to have a place where people cooperate in a civilized manner to have civilized discussion and debate.  Self policing is the key to that:  If a "ruffian" shows up and starts hurling invective, then everybody should tell him "That's not how we roll here."  If he doesn't get the point, then external enforcement is indicated.  Nobody wants him around, so it's no great loss if the bouncer throws him out.
I agree in principle that the maximum liberty in posting is desired.  If a ZA were to boot people because of their beliefs, delete comments that oppose his personal opinions or that offend an overly-priggish morality,  then we'd be in an even worse scenario than the unstructured Lounge.  
The middle ground is the one where participants do the first-level policing.  Only after the "ruffian" ignores the requests for more civilized, professional behavior would the ZA be called in to take action.  And even then, an unobtrusive use of force should be the standard.  Rather than a orange-bar diatribe to disturb the whole thread (and trigger an endless sequence of off-topic chatter about the action), a quiet deletion and a short warning message in the member's profile would be the best way to handle the situation.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I'm with you in the opinion that the less administrative interference, the better.  
That is why I oppose the enforcement of #2 (arbitrary question format) and the administrative quagmire of #3 (forced awarding of points in abandoned questions).  Both of these are intrusive, and neither is particularly conducive to making this a better place.   In fact, I think that #2 was put in place in order to facilitate #3 (closure of a few abandoned threads), so the cleanup issue turns out to be central to whatever dogma is being advocated here.  #1 looks a lot like a combination of the first two of teh Ten Commandments in the Old Testament -- not a rule per se, but a notice of administrative authority.  It's certainly not important enough to be first in the list.  That leaves #4 (professional behavior) as the only important guideline of the whole lot.  In my opinion.
DR,

>It is perfectly possible to have lively, intriguing, informative, and even emotionally-charged discussions without the presence of foul language and personal insults.  These two items fit under the umbrella of "unprofessional behavior" so that is a reasonable phrase to use in a guideline.  In a formal debate, the participants are forced -- by the moderator -- to refrain from such things as calling the opponent an idiot.

Sorry, but you are not being logical. If you need to give examples of what 'unprofessional' means then that word is inadequate for a set of rules. Instead of the word 'unprofessional', the words that you used would be better, namely - "foul language and personal insults". That would be clear and unambiguous.

I do not like vague words in definitions as they can and will be used inappropriately because it then comes down to the judgement of the ZA. "foul language and personal insults" are pretty well understood by one and all but 'unprofessional' covers too wide a spectrum of possibilities.
Interesting and perhaps relevant AP story on free speech on the Net:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iAfAuNiWBtS8vWv-VsrfPMLAcUUgD91P2MG00
None of the article is a surpise as we know and understand it happens. The question is how it is being and going to be applied here.
Patrick,

Regarding "unprofessional" you made two statements here:
"'Unprofessional behaviour' - ridiculous idea. That should be deleted as a reason."

"If you need to give examples of what 'unprofessional' means then that word is inadequate for a set of rules. Instead of the word 'unprofessional', the words that you used would be better, namely - "foul language and personal insults"."

The notion of "professional" is something that EE chose to mention in nine paragraphs on its Help page. See the quotes below.  This is obviously an important issue to EE.  Nearly everyone here seems to understand the importance of it.  Those who are unable or unwilling to grasp that notion, or apply it to their EE conduct, can find themselves on a collusion course with other members and ultimately with EE.  It means more than just foul language and personal insults.  If one does not understand professionalism then one might intuit EE's view from the Help quotes.  For example, EE equates lack of professionalism with having no class and not knowing your stuff; and it says "Check your ego and your attitude at the door; rudeness, derogatory comments, and sarcastic remarks are uncalled for."

In EE it means to focus on what the asker wants in order to answer his question, not on what the expert wants to present for his own purposes.  It means following guidelines. It also means having conclusions supported with facts and logic, rather than making unsupported declarations.  

EE has a guideline and place for members to post their complaints.  Rather than do that, you opened the thread called: "Question for WaterStreet - and others if you have a view."  Going forward, be sure to raise your complaint in the proper administrative area. Otherwise it will be deleted.  This goes for individual postings as well as threads.  Complaining in the thread is unprofessional and disruptive.  If you feel that strongly then make a formal complaint in the proper area.  

In that same complaint thread you said: "It's now 19th July and so far this month only 6 questions have been asked in P&R. That's not even one question every 3 days. Doesn't surprise me at all with [your view of my administrative actions this July]".  Professionalism is also knowing your stuff and not making wild accusations.  Instead of only 6 questions being asked from July 1 through July 19, there were 15.  If you are interested in a professional analysis then we should look at the comparable period for last year.  It happens there were also 15 questions asked in the same July 1 - 19 period.  Lets even focus this on P&R explicitly by only looking at questions that were opened in P&R as the primary area.  That brings the number down to 13 for both years.  Now that we see that member interest in opening new P&R threads did not degrade from 2007 to 2008 in this period, if we investigate another indicator of member interest, we can see that the mean number of comments for that same time period for threads opened in those periods increased by 10%.  Hardly a degradation.  See note below.

So, professionalism is much more that avoiding "foul language and personal insults".  And, if one has an issue with professionalism then he has an issue with EE, not me.


==== EE Help page quotes regarding the notion of "professional" conduct ====
If you feel you are on the receiving end of any flaming or unprofessional behavior please report it by clicking on the Report Abuse button found at the bottom of the body of the question. This will redirect you to a page where you can enter a description of the situation. Once you hit the submit button you will be brought back to the question.
[...]
Be Professional

Part of being an Expert is knowing your stuff. As important is treating the asker and your colleagues as professionals. Check your ego and your attitude at the door; rudeness, derogatory comments, and sarcastic remarks are uncalled for, and will not be tolerated.
[...]
Avoid Criticizing

There's nothing to be gained by criticizing another Member when disagreeing with his/her suggestions, and it can actually make things worse by provoking a flame war. Don't take a critical comment personally; stay focused on the object -- solving the asker's problem. Don't take the bait; if someone is acting unprofessionally, report it to Community Support.
[...]
Flaming and unprofessional behavior

Experts Exchange, like many websites which have a lot of interactive traffic, has a "culture" all its own and does its best to make the site as user friendly as possible to ask and search for the best technical and IT solutions in the world. We ask that you treat others the way you want to be treated, and consider what you would think -- and do -- if you were on the receiving end of the comment you are about to make.

If you feel you are on the receiving end of this type of behavior please report it to the Community Support Zone with the URL to the question and an explanation of the situation or use the Report Abuse button found at the bottom of the body of the question
[...]
Notes on the Lounge

The Lounge and the Expert Lounge are unmoderated Zones. Except in extreme circumstances, the Moderators will not take any action with regard to posts in either. It is noted, however, that there is an expectation of professional and polite discourse in the Expert Lounge.
[...]
You are expected to behave yourself professionally. If you would not say something to your spiritual advisor, your mother and your daughter, please do not post it at Experts Exchange.
[...]
You are expected to behave yourself professionally. If you would not say something to your spiritual advisor, your mother and your daughter, please do not post it at Experts Exchange.
[...]
This clause is also interpreted to include the theft of intellectual property by copying and pasting items from other websites. Plagiarism is not only actionable; it shows dishonesty, a distinct lack of professionalism, and no class. The safe way to refer to someone else's work is with a link; the preferred method is to post the link with a brief description of it.

================================
Note:  Statistics were taken from EE's Advanced Search with might have caused an counting error, probably not more than one thread being falsely counted.  The final average comments per thread use the truncated mean method (appropriate for small samples which contain some extreme values) where the highest and the lowest values results were excluded from the calculations for both the 2007 and 2008 averages.  Threads and stats shown below (can be opened on your PC for more clarity)

July-1-19-for-2007-and-2008-in-P.bmp
>>  We want a place where intellectually-stimulating discussions can take place.

That was the raison d´être which I was looking for.

DanRollins @ ID: 22043941 : I'm 100% with you here. A quiet deletion and an outside topic warning.

lherrou: Exactly the point I was trying to make. The owners of E-E run the site and they must have a goal or reason for a TA such as this one. In doing so their "rules" will be applied and the "right" to free speech is effectively nullified. It is not a "strawman" argument to remind people about this, asuming that bad manners alone are not wanted. Yes it is about control, so the first thing to establish is exactly what E-E wants. I'm reminded of an expert who left E-E to set up his own site free from all the E-E restrictions and bad policies, as he saw them. A few weeks later he shut it down after being pissed-off with all the bickering about what rules ought or ought not be apply.
Avatar of David-Howard
David-Howard

This has to be about money in some respect. I cannot imagine any other reason. Any search of EE on any search engine states that EE is a site dealing with computer related questions and answers. While I agree that growth is good this was not the draw for me years ago when I joined EE. Just my two cents that perhaps we need to keep an eye on our roots here. I would hate to see us stray too far from the point of origin.
David
David,

Early in the 20th century there were companies that made buggy-whips.  As the automobile became more popular and replaced the horse, many of these companies went out of business because they didnt realize what business they were.  Those companies that survived realized they were in the business of making riding accessories and started to make things that evolved into seat-covers, mirrors, special horns, etc.

I heard that story long ago and the facts might be a little different, but you should get the general idea.

EE can keep an eye on its roots, because the roots are still viable.  In the last two years it looks like EE has expanded its topic areas from a couple hundred to maybe four or five times that number in new categories.  Its business is answering peoples questions, and now, not necessarily about computer technology.  It competes in a market where other companies provide all kinds of answers beyond the computer categories.  Isnt better for EE customers to have one-stop-shopping  where one topic area gets their initial attention, and then they stay for other areas of interest?
Waterstreet,

You say that 'professional' is an important word to EE. You then go on to use hundreds of words to explain what that one word means. I think you have proved my point all too well.

I believe nothing will change your mind on the matter so I will not waste your or my time any further on the subject.

As for EE becoming the one-stop shop for any question - in my view it lacks focus. Perhaps a little market research amongst existing EE members would reveal opportunities.

Meantime I will leave you to re-establish P&R in the style and spirit that you believe is consistent with the re-stated ethos of the P&R area of Experts Exchange - without disturbance from me.
>> "Check your ego and your attitude at the door; rudeness, derogatory comments, and sarcastic remarks are uncalled for." <<

Geez, then what's the point of coming? :-)

As the divine Dorothy (Parker) said:
"A little bad taste is like a nice dash of paprika."

Of course *not* in the technical areas.  But I too don't consider Politics (esp.) a "techincal" area.

And I agree that the typical lazy insults from the likes of Graphixer or BobSiemens are tedious and banal.

There needs to be some flair, some natural flow into them, at least at points.

Once again Dorothy has provided a perfect example:

[Other woman in response to Dorothy's party invitation]:
"I really can't come to your party Mrs. Parker, I can't bear fools."
The instant response:
"That's strange; your mother could."

Or the immortal exchange between Churchill and Lady Astor [or maybe someone else]:

"Mr. Churchill, you're quite drunk!"
"Yes, and you, Madam, are quite ugly. But the difference is this: tomorrow, I shall be sober!"
I'm advocating minimal administrative intrusion.  That includes all over-use of administrative tools.  There should be a solid reason for a deletion -- it should not be common and it should not be done on a whim.   If something is important enough to say, then say it and don't delete it.   If you intend to delete it from the start, then don't say it.
Dan,

"There should be a solid reason for a deletion -- it should not be common and it should not be done on a whim.   If something is important enough to say, then say it and don't delete it.   If you intend to delete it from the start, then don't say it."

I agree.  The posting I made to ScottPletcher about Churchill was on a whim, and I deleted it as I said I would in the posting.

However, there are times when I will make a posting with (hopefully) the intent of deleting it.  These would be certain Administrative Comments that are intended to apply as a limited duration communication.  An example might be seeking clarification of someone's request (such as to move a thread or to edit something); and I will delete the Administrative Comment and maybe the asker's reply so as not to make permanent distraction in the thread.  This is how I choose to handle this kind of issue in my Zone.  Please do not reply here, because this is already off-topic.  If you want to pursue this further then please do it in our PE/Mod area.



The following is the entire sequence of comments before Beta07's posting at Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:04AM EDT and those after it were deleted from the thread at http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Philosophy_Religion/Q_23640576.html  - which was hyjacked.
This can be discussed here.
 
August 12, 2008 12:56 PMQuestionAuthor: Graphixer Date: 08/12/2008 - 05:36AM EDT Title: Why do you believe?
Zone: Philosophy & Religion
Author's Account Type: Qualified Expert
Author's Subject Experience: Advanced
Time Zone: Pacific Daylight Time (GMT-07:00)
Points: 500
In another thread ( http:Q_23630968.html ) raterus has posed this question to EE's resident atheists:
"How have you reached your conclusion that there isn't a God?"
 
But I believe the far more interesting question for me is one I would like to pose to EE's faithful believers:
 
How have you reached your conclusion that there IS a God?
Expert CommentAuthor: mnrz Date: 08/12/2008 - 07:07AM EDT HiRegardless of what they say in any religion, I think we as human are really different from other creatures (animals) and the only difference is our brain, because there are many animal that are very very developed on parts of their body.
 
so I think however, we were developed during millions of years (the evolution) but behind the scene there was something!
 
why other creatures haven't progressed in their brain but we have? why we can plan for the future but they can't? why we understand the good and the bad but they treat as their instinct?
why we now arguing on the existence of God but they don't?
 
I think we live here only to elevate our mind, if we could, we are end up as a real human otherwise we are just another animal
 
*** I speak in general and I don't want to insult anyone ***
 
so I believe in quote: onto our lord, is our return
 
 
 
Expert CommentAuthor: mandelia Date: 08/12/2008 - 08:09AM EDT Although words taken from another thread this is what defines my GOD and solidifys my belief in it.
 
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)"
 
Expert CommentAuthor: redhed72 Date: 08/12/2008 - 09:01AM EDT I believe because God called me to believe.  He opened my eyes and heart to the truth of the Gospel and allowed me to see the magnificance of His grace and forgiveness.
Expert CommentAuthor: raterus Date: 08/12/2008 - 09:02AM EDT I believe in God, not because I've found the proof, or seen enough evidence to demand a verdict.  I believe in God solely because he's changed my life, and for the better.  I can see the power of thinking eternally, thinking beyond my life and into the lives of my children, and the power I have to influence their lives to take on this world and change it.  I see the power repentance and  forgiveness offers to a strained relationship, especially in my marriage.  And I see the power of God when he shows up big in my life when I need him most (like when I'm out of a job and don't have a dime to my name!).  
 
I also see what happens when you ignore God's word and you proceed down a path of selfishness, pridefulness, greed, etc.  I see how destructive those "sins" can be, the result on the family, the children, their job, etc.  That's how God "saves" us, sure he saves us from Hell, but he also saves us from being slaves to this depraved world, to allow us just enough strength to overcome it, if we really want too.
 
Some say it's all about money, that it's all a scam, or it's primitive beliefs to control society and make yourself feel good about myself (which I don't ever feel good about myself!)  I don't think it's any of that, it's about God being God, and you realizing you are nothing even close.  He proves himself to me by taking an ordinary person like myself, and giving him the wisdom to accomplish extraordinary things, in God's eyes (not the worlds).  Oh, and heaven is going to be nice too :-)
 
That's how I know it's real...
Expert CommentAuthor: Jason210 Date: 08/12/2008 - 09:47AM EDT I think many people believe because many are steered by a power that is beyond them.
 
God is just a name we give to that unknown, unconscious thing that is greater than the ego-orientated everyday consciousness.
 
I see no harm in giving the name God to it.
Expert CommentAuthor: mandelia Date: 08/12/2008 - 09:57AM EDT God is just a name we give to that unknown, unconscious thing that is greater than the ego-orientated everyday consciousness.
 
B-E-A-utiful
 
Expert CommentAuthor: Beta07 Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:04AM EDT I personally am an atheist, and I do not wish to hijack this thread, but merely to comment on the previous posts:
No one has yet to present a good reason to believe in a God. It's either poetic dribble, or vague claims which don't necessarily imply a God.
 
 
@mnrz:
 
>>why other creatures haven't progressed in their brain but we have?
Why have some animals developed wings, but we haven't?
Why do some animals have more advanced ears? Or, eyes?
(Do you see my point?)
 
Furthermore, to paraphrase Hitchens:
 
You believe that God allowed life to evolve over billions of years, watching with disinterest at the enormous amount of suffering (inevitable in a natural world); over 99% of every species ever to have existed, has gone extinct; pre-humans dying young, often during childbirth, or in fights over territory; scared of the unknown world, unaware of germs and viruses; and again, God watched over all of this suffering with disinterest, and it was only [approximately] 200,000 years ago that he decided to breath a soul into us? And even then, he didn't reveal himself. Seems a somewhat cruel and superfluous way to get things done, does it not?
And to go even further, if you adhere to any Abrahamic religions, it was only within the past few thousand years that he decided to intervene, saying 'enough is enough, I need to show myself,' and decided that the best way to do this, would be (say) by revealing himself to an illiterate Arab, in a cave, somewhere in the middle east.
 
You HONESTLY believe that this is accurate?
 
>>why we can plan for the future but they can't?
Because we have larger brains, quite simply. And have developed the ability to perform mental simulations, and abstract thought (which has been key to our survival).
 
>>why we understand the good and the bad but they treat as their instinct?
Well, do we really understand good and bad? Is there such thing as absolutely good, or absolutely bad?
Of course not. We, as a society, have decided what's good and what's bad.
There are still Nazi's, and racists; murder and rape; torture and social deprivation; psychics, and Dr Phil; etc.
 
There is a moral zeitgeist; 'the abolition of slavery,' says it all.
 
And I think you'll have a tough time justifying that all animals act entirely on instinct.
Humans often act on instinct.
Many animals show high levels of altruism, and what could easily be mistaken for 'love.' Although certainly not the best example, one of my favourites is the prairie vole.
 
>>why we now arguing on the existence of God but they don't?
Because the concept of a God could only arise in the mind of an ignorant, self-aware being.
 
 
@Mandelia: Pantheism and Atheism are really the same thing.
 
 
@redhead72
 
>>I believe because God called me to believe.  ...
This is what I was referring to with 'poetic dribble,' above. What does this even mean?
 
 
@raterus
 
>>I believe in God solely because he's changed my life, and for the better
What changes have occurred in your life, which could only be explained by a God?
 
Much of what you say in the rest of your comment doesn't really mean all too much; I mean, it simply wouldn't stand. Suppose a scientist were to justify evolution by saying, 'The idea of evolution brings me happiness, and wisdom, et al, thus it must be true.'  He would be laughed at, and rightly so. I personally don't see the difference, here; but perhaps I'm missing something.
 
>>That's how I know it's real...
You mean, "That's why I believe it's real..."
 
 
Expert CommentAuthor: raterus Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:27AM EDT If you've made up your mind to not believe in God, then nothing we can say can ever change your mind about that.  I believe you have a presupposition that "God doesn't exist", and "there is a logical explanation to everything".  Even if I could prove God to you, you'd at that point feel almost forced into a relationship with him.  What kind of love is that?  No, God doesn't want people like that, he wants people willing to step out on a limb with a tiny amount of "faith" first, then he reveals himself to them.
Expert CommentAuthor: Beta07 Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:34AM EDT There are generally two methods of acquiring truth: one is a subjective approach, whereby you guess the truth, and then look for support of your conclusion; the other method is an objective approach, whereby you make no assumptions, and look to see where the evidence takes you.
 
I have chosen the latter. (Well, I say that I have 'chosen' the latter, but really, it's just how my mind is. Am I to blame? Or God?)
 
Expert CommentAuthor: Beta07 Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:41AM EDT >God doesn't want people like that
How do you know?
 
(It's odd that you know so much about an entity which you would no doubt claim to be unknowable.)
Expert CommentAuthor: Jason210 Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:41AM EDT I would say that with the subjetive approach, you ARE the truth. With the objective approach, we use concepts within the discipline of science and the framework of mathematics. So we study the thing from the "outside".
Expert CommentAuthor: Beta07 Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:44AM EDT > I would say that with the subjetive approach, you ARE the truth
Sorry, I don't understand what this means..
Expert CommentAuthor: Jason210 Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:45AM EDT The idea of God arises when you realise that you (the "ego" based "you") are not responsible for (no longer identified with) your actions. Couple with this is the idea of free will...somewhere!

Expert CommentAuthor: Jason210 Date: 08/12/2008 - 10:53AM EDT >Sorry, I don't understand what this means..
 
Qualia. When you see a colour, what you are seeing is your own consciousness - a change in the chemistry of your brain. In other words, everything you experience is consciousness, is you.
 
Ok, beyond this, there is an outer world, but we only experience that through the senses, and the framework of mind and perception.
 
Expert CommentAuthor: Beta07 Date: 08/12/2008 - 11:26AM EDT So are you saying then, that the 'truth' within your mind is no less true than the 'truth' within the world 'beyond?'
Expert CommentAuthor: raterus Date: 08/12/2008 - 11:28AM EDT >>God doesn't want people like that
>How do you know?
 
I'd have to pull out my trusty Bible to respond to that one.  Basically the Bible is God's revelation to mankind about how to have a relationship with him.  In John 14:6, God defines Jesus as the only way to him.  The only way to go through Jesus is to first admit you've done wrong thing in God's eyes, and believe that Jesus can save you from the coming judgment that lifestyle brings (Romans 10:9).
 
>(It's odd that you know so much about an entity which you would no doubt claim to be unknowable.)
I never said he's unknowable, he's VERY knowable, you just have to come to him on HIS terms, not yours!
Expert CommentAuthor: Beta07 Date: 08/12/2008 - 11:31AM EDT > I'd have to pull out my trusty Bible to respond to that one
Ah, I see. Why do you believe in the Bible? And what are your thoughts on the fact that had you've been raised in (say) Saudi Arabia, you would almost certainly be referring to your 'trusty' Qur'an, instead?
 
> he's VERY knowable
But not within the grasp of science?
Expert CommentAuthor: raterus Date: 08/12/2008 - 11:46AM EDT >Ah, I see. Why do you believe in the Bible? And what are your thoughts on the fact that
>had you've been raised in (say) Saudi Arabia, you would almost certainly be referring
>to your 'trusty' Qur'an, instead?
Good point, however I don't see any real prophecy in the Qur'an.  The Bible (in the old testament) states dozens of attributes about "Jesus" who wouldn't walk the earth until hundreds of years later.   Again, that's my viewpoint, I can't prove anything to you, I can only offer you why I believe, and show you from the bible why that is so.  
 
Also, these days, you might could live in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc. and be born to a Christian family, a christian family willing to die a horrible death because they cannot and will not accept Islam.
 
>But not within the grasp of science?
Again, we look at science books two different ways, I can see the biology of the cell, the human body, animals, plants, earth, geology, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. and see clear signs of a creator.
 
Expert CommentAuthor: Beta07 Date: 08/12/2008 - 12:09PM EDT > The Bible (in the old testament) states dozens of attributes about "Jesus" who wouldn't walk the earth until hundreds of years later.
 
To me, this is not convincing; it seems clear that the New Testament was written, very much with the intention of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. But I suppose this is something that we'll argue another time (or not).
 
> Also, these days, you might could live in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc. and be born to a Christian family, a christian family willing to die a horrible death because they cannot and will not accept Islam.
 
I don't think this is an accurate depiction of Islam. Furthermore, the Bible is hardly more tolerant than the Qur'an.
 
> Again, we look at science books two different ways ...
 
May I ask your views on evolution?
Expert CommentAuthor: mnrz Date: 08/12/2008 - 12:11PM EDT Beta07:
 
>>why other creatures haven't progressed in their brain but we have?
Why have some animals developed wings, but we haven't?
Why do some animals have more advanced ears? Or, eyes?
(Do you see my point?)
Because they need it to proceed their life and we could be developed in a way only to proceed our life and not more
 
Furthermore, to paraphrase Hitchens:
 
Youbelieve that God allowed life to evolve over billions of years,watching with disinterest at the enormous amount of suffering(inevitable in a natural world); over 99% of every species ever to haveexisted, has gone extinct; pre-humans dying young, often duringchildbirth, or in fights over territory; scared of the unknown world,unaware of germs and viruses; and again, God watched over all of thissuffering with disinterest, and it was only [approximately] 200,000years ago that he decided to breath a soul into us? And even then, hedidn't reveal himself. Seems a somewhat cruel and superfluous way toget things done, does it not?
And to go even further, if you adhereto any Abrahamic religions, it was only within the past few thousandyears that he decided to intervene, saying 'enough is enough, I need toshow myself,' and decided that the best way to do this, would be (say)by revealing himself to an illiterate Arab, in a cave, somewhere in themiddle east.
 
You HONESTLY believe that this is accurate?
 
>>why we can plan for the future but they can't?
Becausewe have larger brains, quite simply. And have developed the ability toperform mental simulations, and abstract thought (which has been key toour survival).
- Yes but as I told why their brain haven't developed since the brain is most important part of any creature? and only "the larger brain" is not the answer.
 
>>why we understand the good and the bad but they treat as their instinct?
Well, do we really understand good and bad? Is there such thing as absolutely good, or absolutely bad?
Of course not. We, as a society, have decided what's good and what's bad.
There are still Nazi's, and racists; murder and rape; torture and social deprivation; psychics, and Dr Phil; etc.
- That's correct but anyone in his mind can understand the basics of good and bad. regarding Nazi etc. I have to say, this is why we are living here! the people you mentioned don't use their brain and in return their mind will be remained narrow, so they have no difference with the other typical creatures. I think those narrow-minded people are living in so-called Hell and those open-minded people are living in so-called Heaven
 
There is a moral zeitgeist; 'the abolition of slavery,' says it all.
And I think you'll have a tough time justifying that all animals act entirely on instinct.
Humans often act on instinct.
Manyanimals show high levels of altruism, and what could easily be mistakenfor 'love.' Although certainly not the best example, one of myfavourites is the prairie vole.
- Human have both instinct and his will, aprt from that, their altruism didn't change them into human with great ability!
 
>>why we now arguing on the existence of God but they don't?
Because the concept of a God could only arise in the mind of an ignorant, self-aware being.
-- That question is to show that we are completely different
 
apart from that, scentists knows that our brain however, works as a super computer but it seems some basic rules in our brain comes from an unknown area which we call it unconscious part of brain which nobody knows the place  
 
and furthermore, the physicists, in Quantum theory, still don't know how and in which way each quantum acts. They figured out that each quantum acts in a way that they know what to do or someone control them from out of the system.
 
I know you are going to tell me that what we don't know we call it God, but I think the God can not be emerged because he is in a place with one or more dimension so we can't see him unless we get out of this 4 dimension life.
consider an intelligent program human has been created, that program can not understand us since it is living in a world with different dimension. even if we provide it some equipment to have their perception, it can't see the truth unless it becomes a real human
 
Expert CommentAuthor: raterus Date: 08/12/2008 - 12:47PM EDT > To me, this is not convincing; it seems clear that the New Testament was written, very much
> with the intention of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. But I suppose this is something
> that we'll argue another time (or not).
Obviously you can make a case this was all made up.  Have you considered Jesus's disciples, who's deaths were all documented by sources outside the bible?  Some were tortured, some were beheaded, some were crucified, all because they would not deny Jesus.  These guys were in Jesus's inner circle.  If Jesus was not who he said he was, they would have known it.  Tell me then, why 11 of the 12 disciples went to their death if they KNEW Jesus was full of lies?
 
> May I ask your views on evolution?
I accept natural selection within a species, science has proven that because you can observe that in the present world.
 
However I can't accept the assumptions that have been made to stretch this process over millions of years, thus resulting in new species.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we have any present evidence of dogs breeding anything other than dogs.
 
© Copyright Experts Exchange LLC 2008.
WalterStreet,

Can you help me understand your most recent action on the "why do you believe" question.  Specifically can you define "hijacking".   I'd like to firsthand what rabbits I should and shouldn't chase in this zone!

If you feel you need to delete my comments, that is fine, but I do think I was staying on topic to the original subject of the question.  I was merely clarifying :-)

--Michael
raterus,
Check above for exactly what I deleted of yours, as everyone can do.  All of the responses afte Beta07 were (or seemed to be) in response to the hijacking.  If not then you can simply reinsert what you had posted  -- making sure it is addressing Graphixer's question rather than responding to the off-topic discussion.  Sorry if this caused a great inconvenience, but the deleted text is shown above for all to review and/or use as appropirate.
regards
Walter,

At least in my case, the hijack was asking for clarification on my viewpoint, in regards to Graphixer's original question.  In otherwords, Graphixer could easily have asked those questions and I responded accordingly, and we still be on topic.

However Beta07, asked for the clarification, so for one, should he not have done that?, and two, what should happen to the on-topic responses he did get?

--Michael
raterus,

You can see there were about 6 responses to the primary thread question then Beta07 started a chain of 15 postings responding to him or those who were responding to him.  Part of the reason for pasting the entire thread (prior to the deletions) in my posting above is transparency so people can see what this was all about and have a chance to re-use their postings in direct response to the primary thread question or for some other thread.

[my reaction when I saw there were 21 postings and then started to read them was "Wow a lot new people are responding with their beliefs.  Then there was the hijack in the group of  15 postings somewhat centered around that]
This posting contains the full text of a deleted posting from BobSeimens posted in the following thread on 9/2/2008 at about 8:38 PM EDT.

 See https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/23640576/Why-do-you-believe.html
 
 DanRollins posted the following comment to BobSiemens:
 
"I think it is quite off-topic in this thread to try to refute the reasons that participants state in their answers here.  I suggest that we let believers state their views here without criticism or argument."

(The following was deleted because it continues the effort of BobSiemens to use the thread for his own purposes contrary to what the thread asked, and contrary to what the asker stated within the thread about such unwanted postings)

BobSiemens responded, as follows:

OK, fine, I'll back off, but first a complaint.  

This is basically the one area at EE and in life where people state that X is true and their reasons aren't to be questioned and need not be rational.

Mistakes are found when the rationale behind them can be questioned.  Religion continually seems to be 'given a pass'.  

As a social policy, this is terrible.  Every time society grants immunity from questioning we end up making bad decisions.  At one point in time, it was taboo to question whether slaves were human.   At one point in time, it was taboo to question whether women should have rights.  At one point in time, it was taboo to question whether the royalty system was fair to non-royalty.

It's time to revoke this Religion is Sacred policy and replace it with the rational one of Justify Your Claim or Withdraw It.

Religion is serious business.  We stand idly by when 4% of our population is openly discriminated against.  We pretend to ignore that people fly planes into buildings at the behest of the God of Abraham.  We force teenagers to bear children because some people think that a single cell should be treated as an actual human.


BobSiemens,

If this were such a rational site, then why is 'Microsoft' the first selection tab?  How did it come to be that most of us make our living either using or adding to the mediocrity that is Windowsware?

Isn't this supposed to be some sort of a free market where only the strongest survive?  And yet that which survived was a dinosaur that is riddled with viruses and bloatware.

There must be something else going on besides pure rationality for this to have happened.  Expecting everything to be judged by reason alone given the state of affairs is to expect us to judge an iceberg only by the bit that sticks up above the water.
Bob,

The problem with your complaint is that while you seek rights for yourself, you deny others their right to have a thread according to their reasonable needs.  You hijacked the thread after warnings to others who did the same.  You are not a member of the group from whom the asker was clearly seeking to understand their beliefs.  After the asker later said he did not want others berating the beliefs of the participants, you continued to do it and engage others in that discussion of your own making.


Hang on a second..  You just deleted my post in Bob's John McCain house counting thread and the post was absolutely relevent to the questiojn and provided an appropriate answer.  I could understand if it was not responsive, aggressive. or copywrighted.  But given the question that was aksed my answer was completely appropriate.

That response was completely relevent to the question that was asked and was the correct answer to the question in my mind.  The question called for an answer that was a number, my answer was a number.  The topic of the question was John McCain and his economic situation, my answer dealt with John McCain and his economic situation.  The question was responsive, humourous and accurate.  Humor is not against the rules.

Zero is not a flippant or non responsive answer especialy when it is most likely correct.  The question assumes that the government somehow innapropriately paid for a home and I am quite sure that it did not happen that way.  I have no idea why you chose to delete a question that was completely on topic.. Generaly you have better judgement than that, I will chalk it up as an oversight but re-read what you deleted and explain to me why it was neither correct nor appropriate.

If being responsive but humorous is a violation of the rules then the site has some major issues to work through.
The following were deleted from
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/23671715/McCain-needs-help-with-his-counting.html
after postings thier type were requested to be made in this guideline thread where they can be discussed.

=========================================
Expert Comment
Author: wlennon Date: 10/02/2008 - 01:45PM EDT
Sorry for posting WS, but can you tell us why this (Politics Zone) is treated differently than P&R as per the guidelines you have pointed out?

P&R is no different than Politics, once a comment is made in P&R, it always leads into other ideas and topics, I have seen many of those questions morph into something else, often times even when you are a participant there.

These three zones (Politics, P&R) are much more different than tech questions.

It also seems you have an interest in this question as well, and as a Zone Advisor, you have taken a stance politically.

08.22.2008 at 06:33PM CDT, ID: 22294942
>>WaterStreet:Hi Stone,

He couldn't tell the reporter how many houses he owned.  Now he wants a White one too.
Same old same old (no pun intended, really).
Time for a change.<<

=================================================
Expert Comment
Author: behenderson Date: 10/02/2008 - 02:51PM EDT
The Guidelines thread would probably be a better spot for this dialog.  But..

You are flat out wrong about the bias charge.  The reason that new threads should be opened for new topics is simple and twofold.  Firstly there are some people who like to address the same topic over and over and over again so staying on topic makes EE interesting because you have the ability to chose topics you are interested in and participate in them, while skipping topics that bore the life out of you.  it is not fair to people who are not interested in some topics to be bombarded with them wherever they go.  the second reason is that the business model of EE uses points as currency and allowing everything under the sun to be discussed in a single 25 point question is not in keeping with that business model.  If a person is interested in additional topics they should expend their points and open up a question on that topic..  If everyone used 25 point questions to discuss 11 topics then you have no incentive for people to assist others with Tech Questions.

I hate to say it again, but sometimes I think that you believe people are picking on you or there is a conspiracy against you when there is not.  You yourself have admitted that you are interested in redistributing information that the GOP party distributes to you, some people would call that propaganda.  Because you want to regularly distribute as much information as possible your attention is not always focused on the topic at hand, part of your goal is to include more information that you have been tasked with disseminating.  So you and a few other people like you on both sides of the issue don't tend to stay on topic and your comments are more like propaganda or advertising than they are like opinions on the topic being discussed.  In a way you are hijacking the medium to be used for a purpose that is not in keeping with the purpose for which it was designed.  EE Chats are not an advertising medium and they are not a propaganda dissemination medium and people should not be able to bombard threads with talking points.  That is why people are asked to stay on topic

I am really very guilty of not adhering to this principal very well either and it is absolutely not just you that the prohibition applies to.  But I for one would not enjoy it if every single solitary question became a talking points memo about the same freaking things.  And EE would not benefit by allowing someone to fork out 25 points and discuss every single solitary piece of propaganda that people would like to disseminate because that means that they do not have as many people helping others with tech questions which is the primary goal of the site.
Expert Comment
Author: behenderson Date: 10/02/2008 - 02:53PM EDT
The opinion expresed above is my own, EE would never in a million years make me a mod or anyone else who represented the site.... But Ithat does not mean that I cannot have an opinon

=======================================================
Expert Comment
Author: DanRollins Date: 10/02/2008 - 07:25PM EDT

Also an off-topic meta-comment:
The title of this thread and the question text indicate that this thread was started as a general discussion. It happens to contain a specific one-line question (almost as an afterthought, I'd guess since the Asker never again charged that McCain used taxpayer dollars to buy his wife's houses), but if you read the rest of the question text, it's obvious that the Asker wanted to trigger a general discussion about the candidates.

Therefore, almost anything that has to do with the current presidential race and/or either of the candidates should be considered to be a valid post in this thread.
=================================================
Author Comment
Author: stone5150 Date: 10/02/2008 - 07:31PM EDT
Dan is right.

This question illustrates the reason why Politics should be a low / no point Zone.


My comments on the deleted postings



wlennon,

"Sorry for posting WS, but can you tell us why this (Politics Zone) is treated differently than P&R as per the guidelines you have pointed out?"

I'll start to reply to your specific question after you explain why you posted in the thread after I took over closing the thread following the asker relinquished control of its closing; and I asked that no postings be made there that did not address the thread question.  It looks like you were intentionally being uncooperative and causing more difficulty with a problem I'm trying to resolve.  There were three more postings that followed your example.  Why couldn't you make your posting here, as requested, where I would now be responding to it?


bhenderson said, among other things:

"... the business model of EE uses points as currency and allowing everything under the sun to be discussed in a single 25 point question is not in keeping with that business model.  If a person is interested in additional topics they should expend their points and open up a question on that topic..  If everyone used 25 point questions to discuss 11 topics then you have no incentive for people to assist others with Tech Questions."

I've always looked at it that way.


Dan concluded with the following:

"Therefore, almost anything that has to do with the current presidential race and/or either of the candidates should be considered to be a valid post in this thread."

I couldn't really find two premises (or assertions) in text preceding that conclusion that logically led to it.  Help us out here and take what you said in the first paragraph of your posting to show us the logic of how got to "therefore."


Stone said:  "Dan is right. This question illustrates the reason why Politics should be a low / no point Zone."

And, how does Dan's posting illustrate "the reason why Politics should be a low / no point Zone."  I can't read your mind like it seems Dan did.  :-))
>> take what you said in the first paragraph of your posting to show us the logic of how got to "therefore."
Here is what I posted:
The title of this thread and the question text indicate that this thread was started as a general discussion. It happens to contain a specific one-line question (almost as an afterthought, I'd guess since the Asker never again charged that McCain used taxpayer dollars to buy his wife's houses), but if you read the rest of the question text, it's obvious that the Asker wanted to trigger a general discussion about the candidates.
The reasoning is straight forward and it took no special mind-reading skills, just simple deduction. Read the title of the question. Read the question text. Read the subsequent comments made by the Asker. There was no specific question. The only part of the text that could be a question was quite obviously rhetorical.
That is the way that most Politics TA threads are. This was a Discussion thread, not a Question thread. It was a very popular one, at that... over 200 posts by over 20 EE Members! It is a perfect example of what the Politics TA was designed to provide -- interesting diversion for EE Members;  an entertaining break from the "work" part of EE.
I made a modification to section 4 (b) of the guideline, as is now updated above.

The redlined changes are shown below.

4--b--change.jpg
"Ommitting a party bias on this statement, the real reason is that you think you're electing God."

Is there a way to read the statement above where it is not at the very least a minor insult?

Is there any linguistic way that the phrase 'is that you think your' can not be interpreted to be someone else telling you what you believe.

You can't measure a response without taking into account what it is in response to. You have to admit that in American politics the topic of God is a bit loaded and that the accusation that Republicans are all a bunch of Religious nuts is fairly common and fairly ignorant.  God is a loaded word too.  

Her meaning was different than my interpretation.  As it turned out she did not mean that I was an ignorant religious zealot, but that is how I read it and I don't think that making that interpretation was ridiculous.  I gather you read it differently too In any event faith is not absent in this election cycle and prejudice and ignorance is not absent either.

There has without a question been assertions made in this TA that Sarah Palin is somehow an absolute idiot because of her Religious beliefs and I absolutely believe that people who attack people for their faith are closed minded and ignorant.   The generalizations that are made about the faith of Republicans as a whole is based on a very small contingent of folks at Bob Jones University and that stereotype just does not fit the broad breadth and depth of the spirituality of all people who may vote Republican.

In any event given that God and Politics is a loaded topic and that from a linguistic standpoint what was said can absolutely be interpreted negatively I do not think my response was anything less than muted.  It was not a rant.  It made a simple point. If you read it, based on what it is in response to, you can easily see that it is much more of a strong correction than an insult.

"the real reason is that you think you're electing God."

You presuppose to believe you know what I think and that is arrogant, and you are wrong about what I think and that is ignorant.  Find out what I think before you misrepresent it and you will not be ignorant, make sure you state what I believe in response to something I said and you won't be arrogant.

That is the spirit of my thought when I wrote what I wrote and I took strong exception to being corrected on it.

This is in response to Dan Rollins' posting at the following link where we started exchanging postings as to whether BobSiemens had been "driven from the site."
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Philosophy_Religion/Q_23995310.html#a23409648


Dan,

Thank you.  I generally agree with your reasoning, but we differ as to the meaning of "unfairly" and whether Bob, in particular, would feel humiliated over the deletions that were at issue.  For those of us who interacted a lot with Bob, I think it's hard to imagine someone with more thick skin and resilience.

I think Bob left the P&R and Politics Zones for his own practical reasons.  The following is a quote you might have seen from one of our Admin/Mod/PE threads:  Following a greater emphasis of guidelines in the P&R and Politics Zones that started last July, I said that I think certain members "no longer participate, because of one or more of the following reasons:  (a) their basic mode of participation was no longer accepted -- spamming threads, diverting the discussion for their own purposes, or clowning around; (b) they could not accept or would not cooperate with moderation attempts; or (c) without being able to flame or insult, the zone was no longer fun [for them]."

So, I think Bob just decided that the P&R and Politics Zones were no longer going to operate in the mode he preferred to conduct himself.

As to why he apparently left EE entirely, my guess is that it's based on the same reason.  These Zones were, by far, his main EE participation.  75% of the last 100 threads he commented in were in these two Zones.  See the summary below (the raw data is available to all in his profile)

Zones.gif
The link in the thread question portion of this thread was updated to show the correct EE Help statement link on Copyright requirements, as follows:

https://www.experts-exchange.com/help.jsp?hi=605
Are quotes from the Bible considered copyright infringements?  It's my understanding that after a few (thousand) years,  it goes into the public domain.

Interesting point.  But how about the sources that present them to us and translate them from the original Hebrew/Aramaic?  For example, the different various English translations available through biblegateway.com are copyrighted as expressed per the following:

"Unless otherwise indicated, all material on this Site, and the compilation of such material, is Copyright © 1995-2009, The Zondervan Corporation. The copyright notices for the searchable works displayed on this Site are included in a separate box to the right of the search results."  from http://www.biblegateway.com/terms.php
Maybe open a thread question?
Some translations, such as the KJV, are considered public.  Others, like the NIV and NASB, are copyrighted, so it depends on what translation you use.  But overall, quoting several verses is not considered violating the copyright; copying the entire work is.  It's translations that are copyrighted, not the Bible.  Zondervan, which owns the NIV version, is one that charges royalty fees for copies of their translation.
I just came into work this morning to find an Expert Alert to this thread.  Upon reading it (skimming), my heart sank.  I completely apologize if I have offended anyone with any of my postings in here.  I try to be very cognizant of others' feelings as I view the P-n-R zone a great tool for me to share my faith.

Please accept my sincerest apologies if I have offended any of you.

If I have not... sweet... know that I am here to help each and everyone here experience God's love... if that means engaging in directed conversations, I am happy to go there... just know that when more than a few participants mentioned that they will walk away from 5-year old behavior - that I am of the same mindset.

Have  agreat week!
The text of the New American Standard Bible® may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of The Lockman Foundation, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book .
The question is whether or not the site wants them reprinted.  I think that it is a perfectly reasonable editorial decision to dissuade posting long sections of scripture.  That would make P&R much more about philosophy than religion.  I certainly don't have a problem with scripture but it is not my site and I have not been delegated the task of moderating it.  What I can tell you is that it is rather universally understood that the bible can be quoted.

This posting is made available for discussion with SStory (in reply to his concern about it) and for any other intersted person as to why portions of his posting were deleted in the following thread:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Philosophy_Religion/Q_24211137.html
The first part below is my explanation to him. The second part is a copy of his original posting before portions were deleted.

====================================
(email from WaterStreet on 03/11/2009)
SStory,
Please refer to your posting in my thread: "Who speaks for Christianity?" at
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Philosophy_Religion/Q_24211137.html
It is copied below, as you originally posted it.
This is an example of your recent participation in the Philosophy & Religion (P&R) Zone threads where many of your postings focus on preaching off-topic homilies and sermons with what seems to be relatively little or no emphasis on addressing the primary thread question. After the 4th paragraph you clearly addressed the thread question in a very acceptable way for the P&R Zone, and it will likely be one of the awarded answers. The sermon in the first four paragraphs was deleted as being an off-topic diversion, per the warning stated in my thread question. I see you have the skills to make your contribution quiet well without it.
Just because the thread is in a philosophy and religion zone does give free license to sermonize. The task of participating experts is to directly and professionally address the asker's primary thread question without introducing off-topic, or unnecessarily offensive or inflaming comments. Religious issues are legitimate topics here, but unnecessarily expressing moral judgments and declarations (as in sermon, homilies or preaching) has and will trigger some members into unpleasant responses that draw more of the same. This is one reason I warned participants in the thread question about deletion of off-topic comments. The other reason is that we want to try to keep these threads focused. Although we tolerate minimal side-talk, the threads are not to be a platforms for promoting one's own agenda.
If you want to have a relatively unfocused and un-moderated thread discussion or communication of your particular beliefs then you can open a thread of your own, not in P&R, but in the Expert Lounge Zone (this is not the same as the EE Lounge Zone). But, avoid making sermons, declaring moral judgments and giving homilies in the other zones, unless explicitly asked for them by the thread asker.

==================== the original posting follows =======================
Expert Comment
Author: SStory Date: 03/10/2009 - 10:22PM EDT
It is true that God has chosen to spread the gospel through people...most of the time. The word gospel is the word "good news' evangelion--in Greek so I've heard. I've heard the word was used to announce the birthday party of the Caesar--who by earthly standards, at that time was THE king. It was an invitation to the party.
God's gospel is also an invitation to a party, except, the partiers will never feel bad, never get tired, never regret what they dead, have all the energy necessary to have the great pleasure imaginable for ever. LIfe is sort of like the big game...in a way... right now we are all on the field. Soon we will be off the field and the next players will come in. Eventually the game is going to end. God's side has already won...so we know the outcome. God has invited all who will come to a great big party at His place--after the game, but you must RSVP through Jesus (receive the invitation and ask Him into your heart as Savior, Lord and King), before you leaven the game. Once you leave the game, it is too late.
There is nothing fun to do outside the party. Those outside the party perhaps get to see those inside the party enjoying themselves, but those inside the party do not see or if they are not hindered from enjoyment by those outside the party. The point is that the ultimate partier. The one who invented all pleasures and wanted us to have them in the proper places---sex was God's idea, but within marriage. So were many other things. His party will be far better than the best part of sex, endure forever, and those who attend will be given bodies that can enjoy it and not short-circuit, nor grow weak or weary.
All that is required is to RSVP to Jesus. Accept His invitation to come into your life and grant you a free ticket. Sure you may have to suffer a little in this short life and give up a few "pleasures" that are fleeting and don't last, but look what you get in return in the end (see above).
Christianity is about
1.) Us being lost sinners on our way to hell and in need of rescue from God's certain wrath
2.) Jesus being perfect and having died for our sins to pay to penalty, and offer us a way of escape from God's wrath as well as an close personal relationship with God.
3.) Us realizing facts 1 and 2, and inviting Him into our hearts, repenting of our sins and trusting Him for our salvation, and following Him alone as our Master.
Any church or religion that isn't teaching this, isn't teaching Christianity (following Christ), but rather following men or the teachings of men.

WaterStreet,
As this is the designated location for these discussion, I'd like to talk about your deletion of anand_2000v's comment here:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Philosophy_Religion/Q_24257207.html#a24410211
Your justification of that deletion was that it was:
>> ...without explanation and much longer than 100 words.
First, a word count indicates that it was
116 words
in length. That certainly falls within the "roughly 100 words" guideline; it was four short sentences (surely the term "much longer" implies at least 117 words!) . It was fully attributed ("Story by Kahill Gibran"). It did not provide any additional commentary, because the content of the story supplied that. It was about belief in God, which is at the very core of the Creationism/ID debate.
The comment did not disrupt the flow of the discussion, and in fact contributed to it quite nicely. However, the subsequent series of posts about the deletion most certainly DID disrupt the thread.
Since this comment fit quite completely within the Guidelines, was obviously not made with sinister intent, did not disrupt the flow of the discussion, was totally on topic, and was interesting to boot... I have to ask you this:
What's is going on?
Are you trying to chase off anand_2000v? If so, why?
Wouldn't it be possible to focus on the egregious violations and avoid administrative actions on comments that are borderline or, as in this case, completely within the guidelines?
>> I didn't say anything about attribution as the reason.
But you certainly mentioned it, saying, and I quote:
   >> The quote also lacked attribution...
    http:Philosophy_Religion/Q_24257207.html#a24417876
(which lead me to think you might have been referring to some other comment by accident)
I did use discretion.  I have not commented on other deletions.  I did not make an issue of it in the thread (it's already littered with dubious admin comments and deletions, so that would be counter productive).  Refer to your first sentence at the top of this page:
     >> [Do you have] Any questions about the following guidelines and practices for the Politics
     and the Philosophy & Religion topic areas?

So I posed a question about the interpretation of the guidelines in a particular situation.  Your answer failed to convince me, but then I'm not easily convinced and you are not required to defend your guidelines.   As far as I'm concerned, the issue is closed.
<sub>
As I understand it, Ryan_R, this question is to remain open so that we can post questions to WaterStreet on exactly what the practices and Guidelines are. Incidentally where is WaterStreet?
As I understand it, Ryan_R, this question is to remain open so that we can post questions to WaterStreet on exactly what the practices and Guidelines are. Incidentally where is WaterStreet?
recommended: PAQ,no refund (as with ALL P&R abandoned Qs
<< Posted under wrong account >>
 
WaterStreet
Core Zone Advisor
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of captain
captain
Flag of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Converting to an article is an even better idea.  I'm closing this thread and will do that in the near future.  Thank you

WaterStreet,
Core Zone Advisor