Another WAS thread down in Flames :(

[cledford]

The life expectancy of Jim Drew threads is horrible :)

Oh well...

-Calvin

[Koosh]

Yeah, I left for 3 hours to come back and find it wasnt there, yet I had an email saying a new reply was there!

So, who closed/deleted and why? Who broke the rules?

[wyn1370]

Even if someone did or said something wrong the thread should not have been completely deleted. If it was, I find that no better than when the thread so long ago was deleted on PBnation. An explination would be nice (unless fatman did it, cause he did start the thread).

[cphilip]

No one broke any rules. The Author decided to delete it...

Its his choice.

[cledford]

I think Manike and I were bad

I'm assuming Fatman took it down as it had wandered off course from his original intent. Personally, I don't think that anyone should be able to delete a thread once it's posted - just because you "start" it doesn't mean that you "own" it once other make posts to it as well.

Anyhow, I'm sorry if I seemed to be attacking Jim, but that's how you have to deal with him. He lies, squirms, and changes his story so often you have to be confrontational with him to keep it on track. I have no issue with him personally, but know through "real-world" testing that his claims are inaccurate. I also know from how he hedges around the fact that he has nothing to prove his assertions. He can espouse theories all day long, but both he and Fatman know that at the end of the day a theory is only part of the process and you've A) got to be willing to test it under recreatable circumstances and B) be willing to accept that such testing may not provide the results that you want to see.

I respect what Fatman was trying to do and his attempts to keep it fair, but in my opinion he was going to far. He was giving Jim a showcase to present his plausible theories without providing the one relevant thing that he's been asked for all along, hard data. Once the hypothesis is presented that is the beginning of the journey, not the end.

-Calvin

[314159]

and this was thread suffered the untimley fate of so many other was threads.... *sniff* *sniff*

[1stdeadeye]

deleted

I was only on the second page. When I went to get page 3...Poof!

Though I thought it was an interesting thread, it is definitly the property of Fatman. Allowing the Thread Starter the ower to delete a thread is their only protection against Hijacking!

[shartley]

[manike]

Shartley you look guilty to me...

Oh well shame it was lost, brought more interesting points up. But such is life.

manike

[FatMan]

Errrr ... would you believe an ooops?

Originally posted by cphilip
No one broke any rules. The Author decided to delete it...

Its his choice.

Uh, yup, I guess I did, but believe it or not, not on purpose. Someone sent me a PM and I came back to see it was gone.

I DID throw my hands up in the air and decide to bail on the thread, and I went through and pulled my posts from it - I guess I fouled up and removed the LAST one too!

I decided I didn't want to participate in what was starting to happen. Cleford, I don't agree with you, I don't think that IS the only way to talk to the guy, and I don't think the hypothesis had been fully presented yet - that's why I wanted you to lay off for a bit. But as Phil reminded me, that's not for me to decide.

By all means, guys, start another thread and have at it.

And Shartley, it was too your fault. If it wasn't for you I wouldn't habe been upset and accidentally deleted the thread! Didn't you realize how important that thread was! Poo on you!

FatMan

[Miscue]

De ja vu... well that's rather irritating ain't it.

Heck, if it weren't for disappearing threads... the original TurboRev thread would have not been here to begin with... oh well.

[ben_JD]

Re: Errrr ... would you believe an ooops?

Originally posted by FatMan
...I guess I fouled up and removed the LAST one too!

If you erase for first post of a thread, the thread dies.

[cphilip]

hehe yes Fatman you must have deleted the "First" one. That takes the whole thing down.

[cledford]

Re: Errrr ... would you believe an ooops?

Originally posted by FatMan


Cleford, I don't agree with you, I don't think that IS the only way to talk to the guy, and I don't think the hypothesis had been fully presented yet - that's why I wanted you to lay off for a bit. But as Phil reminded me, that's not for me to decide

Well I'm game to find out what the hypothesis was. I do feel that it could have been easily stated by Jim from the get-go and personally feel that his not stating it is part of the whole game. It's hard to test a hypothesis until it's been stated. Having said that I'm game - if WAS lays off the BS - and it goes down as it would in any lab in the world (to include those in seventh grade) I'll play nice. I just get frustrated by Jim's substitution of marketing BS for actual facts.

I can shut up and refrain from "going for the throat" but he's got to put up something real - so far in many hours of debate that hasn't come close to happening. I'll back down if it does, but won't be holding my breath.

-Calvin

[hitech]

While WAS has spouted lots of BS, changed his story, etc., his explaination of the problem he was correcting with the equalizer board made perfect sense to me. Now I have NO idea IF the original problem actually caused shootdown, but it was a problem that needed fixing. I though in THIS case his explaination was very good. No BS, just the facts.