StringJunky

I don't think anyone is arguing against the choice, but the prejudgement of the type of candidate to be decided.

Well, it turned up there. I must have had a hunch of where it was heading... and here it is, but iNow said he omitted a part because he couldn't find it. I accepted that, but it did skew the perception of his intent. My interpretation was, and I think a couple of others, was that it was being argued that precedence justified the present, in a nut shell, and not that it was a first of its kind that deviated from the past convention.

Of course not, but one should be mindful of collective hypocrisy. The squeaky gets the grease, and clearly it is the exclusionary faction that's getting in the news and. hence, looking like they speak for feminists as a whole. JK Rowling and some other prominent feminists are exclusionary to a subset of the population, that they deem are not legitimate members of their category. People like her get on the front page.

I had a hunch after that you were talking about other forums. Yes, less is more.

To you there isn't an issue, maybe, but there clearly is to other reasonable thinking people. It doesn't matter what the prescribed candidate criteria are, it's still prejudging the outcome, it's not cricket.

It's called 'prejudice'. We know the world's messy and full of kinks in practice, but it does no harm to say that "in principle, it is wrong". You are right though, the US system, as practiced, is ultimately at fault. So you are using the past to justify the present? It doesn't matter which administration, or which point in history is used, precedence says it's ok.

Emoticons send out more information about intent than rep points. That device came about for a reason, namely to address the limits of the written word in online social interactions. Not everyone has your language skill set.

Did I bring violence into it? That appears to be a needless distraction and red herring. I'm more focused with the principle. Feminists appear to be complaining that their, implied, territory is being trodden on. Read CharonY's post again and reverse the genders, with respect to 'womens spaces' that my post was refering to as a counterpoint. The issues are two-sided. Too many people are 'fighting for a cause' when discussing contentious subjects, when displaying the indifference and emotional detachment of a scientist might be more fruitful in finding a solution.

I don't think we are looking in the same direction.

OK.

Like when feminists feel their 'territory' is being trodden on by trans-females.

Then you need to open your mind a bit to possible other POV's and how they might interpret a particular post. Telepathy is not in the human sensory repertoire AFAIK.

OK. In the absence of Democratic exampless, it did look like you were using precedence as a defence.

In my defence, I did propose a like-only format.

I see no strawman: iNow 15 hours ago He's listed here things passed by GOP administrations as a means of rebuttal. I can only interpret that as "They did it, so we can".

If people feel that no system is better, then I'm up for it. Even if it's predominantly outsiders doing it, it's looking more and more like graffiti, in effect, to me. Removing it will remove suspicion between the core members.

It has been on my mind a while, and seeing a comment by studiot about the number of neg reps in a thread, prompted me to say something. I feel quite strongly now that it is causing harm and resentment amongst highly intelligent and thoughtful members.

I think it's been a long time since we last discussed rep points, specifically negative reps. Originally, I thought they were a useful tool, but now think they cause more harm than good. This is because people seem to be using them more and more as arrows to reinforce their position in a discussion, and when several posters do it to someone in a minority position, it appears they are being subjected to mob justice. This is happening between long-time members who know each other well. It's striking me now as a petty weapon, rather than a device to moderate uncivil behaviour and other social negatives by generally less comitted newer posters. Nothing will be lost just having a like-only system because persistently uncivil, intransigent posters are banned anyway.

Has it occurred to you that the apparent 'significant' rise might be due to scientists eyes being opened to see clearer, with better instruments and processes? This is what John Tyndall had to work with mid-19th century: You can't put that in your bag of tricks and go roving around for data.

Ive used it since about 2005. Extremely reliable.

A menage a trois. Marriage of three. I'm reporting.

Probably the best metric is to look at the combined legal skillset of the incumbents, and see what particular skills/knowledge are missing or in short supply. It should be a given that a candidate has broad experience/overview of the legal landscape, besides having some depth in a particular area.

Russia and China are publicly cosying up together:

Just in:

Yes, that as well. Bullies, thieves and other miscreants judge others by their own standards of conduct... it's all they know.