What is PF doing having a Politics section

[vanesch]

I personally don't care if those go away. I came here because of what this forum was called and have no delusions that it can be everything to everyone. However, there are many members here who do find other forums beneficial and even entertaining. And if PF has the resources (as in HUMAN resources) to moderate and monitor those forums, so be it. Evo doesn't get paid to monitor GD and this sub-forum and can't be here all the time. The rest of us have other forums to monitor but also lend a hand in looking after GD. But even *I* gave up on the Politics forum. The effort required to maintain even a level of civility for this forum has EXCEEDED its role as a minor player in the whole scheme of things. It has taken a disproportionate amount of attention, and a distraction away from what PF is.

As ZapperZ says here, the main problem with the PWA section is the disproportional amount of mentor effort and time it takes ; a good deal of the reported posts for instance, find their origin in the PWA section - and we have to find a solution for that. The mentors and admins are discussing what solution should be adopted because the way it is now, it cannot continue. But we're divided too: ZapperZ for instance would like to ZZZap it , others like me would like to keep it, but with one or other solution so that we can get back to civilised discussion (which essentially means that it takes less moderation effort). Moreover, it is difficult to do so much moderation without creating at least the suspicion of partiality. So this leaves us with a double frustration: the yellling participants think that they are being persecuted, and the moderators wished they could do other things than cutting away uncivilized (or illegal) behaviour.

I fully agree with ZZ that, the way things are now, for something which should be an auxiliary item on an essentially science/physics forum, it takes way too much "room" (not so much "diskspace" or "bandwidth" but human space) and makes too much trouble. I think that on that point we all agree. However, I'd like it to be less radical than him in the Endloesung

So we're brainstorming on how to be able to keep a PWA section which does not require so much effort, and where civilised discussion and exchange of viewpoints and arguments is possible.

 

[alexandra]

I used to find it so refreshing to come in here and read threads where people were airing differences of opinion without bickering; it was so different from all the other places I see politics discussed, because it was being done in the same manner as all our other science debates where evidence was presented, and various interpretations and conclusions discussed, and it wasn't necessary to "win" or browbeat everyone to your side as long as you had fun in the process of debating and learned something by having to support and explain all your arguments. Unfortunately, that quality has been declining, and rapidly, so we're trying to find ways to re-focus the forum to either re-attain that quality or know we gave it our best effort before pulling the plug.

One of the things that attracted my attention about this forum was that while some people involved in dicussions here were trying to present evidence and discuss interpretations and conclusions based on that evidence, others were completely ignoring both their evidence and their arguments.

In any case, I just wanted to point out that it is not all contributors to this sub-forum who do the 'bar-room brawl' sort of argument (except, perhaps, occasionally when they are driven to distraction by the lack of logic of those arguing against them) - quite a few contributers are careful to back their views up with evidence. It's just that there's a core group of participants who consistently sabotage them and ignore all evidence presented. Then the whole discussion degenerates into childish name-calling that's a waste of time and unpleasant to read. Perhaps asking people to just be civil to one another and to carefully consider arguments presented and evaluate the evidence provided would help to bring back the more intellectual level of discussion that you mention used to occur here?

 

[Art]

To address a couple of the issues raised.

A drain on mentors time.

The inference here is the mentors moderating this sub forum have no interest or dislike the subjects raised by the members and see it as a distraction from their primary focus of contributing in the science forums. Perhaps a simple solution is to find a mentor to moderate this section who's primary interest is politics and current affairs.

Restricting subjects to science related topics only.

The complaint from Nereid is that only a handful of people showed any interest in the thread relating to censorship at NASA. Do you think trying to force people to discuss subjects you find interesting is a workable strategy?

The quality of the discussions

Politics is by definition opinion based. There is no definitive right answer to any political issue and so disagreements without conclusions is part and parcel of political discussions. It is also an emotive subject where passions can run high and so unfortunately tempers are going to flare now and again. This is simply something that goes with the territory.

Equally regarding sources quoted to promote a point of view, there are no peer reviewed political papers available to provide definitive analysis of a current affairs subject and so what constitutes a 'good' source or a 'bad' source is entirely subjective with 'beauty' being in the eye of the beholder.

Part of the perceived problem appears to be that some mentors who are used to the strictures surrounding admissability of evidence in the hard sciences expect to find the same here whereas in reality that kind of exactness simply doesn't exist in the world of politics. The result being a reaction of intellectual snobbery with the 'serious scientists' looking with distain on what they see as people promoting unproven theories but the reality is political theories are unprovable.

In conclusion I'd like to say I think you will find the vast majority of people who contribute to the politics section on a regular basis will tell you they have learned a lot from the topics, information and sources that have been provided.

Again I would ask that if it is decided to change the format of this section that as per Moonbear's suggestion the restriction on advertising other sites be lifted for a short time to allow those members who wish to continue as is to find a new home.

 

[ZapperZ]

No Google isn't that clever! You get page ranks and hits, due to the content and Traffic

And that's what I meant. If we get ranks because of the page traffic due to the content of nastiness in this sub-forum, that is a publicity and I do without.

I fail to see how your or anyone elses credibity will wain due to a Political sub forum

It is by your own speculation that PF has been getting A LOT of hits and traffic due to this sub-forum. It stands to reason that THIS sub-forum provides the main impression of PF. And for people who really don't care about the REST of PF's forums, this is the image of PF.

Let me ask you this: are you aware of PF's reputation and caliber as a PHYSICS forum?

Zz.

 

[alexandra]

I think P&WA can remain as is, if we tighten the posting rules. That way people that are serious and can post in a non-combative, non-redundant, non-sarcastic/insulting manner can enjoy participating.

The others can find more appropriate places to post.

Yes, this sounds like an excellent solution. It would be great to feel like one can safely present one's arguments (with evidence) here and invite debate about them without being personally attacked. I, for one, would feel a lot more comfortable about posting here if that happened, in any case. I have hated both the personal attacks I've been subjected to and the personal attacks I've seen others subjected to in these discussions. Apart from how awful such attacks make me feel personally, they also sabotage the discussion itself and the issues do not then get the attention they deserve.

 

[ZapperZ]

The quality of the discussions

Politics is by definition opinion based. There is no definitive right answer to any political issue and so disagreements without conclusions is part and parcel of political discussions.

Equally regarding sources quoted to promote a point of view, there are no peer reviewed political papers available to provide definitive analysis of a current affairs subject and so what constitutes a 'good' source or a 'bad' source is entirely subjective with 'beauty' being in the eye of the beholder.

And I would like to remind you of that next time a mentor comes in and delete/edit one of your posts. Would everyone participating in this sub-forum be undertanding and respectful of that? So far, I've seen nothing but griefs and accusations of certain mentors being "liberal" or "conservative" for taking actions on various posts around here. I see no sense of understanding of the "beauty being in the eye of the beholder".

Zz.

 

[Art]

And I would like to remind you of that next time a mentor comes in and delete/edit one of your posts. Would everyone participating in this sub-forum be undertanding and respectful of that? So far, I've seen nothing but griefs and accusations of certain mentors being "liberal" or "conservative" for taking actions on various posts around here. I see no sense of understanding of the "beauty being in the eye of the beholder".

Zz.

I personally have no objection to impartial moderating. I do object when a mentor picks an argument loses it and then 'deletes' his embarrassment. Which goes back to my suggestion if the current moderators see this sub forum as a waste of their time then put in a moderator who's primary interest is politics and who will moderate impartially.

Edit - As an observation see how easy it is to slip into the sort of behaviour you denounce? Here we are having a general discussion about a new format for PWA and you start to personalise it.

 

[russ_watters]

Politics is by definition opinion based. There is no definitive right answer to any political issue and so disagreements without conclusions is part and parcel of political discussions.

On the contrary: political science is by definition a science and while a lot of what is discussed is matters of opinion in application, a lot of what is discussed here is a matter of fact and logic. My biggest problem here is that people don't correctly differentiate between what is opinion and what is not.

 

[vanesch]

I personally have no objection to impartial moderating. I do object when a mentor picks an argument loses it and then 'deletes' his embarrassment.

This rarely happens, you know. Often it is *another* moderator who does the cleaning-up than the one you're discussing with !

And, as you say yourself, in politics, there are no definitive answers, so there is no true impartiality. Every decision of moderation has _some_ form of partiality in it - in the very decision of "this goes over the line", and "this doesn't".

It is the heavy need of moderation that creates this sentiment of persecution. We'd all like to see civilized, well-argumented discussion so that we do NOT have to intervene.

 

[ZapperZ]

I personally have no objection to impartial moderating. I do object when a mentor picks an argument loses it and then 'deletes' his embarrassment. Which goes back to my suggestion if the current moderators see this sub forum as a waste of their time then put in a moderator who's primary interest is politics and who will moderate impartially.

And what exactly is an "impartial" moderating? Where do we find such a perfect human creature? Are you yourself capable of being impartial? And what you call "impartial", someone else can easily argue to the contrary.

Can someone here truly claim that he/she can always make an impartial decision without all the baggages and personal views surrounding his/her decisions? Seriously?

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

Can someone here truly claim that he/she can always make an impartial decision without all the baggages and personal views surrounding his/her decisions? Seriously?

Me, of course!

(although that by itself, may be a partial claim... )

 

[ZapperZ]

Edit - As an observation see how easy it is to slip into the sort of behaviour you denounce? Here we are having a general discussion about a new format for PWA and you start to personalise it.

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a personal editorial. But I "personalized" it because you want us to take a "high road" in terms of this forum, but from what I have seen, it doesn't corespond to your actions in the past.

It is one thing to say something. It is another to truly abide by it. I truly question if people who want this forum to survive can really adopt that philosophy.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Me, of course!

(although that by itself, may be a partial claim... )

Sorry vanesch. You have been brainwashed by many-world theory. :)

And I have been brainwashed by emergence world view. So there! :)

Zz.

 

[Anttech]

Let me ask you this: are you aware of PF's reputation and caliber as a PHYSICS forum?

Yes... look at my first ever post, I was interested in PHYSICS!

 

[Art]

And what exactly is an "impartial" moderating? Where do we find such a perfect human creature? Are you yourself capable of being impartial? And what you call "impartial", someone else can easily argue to the contrary.

Can someone here truly claim that he/she can always make an impartial decision without all the baggages and personal views surrounding his/her decisions? Seriously?

Zz.

Yes I personally have no problem in being impartial. As a firm believer in free speech I may disagree vehemently with someone else's opinions but I would argue as hard for his opinions to be heard as I would my own.

Russ- On the contrary: political science is by definition a science and while a lot of what is discussed is matters of opinion in application, a lot of what is discussed here is a matter of fact and logic. My biggest problem here is that people don't correctly differentiate between what is opinion and what is not.

This forum is self moderating to a large extent. If somebody continuously posts silly, unsubstantiated posts then they are soon ignored by their peers.

 

[Anttech]

This forum is self moderating to a large extent. If somebody continuously posts silly, unsubstantiated posts then they are soon ignored by their peers.

I aggree... This whole thread seems to be an exercise in "Fix it till its broken"

 

[ComputerGeek]

Re. Nereid's OP, it's a bit maddening that the voice of experience can post twice to the thread, explaining that "editorial review" procedures for government labs have been in place for many years, and are not "censorship."

Lets stay on topic shall we?... (you have no idea how much I want to speak to that)

 

[Art]

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a personal editorial. But I "personalized" it because you want us to take a "high road" in terms of this forum, but from what I have seen, it doesn't corespond to your actions in the past.

It is one thing to say something. It is another to truly abide by it. I truly question if people who want this forum to survive can really adopt that philosophy.

Zz.

As interesting as discussing me is I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the content of my post.

 

[daveb]

People write about what they have direct knowledge or experience (and sometimes opinions). Everyone has an opinion, knowledge, and experience of politics to some degree. Not everyone can discuss the intricacies of cosmology. Also, sometimes, when I read something, if I don't have something specific to add, I won't regurgitate something someone else has said 5 posts back.

 

[ComputerGeek]

perhaps a good solution is that people have to actually cite evidence for their opinions (when appropriate).

that would raise the level of critical thought on the issues, keep the yahoos out because they do not want to put forth the effort to support their claims (mostly because the form opinion based on some emotional rant from an editorialist in the media), and give the moderators a simple way to judge if the post should be moderated or not.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes I personally have no problem in being impartial. As a firm believer in free speech I may disagree vehemently with someone else's opinions but I would argue as hard for his opinions to be heard as I would my own.

Irregardless on whether that opinion is laced with biting attacks and against PF's guidelines?

THAT is the whole issue here. Someone has to make a decision on when something has crossed the line. This is a purely judgement call. I would put it to you that what you decide as being impartial, someone else will argue to the contrary. If you have ever run or moderated a forum, you will know this automatically unless you have a free-for-all orgy like the unmoderated Usenet. If that is what everyone wants, then PF is certainly the wrong place for it.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes... look at my first ever post, I was interested in PHYSICS!

But my question was on whether you are aware of the caliber and stature of PF as a Physics forum?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

This forum is self moderating to a large extent. If somebody continuously posts silly, unsubstantiated posts then they are soon ignored by their peers.

Sorry, but I seldom see that happening. In fact, it is those types of posts that incites the most responses.

We were buried under a ton of crap with crackpot postings. They were silly, unsubstantiated, and downright wrong. Yet, those were the ones getting the most attention (and the most effort from the moderators to correct). You just need to look at the old TD section if you don't believe me.

So yes, PF HAS taken drastic actions to reduce the noise-to-signal ratio. And as far as I can see, it has done nothing to diminish its stature as a legitimate physics/science forum, which is the main reason for its existence.

Zz.

 

[Anttech]

Zz I don't waste my time looking at many forums, this is one of the few non-technical forums I visit. I have been around the internet for a long time. I work in IT (Actualy a crossbreed of telecoms and IT) I was looking for info on Physics, I wouldn't have posted here if I didnt think it was any good. Th fact I am 964 posts (965 now) doesn't tell you I think this is a good place?

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz I don't waste my time looking at many forums, this is one of the few non-technical forums I visit.

OK, so this is not an attack, but I'm just a bit amused that you consider PF as "non-technical". :)

I have been around the internet for a long time. I work in IT (Actualy a crossbreed of telecoms and IT) I was looking for info on Physics, I wouldn't have posted here if I didnt think it was any good. Th fact I am 964 posts (965 now) doesn't tell you I think this is a good place?

I have been on the 'net since 1989. Not sure if that's any longer than you, but compare to most kids here, that's from way back in the ice age. So yes, I consider myself as been on the 'net for quite a long time also. And it is why when I consider PF as being "special" as far as physics discussion forums, I'm not making that statement lightly. There truly is an effort to separate this forum from your run-off-the-mill mediocrity.

And I also think you are missing the point of my question. I was wondering if you, or even the regulars of this sub-forum, are even aware the reputation of PF as a physics forum, as in how do people who are either in the academia, students, and even physicists, are starting to view PF. I have enough personal evidence and anecdotes to indicate that PF is slowly but surely gaining a reputation among the peers in this area to be considered as a respectable source.

The politics sub-forum have not come up to that standard, and in fact, within the past 12 months or so, have taken many steps backwards. We cannot have a split personality forum having a well-thought of section, and a free-for-all brawl in the next. It drags everything down, including our time and effort. As of now, it distracts a lot of the mentors from doing their duties (it certainly has affected mine!).

I certainly has a vested interest in it. When I recommend PF to other physicists and students, I stake my reputation on it. I do not want to see its image being smeared because something that's supposed to be a minor player in all of this blew its top.

Zz.

 

[Anttech]

OK, so this is not an attack, but I'm just a bit amused that you consider PF as "non-technical". :)

Hmm good point ;) I was referring to technical Forums for Telecoms/IT related topics. Not 'Science' related.

Zz So instead of closing it down, promote someone to mentor this forum.

If you want my suggestion someone like Art, who is adapt at communication :)

 

[Astronuc]

OK, so this is not an attack, but I'm just a bit amused that you consider PF as "non-technical". :)

I believe Anttech is referring to P&WA, not to PF.

And it is why when I consider PF as being "special" as far as physics discussion forums, I'm not making that statement lightly. There truly is an effort to separate this forum from your run-off-the-mill mediocrity.

I agree, this place is far above the rest!

. . . . even aware the reputation of PF as a physics forum, as in how do people who are either in the academia, students, and even physicists, are starting to view PF. I have enough personal evidence and anecdotes to indicate that PF is slowly but surely gaining a reputation among the peers in this area to be considered as a respectable source.

I take my activities here quite seriously, and in fact I pay attention to the young people here who might be potential employees! That means I also look how they behave in forums like P&WA.

I certainly have a vested interest in it. When I recommend PF to other physicists and students, I stake my reputation on it. I do not want to see its image being smeared because something that's supposed to be a minor player in all of this blew its top.

Ditto! I have recommended this site to others in my field, as well as other scientific and engineering fields, but I usually have to warn people about GD and P&WA.

 

[Art]

Sorry, but I seldom see that happening. In fact, it is those types of posts that incites the most responses.

We were buried under a ton of crap with crackpot postings. They were silly, unsubstantiated, and downright wrong. Yet, those were the ones getting the most attention (and the most effort from the moderators to correct). You just need to look at the old TD section if you don't believe me.

So yes, PF HAS taken drastic actions to reduce the noise-to-signal ratio. And as far as I can see, it has done nothing to diminish its stature as a legitimate physics/science forum, which is the main reason for its existence.

Zz.

I should have been more precise I was referring specifically to the PWA section.

In general though I think it can be concluded from your stated opinions that the PWA section has become a victim of it's own success. Many people are members here primarily to take part in the political discussions and as Antech pointed out the sheer volume of posts directs more folk there through the search engines.

I can understand and sympathise with your position that from your point of view more is not necessarily better as your interest is in developing the forum as a model of scientific excellence whereby if people are finding the site whilst googling on "war in Iraq" then from your perspective you are attracting the wrong type' of visitor.

Personally I think people are adult enough to make hard distinctions between the 'serious' forums and the 'less serious' and so IMO the discussions in PWA have no bearing on folks opinion of the hard science forums. Afterall serious science magazine publish cartoons but that doesn't mean the readers think the whole magazine is a joke.

It's a conumdrum really as from a commercial viewpoint more is better and so it seems there are two incompatible goals. I suspect PWA will lose but so be it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Art : You suggest assigning a Mentor for P&WA as a solution to the problem. That is not a solution !

1. There are about as many reported posts and personal attacks from P&WA as from all the rest of PF put together.

2. Currently, P&WA takes up the majority of the moderatiing time of at least 3 mentors and a good chunk of time from at least five others.

Based on those numbers, this sub-forum would require at least 3 Mentors to read and moderate everything here.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hmm good point ;) I was referring to technical Forums for Telecoms/IT related topics. Not 'Science' related.

Zz So instead of closing it down, promote someone to mentor this forum.

If you want my suggestion someone like Art, who is adapt at communication :)

Well, first of all, even though I advocate closing it down, I am not delusional enough to think that would happen. [I had also advocated the closing down of the philosophy forums a long time ago, but that's a completely different story, and it is no longer relevant now that a new guideline is in place for that forum] :)

But here's the issue of having a mentor. Unlike Art, I am very skeptical about someone claiming to be "impartial". I would never claim myself to be as that. Knowing and acknowledging that we all have our own prejudices and we filter and process information in our own way is a strength, not a weakness. It makes us aware that while we try to listen to everything, we listen and understand things based on our knowledge, our training, and our point of view.

This means that if I have to make a judgement on whether someone has stepped beyond the lines of what the PF guidelines stated, it will be MY judgement based on my point of view. It will be a judgement call based on what I understand the Guidelines supposed to say (and let's be clear here that the PF Guidelines applie even to the Politics sub-forum).

It is why I asked if (i) people are willing to play by the rules and (ii) that they will respect the decision of the moderator/s of the forum, because no matter how "impartial" someone tries to be, it will still be a judgement call.

Personally I think people are adult enough to make hard distinctions between the 'serious' forums and the 'less serious' and so IMO the discussions in PWA have no bearing on folks opinion of the hard science forums. Afterall serious science magazine publish cartoons but that doesn't mean the readers think the whole magazine is a joke.

You will note that if people here are truly "adult enough", we wouldn't be having this conversation and the issue of the status of the Politics sub-forum would never have been raised. It is because these adults started behaving like unruly children that we have to threaten to take their toys away for good.

And the "GD" section is the comic relief of PF. No one can mistake that. But Politics sub-forum isn't. It is anything but, and the venomous comments were meant the way they were said, not as a "caricature" (since this is such a "popular" topic nowadays).

Zz.

 

[Art]

Art : You suggest assigning a Mentor for P&WA as a solution to the problem. That is not a solution !

<shrug> 1,2,3 or 10, so long as politics is their primary interest and they can be impartial it doesn't matter?

1. There are about as many reported posts and personal attacks from P&WA as from all the rest of PF put together.

I don't have access to the same information as you but I'll take your word for it regarding the numbers. Two points here, first if the complaints are directed to mentors who are in the area and interested anyway then it's no big deal and secondly have you considered the validity of many of the complaints? I think you will find people often complain about an imagined slight when an argument is not going well for them (I think it would be interesting to see how many complaints emanate from a person who is winning an argument hands down) or people complain when somebody expresses an opinion which they think is almost heretical. Not having access to the data this is supposition on my part based on human nature but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

2. Currently, P&WA takes up the majority of the moderatiing time of at least 3 mentors and a good chunk of time from at least five others.

Again I am curious where you get your info from but I believe my response above addresses this

Based on those numbers, this sub-forum would require at least 3 Mentors to read and moderate everything here.

In addition to the comments I've already made I'd add it is a very popular sub-section and so consequently requires more resources.

Going back to my post replying to Zapper, ultimately it is a management decision whether this is an area they want to allow to grow (and necessarily allocate resources) or whether it is something they would like to put back into a smaller box. As I've said I can see perfectly valid views on both sides of the argument.

 

[Art]

But here's the issue of having a mentor. Unlike Art, I am very skeptical about someone claiming to be "impartial". I would never claim myself to be as that. Knowing and acknowledging that we all have our own prejudices and we filter and process information in our own way is a strength, not a weakness. It makes us aware that while we try to listen to everything, we listen and understand things based on our knowledge, our training, and our point of view.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think being impartial is so difficult once all decisions are rooted in basic principles.

Moving On - Perhaps an interesting experiment would be to change the style of discussion on PWA into one of debate whereby a thread header raises a motion / proposal which is then argued probably for a set period of time and then members vote on whether the proposal is carried or not.

The debate could be done in 2 halves with each member being allowed to post a limited number of times in each half. This should improve the quality of the discussion, reduce the need for moderation and even yield an end result.

Anybody any thoughts on this?

 

[Entropy]

"The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion [...] It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

How the hell does that contradict ID? The universe began with an explosion. Does that say anything about whether or not there is a God?

 

[Amp1]

I've read the first five pages of replies and this page. I generally agree with both sides of the arguments.

Like some other replies, I originally showed up here because I am fascinated by PHYSICS-astro, nuclear, particle- and Math. However, I once posted at a site - R & E - where politics and religion were discussed, complete with flaming rants and raves. I was pleasantly surprised to find a religion board at PF then (no longer present) and enjoyed debating with confirmed atheists. From my POV, the concept of an infinite being or intelligent designer was or is science - a search for knowledge of reality ( which includes this universe) - in fact I still intuit that science will aid in proving this intangible fact/tangible reality. I don't advocate any religion. There are some premises that I do believe constitute a viable foundation for reasoned assertions, these ideas border on the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, as well as, set theory, logic and cosmology and concepts beyond the standard model.

I developed an interest in politics because it impacts my life rather directly and have found the discussions on P&WA noteworthy, amusing, insightful and troubling. Political Science is as mentioned a Social Science and having it in that board seems natural.

I’d like to add, I think SOS, if she has the time would make a superb addition as moderator primarily for the P&WA sub-board.

 

[Evo]

In general though I think it can be concluded from your stated opinions that the PWA section has become a victim of it's own success. Many people are members here primarily to take part in the political discussions and as Antech pointed out the sheer volume of posts directs more folk there through the search engines.

That is what we *don't* want. P&WA is supposed to be a place where the active contributing members can go to discuss current issues. It is not our desire to have people posting in P&WA that do not participate in the academic forum. We do not want this kind of traffic. This is an academic forum.

That doesn't mean that someone that posts only in P&WA can't be valuable in P&WA, but when you attract a disproportional number of people that have purely one sided political agendas they wish to push, it is no longer conducive to productive debate.

Art, you're knowledgeable and although you can be hard edged, I value your input, although I will butt heads with you if I think we need more perspective.

There are a number of posters here that are quite knowledgeable and make P&WA an informative site.