This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I do hope so. I was thinking the same.
Time was when that rubbish posted by Baxter would have been gone in milliseconds.
Thanks for noticing. It is comforting to be missed. I had yet another lung infection. This time it was a bug that is resistant to my maintenance antibiotic and it took a long time to sort out. I find the process of tapering steroids very debilitating and don’t like to write when I am not firing on all cylinders. I have just sorted out (I hope) the backlog of book orders, so I am on the verge of resuming my career as a registered know-all.
I have been keeping up with the forum. I was annoyed by the rambling, incoherent missive mentioned. I hate to apply censorship, as this is one of the methods used by our adversaries. Obvious spam is instantly removed, but I hesitate to remove anything on the grounds that I disagree with it or, as in this case, cannot see the point. Perhaps forum members could offer some guidance.
John, firstly all the best with the latest bug battle.
I moderate another forum which attracts a similar mix of people to this one - largely intelligent, dry-humoured individuals and the occasional nutcase. We basically don't moderate, but for that you'd be surprised at the quality of posting. Nutcase posters get censored for repetition or kicked out if the only thing they ever want to talk about is their particular world-view. Obvious spam (links to places peddling pharmaceuticals, pornography, or pretty much anything - not because we object to pharmaceuticals or pornography but because we charge for advertising) gets deleted on sight - and mostly these people don't come back for a second attempt. And those too thick to participate tend to give up after a while. Highly self-selecting fora end up imposing their own standards and thus need less policing. I think you've got the balance right here.