Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
... relax, I'm not bringing up a protest here. I just want to remark that asking "does anyone mind at all that I close this thread" and then closing it within 40 seconds seems to defeat the purpose of asking. :-)
@Scott: in the future you should probably just say, "I'm closing this thread. I don't think we need to continue down this path. E-mail me if you have problems yada yada." I think your judgment in these matters is usually sound.
(by the way, feel free to close this thread)
I really don't like the idea of closing these threads on meta, especially when we've let far worse ones persist (any of the (in)famous Andrew L threads, for instance).
@Willie: I agree. In fact I was hoping to discuss in the recently-closed thread the issue of consistency between MO and Math.SE (e.g. see my post here). A little bit of foresight might go a long way towards preventing such cross-site incompatibilities. What is the opinion of the MO developers on such matters?
In my opinion, the thread about math.SE (it was not about consistency, it just discussed Robin's behaviour on SE and Jeff Attwood's response) was completely off-topic and was rightly closed. The meta is more relaxed than the main sight, but it too has a well-defined purpose: to discuss issues concerning MO.
Bill- If you want to discuss that, then by all means start a new thread to discuss that. The closure of that thread shouldn't read as a banning of discussion of M.SE, but rather shutting down a thread which had gotten way out of hand, and way off topic.
The closure of the "research announcements" thread seemed a little less clear cut to me. Meta, rightly, is more open to a bit of off-topic chatter than MO itself (if it wasn't, we'd have to give Will Jagy a lifetime ban), and the Serge Lang discussion didn't seem so far out of line to me (maybe because I was a participant).
@Ben,
It wasn't so much the Serge discussion, but that the thread looked like it was on verge of branching out to "let's say bad stuff about mathematicians who have crazy ideas". Maybe it was going to be fine, or maybe someone would have said something really inappropriate. As it didn't have anything to do with MO anymore, I erred on the safe side.
Fair enough. I understand.
For what it's worth, I meant something more like "Are there any professional mathematicians who publish cranky mathematics on the side"? You know, like, go to work during the day day and do legitimate math research, but at night, you go on the arXiv and claim to have found a proof that set theory isn't consistent.
I also think that one should be pretty free with closing threads on meta. If somebody has something important to say, it won't be too much effort to start a new thread (and it will lead them to think about whether they really need to say it).
@Gerry: If it's true, it's not libel!
@Harry: Truth is an affirmative defense against libel claims in the US, but that is not true in other countries, e.g., the UK. If you badmouth the wrong person, you may find it difficult to travel to certain countries.
@Scott: Are you specifically referencing the Simon Singh case?
Harry, it goes much deeper than that.
Why do the English always have to ruin all the fun?
=(
Now that's libel ...
Now that's libel ...
@Harry: If he gives you any trouble just drop me a word, and I'll go upstairs and lop his head off. (Er …, if I can find my battle axe.)
(Added later) Why did it get so quiet all of a sudden – and why is everybody looking at me like that?
@Andrew: well, only in jurisdictions where truth can be!
@Harald: that is a look of envy. Nothing is better than gently caressing one's battle axe while giving office hours.
1 to 20 of 20