search this blog

Thursday, September 22, 2016

New rules for comments


All comments posted here must comply with the following rules. Comments that break these rules will be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned.

- no racial or ethnic taunts and insults

- do not for any reason speculate about the people posting here

- avoid discussions with obvious trolls and/or mentally unstable people*

- no conspiracy theories

- do some reading here before posting if unfamiliar with the relevant topics

- do not post any illegal or defamatory material

- stay on topic unless you have a good excuse for going off topic

*Mental illness is not a joke, but it is a reality for a lot of people, so we're bound to see some visitors here occasionally with this problem. If unsure, simply ignore and move on.

There is no rule against swearing and name calling, but try to keep things civil. Trolls should be regularly called out for who they are, but keep it short and then move on.

16 comments:

Roy King said...

@Davidski,
Thanks so much for your rules and limit setting. I had been getting turned off by the odd and peculiar comments lately from obviously closed minded egos. A tacking toward objectivity is clearly a good choice on your role as moderator.

Onur said...

@Davidski

Good move. I think you should seriously begin to consider comment moderation if you have not already.

Razib Khan said...

*clap*

Nirjhar007 said...

David,
Good move . I also like the thing that unlike the previous rules, a specific person is not named !.

All we want is a friendly debate , topic to topic with some reasoning ! .

Thanks

Davidski said...

Moderation will be on and off, like last night, depending on who visits and how they behave.

Awale Abdi said...

You kind of already had some of these rules but good work. This comment section was always a treat to read until it started degenerating.

*clap*

Sisophon said...

"There is no rule against swearing and name calling, but try to keep things civil."

Swearing is a bad habit. I am Irish, and we (including me in times of stress) overuse the word f**k. It's ugly. Name calling is usually harmless banter, but when it leads to responses, it gets in the way of what I am here to read.

Can I suggest stopping the swearing?

Garvan

Davidski said...

I totally see what you're saying Garvan, and I think that once I impose these new, tighter rules on discussions, and force most of the trolls out one way or another, things will calm down. Or so I hope.

Dospaises said...

I think I am still going to have to read comments that completely lack logic but at least there will be a lot less of them.

bellbeakerblogger said...

Here's another: no rapid fire posting.
Five back to back comments is yelling not conversing.

andrew said...

Interesting way to formula your rules. I wonder how it will play out.

Ramber said...

Do you know how can I quote a member?

Jerry Lei said...

Has anyone heard about Binary Option? well, I guess we all have. I know most of us are tired of investing simply because we keep loosing. I have good news. Do you want to make $350-$400 per hour by using binary option. Call me Jerry, I am a trader. I will work with you and teach you my exact strategy. My winning rate is 95%(I could say 100% but allow me sound human lol).. Contact me on jerrylei2562@gmail.com

akhil misra said...

David Ski says:-
“If the steppe peoples were invaders, and the evidence clearly shows this, then that's what they were. It's a truth that everyone will have to deal with sooner or later.

Currently, the genetic evidence suggests strongly that South Asia suffered a couple of invasions from the steppe during the Bronze Age and Iron Age.”
The above statement is probably true only in a very limited context simply because:-
1. There is no Archaeological or Anthropological evidence in support of AIT hypothesis.
2. The so called evidence is limited to post modern genetics and is not accepted by Archaeologists/Anthropologists.
3. Ancient Indian DNA results are yet to come in.
4. Genetics cannot determine the linguistic question about origin of Sanskrit.
What do Archaeologists say about genetic studies?
a) Archaeologist Nicole Boivin (Director of the Department of Archaeology at Max Planck Institute, for the Science of Human History in Germany) cites few studies to show that genetic studies confirm AIT because they assume AIT to start with.
b) Nicole Boivin further states that ‘genetic studies reconstructing a picture on the basis of today’s castes are liable to err when they assume that those castes were identical three to four millennia back.’
Thus genetic evidence is neither conclusive nor a necessary or sufficient condition to prove AIT. In order to become a theory, AIT needs support of Anthropologists and Archaeologists. The disagreement between Archaeologists and Geneticists need to be resolved if we are to progress any further. I don’t see this happening any time soon even if ancient DNA sample support AIT.

akhil misra said...

David Ski says:-
“If the steppe peoples were invaders, and the evidence clearly shows this, then that's what they were. It's a truth that everyone will have to deal with sooner or later.

Currently, the genetic evidence suggests strongly that South Asia suffered a couple of invasions from the steppe during the Bronze Age and Iron Age.”
The above statement is probably true only in a very limited context simply because:-
1. There is no Archaeological or Anthropological evidence in support of AIT hypothesis.
2. The so called evidence is limited to post modern genetics and is not accepted by Archaeologists/Anthropologists.
3. Ancient Indian DNA results are yet to come in.
4. Genetics cannot determine the linguistic question about origin of Sanskrit.
What do Archaeologists say about genetic studies?
a) Archaeologist Nicole Boivin (Director of the Department of Archaeology at Max Planck Institute, for the Science of Human History in Germany) cites few studies to show that genetic studies confirm AIT because they assume AIT to start with.
b) Nicole Boivin further states that ‘genetic studies reconstructing a picture on the basis of today’s castes are liable to err when they assume that those castes were identical three to four millennia back.’
Thus genetic evidence is neither conclusive nor a necessary or sufficient condition to prove AIT. In order to become a theory, AIT needs support of Anthropologists and Archaeologists. The disagreement between Archaeologists and Geneticists need to be resolved if we are to progress any further. I don’t see this happening any time soon even if ancient DNA sample support AIT.

akhil misra said...

Professor Michel Danino (IIT Gandhinagar) has made the following points in his recent article:-
1. Limited and skewed sample with bias inbuilt into the data set resulting in prejudiced genetic studies. On Marina Siva’ 2017 paper which hypothesise sex biased dispersal in Indian Subcontinent he says:-
a) Silva et al.’s study sequenced very few new genomes of the Subcontinent’s populations; rather, it revisited older samples with new techniques (about 1,500 for their mtDNA study and 850 for their genome-wide study). That is, of course, a valid exercise, but such a small data set remains inadequate to represent the diversity of Indian populations, which the paper itself often stresses (“a remarkable genetic diversity”, “a very complex history”, etc.), and may easily lead to over-interpretation of the limited data.
b) Moreover, the paper (see its Fig. 2) inherits from earlier studies serious inconsistencies in categorising the samples, grouped sometimes regionally (“Sindhi”, “Bengali from Bangladesh”, “Gujarati from Houston”, “Indian Telugu from UK”, with no further details), sometimes caste-wise (“Kshatriya”, “Low-caste South” and “Central”, “Brahmin South” and “Central”, again without further details), and sometimes religion-wise (“Muslim”, with no geographical precision).
c) A look at Table S3 in Additional file 1 makes it clear that thousands of communities from all over the Subcontinent are left out of the picture. Bias is built into the data set.

2. David Reich model of ANI & ASI is flawed and lacks scientific validity as its data set is neither widespread nor representative.
ANI & ASI model leads to predetermined results.
3. “ We might as well put forth constructs of “Ancestral Eastern Indians” and “Ancestral Western Indians” and demonstrate that most Indian populations “can be approximated as a mixture of these two” — the approach would be just as valid, or invalid, as that of Reich et al.”
4. M Silva & other writers assume that population migrating in or about Central Asia must have been speaking a proto-Indo-Iranian language. Genetic data cannot determine linguistic question.
5. Archaeological evidence does not support AIT. Archaeological trails of Harappan presence in Central Asia,Persia and Persian Gulf not factored/investigated in R1a debate instead of assuming that R1a spread into India from Central Asia.
6. Indian presence in Persia, Anatolia, Armenia and Greece, Afghanistan and central Asia is never factored in the two genetic studies.
7. On sex biased dispersal he says that “Anthropologically, pastoral migrations that leave behind their women folk makes no sense.”
8. Indo-European problem is essentially a multi-disciplinary problem.