quiet in here tonight

Trying to go cold turkey off caffeine today did not work out well. :/

@Tim - If you have an English exam on the 5th, English is capitalized :p

@Susan I take it you are still considering the nomination for the Moderators Pro Tempore position?

@Tim Accepted. Thanks!

Morning everyone. Seems the pro-tem voting is a bit tumultuous.

I updated my nomination to include background and availability.

@JohnP The question itself has -2! I mean really!? Why? Do they not think we need mods! :p

Whatever.

:p

I'm now +8/-3, which is an improvement.

I'm just a little nervous, as we haven't hit public beta yet.

@Sterno Hey, sorry for any confusion earlier. I was at school on my phone, and I was trying to get through it fast. Let me know if you have any questions about what I said

@michaelpri - I have a question - How many of your 33 answers were out of your own knowledge, and how many were the result of google searching?

@JohnP I can't really be 100% sure. At the beginning, it was mostly Google, but when I'd searched something I'd find something that would be related to a later answer I would post. I always use Google to reinforce my information, though.

Also, sometimes I'll know the gist of something (ie: my "Do vaccines cause Autism?" answer), but I'll do extra research to prove what I already know.

Hrm.

Answers like this one I could've answered without any references.

Anyone know if @anongoodnurse is going to accept her nomination?

@JohnP No, she declined :(

@Tim - I would remove the last comment from the meat/milk question. Comments are for clarifying/improving questions, not offering alternative viewpoints in religion.

That comment really applies to pre the edit. I'll let him have time to see it and then delete it (as that does have a possible explanation of what it means - and suggests it doesn't link to health).

@JohnP Life hacks was 3+ weeks as well so it should be okay...

I have to leave, see you guys later :)

bye :)

l8r!

Other than Jez, wonder who downvoted me? The closer we get to public, the more I find I'd really like to be a mod.

I've down-voted you both:)

@Tim - Most likely that's the reason. Limited time on the site, and limited time overall.

@kenorb - I would expect nothing less. :p

Probably - I'd rather be open about that than be elected and then be rubbish.

@Tim You did for me very hard time before, but it seems now I'm slowly changing my mind.

Although, if you did downvote me, I'd appreciate a chance to ameliorate things.

gtg and record tomorrow's video...

bbl

@kenorb Were you serious about that?

@JohnP It's difficult to explain clearly I guess. I think I had mixed feeling about you, as you were require too much scientific references, it's good, but I'm not so science guy and I really don't want this site to end up like Skeptics or any other SE where non-scientific point of views are banned and censored. And as you said, it's limited time to perfect every answer on the site.

@kenorb - I see what you are saying, and I don't think that every answer needs a scientific reference. I think they should be recommended in cases where there is controversy or a lot of misinformation. Or, if you make the claim that it's "been proven", then you should show that proof.

@JohnP I'm trying to do my best, however there is still pressure for answering the answers in one-specific way (as overall consensus) like robots , so as results there is no way of writing/answering your own POV, even sources needs to be back-referenced in specific way, otherwise it's called cherry-picking.

Mostly I just don't want a lot of "Well, my Aunt Martha has this really cool doc that said..."

@kenorb - Did I nitpick one of your answers? I recall liking your answer style.

Ah, found it. The digestive one.

@JohnP This is not specifically about you. Just a guess, as I don't know your POV. Even there are some controversies, people has the right to know about negative studies and come to some conclusion by them-self, other than hiding them under the carpet and repeating what the Wiki consensus says.

@kenorb I agree with that. I don't think I've espoused the opinion that dissenting studies shouldn't be considered (Unless they were paid for by the company counting on that result).

And I generally don't like wiki references without backup. It's a good resource, but people tend to treat it as an irrefutable bible.

@kenorb - Hope I've explained myself a bit. If I can reassure you further regarding my stance, let me know. For some reason the three downvotes are kinda bugging me, since I'm trying to promote a healthy site (No pun intended).

Another thing is, you have said for example if the answer gives information about possibilities, it should be closed as either too broad or opinion based. Maybe I misunderstood your pov. However in health/medicine you never know for sure. If you've health risk about something, it's always about the percentages (provided from studies, or other statistics) and we are giving that information.

@kenorb I assume you're referring to this question: health.stackexchange.com/questions/224/…

In that case, it's basically just generic information with a "well, could be ok" kind of summation. If, for example, when you talk about the stomach acids and the sphincter, if you elaborated on why running and jumping might be bad, or something about the increased pressure on the stomach from abdominal tension it would greatly improve it.

Or elaborate on how peristalsis and digestion tend to really kind of shut down during exercise, which would lead to delayed digestion for heavier meals.

lasik risk question is a good example, e.g. you could get 0.1% some complication (based on statistics), but you never know for sure, so saying something 'you could', 'you can' I think is fine, because everything could vary on the person his condition, race, medical history, genetics and thousands of more

@kenorb - I hadn't seen that question. That's a fair point, but those are based on thousands of cases, many of which have similar pathologies. Exercising and eating (unfortunately) is very highly individual specific.

Again, if you added in items such as the LASIK question, where you elaborate on some of the possible things you could experience when exercising on a full stomach, it would be a much improved answer.

@kenorb I'm not asking for a study on that one. My problem was that you didn't outline what some of the complications could be other than some stomach acid.

It just needs some elaboration, not really a study proving anything.

I did delete my comment, which after rereading it, does seem to indicate its unanswerable, which really isn't the case.

Thanks for suggestions. I'll think how to improve that answer, I'm also not native speaker, so sometimes I've problems with finding the right wording. And the question it-self it's not something that's easily answerable also.

@kenorb Agreed on all points. I'm afraid I would fare very badly on a non English site.

If I can address any other points, I'd appreciate support for the mod position.

I've taken-off the down-vote.

much appreciated. Next I'll work on getting that to an upvote. :p

Gnight all

@Tim Have a good one.

@Tim Sweet dreams.

hurgh. This trip to World's is going to cost me about $2500. :/

Which is where to where?

Little Rock, Arkansas. I have to be there for a week + a car.

just saw this elsewhere

npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/03/228859954/…

talks about some journals publishing fake data for a fee

and looks like 2 people have declined for moderator

Hmm, seems 4 people don't want me to be a mod :(

4? only saw 2

I'm at +10 -4

I don't mind the downvotes, I just wish people would explain why

your not the most downvoted yet

Yeah, @anongoodnurse and @Tim both have -6 :(