The rest of my thread's in pointless drivel

[Joni]

Have you tried PM'ing either Cajun or MT about it?

Mate I suggested that, but he seems quite happy just complaining in the general forums.

[onearmedbandit]

general forums.

Good point Joni, only just got home from a ride and didn't notice the forum. It's moved to site stuff for. For the time being.

[GSVR]

I thought the title was great as after the initial start it kept most of the drivel posters off it.

[GSVR]

Mate I suggested that, but he seems quite happy just complaining in the general forums.

I just want to know who was responsable and why they never even had the decency to tell me why they did it.

I also want others to know where it is now.

[Joni]

I just want to know who was responsable and why they never even had the decency to tell me why they did it.

I also want others to know where it is now.

The PM Cajun or MT.

You are not a silly guy Garry, I would hope you have realised threads like this dont result in any constructive information. If you had aksed the question of a SM or Admin, you would of known by now.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

There's no such thing as centrifugal force.

I know... its all part of the earth sux theory...

GSVR do as the others have suggest and PM the senior mod or Site admin... I don't know the thread you are talking about, but I am sure there must a have been a reason.

[Mort]

well I've enjoyed this thread so far.... Keep going

[James Deuce]

http://www.centrifuge.jp/cgi-bin/calc-e.cgi

A web link as proof eh? My Physics professor, on the first day of class said, "There's no such thing as centrifugal force", and went on to explain centripetal force and things moving in a straight line until outside forces act on them, and objects being forced to move in a circle actually want their outside edge to peel off at a tangent to the arc of rotation.

So I'll say it again: There's no such thing as centrifugal force.

[Hitcher]

It was me who PDed it. I clearly failed to see the obvious seriousness and scientific rigor it contained. Upon rereading it I still do. Ditto for this thread as well.

[Steam]

I started a very serious thread concerning motorcycle dynamics.
The title was tongue in cheek and the first post was just to get interest but I spent alot of time making drawings and making sure I had my facts correct.

Start yourself a new thread in General Bike Ravings titled "Science, Maths, and Motorcycles", and make clear in the first post that it is a serious thread, not a joke.
The tongue-in-cheek first post of the PD'd thread made you look like you were taking the piss, hence all the foolish and amusing answers.

I was amazed and interested to learn how slowly a piston goes, so it would be a useful thread I reckon. I'd read it.

[Hitcher]

I was amazed and interested to learn how slowly a piston goes, so it would be a useful thread I reckon. I'd read it.

Because I nerdle along on my bike, the top half of the piston sleeves are badly corroded through lack of use. I should rev it out more, I guess.

[yod]

is it unreasonable for a notification to be sent to the instigator of a thread that gets PD'd ?

[Mikkel]

A web link as proof eh? My Physics professor, on the first day of class said, "There's no such thing as centrifugal force", and went on to explain centripetal force and things moving in a straight line until outside forces act on them, and objects being forced to move in a circle actually want their outside edge to peel off at a tangent to the arc of rotation.

So I'll say it again: There's no such thing as centrifugal force.

That depends upon your frame of reference (FoR).

If you're in a stationary FoR looking at a mass moving in a steady circular motion there will be only one resultant force on that mass - the centripetal force given by:

F = m*v^2/r (m is the mass, v the tangential velocity and r the radius of the motion)

If you instead move your point of observance to the centre of the motion and fix one axis to the vector going from the centre to the mass, you will find yourself in a rotating FoR. In this case there is indeed a centrifugal force.

So you're both partly right and partly wrong - it all depends on the FoR. It's all about perspective.

[Hitcher]

is it unreasonable for a notification to be sent to the instigator of a thread that gets PD'd ?

Yes. The reasons, apart from the colour scheme change, are generally self-evident. I can count on one hand's fingers (noting that coming from Eltham, I have an unfair advantage on that score) the number of times where a decision to PD has, on appeal, been reversed.

Generally attempts at rationalising a decision to PD end up in a stream of invective being aimed at Moderators for "censorship" or some other errant nonsense. It is therefore best that Moderators make no attempt at explanation whatsoever.

[Ixion]

Yes. The reasons, apart from the colour scheme change, are generally self-evident. I can count on one hand's fingers (noting that coming from Eltham, I have an unfair advantage on that score) the number of times where a decision to PD has, on appeal, been reversed.

Generally attempts at rationalising a decision to PD end up in a stream of invective being aimed at Moderators for "censorship" or some other errant nonsense. It is therefore best that Moderators make no attempt at explanation whatsoever.

Which is because very often that is precisely what it is.

The present thread debating the legalisation (or otherwise) of "Crystal Meth" is a good example. I cannot on any grounds consider the subject to be drivel: nor the debate to be pointless. So what other reason can there be other than censorship? A moderator disapproved of the suggestion - rather than posting cogent and reasoned argument in support of his position he chose to bin the thread. That is pretty much as definiton of censorship by my reckoning.