"If you really believe you can draw a valid conclusion from information so incomplete it would not qualify as a sample,..." In that you are part of the arrangement that restricts the flow of relevant data, it's difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may legitimately cast into question the conclusions that we can draw from the data that is actually available.
However, the data that IS available is voluminous. It certainly qualifies as a sample. In fact, it's more than a sample, it's a complete population. It's a rather complete sample of one kind of data - publicly-made rebukes. That it doesn't represent every kind of data that exists is another point altogether.
“...then I believe you may have identified the root problem of a lot of the ongoing disputes in ‘open’ religious debate.”
The root problem is unrelated to this issue, but rather is related to the structure of the rules, themselves.
However, the lack of transparency certainly contributes to the problems that you cite.
Ergo, the reasonable request to make greater transparency.
sitetest
Ever heard of
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE?????
Pretty basic sampling rule.
The RM has asserted that the publicly available data is a fraction of the collection of data
OF THAT TYPE, THAT CLASS, THAT BALL-PARK, THAT CATEGORY.
Further, there's every reason to believe that the public portions of that class of data are not at all systematically derived . . . not at all prorportionally derived . . . not at all representative-of-any-consistent-anything-ly derived.
THEREFORE,
PRESUMING to build yet another RC towering castle of false assumption edifice on yet another toothpick foundation
is not exactly impressive.
A lot of . . . erratic . . . moderating goes on in FREEPMAILs if my personal experience is any clue. THAT ONE FACT throws any hope of consistency with the public data totally out the window.
This whole noise, whining, wailing, dust-throwing session strikes me as
YET ANOTHER
RC edifice effort TO DEMAND
ABSOLUTELY CHEEKILY DEMAND
that the FR forum as a whole conform to RC DEMANDS AND EXPECTATIONS in terms of
THEIR construction on reality;
THEIR sensibilities
THEIR comfort zones
THEIR thin skins
THEIR sanctimonious attitudes
THEIR farcical assumptions
THEIR elitist haughtiness
THEIR supreme Mt Sinai sense of PRESUMED GOD-GIVEN ENTITLEMENT to have the total and only spiritual monopoly in the universe . . .
etc.
etc.
etc.
Sheesh. Cheeky to the max.