Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 5287

Directory

In article <323719EF.446B9B3D@andreas.wr.usgs.gov>, Andy Michael writes: 
>gentryd@pipeline.com wrote: 
> 
>> >Information doesn't need to wait on having all of the i's dotted 
>> >and the t's crossed.  If something is being observed, it doesn't 
>> >hurt for the public to be aware that something is being observed 
>> >thru some press release. 
> 
>Yes, it does need all the i's dotted and t's crossed.  It sounds 
>simple now: we observed a slow earthquake.  But sometimes deciding 
>what you actually observed is quite complicated and open to debate 
>and interpretation.  BTW, the data used to make these observations 
>is now on the WWW in real time (see http://quake.usgs.gov and look 
>for the Crustal deformation pages under Studying earthquakes). 
Thanks for the info, Andy. 
>However, sometimes when we release information too fast it is wrong. 
>This happenned with premature release of possible faults under 
>San Francisco Bay. 
Slow-earthquakes can't be treated the same as regular earthquakes? 
I sympathize with releasing information prematurely, though. 
>> >Did a panic situation happen with the Calavaras movement?  No. 
>> >If anything, people probably got themselves a little more prepared. 
> 
>In the case of the Bay faults the incorrect interpretation 
>threatened the expansion of San Francisco International Airport 
>which could have had a dramatic impact on the economy of this 
>area. 
You've lost me on this one.  Is this a hypothetical case? 
>Science is complicated.  Peer review is the basis of maintaining 
>quality.  It takes time.  If we released every new idea or possible 
>observation as quickly as possible you would see a lot of dreck 
>and your confidence in us would (hopefully) deteriorate.  The 
>time is critical to maintaining our usefulness. 
I agree.  But I also stand behind providing timely information as 
it occurs.  Even if we don't know what it means due to the lack of 
historical data. 
If something is occurring, lets keep everybody informed. 
Personnally, my confidence in the USGS wouldn't change one iota. 
In fact, my confidence would increase if I knew that all possible 
information, that may or may not be anything, was being made 
available. 
And I'm not saying that you guys don't try and educate the public. 
Far be it from me to say such a thing. 
Regards, 
Dennis

In article <51738f$7hr@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Chuck Karish writes: 
>In article , 
>Mary Corman  wrote: 
>>Thomas A. Russ (tar@ISI.EDU) wrote: 
>> 
>>: ...   Do you have any evidence to suggest that such damage 
>>: occurred as a result of this earthquake?  Or are you just making much 
>>: ado about nothing? 
>> 
>>Do you have evidence to prove that no damage resulted or could have 
>>resulted from a 4.8-equivalent earthquake? 
> 
>The reason the earthquake was singled out for discussion 
>is that it happened over a long time with no perceptible 
>shaking.  It's silly to quibble over posssible damage 
>caused by an absence of shaking. 
What is a long time?  And who's quibbling?  Were out here to 
learn something, and maybe, just maybe, we'll all learn a 
little bit more. 
>"Could have resulted" speaks to the potential for a large 
>earthquake on the fault.  Unless this unusual earthquake 
>showed the existence of a new fault, there's no new danger 
>to warn people about. 
Your assuming that it did come from the fault that it was 
recorded on.  Did it?  Could it have originated from somewhere 
else?  Do we know how far the waves were generated?  With 
normal seismic waves, they do die out with distance.  Is this 
the case here? 
>In fact, the harmless release of this energy REDUCED 
>the risk to people who live in the vicinity of the fault on 
>which it occurred. 
I would agree that is true in a lot of cases, but not necessarily 
true in all cases. 
>>I do want to know about events beneath my property. That motion  
>>wasn't in this vicinity, but if it occurs here, will anyone tell us? 
> 
>If such an event discloses the existence of a new fault, 
>the information will probably be made available to the 
>emergency planning folks in your county and/or city. 
>Remember, this data came from a research project, not 
>from an earthquake safety study. 
But now it is something that is known, and with sufficient funding 
(yeah, I know) could be monitored just as easily as current 
seismic monotoring networks. 
>>Many people who elect Congresspersons are most interested in  
>>what happens to them and to their families now or in the near  
>>future. Giving them facts when they become known can provide  
>>a local reason significant to them for funding the equipment  
>>and salaries needed to do further research. (You could define 
>>that as conspiracy, too, if you're in that frame of mind.)  
> 
>If you want to have your tax dollars spent on regional seismic 
>monitoring in addition to what's now spent on earthquake 
>research, by all means tell your congressperson and your 
>assemblyperson.  Please recognize, however, that unless and 
>until the research projects provide the engineering information 
>needed to predict earthquakes, an additional monitoring 
>network would be a waste of money and effort because it 
>could only tell you that an earthquake had already happened. 
Thats what we do now.  Are you saying that the current seismic 
monotoring networks are a waste of money and effort?  All they 
tell us is that an earthquake occurred.  Yes they do give us 
additional information about the earthquake, but the same can 
be said for slow-earthquakes. 
Dennis

In <323C46A7.4C18@oro.net> Richard Adams  writes: 
>Why do you complain about a moderated newsgroup when the
>proposal includes a non-moderated one?
Where is the non-moderated sci.geo.geology in the proposal?
Paul Heinrich brought up the idea of moderated and non-moderated (and I
agree that there should be a non-moderated s.g.g) and you said it
wasn't needed.  Why not?  
>Most specifically, what is your own agenda here Ken?  
Same question for you Richard.  What's your agenda?  I see a lot of
statements about surveys and email without any evidence.
>Do you
>feel that some posts that you would want to make or see would
>not be accepted by the proposed system?  
What posts will not be acceptable?  How does a 'bot make these
determinations?
Regards,
August Matthusen

Dr Pepper  wrote:
> I have seen this problem occuring more and more on ALL of the NG's
> that I subscribe to.  I don't think that there is much that anyone can
> do about it.  
There are several things you can do, rather than just moan and throw up
your hands as you seem to be doing:
(1) Spam the "Make money fast" type-spammers with their own spam
repeated a dozen times into one long message. They HATE it so much they
may send you notes declaring that if you send them any more spam, that
they have the right to invoice you $500 for each further message you
send them. Therefore send one huge long spam back to each off-topic
spammer invading the group, and tell your colleagues to do the same.
That way you spam the spammers cold, right between the eyeballs. Just
the one nice long biggie ...   
(2) Use an off-line reader to read only the threads that interest you. I
use MacSoup (awesome!,brilliant!) and routinely reject about 95% of
messages as killfiles or unread. But 'Soup still downloads all those
spams, bloats and off-topics, which use up bandwidth and my phone bills.
(3) Be more creative in your titles. You can continue a thread but it
doesnt stop you changing the title to something provocative. 
(4) Be more judicious in editing your quotes. Dr Pepper, your sloppiness
in quoting 23 lines of unedited text today clogged up my system and
helped run my HD out of free space. Remember the KISS principle? Keep It
Simple, Stupid? Remember that when you quote the previous message in
full, you look like a jerk, and then more people think you are a bozo
and then they don't read your posts so often, or if they do they arent
so polite
(5) Revalue what you put into your posts. You seem to think your message
is worth only two cents, and so it comes over that way. Put time and
effort into them - they are a reflection of your vitality, ingenuity,
beliefs, worth and humour so take some time and put your best efforts up
front. 
(6) Reduce your cross-postings. I'm willing to bet that most people read
all the NGs related to their interests, and get the same old baloney
two, three, four times. Give them a break! Send it just to the one group
and let them fish around for it.
(7) Copy this message to your friends. Why, it's valuable advice...
Enough said ... 

August Matthusen wrote:
> Where is the non-moderated sci.geo.geology in the proposal?
> Paul Heinrich brought up the idea of moderated and non-moderated (and I
> agree that there should be a non-moderated s.g.g) and you said it
> wasn't needed.  Why not?
I'll likley include an unmoderated s.g.g. as the proposal
continues, its a good idea for different reasons than I
applied to s.g.e.
> Same question for you Richard.  What's your agenda?  I see a lot of
> statements about surveys and email without any evidence.
I'll be a proponent of this topic for as long as the evidence
says its worth persuing.  The only ways to collect the current
consensus which includes both contributors and observers is
through surveys and posts in the group.  I'll DROP being the
proponent in an instant if it isn't what the group wants.
The surveys I conduct here are private e-mail.  People have a
right to vote TO ME in private to avoid flames.  Other voting
systems are not private, for example a CFV to pass or reject
this whole thing.  When you vote in a CFV, your vote is part
of the archived records.
> What posts will not be acceptable?  How does a 'bot make these
> determinations?
The criterion for voting, and programming the 'bot will be
available in a document available via http, ftp, and email.
Shortly, the initially proposed versions of these will be
posted.  Thanks for patience.
Richard

In article <3239A9B3.C00@oro.net>, Richard Adams  writes:
> > 
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:45:44 -0700, Richard Adams wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > >The majority of people now joining into the internet
> > >would prefer that some moderation reduce the level of
> > >off topic net wide spam,
> 
> 
> 
> My statement is substantiated by the recent survey I've
> conducted.  There are still responses coming in each
> day.  There are currently 56 responses and every one
> of them is a positive vote for the robot moderation.
> 
What happened to my negative response?
John Taber		Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University
John.Taber@vuw.ac.nz	P.O. Box, 600, Wellington, New Zealand

Nick Hunter wrote:
> 
> Dr Pepper  wrote:
> 
> > I have seen this problem occuring more and more on ALL of the NG's
> > that I subscribe to.  I don't think that there is much that anyone can
> > do about it.
> 
> There are several things you can do, rather than just moan and throw up
> your hands as you seem to be doing:
> 
> (1) Spam the "Make money fast" type-spammers with their own spam
> repeated a dozen times into one long message. They HATE it so much they
> may send you notes declaring that if you send them any more spam, that
> they have the right to invoice you $500 for each further message you
> send them. Therefore send one huge long spam back to each off-topic
> spammer invading the group, and tell your colleagues to do the same.
> That way you spam the spammers cold, right between the eyeballs. Just
> the one nice long biggie ...
> 
> (2) Use an off-line reader to read only the threads that interest you. I
> use MacSoup (awesome!,brilliant!) and routinely reject about 95% of
> messages as killfiles or unread. But 'Soup still downloads all those
> spams, bloats and off-topics, which use up bandwidth and my phone bills.
> 
> (3) Be more creative in your titles. You can continue a thread but it
> doesnt stop you changing the title to something provocative.
> 
> (4) Be more judicious in editing your quotes. Dr Pepper, your sloppiness
> in quoting 23 lines of unedited text today clogged up my system and
> helped run my HD out of free space. Remember the KISS principle? Keep It
> Simple, Stupid? Remember that when you quote the previous message in
> full, you look like a jerk, and then more people think you are a bozo
> and then they don't read your posts so often, or if they do they arent
> so polite
> 
> (5) Revalue what you put into your posts. You seem to think your message
> is worth only two cents, and so it comes over that way. Put time and
> effort into them - they are a reflection of your vitality, ingenuity,
> beliefs, worth and humour so take some time and put your best efforts up
> front.
> 
> (6) Reduce your cross-postings. I'm willing to bet that most people read
> all the NGs related to their interests, and get the same old baloney
> two, three, four times. Give them a break! Send it just to the one group
> and let them fish around for it.
> 
> (7) Copy this message to your friends. Why, it's valuable advice...
> 
> Enough said ...
Has the potential for fun, but time consuming.

Ken Navarre wrote:

> Of course you would. In a previous post you claimed to be a "strong
> defender of freedom of speech". Yet you're a driving force to provide a
> source to place mandatory restrictions upon the freedom of millions of
> people because you're incapable of screening you own mail!!! It's only
> natural that you'd fail to see the logic of that statement. You're a
> frightening contrast of statement and action! A typical example of a
> sector of the world's society who thiks that "THEY" know what's good for
> the rest of us.
I back up my claim that I support the First Amendment through
actions and not mere words, as evidenced by the lawsuit filed by
my daughter that I stand behind her on.  Its a matter of public
record.  
People in newsgroups have a right to meet and discuss the topics
they choose, not the topics foisted upon them by a few uncooperative
others.
Aren't you the one claiming to know what's good for us, through
your prior statement that you, "will argue to try to convince the
readers of the newsgroups that it is THEIR responsibility for
what they read..."
What laws do you believe you're upholding Ken?  Real laws on
the books, not some cliche please.  Absent any such statement
of law, I am left believing that is only your own personal
agenda you are arguing for.
So I ask you again, what is your agenda here?  The proposal I've
placed on the table calls for the continuation of a non-moderated
group.  Do you feel that discussions you would post or read will
not be accepted by the system?  If so what are these and why do
you feel they would not be accepted?
Richard

John Taber wrote:
> 
> In article <3239A9B3.C00@oro.net>, Richard Adams  writes:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:45:44 -0700, Richard Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >The majority of people now joining into the internet
> > > >would prefer that some moderation reduce the level of
> > > >off topic net wide spam,
> >
> >
> >
> > My statement is substantiated by the recent survey I've
> > conducted.  There are still responses coming in each
> > day.  There are currently 56 responses and every one
> > of them is a positive vote for the robot moderation.
> >
> 
> What happened to my negative response?
> 
> John Taber              Institute of Geophysics, Victoria University
> John.Taber@vuw.ac.nz    P.O. Box, 600, Wellington, New Zealand
My records indicate that the person may be referring
to another survey I recently conducted.  I have e-mailed him
to try and clear this up.
Richard

Mike Coen wrote:
> I will vote AGAINST a moderated sci.geo.earthquakes group.
> 
> I may vote FOR a sci.geo.earthquakes.predictions unmoderated
> newsgroup.  Although I am concerned the usual suspects will cross post
> to the regular earthquake groups.
> 
> If the vote wins I will not monetarily support sci.geo.earthquakes.
The form of moderation proposed will actually wind up
accepting most posts.  Why withdraw support?  The robot
moderator will go a long way to eliminate cross posts that
are off topic and satisfy your concerns.
I and others believe that having a separate predicitions group
without some way to enforce the division of topics would be practically
useless.  Those against predictions will argue with the predictors,
and the less cooperative predictors will post wherever they want.
What's proposed is a good division of topics.
Since the proposal includes a non-moderated group to continue
for both topics, all possible needs are served by the proposal.
Richard

In article <323C42E1.2FDC@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>Chuck Karish wrote:
>> Richard, if you can't see the totalitarian overtones inherent
>> in your proposal, you are not tuned into the libertarian
>> spirit of usenet.
>
>I believe that very little time will be spent conducting
>"popularity polls".  My impression is that most of the posts
>to be bounced would require almost no discussion at all due
>to a landslide majority consensus that they are off topic.
This misrepresents the proposed moderation scheme, as I understand
it.  The scheme that's been discussed so far would ban PEOPLE
(return addresses, anyway) from posting, not topics or ideas, which
are somewhat more slippery.  The idea of voting on individual
postings is silly, because nobody will know about them before
they show up on line.
>Can you identify some potential cases where, in your opinion,
>the group will have difficulty in coming to an overwhelming
>...say 90% majority?
"Robert A. Brown"'s curent fantasy, running on a bunch
of newsgroups right now.  Should he be banned?  He's
a certifiable net.loon who is talking about geology.
>Totalitarian?  Perhaps if there was a human moderator and we
>were under that person's whim; that's not what I'm proposing.
You're proposing that we vote to exclude people from
posting.  The democratic style does not change the exclusionist
result.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <323C46A7.4C18@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>Ken Navarre wrote:
>> Why don't you start a sci.geo.moderated.maillist and receive the posts as
>> they come off the USENET feed. Then use your robot (man or machine) to
>> fwd the approved posts to your subscribers? By doing so we'd all heve the
>> best of both worlds. You'd have your moderation and we'd have the
>> unmoderated group.
>>
>> Please address the issue regarding why a mail list would not
>> accomplish your goals.
>Because a mailing list is not a newsgroup, the rest of your
>questions are irrelevant.
This is the standard technique for demonstrating the need for
a new group: create a mailing list, and by documenting that a
large number of people subscribe, show that there is sufficient
interest to justify creating a newsgroup.
>Why do you complain about a moderated newsgroup when the
>proposal includes a non-moderated one?
Don't play the injured fool, Richard.  Moderation is the whole
point of your proposal.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <323C8CD1.4BEA@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>I back up my claim that I support the First Amendment through
>actions and not mere words, as evidenced by the lawsuit filed by
>my daughter that I stand behind her on.  Its a matter of public
>record.  
Sorry; I was under the misapprehension that your previous
statement was meant to be interpreted in the context in which
it was offered.
>People in newsgroups have a right to meet and discuss the topics
>they choose, not the topics foisted upon them by a few uncooperative
>others.
Is that in your copy of the Constitution?  On usenet we have the
privilege to choose the amount of bureaucracy we layer on our
discussions.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <323BAFBB.3085@crl.com>, bilsmith@crl.com wrote:
> I have read the following in this thread:
> 
> No, they have their work to do, and others to answer to.  Upon what
> presumption do you base your conclusion "something is wrong"?
> Do you walk down the street telling other people what to do?
I find it odd that asking professional people with solid information to
share it with the public in a way which is, from a lay point of view,
clearer and thus more informative.  Why shouldn't we ask?
> 
> > As to Bill Smith's suggestion, I am embarked on just such a project,
> > as stated in an earlier posting.
> 
> Well, then, what are you doing spending all your time whining?  
> Have you asked for books to read, have you asked if there is a FAQ
> (frequently asked question post)?  Have you bothered to explore an
> archive, even a simple one as Alta-Vista?  Have you organized your
> approach?
>
My, we really are uptight.  "all your time whining?"  Come now.  Fradkin
seems to be asking for more help offered to the public in an area where
the lay person is often ignorant and uninformed.  I would grant that some
the of ignormance is willful - it's not comfortable to think about what
might happen in a severe quake.  We all now a lot about that river in
Egypt, even seismologists. 
> I really don't care, your response doesn't belong on this newsgroup.
> If you have any "working questions", THEY belong in this group, not your
> unfounded complaints.
> 
>Isn't this a sort of dismissal by definition?  Why can't the discussion
be slightly broader to include some explici public policy implications?
 > 
> > Why am I meeting such total resistence from people whose addresses
> > indicate they are part of the scientific community, and why are they
> > the only ones replying to my query?
The above is really curious.  So many of the responses seem very definsive
and non creative and often very resistive.> 
> You are imagining things.  First of all you have created a straw-man,
> no one is resisting you.  Secondly, you are incorrect; I, for one am
> not part of the scientific community, nor does my address indicate I 
> am. Thirdly, you have only attacked and provoked, you haven't asked
> any questions which might contribute to your project.  Fourthly,
> you haven't listened.  Fifth, drop the assumption that any one
> else is going to do your work for you.
> 
Fradkin might have addressed his concerns in a better way, but surely
there is some room for both the layman and the newcomer to any such
discussion.  His observations have more to do with a mind set or attitude
than formal membership in some discipline.  To construe his comments as
attacking is, in my view, to miss the point once again.  Just because we
might be uncomfortable with his observations does not translate into an
attack.  Finally, it is Fradkin's work and all of ours if we  (a) have the
necessary technical information and (b) want to play a socially
responsible role.
We are in the morass here where politics and science become all mixed up
together and this morass is messy and uncomfortable.  imho, however, there
we are.  Can't we confront it directly without being dismissive?

In article <19960915230739602216@ao152.du.pipex.com>, Nick Hunter said...
>
>Dr Pepper  wrote:
>
>> I have seen this problem occuring more and more on ALL of the NG's
>> that I subscribe to.  I don't think that there is much that anyone can
>> do about it.  
>
>There are several things you can do, rather than just moan and throw up
>your hands as you seem to be doing:
>
major snip.......
A better, more effective method is the following:
Most newsreaders show the "Path:" field. Look at the last full
address in the path (i. e. !news.barfid.com!news). Send email
containing a polite note from you and enclose the full spam 
(including the headers). Send it to postmaster@barfid.com and/or
abuse@barfid.com.
Make your note congenial and plead for their help with their
subscriber. You'll be surprised at the results you get. Not all
ISPs will respond to you, but most take action.
-- 
dsterner@neosoft.com

> Bill, 
>  
> The better question would be; 
>  
>     How many predictions has he missed on? 
>  
> Dennis
   Huh...I believe I said that.
                                        Bill

In article <51hmcf$1t9@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
  wrote:
>In article <51738f$7hr@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Chuck Karish writes: 
>>If you want to have your tax dollars spent on regional seismic 
>>monitoring in addition to what's now spent on earthquake 
>>research, by all means tell your congressperson and your 
>>assemblyperson.  Please recognize, however, that unless and 
>>until the research projects provide the engineering information 
>>needed to predict earthquakes, an additional monitoring 
>>network would be a waste of money and effort because it 
>>could only tell you that an earthquake had already happened. 
> 
>Thats what we do now.  Are you saying that the current seismic 
>monotoring networks are a waste of money and effort?
Most of the instruments now in place are there for research
purposes, not for mitigating damage in the event of an
earthquake.  Some of them are there to allow us to study whether
a monitoring system can be devised that will give us advance
warning of future earthquakes.  Others are in place for other
scientific reasons.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <51higb$q6t@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
  wrote:
>In article <5173dr$7ia@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, Chuck Karish writes: 
>>In article <515ij4$6ag@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, 
>>  wrote: 
>>>I wonder how many people did find some damage that they had repaired  
>>>not knowing that it may have been caused by this movement?  
>> 
>>We're talking about an event that caused no perceptible shaking 
>>and no surface rupture, and that took place in an unpopulated 
>>area. 
> 
>But then we didn't have any surface rupture with the Northridge 
>event albeit it did occur in a populated area. 
I think I read that there was there some surface expression up near
Sylmar, unless I'm mixing this up with a description of the 1971
earthquake in the same area.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <51hifq$q6e@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
  wrote:
>Question though.  Do the seismologists go thru the same process 
>when they are posting information about an event that has 
>occurred? 
Various governmental and academic laboratories post raw
earthquake data as promptly as they can.  The dispatches
I've read all include disclaimers that say that the data
hasn't been analyzed in detail.  Since they're presenting
raw data rather than conclusions, concerns about reviewing
their analyses don't apply.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

Here we have bishops, priests, and deacons, a Censorship Board, vigilant
librarians, confraternities and sodalities, Duce Maria, Legions of Mary,
Knights of this Christian order and Knights of that one, all surrounding
the sinner’s free will in an embattled circle.
Sean O’Casey (1884–1964), Irish dramatist. Letter, 8 June 1957, to Irish
Times (Dublin).

coupled with your current clerical error, it's a miracle we know anything!
Richard Ottolini  wrote in article
<51hcte$q6d@news.unocal.com>...
> No, conventional wisdom says he was born in the spring of 6 BC,
> before **Herold** died in 4 BC.

Chuck Karish wrote:

Within your most recent three replies, the discussion
contributed by you has degraded to sarcasm, wit, and 
distortion of the issues presented.
When a discussion degrades in that fashion, the parties
that have already sided one way or another tend to become
more polarized by a continuation as such.
I am not here to promote a polarization.  I want the issues
to remain on the table, and the participants to keep an open
mind to the discussions that are ahead of us.
With that in mind, there is little point in continuing this
thread with you as doing so would not be convincing anyone of
anything other than a propensity to argue.
The primary concern to the interested parties at this point
should be what the next revision of the proposed RFD includes.
I will soon be submitting a survey to the group to determine
answers to the outstanding issues.
If you have an idea that you've been considering and feel
should be a part of a survey, or something I may be overlooking,
please post it or e-mail to to me and I'll include it in the
survey.
Richard

Michael Mery wrote:
> 
> In article <323BAFBB.3085@crl.com>, bilsmith@crl.com wrote:
> 
> > I have read the following in this thread:
> >
> > No, they have their work to do, and others to answer to.  Upon what
> > presumption do you base your conclusion "something is wrong"?
> > Do you walk down the street telling other people what to do?
> 
> I find it odd that asking professional people with solid information to
> share it with the public in a way which is, from a lay point of view,
> clearer and thus more informative.  Why shouldn't we ask?
He wasn't asking a question, he was demanding that professionals drop
what
they are doing and re-prioritize according to Fradkin's whims. 
"Something
is wrong" is conclusive and a rather strong statement.  He wasn't asking
a topical question, he was prejudging.  The "professionals" in this
group
by and large are engaged in research, not in public relations.  To cater
to a "lay point of view" is probably counterproductive to their research
efforts.  Yet, if one posts a specific question, they do their best to 
answer it.  What more can one ask?
I find it odd that the "lay person" doesn't have the sense to watch a
group
for a while to see which topics are discussed and how.  It seems
impolite
at best to grab some conclusion from a report and post it in a newsgroup
that is generally established to accomplish the very object of the
complaint!
> 
> >
> > > As to Bill Smith's suggestion, I am embarked on just such a project,
> > > as stated in an earlier posting.
> >
> > Well, then, what are you doing spending all your time whining?
> > Have you asked for books to read, have you asked if there is a FAQ
> > (frequently asked question post)?  Have you bothered to explore an
> > archive, even a simple one as Alta-Vista?  Have you organized your
> > approach?
> >
> My, we really are uptight.  "all your time whining?"  Come now. 
Yes, come on!  Really this whole discourse is very much off-topic.
> Fradkin seems to be asking for more help offered to the public in an area where
> the lay person is often ignorant and uninformed.  I would grant that some
> the of ignorance is willful -- it's not comfortable to think about what
> might happen in a severe quake.  We all now a lot about that river in
> Egypt, even seismologists.
I care not to project what Fradkin is thinking, or not thinking, except
he seems
to think geoscientists here owe him something.  They don't!  Ignorance
is no excuse
for brashness, nor is fear any excuse for avoidance.
There has been a lot of earthquake information posted in this and
ca.earthquake newsgroups.  There have been questions and clarifications
posted in response.  There have been corrections posted to errors, with
explanation.  What more are you proposing?  Fradkin has apparently
ignored all this and pulls some conclusion from some report somewhere
and
posts it here, then complains.
> 
> > I really don't care, your response doesn't belong on this newsgroup.
> > If you have any "working questions," THEY belong in this group, not your
> > unfounded complaints.
> >
> >Isn't this a sort of dismissal by definition?  Why can't the discussion
> be slightly broader to include some explicit public policy implications?
> 
See above.  Explicit public policy implications (what are these?) have
not
been excluded.  Discussion where this topic is the focus likely belongs
in a
political science newsgroup. 
>  >
> > > Why am I meeting such total resistance from people whose addresses
> > > indicate they are part of the scientific community, and why are they
> > > the only ones replying to my query?
> 
> The above is really curious.  So many of the responses seem very defensive
> and non creative and often very resistive.>
> > You are imagining things.  First of all you have created a straw-man,
> > no one is resisting you.  Secondly, you are incorrect; I, for one am
> > not part of the scientific community, nor does my address indicate I
> > am.  Thirdly, you have only attacked and provoked, you haven't asked
> > any questions which might contribute to your project.  Fourthly,
> > you haven't listened.  Fifth, drop the assumption that any one
> > else is going to do your work for you.
> >
> Fradkin might have addressed his concerns in a better way, but surely
> there is some room for both the layman and the newcomer to any such
> discussion.
This comment is curious.  First of all, this is a scientific newsgroup,
(not 'alt.popular.earthquakes'), where phenomena are discussed in
terminology
familiar to those who frequent the group.  Reference to a dictionary or
to
a basic book on geology may be necessary as needed to someone who hasn't
the foggiest idea of what a fault line or a scarp is.  (They could
likely
get an answer by positing the question, too.)  Secondly, I, as a layman
have had little difficulty reading for understanding, and I have
actually
learned something.  This does put some sense of responsibility on the 
part of the reader (horrors!) to take the effort to understand the
discourse.  I as a layman have had no difficulty in most cases.  In a 
few, I have e-mailed questions and have received prompt, courteous 
explanations.  I've also looked up a few.
> His observations have more to do with a mind set or attitude
> than formal membership in some discipline.
I am painfully aware of that.
> To construe his comments as attacking is, in my view, to miss the 
point once again.
I construe his comments as impolite and impertinent.  Not to say
irresponsible.
> Just because we might be uncomfortable with his observations does
> not translate into an attack.
I agree.
> Finally, it is Fradkin's work and all of ours if we (a) have the
> necessary technical information and (b) want to play a socially
> responsible role.
I hope he proceeds with it.  This conversation has nothing to do with
the topic!  Nor did his.
> 
> We are in the morass here where politics and science become all mixed up
> together and this morass is messy and uncomfortable.  IMHO, however, there
> we are.  Can't we confront it directly without being dismissive?
No, it is not an issue of politics Vs science.  It is a very important
question of responsibility.  Why messy and uncomfortable, unless "it" is
poorly
defined?  I have made every attempt to confront the issue bluntly and
directly,
if nothing more than as a shock in an attempt to illustrate the horrid 
mistake of expecting society to take care of its constituents.  How
would
you like me, as a leader, to take care of you?  I suspect you would
quickly
dismiss me.  I did not dismiss Fradkin, but I request that he ask
scientific
questions in a scientific newsgroup and observe a bit so that he can
back
up his conclusions with measured data.
We now return the operation of this receiver to the viewer.
73 de Bill, AB6MT
bilsmith@crl.com

In article <51g2er$qbr@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
Chuck Karish  wrote:
>be implemented individually or as a package.  As the RFD
>now reads, it's an all-or-nothing vote.
>
It's one newsgroup at a time, which was your question (my apologies for 
the clumsy snip).  The only vote that affects two newsgroups is a renaming 
vote, and only to the extent that it replaces one newsgroup with a second.  
This is standing Big 8 policy, non-negotiable.  Votes on the moderation
of different newsgroups will *not* be packaged, although there is a
phenomenon called "blanket voting" such that people *often tend* to
vote a whole reorg up or down at once, rather than properly approaching
each proposal on its own merits.
Moving to more general remarks...
Worth noting that Una Smith, who queried the setup of this reorg, was
until recently a member of group-advice, who are the right and left hands
of tale, news.announce.newgroups' moderator.  For all I know she's
rejoined.  Her disapproval is Yet Another Sign, in my view, that we're
looking at a bad idea here.
My main reason for opposition, to date, is Mr. Adams' continued
disrespect for the norms of newsgroup creation.  However, I might as
well offer some more.  One, there appears to be substantial opposition
to moderation from the readerships of the affected groups, and I'm not
seeing much if any support.  Two, banned-poster lists need to be
handled with care if at all, and it doesn't sound like this is
happening here.  Three, routine votes are a great way to mess up
a newsgroup.
Give this thread another few days and I'll doubtless find more.
My first post on re-entering this discussion commented snidely on
Mr. Adams' "apparent inability to snip".  He promptly sent me a very
courteous e-mail which snipped my post down to one (other) paragraph
and replied.  I'm delighted to see he has learned how to save
bandwidth and reader tedium.
However, I'm disappointed to see he hasn't learned how to be a
newsgroup proponent.
Joe Bernstein
-- 
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk, and bookstore worker
Speaking for myself and nobody else                joe@sfbooks.com
but...  co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now under discussion
in news.groups

In article , hatunen@netcom.com
(DaveHatunen) wrote:
> For those interested: Iakopi's update of Sunset's old Earthquake Country
> book is out now, and I just picked up the copy I ordered from Stacey's
> here in Palo Alto. Looks pretty informative, and is updated through the
> Northridge and Kobe quakes.
> 
> Doesn't include those great aerial photos with the pink swatch through
> them, though, so my area of Daly City is no longer in there. Since a
> lot more houses have been built in that band that was colored pink...
 ************************************************
Yes it does offer some good info.  I do miss the maps with swaths that
indicate the fault zones.  Especially the one which depicts the San
Janicto fault running right underneath the I-10/I-15 Interchange 
east of Los Angeles.
There are a few errors, however.
For the most part it is an excellent source of information.
I own a 1971, 1980, and now, a 1996 version of the book.
I picked up then 1980 revision in a thrift shop in Santa Barbera.
I paided a whopping .50 cents!  It is in prime condition too!
-mjf