Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 5337

Directory

Diana Comte and Geraldo Suarez wrote an article in Science v. 263, p. 
212-215, 1994 in which they reported an inverted double seismic zone in 
Chile, where the polarity of the stresses were opposite compared to other 
double seismic zones in the world.
Are there other observations in other locations of the South American 
subducting slab which confirm to this inverted double seismic zone presence?
Are there other places where the subducting oceanic crust induces 
tensional deformation in the upper part of the subducting slab and 
compressional deformation in the underlying mantle?

In article <323B6F6B.3335@oro.net>, Richard Adams writes: 
>A note on surveys.  Tom says he's ignored my surveys and 
>registers a "no" vote through his posts.  For those that would 
>like to issue a permanent "NO" vote on this issue, the next 
>survey will contain a selection for that, so you'll only need 
>to vote once to tell me how strongly you feel in opposition. 
>I don't take any of this personally, and hope you understand 
>that my posts here are intended to only address the issues. 
Reichard, 
Somehow I feel very uncomfortable with the votes going to you 
for your manipulation.  I not saying that you would manipulate 
the votes, but I just don't trust anybody that is proposing 
something along with counting the votes. 
Got any other better ideas? 
Dennis

In article <323C46A7.4C18@oro.net>, Richard Adams writes: 
>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. 
> 
>Why do you complain about a moderated newsgroup when the 
>proposal includes a non-moderated one? 
> 
>Most specifically, what is your own agenda here Ken?  Do you 
>feel that some posts that you would want to make or see would 
>not be accepted by the proposed system?  If so please identify 
>such, or are you arguing merely for the sake of argument? 
Richard, 
Myself, I prefer one newsgroup to get my information from.  Having 
several creates extra work.  You know, like: 
    Sign-on and request the index for each newsgroup to be updated, 
    so that would be 4 requests instead of 2. 
    Browse the index for each newsgroup and select which 
    messages to downloaded for later reading.  This would require 
    selecting the newsgroup, open it, browse it, select for 
    download, close it (for 4 newsgroups instead of 2). 
    Sign-on for automatic downloads 
So I would have double the number of newsgroups to maintain. 
Additionally, both c.e and s.c.e don't have enough traffic to warrant 
breaking them out.  Most days, they get less then a dozen posts.  The 
prediction newsgroup wouldn't even get that over a whole month. 
Its a waste of time and a waste of reserved space at the provider 
sites (if they do that). 
So lets practice the KISS method and drop the whole subject. 
Thanks, 
Dennis

ATTENTION:
* Here's your chance to make a difference.
* All survey respondees will be held private.
* If the majority says NO, the proposed reorganization will cease.
* There will be no follow up to your survey response.
* No one will be told of your response.
* The survey itself has no direct force to change any newsgroup
  but the proponent will use the information to mold the
  proposal so your answers will affect the outcome.
* This is not an official Call For Votes (CFV).  You cannot
  vote to implement these changes at this time.
* Please vote in all cases, The group needs the votes
  from all observers and contributors, all should vote!
IMPORTANT, Please be sure you have the whole survey.
Your survey should end with the "END OF SURVEY" line
You don't have to answer all the questions.  I'll
consider anything you are willing to share with me.
email to happypcs@oro.net, No surveys accepted after 9/23/96
===============================================================
Which group(s) are you primarily concerned with?
Please mark one or both
(  )  sci.geo.geology
(  )  sci.geo.earthquakes
================================================================
(  ) Check here if you'd like to be added to the proposal as
     another proponent.  I'll contact you by e-mail in that case.
(  ) Check here if you'd like to be one of the persons listed
     as a moderator.  I'll contact you by e-mail in that case.
==================================================================
(  ) Changes to moderate the sci,geo.geology group are fine but
     don't change the sci.geo.earthquakes group, not one bit!
=================================================================== 
A recommendation has been made by a respected mentor in news
group matters to use the name sci.geo.earthquakes.moderated
rather than sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world.  This is more
consistent with current naming standards for moderated groups.
It is our right to choose a group name that we want and we
do not have to comply with the suggestion of the mentor.
Please vote for one name for the moderated group previously
proposed as sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world:
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.moderated
(  ) sci.geo.eartquakes._________________________________
                        (write in a group name extension)
==================================================================
A recommendation has been made by a respected mentor in 
news group matters to add an extension to the name for the
existing sci.geo.earthquakes group (which is NOT moderated)
in order to keep all the earthquakes groups on the same level
in the hierarchy.  The following suggestions were presented
each with a logical reasoning.
The .news extension identifies that the group is for posting
of up to date news about earthquake events and predictions.
This would be the most accurate name to agree with the
charter now proposed for the group.
The .unmoderated extension identifies that the group is the
unmoderated one.
The .misc extension identifies that any earthquake topic is
accepted here.  The .misc is equated with the term "general".
Continued usage is still available as an option to us, but adds
confusion to the hierarchy structure for users, news servers
and others, it should be AVOIDED.
Please vote for one of the following names to rename the
existing unmoderated sci.geo.earthquakes group to.
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes     [please read above about problems]
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.unmoderated
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.misc
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.news
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes._________________________________
                         (write in a group name extension)
==============================================================
A suggestion has been offered on numerous occasions to
continue to offer a unmoderated sci.geo.geology group
when the moderated group is formed.  This preferred naming
would be that if there is both an unmoderated group and a
moderated group that they both be on the same level of hierarchy,
which means they only differ in their final extension name.
Please fill in only one of the below combinations between
the delimiters.
==============================================================
(  ) Changes for earthquakes groups are fine but don't change
     the sci.geo.geology group at all, not one bit!
..............................................................
(  ) The unmoderated sci.geo.geology group should be replaced
     with a moderated group and there should be no unmoderated
     group.
     If you check this box, please select one of the following
     names for single moderated group.
(  ) sci.geo.geology  [same name as existing group]
(  ) sci.geo.geology.moderated 
(  ) sci.geo.______________________________
             (fill in one or two word name) 
.............................................................
(  ) There should be both a moderated and unmoderated group
     for sci.geo.geology.  Unless otherwise indicated, the
     conventional names are okay which are:
             sci.geo.geology.unmoderated
             sci.geo.geology.modererated
        If you prefer another pair of names, please fill in:
        Please: if one has an extension the other should also!
    sci.geo.geology._____________________________________________
                    (fill in extension to name unmoderated group)
    sci.geo.geology._____________________________________________
                    (fill in extension to name moderated group)
==================================================================
Some things to note:
There are two schools of thought on the issue of the "Rationale"
in the RFD, one says there should be a historical description
arguing for the need for the group.  The other says that it
is simpler to just outline what the ongoing rationale for the
group is without having a history lesson.  I go along with
the latter.
Several people have raised concerns over the lack of precise
detail within the RFD for the moderation policies.  I note
that when there is a moderator, we are really in the moderators's
hands no matter what the charter says.  I think it would
be misleading to list all the details out in the charter
when there is almost no mechanism to enforce this upon the
moderator except to do another RFD and CFV.
When I previously submitted a very detailed set of
moderation policies a mentor knowledgable in such matters.
He balked at the detailed list.  However, he did find that
the current policies in the rev 6 proposal were acceptable.
==================================================================
Here are some issues regarding the robot moderation system and
voting for the exclusion of certain posts.  These items are
not intended to be in the charter but will be in a document
the moderator shall make available to the group for public
inspection in the proposed system.
..................................................................
Should the proposed robot moderation system be scrapped and
replaced with a more usual one where a human reads each post?
(  ) Yes
(  ) No
..................................................................
Should the proposed moderation system be updated to provide
that no post should be declined until a human first reads it
and verifies the robot's decision to decline and include the
option to appeal to an appeals committee?
(  ) Yes
(  ) No
..................................................................
Should the proposed moderation system provide for the exclusion
of specific individuals on the basis of their e-mail address or
should the system be limited to the exclusion of posts that are
detectable as "off topic" via the cross post list (for example)?
(  ) Should permit exclusion of specific individuals.
(  ) Should NOT permit exclusion of specific individuals.
(  ) Other_______________________________________________________
...................................................................
What voter majority should be used to establish the criterion
to exclude certain posts?
(  ) Suggestion for 90% majority and minimum of 30 votes
(  )_______________________________________________
    (write in majority and minimum number of votes)
...................................................................
For what period of time shall posts be excluded when so voted?
(  ) Suggestion: 6 months
(  ) ________________________________________
       (write in amount of time)
===================================================================
(  ) I will never agree to any of this, STOP NOW!
     [The proponent doesn't take this personally and
      greatly appreciates your honesty]
===================================================================
===================================================================
Write in whatever you want!
===================================================================
END OF SURVEY (whew, you and your server made it!)

Hi, I would appreciate a list of frequencies as mine are out of date.  
Thanks.
Bonnie
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

There is another side of the communication equation to probe, and that 
is: does the public really want to know about earthquakes? My guess, 
after examining the history of earthquakes from Lisbon (a possible 
exception) to Loma Prieta, is that, except for a few days or perhaps 
weeks after a quake and such exceptionally interested persons as 
participate in this group, most persons in California want to resume 
their normal lives with as little reminder as possible about the many 
natural disasters that threaten them in this state. 
There was an interesting study titled "After a California Earthquake" 
(1992) by some University of Chicago researchers that bears this out. 
And, of course, the 1906 quake was quickly turned into a fire. It was 
easier for almost everyone to deal with this more predicable type of 
event. This doesn't mean that efforts shouldn't be made, but it does 
account for media and public disinterest after a while.
After taking personal, structural, and insurance precautions, and 
given the infrequency of damaging earthquakes and the seeming 
randomness of their occurrence, I wonder if it isn't better to just 
muddle through without being exposed to all the white noise.
Philip L. Fradkin
filfrad@nbn.com

Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
: 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.
From the responses I've read it certainly appears that YOU're about as 
uncooperative as anyone and you've certainly foisted your share...
: Aren't you the one claiming to know what's good for us,
Not really, I presenting the side of the argument to leave things as they 
are. You're the one who with the problem with one or two posters and this 
discussion is the result of YOUR attempt to change the complexion of a 
forum that was doing quite well without your intervention.
Clearly, the the majority of USENET citizens appreciate the UNmoderated forums 
- as evidenced by the relatively few moderated groups that make it through 
the voting process. Whether it's good for you is another matter. By chosing 
"my side of the argument" I make YOU responsible for what you read. By taking 
"your side of the argument" I make you responsible for what I have no 
opportunity to read. 
: What laws do you believe you're upholding Ken?  Real laws on
: the books, not some cliche please.
Laws??? There's no laws regarding fredom of speech on USENET. USENET is 
really the absence of regulation. That's one of the reasons that it is 
such an intersting place! It's also a wonder that it has worked so well 
for so long!
:  Absent any such statement
: of law, I am left believing that is only your own personal
: agenda you are arguing for.
Nice try, Richard! :) My "agenda" is quite clear. To keep some sniviling 
little twit from regulating a group that hasn't asked for his wonderful 
intervention! Otherwise, I'm perfectly content to let USENET regulat 
itself thru peer pressure and individual interaction - not by some 
automated robot!
: So I ask you again, what is your agenda here? 
To keep you from playing God with the printed word just because you're just 
too damn lazy to edit your own newsreader! 
: 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?
Has nothing to with MY posts. I rarely wander off-topic (except for 
discourses like these...) It has to do with the posts of others that you 
would chose to remove from existance.
Ken
-- 

I am looking for a detailed summary (a bit of an oxymoron that) of available
data formats for seismologically data - in particular AH, SAC, SEGY, ISAM, SEED
(and any others in a similar vein). 
I have seen C-program data structures but I need a more descriptive summary.
Can anyone supply this info or at least suggest where I might find it?
Russ Cuthbertson
QUAKES, Queensland, Australia

In article <51j32o$t0n@phunn1.sbphrd.com>, Triple Quadrop writes: 
>Most of the people cross-posting don't realise they're doing it. The best 
>way to cure a spate of off-topic cross-posts such as the one we've just
seen  
>is the mail each a poster a copy of their post with the line... 
> 
>Please remove inappropriate newsgroups when posting further on this topic.
> 
>...at the top. If 10% of the s.g.g readers did the same then it'd soon
stop.  
>You get a lot of apologies from people who just didn't realise that they'd
>posted to so many groups. 
Some online services, such as AOL, don't give you the option of 
modifying headers so you don't have any choice as to what newsgroups 
you post to when replying to a thread. 
I wonder how many providers have this problem. 
Dennis

In article <323DD61F.655F@oro.net>, Richard Adams  wrote:
> I use the answers as a guideline to understand the desires of the
> group as a whole.  These "votes" aren't used for any other purpose.
> The surveys I've posted contain statements identifying their usage
> and that the vote will not directly cause any changes.  Therefore,
> there should be no confusion as to their purpose when someone is
> e-mailing a response to me.
Then, why call them 'votes', unless you intend to mislead?

In article <323C8810.5F09@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
>
>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.
>
YES!
And the reason why a CFV is a public vote? So that we all know that it's 
fair. Your private little surveys are totally meaningless as all 56 
supporting e-mails may have been from you and your dog as far as we know. 
And how many bloody revisions of your draft proposals are we going to have 
to sit through? And why has it still not been posted to news.groups?
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

Dear sirs!
We are glad to inform you, that for June 22-25, 1998 the realization
 international conference "Mining Geophysics - 98 " is planned.
 The conference will pass in St.-Petersburg, Russia.
         Prospective basic themes of a conference are following:
1. Theoretical aspects of methods of mining geophysics;
2. Means, technique of supervision, processing and interpretation;
3. Geophysical monitoring of mine-geological, geomechanical, and technogenous
 processes of mountain manufacture;
4. Application of methods of mining geophysics at the decision of mine
 technical problems (estimation of a stress-deformed condition of a rock mass,
 monitoring and forecast of the geodynamic phenomena, monitoring  of structure,
  properties and condition of a rock mass breeds, and the other);
         Within the framework of a conference an exposition  of the mining
 geophysical equipment will take place.
         With gratitude we shall accept all your wishes and offers.
We ask to inform all interested persons and to place the given information
 in your calendar of events.
         Yours faithfully
 Dr., Prof. Dm. Jakovlev,  director of the state research institute of mining geomechanics
& mine surveying  (VNIMI)
         Contact:
 Dr. Jury S.Isaev
VNIMI, Sredny pr. 82, S.-Petersburg, 199026, Russia
         Voice: + 7 (812) 356-60-95
         Fax: + 7 (812) 213-55-87
         E-mail: isaev@vnimi.spb.su

In article <51i0qa$hn6@totara.its.vuw.ac.nz>, taber@rses.vuw.ac.nz (John 
Taber) says...
>
>In article <3239A9B3.C00@oro.net>, Richard Adams  writes:
>> > 
>> 
>> 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?
>
Obviously a vote was held and it was decided that your vote, being 
completely opposed to the general concensus, wasn't going to count.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

It seems to me that we are trying to crack peanuts with a piledriver
(again, sigh!).
The basic problem with *all* the newsgroups, it seems to me, is the misuse
of the 'crosspost' facility.  This is really the cause of the junk mail
getting onto the .sci. groups (and provokes our own tendency to respond!).
Is creating new, moderated, groups the (only) answer?  Can we not turn off
the crossposting facilities somehow - or make them *much* harder to
(ab)use?  This would tackle the problem at source, it would remove the
burdens of moderation (no simple task - and a thankless one at that), and
it would clean up the goups such that their traffic were back into the
areas of their charters.
Is there *any* way something like this could be achieved?  Or is this the
form of a complete new set of .sci. groups - *all* automatically moderated
using the same modferation software which simply excludes *all*
crossposted messages?
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPPPPH     H  | Peter Halls - University of York Computing Service -
P    P     H  |                        GIS Advisor
P    P     H  | Email: P.Halls@YORK.AC.UK
PPPPPJHHHHHH  | Telephone: 01904 433806  FAX: 01904 433740
P    J     H  | Smail: Computing Service,
P    J     H  |        University of York,
P    J     H  |        Heslington.
     J        |        YORK Y01 5DD
 J   J        |        England.
  JJJ   This message has the status of a private & personal communication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

sci.geo.geology and sci.geo.earthquakes
Keywords: 
The survey posted by R. Adams is biased.  I am conduncting
a simple survey.  It is:
1) Should sci.geo.earthquakes be moderated? (Y/N)
2) Should sci.geo.geology be moderated? (Y/N)
The surve will be active until 9/21.
This will adress the fundimental Question.
THIS WILL NOT BE AN ANONYMOUS SURVEY.
-- 
David Salzberg                salzberg@seismo.css.gov
Sliding down the slippery slope to oblivion...
All opinions are mine unless otherwise noted.

No@Junk.Email (Don Sterner) wrote:
>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:
NO, , , I'm not" moaning and throwing up my hands", rather, I am
exerciseing my right to NOT read that krap !  You, apparently
subscribe to the CDA, which I do not.
>>
>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
Dr Pepper  
10 - 2 - 4

Dick waves his latest scheme:
>ATTENTION:
>* Here's your chance to make a difference.
>* All survey respondees will be held private.
[snip]
This meaningless "survey" is a fraud from any scientific viewpoint.
Participation in it may have a result you do not intend.  Ignore it.
We should start treating dick like any other spammer. 
Oliver Seeler

russ@seismo.demon.co.uk (Russ Evans) wrote:
>In article <323DD61F.655F@oro.net>, Richard Adams  wrote:
>> I use the answers as a guideline to understand the desires of the
>> group as a whole.  These "votes" aren't used for any other purpose.
>> The surveys I've posted contain statements identifying their usage
>> and that the vote will not directly cause any changes.  Therefore,
>> there should be no confusion as to their purpose when someone is
>> e-mailing a response to me.
>Then, why call them 'votes', unless you intend to mislead?
Of course he intends to mislead - that's an inherent part of dick's
primitive technique.  Furthermore, his bogus private "surveys" are
devoid of whatever minimal value they might have, because while there
may be some people whispering in his malformed ears there are many,
many others who detest what he's up to and won't give him the time of
day. Dick's surveys have exactly the validity  of Dr. T's predictions
(birds of a  feather...), without the entertainment value. 
Oliver

In article <323E31E8.72E6@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
>
>ATTENTION:
>
>* Here's your chance to make a difference.
>
>* All survey respondees will be held private.
Why? What's the problem? Why should I worry if people know I'm completely 
against this proposal?
>
>* If the majority says NO, the proposed reorganization will cease.
>
===============================================================
Which group(s) are you primarily concerned with?
Please mark one or both
( *)  sci.geo.geology
(  )  sci.geo.earthquakes
================================================================
Please vote for one name for the moderated group previously
proposed as sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world:
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.moderated
( *) sci.geo.eartquakes.R_Adams.is.an.egomaniac___________________________
           ^^^
and I reckon earthquakes may be a better word here.
Please vote for one of the following names to rename the
existing unmoderated sci.geo.earthquakes group to.
( *) sci.geo.earthquakes     [please read above about problems]
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.unmoderated
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.misc
(  ) sci.geo.earthquakes.news
(  ) 
sci.geo.earthquakes.r_adams.is.an.egomaniac_________________________________
                         (write in a group name extension)
==============================================================
A suggestion has been offered on numerous occasions to
continue to offer a unmoderated sci.geo.geology group
when the moderated group is formed.  This preferred naming
would be that if there is both an unmoderated group and a
moderated group that they both be on the same level of hierarchy,
which means they only differ in their final extension name.
Please fill in only one of the below combinations between
the delimiters.
==============================================================
(  ) Changes for earthquakes groups are fine but don't change
     the sci.geo.geology group at all, not one bit!
..............................................................
(  ) The unmoderated sci.geo.geology group should be replaced
     with a moderated group and there should be no unmoderated
     group.
     If you check this box, please select one of the following
     names for single moderated group.
(  ) sci.geo.geology  [same name as existing group]
(  ) sci.geo.geology.moderated 
(  ) sci.geo.______________________________
             (fill in one or two word name) 
.............................................................
(  ) There should be both a moderated and unmoderated group
     for sci.geo.geology.  Unless otherwise indicated, the
     conventional names are okay which are:
             sci.geo.geology.unmoderated
             sci.geo.geology.modererated
        If you prefer another pair of names, please fill in:
        Please: if one has an extension the other should also!
    sci.geo.geology._____________________________________________
                    (fill in extension to name unmoderated group)
    sci.geo.geology._____________________________________________
                    (fill in extension to name moderated group)
==================================================================
Some things to note:
There are two schools of thought on the issue of the "Rationale"
in the RFD, one says there should be a historical description
arguing for the need for the group.  The other says that it
is simpler to just outline what the ongoing rationale for the
group is without having a history lesson.  I go along with
the latter.
Several people have raised concerns over the lack of precise
detail within the RFD for the moderation policies.  I note
that when there is a moderator, we are really in the moderators's
hands no matter what the charter says.  I think it would
be misleading to list all the details out in the charter
when there is almost no mechanism to enforce this upon the
moderator except to do another RFD and CFV.
When I previously submitted a very detailed set of
moderation policies a mentor knowledgable in such matters.
He balked at the detailed list.  However, he did find that
the current policies in the rev 6 proposal were acceptable.
==================================================================
Here are some issues regarding the robot moderation system and
voting for the exclusion of certain posts.  These items are
not intended to be in the charter but will be in a document
the moderator shall make available to the group for public
inspection in the proposed system.
..................................................................
Should the proposed robot moderation system be scrapped and
replaced with a more usual one where a human reads each post?
(  ) Yes
(  ) No
..................................................................
Should the proposed moderation system be updated to provide
that no post should be declined until a human first reads it
and verifies the robot's decision to decline and include the
option to appeal to an appeals committee?
(  ) Yes
(  ) No
..................................................................
Should the proposed moderation system provide for the exclusion
of specific individuals on the basis of their e-mail address or
should the system be limited to the exclusion of posts that are
detectable as "off topic" via the cross post list (for example)?
(  ) Should permit exclusion of specific individuals.
(  ) Should NOT permit exclusion of specific individuals.
(  ) Other_______________________________________________________
...................................................................
What voter majority should be used to establish the criterion
to exclude certain posts?
( 130% ) Suggestion for 90% majority and minimum of 30 votes
( 600000000000 )_______________________________________________
    (write in majority and minimum number of votes)
...................................................................
For what period of time shall posts be excluded when so voted?
(  ) Suggestion: 6 months
( * ) 1 nanosecond________________________________________
       (write in amount of time)
===================================================================
( * ) I will never agree to any of this, STOP NOW!
     [The proponent doesn't take this personally and
      greatly appreciates your honesty]
===================================================================
===================================================================
Write in whatever you want!
===================================================================
END OF SURVEY (whew, you and your server made it!)
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
 These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
 team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.

Archive-name: sci/Satellite-Imagery-FAQ/Pointer
Satellite Imagery FAQ
=====================
Satellite Imagery for Earth Observation
Last Modified: September 15th 1996:
   * Rewrote credits section (this has always been a TBD).
   * Added ADEOS reference (NASDA) to satellites list
   * Added Wim's collection re satellite orbits.
   * Fixed quite a lot of old URLs, including some of NASA's major sites
     (thanks to inputs from Liz Johnson and - as always - Wim Bakker).
   * Had a system crash while doing the update :-(
Note (update from June/July Notes)
The WWW addresses for this document have changed again, but the Interactive
FAQ remains out of service for the time being.
The HTML version of this FAQ may be read at Web addresses, including:
http://www.geog.nott.ac.uk/remote/satfaq.html
and the "faqlib":
http://www.faqlib.com/
http://www.ba-karlsruhe.de/faqlib/
http://www.vol.it/mirror/faqlib/
It can also be retrieved by email from the SATFAQ autoresponder.
Send blank email to satfaq@pobox.com for details.
The plain text version is available:
  (1) on news.answers and other newsgroups (see below)
  (2) by anonymous ftp from rtfm.mit.edu and its mirror sites.
  (3) by email from the SATFAQ or RTFM autoresponders - see below.
The RTFM archive name is sci/Satellite-Imagery-FAQ, or it may be
found under the sci.* newsgroups listed below.  Note that, for
technical reasons, it is NOT archived under the group comp.infosystems.gis
To retrieve it from RTFM:
(1) By FTP:
        ftp rtfm.mit.edu
           cd /pub/usenet/news.answers/sci/Satellite-Imagery-FAQ
           get part1 (etc - up to part5)
(2) By email: send email to
          mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu
     with the following in the body of your message:
           send usenet/news.answers/sci/Satellite-Imagery-FAQ/part1
           (or part2, ..., part5)
The full document is posted to the following Usenet groups:
	comp.infosystems.gis
	sci.geo.meteorology
	sci.image.processing
	sci.geo.eos
	sci.answers
	news.answers
Posting to comp.infosystems.gis is as a single document, to ensure its
rejection by the GIS-L gateway and avoid flooding list subscribers mailboxes.
GIS-L subscribers should see this pointer, but not the FAQ itself!
Nick Kew
satfaq@pobox.com (autoresponder - send blank email for details)
disclaimer: I'm posting as a private individual - 
	    not representing my employer or Client.

"Rene v. Rentzell"  writes:
>'xactly. The Islamic world is still in the Middle Ages (in more than one
>sense...); something like 1350 or so, I believe. The Buddhists are advanced
>(again, I tend to think they have a point); something like 2200. Japan is
>currently in the year 8, in words: *eight*.
>So, what gives? All this 2000 hullaballohh seems to make very little sense.
And around here, it seems a bit silly to argue whether the special
date should be Teveth 23, 5760 or Teveth 6, 5761... :-)
--
	Amos Shapir		Net: amos@nsof.co.il
Paper: nSOF Parallel Software, Ltd.
       Givat-Hashlosha 48800, Israel
Tel: +972 3 9388551   Fax: +972 3 9388552        GEO: 34 55 15 E / 32 05 52 N

David Salzberg wrote:
> 
> sci.geo.geology and sci.geo.earthquakes
> Keywords:
> 
> The survey posted by R. Adams is biased.  I am conduncting
> a simple survey.  It is:
> 
> 1) Should sci.geo.earthquakes be moderated? (Y/N)
> 2) Should sci.geo.geology be moderated? (Y/N)
> 
> The surve will be active until 9/21.
> 
> This will adress the fundimental Question.
> 
> THIS WILL NOT BE AN ANONYMOUS SURVEY.
> 
> --
> David Salzberg                salzberg@seismo.css.gov
> Sliding down the slippery slope to oblivion...
> 
> All opinions are mine unless otherwise noted.
Please offer suggestions to improve the survey I posted.
It was designed to continue to mold the proposal.
Your survey doesn't address the problem that the likely
answer for many people is:
"I want some moderation but it depends on what it consists of"
rather than a simple Y/N answer, the answer is "it depends".
Richard

gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
> 
> In article <323B6F6B.3335@oro.net>, Richard Adams writes:
> 
> >A note on surveys.  Tom says he's ignored my surveys and
> >registers a "no" vote through his posts.  For those that would
> >like to issue a permanent "NO" vote on this issue, the next
> >survey will contain a selection for that, so you'll only need
> >to vote once to tell me how strongly you feel in opposition.
> >I don't take any of this personally, and hope you understand
> >that my posts here are intended to only address the issues.
> 
> Reichard,
> 
> Somehow I feel very uncomfortable with the votes going to you
> for your manipulation.  I not saying that you would manipulate
> the votes, but I just don't trust anybody that is proposing
> something along with counting the votes.
> 
> Got any other better ideas?
> 
> Dennis
You have the right to question the results of the poles
I'm taking.  Dennis' point serves as a reminder that 
when you see me talking about about my surveys,  keep
in mind that I posted and counted these myself.  I've 
never denied doing this.  The survey has always been
only a guide to me to see where the group stands.
If I were to cast a poll and then ignore the true results,
I'd be wasting everyone's time which is illogical.  A little
deeper is the theory that when people see poles before they
vote, some tend to vote along with the currently projected
winner, so manipulating a poll might tend to sway people.
The proposal has the highest probability of passing if
it meets the needs of the most participants, not only
those that could be swayed.
No matter what I claim, there might be some doubt and
it is not appropriate for me to claim anything further
on this issue than I already have, other than to check on
the availability of an independant vote taker for these
sort of polls.  It's impossible to present an UNBIASED
universally believable poll without an independant.
Would having an independant pollster for the survey
change the minds of those already firmly against this?
Be assured that the official Call For Votes is handled by
an independant vote taker.
Good point Dennis.  
Richard

Ken Navarre wrote:

> Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
>
> : 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?
> 
> Has nothing to with MY posts. I rarely wander off-topic (except for
> discourses like these...) It has to do with the posts of others that you
> would chose to remove from existance.
> 
> Ken
How would you feel about having a robot that accepted all posts
except those that included a large number of cross posts?  It
would forward the posts to all the other groups listed, just
not post it here.  The post would not be removed from existence,
just forwarded to places where it might be more appropriate.
Is that a workable compromise?
Richard

Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
> 
> In article <323C8810.5F09@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
> >
> 
> >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.
> >
> 
> YES!
> 
> And the reason why a CFV is a public vote? So that we all know that it's
> fair. Your private little surveys are totally meaningless as all 56
> supporting e-mails may have been from you and your dog as far as we know.
> And how many bloody revisions of your draft proposals are we going to have
> to sit through? And why has it still not been posted to news.groups?
My surveys are meaningful to me.  That's as far as it goes.
Its stated as such within the survey.
Would having an independant vote taker for my surveys change
your stature here?
Perhaps you mean, why hasn't it been posted to the moderated group
news.announce.newgroups, which is the controlling gate for such
posts.  Talk to some of the proponents of other RFD's and you'll
get confirmation that it's not always easy getting an RFD through
there, or obvious why it wasn't accepted.
Richard