Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: RIchard Adams
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:41:38 -0700
Oliver Seeler wrote:
>
> 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
========================
Hmmm....
1) "primitive technique"
2) "bogus private surveys"
3) "minimal value"
4) "people whispering"
5) "malformed ears"
Comparing techniques, Oliver and Dr. T employ the same
propaganda, belittling their opponents with as many
negative adjectives or phrases as they can fit in a
sentence. Neither of them are right, only noisey.
Dr. T claims he's different cause he's a Frenchman and
that we should learn to accept him.
What's your excuse Oliver?
There Oliver stands in front of the polling place,
blocking your right to vote, belittling you should
you dare to pass him. Sorry Oliver, you're not
tricking us this time.
The intent of the survey is stated in the survey.
Vote!
Subject: Re: Publishing Scholarly Work on the Web -- opinion anyone?
From: Nick Kew
Date: 16 Sep 1996 22:27:16 GMT
> I agree and support the concept. The problem I see is that it may be
> that many of the scientific journals will not be happy about being
> second in line for a paper though it could force them to provide
> electronic subscriptions.
My original suggestion is to hold *abstracts* online, with the provision
to hold full papers where appropriate. Keeping abstracts in an easily-
searchable website would surely be a valuable service to researchers,
while referring them to the traditional publishing media for full papers.
My software will index and cross-reference the abstracts, and has the option
to hold any or all of the full papers online according to publisher choice.
As others have pointed out, the peer-review process is an important element
of academic publishing. I believe web-based collaboration software can
be used to facilitate this process, providing a forum ("workgroup") whose
members are a paper's authors together with recognised referees in a
subject area. Such papers may have readonly access to the general public
(or subscribers-only if a publisher prefers) while in the review process,
thus accelerating the publication cycle.
The technology is ready: we need only apply it!
Nick Kew.
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: RIchard Adams
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:52:32 -0700
Peter Halls wrote:
>
> 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
If there was means to turn off crossposts at the administrative
level, it would tend to usher in a new breed of news posting
software which automatically posted to many individual groups
to circumvent the system. Aren't there some that already to this?
Richard
Subject: Re: SURVEY - all voters kept secret - here's your chance to have a say & make a difference without being flamed -for sci.geo.geology and sci.geo.earthquakes
From: russ@seismo.demon.co.uk (Russ Evans)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 22:39:10 +0100
In article <323E31E8.72E6@oro.net>, Richard Adams wrote:
> * All survey respondees will be held private.
Q. Why do you think that Usenet has come to use a system in which its
polls are taken by independent volunteers and where names and votes
are published for scrutiny?
A. Because voter fraud is rife, and because there were far too many
questionable incidents when proponents took their own polls.
> * If the majority says NO, the proposed reorganization will cease.
The majority has made it very plain that it does not want your
proposals. That does not seem to have stopped you yet!
> ( ) I will never agree to any of this, STOP NOW!
Exactly. Listen to the s.g.[e,g] community -- STOP NOW!
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: gdmiller@igate1.hac.com (Gary D. Miller)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:11:10 -0700
In article , kjn@netcom.com (Ken Navarre) wrote:
> No Richard. As usual you just don't understand. What's at issue here is
> the question of "MODERATION" - period. You want to moderate
> newsgroups that were previously chartered as unmoderated.
>
I think what is being proposed is to establish moderated versions of s.g.e
and s.g.g in parallel with the existing unmoderated versions. This won't
prevent anyone from participating in the existing groups.
Just for fun, search the list of all newsgroups carried by your ISP for
the word moderated, and notice how frequently there are moderated and
unmoderated versions of the same newsgroup. Open up a few of those pairs,
and examine the difference between them. The discussions are very
different in the moderated groups, and would likely be very dry and boring
to most of the correspondents in the unmoderated versions.
I just did this for the following groups. The numbers following each group
name are the number of messages presently in each of these groups on my
news server, with unmoderated first, and moderated second.
alt.atheism (3800, 65)
misc.entrepreneurs (3507, 246)
misc.legal (686, 209)
misc.taxes (421, 115)
sci.archaeology (587, 11)
That last one is a good example. The few messages on
sci.archaeology.moderated are scientists discussing archaeology, period.
The unmoderated sci.archaeology includes lots of discussion about Noah's
ark, Atlantis, the Ark of the Covenant, aliens and pyramids, and other
such matters. Both groups are meaningful and useful to their participants
- but they are very different sets of participants.
These numbers suggest that having a moderated group does not inhibit the
unmoderated version.
Regards,
Gary Miller
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: RIchard Adams
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:32:40 -0700
Russ Evans wrote:
>
> In article <51l7l8$ok1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, tfile@ibm.net (t-files) wrote:
>
> > I think that an article crossposted to news.announce.newgroups and
> > news.groups, enters a long que for moderation. These 2 groups are
> > taken off the header and it is posted to the remaining groups. I am
> > sure that Richard is right on this point.
>
> That is not at all the case. Submissions to n.a.n are reviewed, initially
> by group-advice and subsequently by tale, before posting to n.a.n and all
> affected groups *simultaneously*. The purpose of this practice is to
> avoid the situation which has developed in regard to RIchard Adams' (sic)
> proposal i.e. that discussion of an unreviewed proposal is now, in effect,
> being conducted in a disconnected fashion across a number of fora. There
> is no guarantee (in fact, given the way in which Adams has conducted this
> matter, it would seem quite likely) that any proposal approved by tale
> will match the proposal published informally. I would go so far as to
> suggest that most of the voting constituency is now hopelessly confused.
>
> Please check your facts before posting, by reading the guidelines on group
> creation which are regularly published in news.announce.newgroups.
>
> Followups directed to news.groups, which is where all of this discussion
> should be occuring.
Russ,
The document I was directed to which addresses reorganization
is located at:
http://www.smartpages.com/faqs/creating-newsgroups/helper/faq.html
That document says in reference to reorganizing,
"If you _really_ want to consider splitting, thoroughly
discuss the possible split on the affected groups before
even thinking about an RFD."
This says that a discussion to reorganize should be
conducted on the affected groups rather than news.groups
as you have suggested. As you know there has been no
official RFD yet although I am working to get one together.
Also the document says,
"You really shouldn't take on the responsibilities
of a reorganization unless you've fully handled at
least one group vote."
I haven't handled a group vote yet and admit that
has caused me to stumble while doing this. I can't
correct the past but I will do better by enlisting
more experienced help in the future.
I'm greatful that you continue to volunteer your
own valuable experience in these matters.
Richard
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Date: 17 Sep 1996 20:01:55 GMT
In article <323EE560.7DAE@oro.net>, RIchard Adams wrote:
>Peter Halls wrote:
>> 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?
The only sure-fire way to to that is to auto-moderate the
group using a program that filters out cross-posted
articles and lets the rest through.
The whole point of this discussion, however, is that there
are differences of opinion as to what constitutes abuse.
>If there was means to turn off crossposts at the administrative
>level, it would tend to usher in a new breed of news posting
>software which automatically posted to many individual groups
>to circumvent the system. Aren't there some that already to this?
It would take about five minutes to modify existing article
posting scripts to work this way. This would also bypass
moderation robots. The more sophisticated spam services
already do this.
--
Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
(415) 323-9000 x117 karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 00:32:49 GMT
[ Follow up to news.groups. ]
In article ,
Gary D. Miller wrote:
>Just for fun, search the list of all newsgroups carried by your ISP for
>the word moderated, and notice how frequently there are moderated and
>unmoderated versions of the same newsgroup. Open up a few of those pairs,
>and examine the difference between them.
>I just did this for the following groups. The numbers following each group
>name are the number of messages presently in each of these groups on my
>news server, with unmoderated first, and moderated second.
>sci.archaeology (587, 11)
>
>That last one is a good example. The few messages on
>sci.archaeology.moderated are scientists discussing archaeology, period.
>The unmoderated sci.archaeology includes lots of discussion about Noah's
>ark, Atlantis, the Ark of the Covenant, aliens and pyramids, and other
>such matters. Both groups are meaningful and useful to their participants
>- but they are very different sets of participants.
>
>These numbers suggest that having a moderated group does not inhibit the
>unmoderated version.
Depends on whether the charters are significantly different
for the moderated and unmoderated versions. They're not,
in the current proposal. Some of Richard's statements have
suggested that on-topic cross-postings would be welcome.
In the sci.geo.* case, the unmoderated group alone is being left alone
purely out of political expediency - the proponent knows that
simply adding moderation wouldn't pass a vote.
--
Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
(415) 323-9000 x117 karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: NEW SURVEY
From: RIchard Adams
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:18:32 -0700
ABdikjse wrote:
>
> I vote NO moderation for either group.
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to provide a clear, straight-forward answer
> not geared to trip us up or, by voting, make it seem like we approve of
> something we do not.
> Lady8
Whether you use my survey, your own words,
snip mine, post yours, e-mail, whatever it is,
I respect and consider all votes.
Richard
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: chmood@photobooks.atdc.gatech.edu (Charlie Moody)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 03:13:36 GMT
On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:45:44 -0700, Richard Adams wrote:
: The majority of people now joining into the internet
: would prefer that some moderation reduce the level of
: off topic net wide spam, and the system proposed here
: is a good working system to do that.
So we should voluntarily dumb down to avoid challenging the invading
masses? "Spam", in its widest meaning, encompasses commercial posts,
make-money-fast schemes, chain letters, solicitations, unwanted or
off-topic messages of all sorts, whether public (news) or private
(mail). The problem represented by spam is not local to sci.geo.*: it
is a situation confronting the net as a "whole".
Giving in to the repressive tendency that says we need someone to keep out
the riff-raff, and by doing so allowing newsgroups to become dominated by
'Paladins of the [newsgroup.name] Party Line', is *not* IMO "...a good
working system to [deal with]...off-topic, net wide spam".
We might as well decide to deal with crime by closing our windows &
turning up our televisions!
: Kill files are more useful to experienced users with particular modes of
: internet service, which is not the mode of typical user these days.
What we *really* need to be talking about here is how to deal with spam,
not not just in [newsgroup.name], and who knows, maybe kill-files will
play a prominent role (no reasons that kill-files couldn't be standardised
& incorporated into gui-tools or news-servers & mail-daemons, for
example). Maybe ISPs could 'take the pledge' to keep their domains free
of spam.
Rather than figuring out ways to limit users and the net, I'm strongly of
the opinion that we should deal with the real issue by establishing and
incorporating ways in which users can effectively combat spam, and means
by which the level of the problem can be reduced.
If these comments are out of line, please accept my apologies.
: As stated in the moderator qualifications in the RFD
: and a concern to Tom is that I am not a professional
: in the field of geology. This means I come to the
: group without any potential bias or agenda of my own
: with regard to the topic matter. I do have more than
: a passing interest in reading the posts of others
: qualified in these diverse fields, and in adding my
: 2 cents worth when deemed useful. I view my lack of
: bias as a positive in the regard of trust and loyalty.
Here I agree.
--
Land of the Free...or National Security State???
The CHOICE is YOURS!
Vote Libertarian in '96!
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: oseeler@mcn.org (Oliver Seeler)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 04:12:10 GMT
RIchard Adams wrote:
>Oliver Seeler wrote:
>>
>> Of course he intends to mislead - that's an inherent part of dick's
>> primitive technique.
[snip]
>Hmmm....
>1) "primitive technique"
The propaganda techniques employed by dick are very old and have long
ago been abandoned by all but the most backward despots. Primitive.
>2) "bogus private surveys"
History lesson: Any secret survey, vote, poll etc. conducted by an
involved party can only be considered bogus until proven otherwise.
>3) "minimal value"
Sorry. "no value"
>4) "people whispering"
dick claims to have all sorts of private support...
>5) "malformed ears"
There is clearly an aural problem - the loud and clear message just
isn't getting through.
>Comparing techniques, Oliver and Dr. T employ the same
>propaganda, belittling their opponents with as many
>negative adjectives or phrases as they can fit in a
>sentence. Neiither of them are right, only noisey.
>Dr. T claims he's different cause he's a Frenchman and
>that we should learn to accept him.
I wouldn't know - I don't read Dr. T much, which I figured out how not
to do all by myself without any help from Big Brother dick ...
>What's your excuse Oliver?
Resitance against and exposure of petty but nevertheless dangerous
tyranny -
>There Oliver stands in front of the polling place,
>blocking your right to vote, belittling you should
>you dare to pass him. Sorry Oliver, you're not
>tricking us this time.
Tricking? What a word coming from tricky dick himself! Tsk. The
difference between dick and myself (and a host of others around here)
is that I'm not being disingenuous, but am making it crystal clear (at
the cost of some personal discomfort, BTW) that I detest what he
represents and the devious ways he is attempting to impose his
ill-concieved, dangerous and self-serving ideas on these newsgroups.
It's the exact opposite of tricky. It's perhaps too in-your-face, but
it's the best I can do in this unfortunate instance.
As for "blocking the polling place": What arrogance! There is no
"polling place" - the genuine polls aren't open yet - dick has set up
a little secret survey of his very own (appropriately enough), for
whatever reasons - perhaps in hopes of further obfuscating the issues,
or - who knows - perhaps with the idea of confusing the eventual
genuine voting (remember, folks, voting in dick's mailbox is not a
real vote - you need to do that too, later) and he is now,
ludicrously, claiming that those who sneer openly at this mockery of
a democratic process are interfering with others' rights to "vote"!
How can this be? And how can I "belittle" anyone who takes part in a
"secret" ballot? Primitive.
Hands Off Usenet!
Oliver Seeler
Subject: Re: Spamming Spammers; Livelier messages
From: mikejm@westworld.com
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:22:10 GMT
<---snip--->
>> (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
<----snip--->
>
>Has the potential for fun, but time consuming.
You know, for someone who has invested as much time as you have in
trying to control this newsgroup it might be worth the time to edit
quotes from your news reader. Your header file tells me that you are
using a Netscape Gold News Reader, which, although a somewhat inferior
method of tracking newsgroups, is capable of editing quotes.
The reason it is a good idea to edit quotes is that it conserves
bandwidth, so that a greater number of posts will be available for
reading by a greater number of readers on a greater number of news
servers.
I do not look forward to the day you become moderator of sci.geology
and I hope the users of this group will have the good sense to oppose
you. I also look forward to the day that you desist in flooding this
group with your non-geology related thread. That would make more
bandwidth available for geology related posts and discussions. You
have become a bigger problem than the spammers and off topic posts.
MikeM
And I know I'm replying to the user at NNTP-Posting-Host:
p5r.happypcs.oro.net
AKA Richard Adams-Self Appointed Sci.Geology Moderator
Subject: Next window Sept. 17th, 1996
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 03:33:32 GMT
RICHTER SAID -- .
.
Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have to be regarded
a trifle more
seriously, since there is evidence that tidal forces may occasionally
act as triggers for
earthquakes otherwise on the point of taking place; in this way the
date and hours of
occurrence ( occurrence -two r's) may show a slight statistical
correlation with the
tides.
- Proof of many of my well documented predictions and dates are to be
found there -
http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html - try it .
This theory is at an early stage and is EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Sept. 17th, 1996- A window is operational 1200
hours
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after
the window -
Thus 1200 Sept.16th through 1200 hours Sept. 18th - UTC is used. This
theory is not
"yet" recognized by the scientific community or USGS and indicate only
the possibility
for UNUSUAL and HIGH seismic activity. Previous windows (see sample
later on) have
accurately pin pointed earthquakes of a minimum of 6.0 and well above
6.5. " As above
as below", everything is interconnected. The windows do not stop at
earthquakes (HIGH)
probability/intensity but include various ways of mother nature
expressing herself
through destructive weather pattern.
This negative celestial energy (cyclonic reasonance) also affects
sophisticated electronics
equipments (planes/ boats/ trains/cars/ airport traffic control
towers, generators/
electronics) thus the high possibility to experience
failures/accidents leading to a lost of
general power as experienced with both "state blackouts" that struck
inside my windows.
Those windows do also affects "physical" computers (viruses) and
(spiritual) computer
(brain) which is reacting with the subtle but real outside "stimuli".
Thus under those
windows, the worse elements of our society will respond and act out
(robotic
expressions) the will of the cosmos "Rodney King dilemma, Los Angeles
riots etc.
producing dramatic news with the police force".
A Supernova month is unfolding. Weeks before January 1996 I
posted my predictions for a Supernova window.Then, a few weeks later,
as anticipated "A record breaking weather development" hit New York
early January
1996- September 1996 will be one of the worst month in 1996 in terms
of weather
development and natural disasters.
On the following windows, expect the weather to go seriously out of
hand. The upcoming nefarious energy will produce chain reaction
accidents, oil spill, sea accidents. On certain given dates expect
volcanoes
eruption, tornadoes, floadings and large earthquakes. This energy
will certainly affect airports electronics and thousands of travelers
will be stucked "cancelation flights". Black out, lost of power and
general communication is very high on my windows. If NASA decide to
launch the shuttle, they are on for serious electronics failures and
trouble then costly cancellations. A shuttle exploded a few years ago
and many expansive satelites were lost during these "Supernova"
windows.
Here is the dates and please PRINT THEM!
September 2nd -
September 11th -
September 17th-
September 29th-
The next Supernova window is for December 1996.
To all - A Supernova month is in action, thus be ready for a very
destructive celestial energy affecting the weather, producing
hurricanes
tornadoes and very large quakes on the given dates.
Watch the dates posted for September Supernova month posts.
Stay safe.
I would like to thanks all the people on this group for their
participation.
Respectfully to all
Dr. Turi
Explanation of my windows
ELF OR ELECTRO MAGNETIC FIELD FREQUENCY
Our bodies are vulnerable to EMF's (from AC wiring) because the AC
frequencies (Harmonics of 60Hz) are so close to the frequency nerve
cells use to communicate with each other. This frequency is also
similar to the frequency (10Hz) that emanates from the earth herself.
This frequency "celestial energy" changes in intensity from distant
stars (suns) planets and our very close satellite, the moon
(gravity/magnetism). The earth is a spinning magnetic field with a
core of iron and our bodies and earth herself have evolved in
relationship to that "subtle but real" outside stimuli or harmonic.
We are synchronized in uncountable ways not only to the mother earth
and all her movements and life forms but also to the undeniable EMF's
coming from our solar system (and other body/stars). This "energy"
is
constantly bombarding our body (and the earth) in ways appropriate to
each cell to receive information from all minerals (earth/faults)
plants and animals. The radiation emanating from our bodies (and the
earth) picks up on this "universal EMF's" on its wave length
information mostly from the moon (magnetic field/metaphysics) of
gravity (science) and also from all those stars. We are (the earth
too) in effect enclosed in a prison of electromagnetic forces that
work in harmony with God's Divine Scheme. My window are simply
(cyclonic Resonance). One vector is the DC frequency coming from the
earth and the other "AC vector" from our solar system. Our bodies,
brains, earth are literally electromagnetic fields that vibrate
within these two vectors.
Dr. Turi
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: kjn@netcom.com (Ken Navarre)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 03:32:09 GMT
RIchard asked:
: 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.
Interesting idea. I find the numerous crosspostings of articles to be
tedious but have learned how to scan the lists and remove the ones I
spot. The one objection that I can see would be that perhaps if the
crosspost tags were deleted then maybe some post would go to a group that
a potiental target audience didn't subscribe to. Then again, VERY little
in USENET causes the world to revolve any slower or faster anyway. So,
one could argue why are we even having this conversation! :)
: Is that a workable compromise?
I just wonder why you're resistant to apply this sort of filter to a mail
list. I know of several lists that were developed just to solve similar
situations that you find objectionable. Rather than creating or
modifying a USENET group create a forum that would be regulated as you or
an independent moderator would choose.
You have defined a problem in the newsgroups that obviously irritates you
- a lot!. You have spent considerable effort and thought to find a
solution. It should also be obvious that there is resistance to your
recommendation. Just because I advocate an open forum NOT a reason that it
should remain so. Conversely, just because you find the posts of some
topics and authors objectionable is no reason to change the program either.
Both of us are discussing different points of view. For me there is no other
alternative. I *prefer* an open forum free of moderation. It's just a
philosophical thing...
For you though, there is an alternative that will allow you to achieve
the result that you wish to accomplish. It's the creation of the
moderated mail list. It would allow you the freedom to regulate the
postings that go to your subscribers while giving them the same access to
post to the unmoderated newsgroups. Once in the newsgroups the readers
from planet Earth could exercise their option to read or not to read.
Replies would go back to your listserver for forwarding to the list
members or for deletion depending upon your filter.
Now THAT seems to be a compromise that would benefit both points of view.
You would have your moderation while the rest of us could go back into
the woodwork and read whatever tickled our fancy.
One finaly note. I apologise for getting too whimsical with my sarcasm
and leaving out the appropriate smilies. I trust that we've had enough
dialogue that you could "see" them even though I managed to send off the
post without proper editing. Just ran out of time. Not really an excuse but
perhaps an explanation...
Ken
--