Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 5387

Directory

In article <51er70$scn@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, 
gentryd@pipeline.com says...
(major snip)
>Dennis
On the window of Sept.17th, 1996 "as predicted!"
 Tornadoes strike hurricane-slammed North Carolina - September 17, 
1996 -  KINSTON,
North Carolina  -- Add tornadoes to the  weather problems of eastern 
North Carolina.
Two weeks after Hurricane Fran thrashed the area with torrential rains 
and high winds, at
least three damaging twisters spun through communities that were still 
reeling from
floods. 
 September 17, 1996 -  Thunderstorms in East, snow in Utah - Rain 
spread across much
of the East Coast states on Tuesday Sept. 17th, and  tornadoes hit 
beleaguered North
Carolina. In the West, cold air brought snow to the mountains of Utah. 
SAMPLE OF SUPERNOVA PREDICTION POSTED JANUARY 1996 ON THE
WWW
Full proofs of 1996/1997 Universal Predictions and dates are to be 
found at
http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html
 private@aol.com ()
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Dr Turi's predictions
Date: 10 Sep 1996 23:05:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Well, today is 9/11 in Japan........Tokyo has a 6.6 earthquake, 
centered in the
Pacific.....with a Tsunanmi warning.  You were at least on the right 
side of the world on
this.  
------------------------------
From: @mercury.jodco.co.jp (G////on)
To: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net
Subject: TOKYO EQ - 11 SEPTEMBER 1996 WINDOW
Content-Md5: A1J8X7B/////vcaJS8I5g==
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 03:01:12 +0000
Dearest Dr. Turi,  At 11:45 am (Tokyo time) 11 September 1996, we here 
 at  the Mt Fuji
Universal Centre for Knowledge and Understanding People experienced an 
earthquake
of, as yet, indeterminate magnitude.  Thank-you, Dr. Turi, for 
forecasting this event.  His
Divine Omniscience was engaged in personal  activities at the time, 
and enjoyed an extra
burst of earth-energy.  This  earthquake was a direct hit for your 11 
September window. 
Your spirituAl holism and intuitive thinking have once again triumphed 
!  Keep-up the
good work.  Peace long-life, and happiness, Master 
SADDAM HUSSEIN?  Not ovet yet!
Foreign affairs-------- sample from 
http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html
The Middle East is directly affected by Neptune and religious 
fanaticism is the worse
trait of this planet and directly affects this specific part of the 
world.  Much of the
prominent religious variety and beliefs started and reside in this 
part of the world. 
Neptune rules oil and most of the world production is also from this 
area.  Thus, both an
oil and religious war is emminent from parts of this instable part of 
the globe. A religious
terrorist war against the West is in progress and will get worse. 
Extremist groups will
organize awful terrorists attacks on more government buildings in many 
European and
US cities.  This chain of destructive behavior will produce serious 
"secret" consideration
of retaliation by the Allied forces.  In the process, eminent Middle 
East Leaders will be
assassinated fueling more and more terrorist attacks on many foreign 
soils.  Along with
many natural disasters such as the predited (proof available, just 
ask!) 11/22/95
Egypt/Israel/Saudi Arabia 7.2 quakes, the Middle East will captivate 
much of the world's
attention for the next few months in term of natural and man made 
disasters.
Saddam Hussein and other Arabs Leaders will also have to pay an heavy 
price for
some of their political decisions, where a full embargo in oil sale 
will be imposed by
other countries.  A strong shortage of oil and its accompanying rising 
prices will have a
devastating impact on both the economy of many depending countries and 
the Middle 
East  itself. Note: This section was written long before the chain of 
bloody bombing
extremist terrorists attacks on the population of Israel.  
Dr. Turi
Note: Those predictions were made on February 7, 1994 then sent and 
printed by my
publisher, Hourus House Press, Inc. in March, 1994.  Those predictions 
were also posted
on the www early January 1996 at   
http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html.  You may
refer to this site to verify the claims made by Dr. Turi.  Sample of 
Staguide  TOP NEWS 
page 29.
1996 will be the worst year for fires, explosions, dam failure, 
eruption, heat wave,
natural and man made accidents since 1948
NOTE -  Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said the cost of fighting the 
fires, which
have raged for two months, was about $1 million a day, not counting 
property
damage. Nearly 5.3 million acres have beenconsumed by flames this 
year, the West's
worst fire season in more  than 25 years. 
From: private//@ix.netcom.com ()
To: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Subject: Re: Hurricane Edouard
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 02:03:24 +0000
Dr. Turi:
I only lurk in the group, I cannot tolerate flames.  I suffer 
depression.  But I wanted you to know that I have marked my calendar 
with your September dates!  I Love your posts and predictions AND Dr.
Turi, may I say in closing that I am so proud of you for not yet 
stooping to the obnoxious posting, name calling, slandering that Goro 
has recently done to posters!  
You holdan aura of respect to me and I would hate to lose that.  I 
depend on your posts.  You are a kind person who is misunderstood by 
so 
many.  
Your friend,
private

Al Cooperband wrote:
> 
> Richard,
> 
> I'm sure the self-selection referred to is not by you but by the
> respondents to your poll.  It is a well known problem in polling that
> people who respond to a poll (either by volunteering or by agreeing to
> be interviewed) often do not represent the target population.
> 
>         /Al Cooperband
>          ... unattributed opinions are my own
> 
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Richard Adams wrote:
> 
> ......
> > The things I report here are precisely what my surveys
> > say.  There is no self-selection.  The process I've
> > undertaken here is tedious and I would drop it in
> > an instant if I didn't believe there was a majority
> > of people going along with what is written into
> > the current proposal.
> .......
I agree with you on this issue.  My current poll is
attracting interest from others that would like to
be moderators or proponents.
The difficulties I've faced before in reaching the
entire target population will be reduced when the
proposal includes more brains behind it.
Richard

Charlie Moody wrote:

> 
> 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.
Good point.
Spam is a fact of our everyday existance in nearly every
form of communication were exposed to.  Should each person
be required to protect themselves or should the system have some
built in protections and if so, at what levels?
It's an interesting and relevant discussion that either
should have or already has a group to discuss it in.
Anyone want to point to where that is?
I wonder if the discussion there is moderated...
(just kidding)
Richard

George Bonser wrote:
> 
> In article <323E31E8.72E6@oro.net>,
>         Richard Adams  writes:
> > ATTENTION:
> >
> > * Here's your chance to make a difference.
> 
> I didn't see the block that says "Check here if you want this whole
> discussion to dry up and blow away".
> 
> --
> George Bonser -- grep@cris.com
> I would rather have an insincere person telling me nice things than have a
> sincere person telling me the truth.--Brenda (Rhoda's sister)
Its in there.

On 16 Sep 1996 08:28:08 GMT, Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple
Quadrophenic) wrote:
>-In article <51ep7h$7f1@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us>, cheshire@ridgecrest.ca.us (Dr 
>-Pepper) says...
>->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.  I AM absolutely opposed to censorship in any form, but
>->when you see some of the flame wars, it makes you wonder.  I am also
>->opposed to moderators, but at least I can live with them.
>->Dr Pepper  
>-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.
My apologies, I have posted here some messages that do no belong as well as
one thread I would appreciate some assistance on.  
If I may make a suggestion, post a reply to the offending message and remove
this (or your own) group from the header.  This makes all replies omit this
group.
Also, if you Email the poster, make sure you tell him what thread and what
newsgroups you are complaining about. Otherwise...... 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Do you know that weary feeling  when your mind is strangely strangled
and your head is like a ball of wool  that's very, very tangled;
and the tempo of your thinking  must be lenient and mild,
as though you were explaining  to a very little child.
                                   Piet Hein, 1970
--------------------------

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 01:50:28 GMT, grep@cris.com (George Bonser) wrote:
>In article <323E31E8.72E6@oro.net>,
>	Richard Adams  writes:
>> ATTENTION:
>> 
>> * Here's your chance to make a difference.
>
>I didn't see the block that says "Check here if you want this whole
>discussion to dry up and blow away".
I vote for NO vote.

mjfields@westworld.com (Matthew J. Fields) wrote:
>Yes it does offer some good info.  I do miss the maps with swaths that
>indicate the fault zones.  
Did you ever get a chance to follow/explore any of those swaths?
Stackman

In article <323faac5.29162428@newshost.capecod.net>, soliver@capecod.net 
(Suzane Oliver) says...
>
[Discussions on cross-posting deleted]
>
>Also, if you Email the poster, make sure you tell him what thread and what
>newsgroups you are complaining about. Otherwise...... 
>
No. Don't tell them which group you're reading it in. Many of these threads 
get posted to more than one non-relevant group. If they don't know which one 
you're from then they'll have to check through them all. Then you'll be 
doing the rest of Usenet a favour.
-- 
-- 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.

russ@seismo.demon.co.uk (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*...  
>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.
Well, I've checked again and it looks I was not too far off. What you
are saying would be correct if the recommended procedure was followed.
That is to email the RFD to newsgroups@uunet.nn.net, and let them do
the posting if it is approved. But in this case the RFD was posted to
news.announce.newsgroups, news.groups, s.g.g., and s.g.e.:
>I posted the RFD to the following groups:
>news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.geo.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology
When *posted* to n.a.n. it will still enter the que. Now the
procedures say that "messages intended for n.a.n. should not publicly
appear anywhere -- not in news.groups or other groups... before they
are in n.a.n." If they are going to hold the submission at n.a.n., it
would not make any sense let the article continue into news.groups and
the other groups because it has to wait for approval, at which time
they will post it to the rest of the newsgroups. So it looks like when
they receive the posting, their software automatically stops the
article from appearing in any newsgroups. It is not surprising that
their programming happens to be in accordance with what they want
followed, but they set up Usenet didn't they.
Also the discussion in news.groups is not supposed to start until
after the approval of the RFD. Discussion preliminary to the RFD is
supposed to be in the specific newsgroups concerned. 
After the posting did not appear, Richard then posted it to s.g.g. and
s.g.e.:
>Being aware of the fact that my above crosspost may not appear
>for a while, I posted the RFD to the groups that should be
>invloved in the dicussion, which is the correct procedure
>when a reorganization is specified.  The discussion should not
>by buried in the news.group group.  It belongs here since it
>affects the people already here.
Well, it was not the correct procedure, but he is correct in that the
pre RFD discussion is supposed to be here and not in news.groups.
Now what is more important than these technical details, is that this
was presented as "one more reason not to trust" Richard Adams etc. He
was essentially called a liar, when in reality what he said was true.
Sure Richard is not following all the procedures correctly, and some
of his proposal needs a good bit more work. But that may come
together, maybe if some people could be a little more consrtuctive
rather than just criticizing him. I am supportive of his efforts
because he happens to be the only person who is trying to make a
contribution to resolving this problem. And it is a problem, I think
that s.g.g. is currently terrible, and that it will eventually become
worse as people continue to leave or an alternate internet resources
become available. 
In order to use this newsgroup for it's intended purpose one has to go
out and purchase a newsreader with killfiles etc, and then hide the
majority of the articles from view - currently about 60 % are way off
topic. Then one has to pay to download a bunch of offending headers,
and wait for all this to happen. And what for, so that people like 
"zoner" the zipperhead have the freedom to start numerous threads
crossposted to 17 newsgroups, on his basis that religious content is
an acceptable excuse for being rude. Even lots of people in his
favourite newsgroups are totally annoyed at him.
When people have to killfile over 50% one starts seeing comments like
this:
: In spite of my best efforts, my killfile has been completely 
: unable to keep up...  
Now Richard Adams writes:
>The question before the group is whether we want it
>to continue to degrade through others abuse of their free
>speech by crossposting off topic and spam to these groups.
>That is the problem that is adequately addressed by the robot
>moderator.  Most people surveyed that want some form of
>moderation agree with the principles of free speech, but yet
>want to get rid of the crossposts and spammers.
And most in the newsgroup do not appreciate that there could be
potential in this (after a few more revisions), and will not discuss
this with civility. 
A moderated geology newsgroup could be started without any changes to
the existing group, and if there are a good number of people who would
like this, it would be much appreciated if others would not get in the
way. The earthquakes newsgroups do not seem to need moderation, but a
moderated geology newsgroup could work out really good, and I don't
agree that it would be boring.
Anyways, I was told to "please check your facts before posting", when
I was actually pretty close to being correct. 
Followups directed away from news.groups, where none of this
discussion should be occuring.
-------
t-files
technology - all technical topics.

Yesterday I started a simple survey.  The purpose of it was to
assess the attitude of sge and sgg towards moderation.  I asked
the simple questionm, should the groups be moderated
The preliminary results are:
Sci.Geo.Earthquakes		
Yes (Mod)	No Mod
2		11
Sci.Geo.Geology
Y		N
3		10
Total Responses: 15
While this is not a scientific survey, it does point out that
Richard Adams (who claims unaniomous support for moderation) using
the survey where you can "Just Say No") is apparently misleading 
us in his claim for near unanimous support for moderation.  I amjust
not seeing that.
It also causes me to wonder what Adam's mission is.  
I have been on SGE from the beginning of the group.  I read SGG 
for its first few years (untill the creation of SGE).
Other people who have also been here since the beginning of the groups 
also do not want moderation.
What I see is that R. Adams, a new commer to SGE (at least) is trying
to controll us with a bogus survey.
Richard:  I think my survey results are significant.  There is not any
support for moderation.  Please withdraw your proposal.
Dr. David H. Salzberg
Geophysicist/Software Engineer.
-- 
David Salzberg                salzberg@seismo.css.gov
Sliding down the slippery slope to oblivion...
All opinions are mine unless otherwise noted.

In article <323ED873.1796@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (RIchard Adams) says...
>Oliver Seeler wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>
>The survey gives you the opportunity to cast a vote
>and stop the proposal by a simple e-mail message.
Dick,
So far I have seen dozens of posts complaining about this idea and not a 
single one in favour of it. As far as I'm concerned that's a good enough 
indicator as to how s.g.g and s.g.e readers feel about it.
Now why don't you go somewhere else and see if theres another group you can 
try to take over. Or just learn how do set up your own, hows about alt.dick?
-- 
-- 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.

In article <323EE560.7DAE@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (RIchard Adams) says...
>
>
>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?
>
Once again Dick shows how little he knows about Usenet. Yes it is possible 
to have a bot that will reject anything cross-posted to more than n groups. 
Yes, for anybody with half a working brain, it's a piece of piss to 
automatically post to hundreds of groups individually.
A while ago on sci.chem we discussed the option of having a bot 
automatically do some rejections. Of course, that idea wasn't put forward by 
an egomaniac who knew nothing about how Usenet works.
-- 
-- 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.

In article <323EE704.F22@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (RIchard Adams) says...
>
>Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>> 
>> And why has it still not been posted to news.groups?
>
>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.
>
Nope. Are you deaf as well as stupid?
You said the RFD had been posted to news.groups where things like this get 
discussed.
I pointed out that it hadn't.
Is that simple enough for you?
-- 
-- 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.

In article <323F3518.6A7A@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (RIchard Adams) says...
>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.
Admit it Dick, you F(*&(d up!
You posted something with the title
"RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, 
version 6"
Now, perhaps we're all stupid but we thought that this was an RFD for the 
reorganization of s.g.g and s.g.e
You also said in the (non)RFD that it was being posted to news.groups which 
one is supposed to do with a real RFD.
Now you're saying that we all know that there isn't an official RFD.
You are either very confused or a lying git.
-- 
-- 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.

In article <323F3518.6A7A@oro.net>, RIchard Adams  wrote:
[The article of my own to which RIchard refers sought to correct errors
of fact posted by a third party.  This note addresses other issues.]
> 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."
As ever, an area where judgement is called for.  Informal pre-RFD
discussion within affected groups is normal.  However, it normally takes
the form of "We're getting flooded out with discussion about X, those of
us who want to discuss Y just aren't getting a look-in; why don't we
contemplate splitting off a group devoted solely to X (or Y)."  If the
suggestion gets a reasonable degree of support, one of the old hands 
(and there is no shartage of such around s.g.e) will usually pick the
issue up, construct a formal RFD and submit it to tale.
You, RIchard, have gone at this like a bull at a gate.  Without even
participating in the discussions to any significant degree, and no 
knowledge whatever of the group's history and culture, you marched in
with proposals to totally reorganise not just s.g.e, but a large part 
of the sci.geo hierarchy, including a set of moderation proposals which
were both technically infeasible and politically unacceptable.  (I'm
not sure that you have even yet understood why that last is the case).
Of course you are meeting strong resistance -- you are trying to cut
right across the social grain.  Although folks such as tale, Spaff, 
Mark Horton, and more lately Russ Allbery, David Wright, Una Smith and 
the rest of the Usenet volunteers have sought to lay out their wisdom
in the various "How-to" documents, Usenet is a very large social as well
as technical system, and there just isn't room for them to explain all
of the past precedent and custom in that context.
> 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.
With good reason, as you are finding out.  It was at one point suggested 
to me that I consider steering a minor reorganisation through the system
(not sci.geo, I hasten to add).  Although I have been a contributor to 
several of the relevant groups for years, and I have been reading all of 
the groups involved routinely for about six months, I still haven't 
reached a conclusion on what best to put forward and how.  Even small 
re-organisations can be politically explosive.  [If you want an example,
I would guess that the rec.aquaria re-organisation is still on file over
at Dejanews].
> I'm greatful that you continue to volunteer your
> own valuable experience in these matters.
I think I'm on record as having expressed misgivings at the formation of
s.g.e regarding the possibility that 
would-be earthquake predictors would take over the group and would squeeze
out other aspects of the discussion.  I wanted s.g.seismology, in order
to emphasize a scientific orientation, but the parallel with ca.earthquakes
won the day.  So I am very sympathetic to your ultimate objective.
However, 25 years as a professional seismologist actively working in the
field of prediction has taught me that it is impractical to draw a "line
in the sand" in this area.  You have to be prepared to accept that there
may just be some validity in any suggestion.  It's a field which attracts
"kooks", so you find ways to deal with them, hopefully without giving 
offence.  On Usenet, kill files work admirably well.  The "beauty contests"
which you have been advocating are likely to give rise initially to 
canvassing and later to resentment.  It seems to me entirely possible that
someone excluded from the kind of group you propose would seek redress 
through the courts, and simply that possibility would prevent me and most
other professionals from participating in any way.  The financial risk 
involved even in casting a vote would be too high.
There *is* a good case for splitting earthquake prediction and would-be
predictors off from other aspects of earthquakes.  The presence of such a
group would act as a 'lightning rod' taking at least some of the pressure
off other groups such as s.g.geology.  I believe a viable moderation 
scheme based on a simple "no cross-posting" criterion could be constructed
and would have the desired effect.  There are technical mechanisms already
in existence and in use which would permit the group to be "reader-policed"
obviating the need for an identified moderator.
I guess what I'm saying to you, Richard, is that you have got yourself 
into some pretty deep s**t on this one, and that your best course of action
is now to back off.  A little time will allow the heat that you have
generated to diffuse, and allow someone such as Chuck or Tom or myself to
come back with a workable set of proposals.  Note that the Usenet group
creation rules say that, if you press on with this and fail, no-one else
can bring the issue forward again for at least six months.  
Russ

In article <323F97E7.65FE@oro.net>, Richard Adams  wrote:
> Spam is a fact of our everyday existance in nearly every
> form of communication were exposed to.  Should each person
> be required to protect themselves or should the system have some
> built in protections and if so, at what levels?
> 
> It's an interesting and relevant discussion that either
> should have or already has a group to discuss it in.
> Anyone want to point to where that is?
It does -- news.admin.net-abuse.misc and its relations.
> I wonder if the discussion there is moderated...
> (just kidding)
news.admin.net-abuse.announce is moderated, but it's not a discussion
group.  IIRC news.admin.policy was moderated.  I didn't pay great
attention to the formation of the news.admin.net-abuse hierarchy, but
I have a feeling that the whole thing fell apart in controversy over
moderation policies in news.admin.  An excellent example of the need 
for consent in the policing of Usenet.

1. NO
2. NO
kb
Russ Evans  wrote in article
...
> In article <51lup7$sfe@seismo.CSS.GOV>, salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV (David
> Salzberg) wrote:
> 
> > The survey posted by R. Adams is biased.  I am conduncting
> > a simple survey.  It is:
> 
> Excellent suggestion, David.  Put me down as NO to both.
> 

Russ Evans wrote:

> I think I'm on record as having expressed misgivings at the formation of
> s.g.e regarding the possibility that 
> would-be earthquake predictors would take over the group and would squeeze
> out other aspects of the discussion.  I wanted s.g.seismology, in order
> to emphasize a scientific orientation, but the parallel with ca.earthquakes
> won the day.  So I am very sympathetic to your ultimate objective.
> 
> However, 25 years as a professional seismologist actively working in the
> field of prediction has taught me that it is impractical to draw a "line
> in the sand" in this area.  You have to be prepared to accept that there
> may just be some validity in any suggestion.  It's a field which attracts
> "kooks", so you find ways to deal with them, hopefully without giving
> offence.  On Usenet, kill files work admirably well.  The "beauty contests"
> which you have been advocating are likely to give rise initially to
> canvassing and later to resentment.  It seems to me entirely possible that
> someone excluded from the kind of group you propose would seek redress
> through the courts, and simply that possibility would prevent me and most
> other professionals from participating in any way.  The financial risk
> involved even in casting a vote would be too high.
> 
> There *is* a good case for splitting earthquake prediction and would-be
> predictors off from other aspects of earthquakes.  The presence of such a
> group would act as a 'lightning rod' taking at least some of the pressure
> off other groups such as s.g.geology.  I believe a viable moderation
> scheme based on a simple "no cross-posting" criterion could be constructed
> and would have the desired effect.  There are technical mechanisms already
> in existence and in use which would permit the group to be "reader-policed"
> obviating the need for an identified moderator.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying to you, Richard, is that you have got yourself
> into some pretty deep s**t on this one, and that your best course of action
> is now to back off.  A little time will allow the heat that you have
> generated to diffuse, and allow someone such as Chuck or Tom or myself to
> come back with a workable set of proposals.  Note that the Usenet group
> creation rules say that, if you press on with this and fail, no-one else
> can bring the issue forward again for at least six months.
> 
> Russ
I agree that the best course is to back of for a time while the effort
itself is reorganized.
I'm curious about the possibility of redress through the courts you've
suggested.  Who would be the defendant(s)?  What would be the cause of
action?  Why does what was proposed lend itself to more exposure than
other systems already in use?
I appreciate that you have fairly identified not only the deficiencies
of the proceedings, but also the positive aspects of my objectives.
Richard

Ken Navarre wrote:
<>>
> 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...
The Canadian in me is glad that this discussion is finally coming around
to the civilized side of the spectrum.  I've supported Richard's
efforts, since I can see the potential of the destruction of this
group.  The old methods of email retaliation and kill files just don't
work anymore.  So maybe we should back off from this Clintonian proposal
of healthcare, and just discuss (in a civilized manner) how we can
improve the health of this group.  (for God's sake, don't go into a
discussion on health care :)
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply

Richard Adams wrote:
> I'm curious about the possibility of redress through the courts you've
> suggested.  Who would be the defendant(s)?  What would be the cause of
> action?  Why does what was proposed lend itself to more exposure than
> other systems already in use?
> 
> I appreciate that you have fairly identified not only the deficiencies
> of the proceedings, but also the positive aspects of my objectives.
Now that I think about it, a couple of years ago our company had a
dispute with a (fringe) scientist.  Our company said, in effect, that
this guy was an idiot, and nobody should pay any attention to him.  He
sued that we destroyed his scientific career, and won some big bucks. 
Makes me think now that I can't touch this with my ten foot keyboard.
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply

EEVL, the new free UK based virtual library for Engineering, now 
live!
http://www.eevl.ac.uk/
The Edinburgh Engineering Virtual Library (EEVL) went live 
on Friday 13th September.  The EEVL gateway to Internet resources 
in Engineering will be extremely popular with the engineering 
community and will solve one of the main problems facing users of 
the Internet - locating useful resources from the millions 
available.
Earlier in the summer EEVL launched two useful services for 
engineers, the EEVL Engineering Newsgroup Archive, and the 
Offshore Engineering Information Service, both of which have 
proved successful.  Now EEVL's Main Service, its searchable 
database of high quality engineering networked resources, will be 
freely available to anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet 
connection and appropriate World Wide Web browsing software.
The database, containing descriptions and links to over 1300 
Internet resources in engineering, has an extremely user friendly 
interface, and allows practising engineers, academics, 
researchers, students, and information specialists to search or 
browse for engineering resources by title, keyword, or subject.  
The database is actively managed by a team of engineering 
information specialists, with headquarters at Heriot-Watt 
University Library, in Edinburgh, UK.  Resource 
descriptions and links are checked regularly, making EEVL the 
premier site on the Internet for locating UK engineering sites.  
Resources in the EEVL database include Web sites for engineering 
e-journals and electronic newsletter, engineering 
companies, professional societies and institutions, engineering 
departments within higher education, government sources, 
engineering email lists, resource guides and directories, 
research centres, recruitment services, software, and more.
EEVL fills a large gap for engineers and industrialists as far 
as Internet resources are concerned and it is likely that EEVL 
will become the first port of call for anyone looking for 
Engineering information on the Internet.
EEVL is funded through the Electronic Library Programme (eLib), 
managed by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) on 
behalf of the UK Higher Education funding councils.  The EEVL 
Project lead sites are Heriot-Watt University Library, and the 
Heriot-Watt Institute for Computer Based Learning 
(ICBL).  Partner sites are the University of Edinburgh, Napier 
University, Cambridge University, Imperial College of Science, 
Technology and Medicine, the Nottingham Trent University, and the 
Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE).
For more information, see the Web site at: http://www.eevl.ac.uk/
or
email eevl@icbl.hw.ac.uk

"J. Bartlett"  wrote:
>Has anyone ever bought a shut-off valve for their gas, water or electric
>lines?
>Please let me know about any information about any shut-off valves for your
>house, that in the event of an earthquake shut-off your gas, water or
>electricity!
>THANKS
>Email:z4d27@ttacs.ttu.edu
I can't tell from your address where you live, but in California, at
least, all buildings have a master shutoff valve for gas, water and
electruicity. IT'S THE LAW !
Dr Pepper  
10 - 2 - 4

Richard Adams  wrote:
>Charlie Moody wrote:
>
>> What we *really* need to be talking about here is how to deal with spam,
>> not not just in [newsgroup.name],
>Good point.
>Spam is a fact of our everyday existance in nearly every
>form of communication were exposed to.  Should each person
>be required to protect themselves or should the system have some
>built in protections and if so, at what levels?
>Richard
Here's dick acting locally but thinking globally - the logical next
step in his goose-stepping march to power. Scarey.  All of a sudden
we're not discussing the fate of a couple of arcane newsgroups, but
now he's talking about "nearly every form of communication" and  "the
system." Beware, beware.
                   Oliver Seeler 

Valliappa Lakshmanan  wrote in
article <51jmnr$845@frazier.backbone.ou.edu>...
<>
  No, it's because their current year-numbering system started in (by
our reconing) the year 1989.  Whenever the Emperor dies, a new
year-numbering system is begun for the new Emperor, starting with the
following New Year's Day.
-- 
--     __Q       Stefano MAC:GREGOR   Mi dankas al miaj bonsxancigaj
--   -`\<,      (s-ro)  \ma-GREG-ar\    steloj, ke mi ne estas
--  (*)/ (*)   Fenikso, Arizono, Usono    supersticxulo.
------------    ---

salzberg@seismo.CSS.GOV (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? 
>2) Should sci.geo.geology be moderated? 
My votes:
   1. NO
   2. NO
My thanks to David for an elegant solution to the anonymous survey 
problem.
Marnie Gannon