Subject: Re: Survey Results
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Date: 24 Sep 1996 15:47:50 GMT
In article ,
jelly@thebigj.demon.co.uk says...
>
>In article <5263r8$739@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, drturi
> writes
>>NO - let me express myself!!!!
>>
>>On the Supernova window!!! as predicted.
>>
>>>
>>09-22-96 --- Typhoon Violet lashed Tokyo and other Pacific coastal
>>regions
>>Sunday, killing at least three people, including a 6-year-old boy.
>>09-22-96----Rains force evacuations in Southern France--- ST.
TROPEZ,
>>France --
>>Helicopters and ships Sunday evacuated dozens of people from three
>>villages around the
>>Gulf of St. Tropez who were trapped by heavy rains. The rains
>>flooded several streets of
>>the villages of Cogolin, La Mole and Gassin with up to three feet
(one
>>meter) of water
>>during several hours. ]
>>
>>Next window Sept. 28th, 1996
>>
>Is vague crystal ball gazing with self-congratyulatory follow-ups off
>topic for these groups? If so, has anyone asked the good Dr and/or
his
>ISP to desist? Just wondering.
>
> Adrian
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>| Adrian M. Johnson EMail: jelly@thebigj.demon.co.uk
|
>| The search for a funny .sig tag-line continues...
|
>| (Assuming there'll be an internet left to use it on)
|
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Memo-----
In article <32470A04.41C67EA6@andreas.wr.usgs.gov>,
michael@andreas.wr.usgs.gov
says...
>
>Roger Hammond wrote:
>>
>> jayme wing wrote:
>>
>> NO!!!
>>
>> >Am I the only one having trouble getting in?
>
>There was a power failure which may or may not have been
>the cause of a disk failure on http://quake.wr.usgs.gov
>Most things are back already, some are still to come.
>
>Andy
This negative celestial energy (cyclonic reasonance) also affects
sophisticated electronics
equipments --------------/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
-------------(brain) which is reacting
with the subtle but real outside "stimuli". Thus under those
windows,
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.
Memo--------
From: @ix.netcom.com ()
To: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Subject: Re: On the window of Aug.10th!!!
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 21:09:41 +0000
Dear Dr. Turi:
Well...Coincidence or not, the dramatic 7-state blackout that struck
on
August 10 at 3:45 pm was quite interesting to note. Power was lost
from
Canada to Mexico and in WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, ID and TX! While I do not
follow or "believe" in astrology, I have noted a few of your posts and
comments on hos stragne mechanical failures can occur in your windows.
Guess this one was a "hit.
Path-
Dear MIchael ---memo from a post sent to you Oct.6 1995 ----
USGS - Message -ID: @goodnet.com -sender
news@goodnet.com (News Administrator) -Dr. Turi
Newsgroups-
sci.geo,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes,hkbu,geog.maps -
WEEKLY USGS Quake Report 9/28-10/4/95 CA. - in
articleDG1t4H.v@goodnet.com>
Oct 6h, 1995 drturi@goodnet.com says...
>From Dr. Turi - Dear Michael: - On Oct.8th and Oct.9th a very
unusual seismic activity will be noticeable and will produce many
quakes above 6.1. More information are available pertaining to my
method if requested.
Respectfully
Dr. Turi
SUBJECT: RE: Weekly USGS Quake Report
Full proofs of predictions:
Oct. 8th a 7.0 EARTHQUAKE HIT SUMATRA (INDONESIAN ISLANDS)
Oct. 9th a 7.6 EARTHQUAKE HIT MEXICO ARIZONA -
Next window Sept. 28th, 1996.
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganize sci.geo.earthquakes and sci.geo.geology - 12 Sept 96, version 6
From: Richard Adams
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:04:12 -0700
> Richard Adams previously said:
> >
> > If a robot moderator like that proposed was only
> > removing crossposts in a group named "x.y.z.moderated",
> > and some person began posting rediculous stuff, and then an
> > observer happened to look in and see that it was a so called
> > "moderated" group, wouldn't they assign more credibility to
> > the rediculous posts?
Frank Vaughan / Spectre Gunner responded:
>
> I honestly don't believe so. Posting have to be judged on their own
> merits. There is no aura of respectability that goes with moderation.
>
> (watch me piss off a lot of people here)
> Pretend, Richard, that your moderation team voted to ban me from the
> group. Let's even assume it was for good cause. Do you honestly
> think that is going to stop me from posting in your group?
>
> Hell, I've got at least 35 AOL disks on my shelf, a dozen or so from
> CompuServe and Prodigy. Netcom and Earthlink will sign up anyone with
> money. You see, I could have half a dozen new accounts befor the
> electronis are dry on the message you send telling me that I am
> banned. today I'm Frank Vaughan / Spectre Gunner, tomorrow I'm Michael
> DeGuzman, the next day I'm someone else. Hell, in alt.war.vietnan we
> have traced more than 40 different net-identities to a single
> individual. See what you are up against.
>
> Frank
Ah, certainly someone determined to post would be able to do so
and trick a simple robot, but they'd have a much tougher time getting
around a human moderator or a panel as such.
I proposed the robot as a method to get around the problem of
a bad moderator, but in the long run, I'm not convinced this
is going to best serves groups that need moderation.
I've heard other opinions out there agree with my first claim that
moderation by a robot could mislead some people into thinking
posts in that group were more credible. Sure some people aren't
going to be convinced just cause its moderated, but in the population
at large there are those that would tend to believe the posts in
a moderated group to carry additional credibility, so the robot
moderator may wind up increasing the problem of misleading the
innocent.
A better applicable usage for a robot moderator would be to control
posts to an earthquake event data group, where official facilities
from the around the world could post information and events only,
with no other posts. Although there are facilites to download this
informaton, not everyone has access to these. A newsgroup that had
a sole purpose of reporting events could augment other services that
did this such as ftp, and web sites, and give a place where people
could always know to look for event information, and know that the
robot moderator would keep the information official. In this case
we've turned the robot moderator into a very selective system where
it only accepts posts that can have passwords or other security
features. Is there another group on the net already like that
for this or some other "information data posts" only purpose?
The point is that a robot would be great for moderating a group
where there was a fixed number of approved posters with passwords
for the posters, but I think its best to shelve the idea of the sole
robot moderation system for a group where humans post. If a moderated
version of s.g.e or s.g.g. is needed, it should be moderated by
conventional methods.
Stepping back and taking a look again, the issue of control or moderation
for s.g.e. has at least one similarity to s.g.g. This is the issue of
predictors versus opponents. Some think predictors may be stretching
the "science" classification, but this in itself isn't going to provide
a good argument to an ISP that their customer is in violation of a charter.
The current charter of s.g.e. would not seem to exclude predictors at
present.
How about this. Let's set aside the discussion of a moderated s.g.e.
group and see if there is a better approach to the current problem.
What if we kept s.g.e. un-moderated, "as is" in all respects except
to have a different charter which excluded prediction discussions, and
at the same time, started a new group in which the prediction discussion
was welcome. If particular people decided to continue posting the
predicitions discussion in groups where the charter excluded those,
at least we would have a basis to confront the ISP of that person
with these violations. Obviously that the same sort of exclusion
would also be provided for s.g.g., based on historical postings.
On the other hand, the predicition discussion would be welcome in
that new group. We shouldn't force predictions into an "alt.x.x"
corner of the net. Predictors can use the scientific method and
(though arguably to some) belong here in sci.
Summary:
Moderation of human groups solely by robot is shelved.
Discussion of adding moderated versions of s.g.e. and s.g.g.
will continue after I reconcile other proposals. This is not
being discussed by me here.
Proposal here is to consider adding a robot moderated group for
the posting of official worldwide quake event information, with
the contributors tightly controlled, just data only, no discussion,
to augment other services.
Proposal here is to specifically exclude "predictions" from the
existing un-moderated s.g.e and s.g.g. groups while adding another
un-moderated group in sci just for predicitions. The method to
police these would NOT be through moderation, but instead via
the ISP system, asking them to control their clients if they
consistently violate a group's charter.
Comments?
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: Richard Adams
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:15:47 -0700
Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>
> In article <3246EC20.15E2@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
> >
> >Other claims have been stated that when the results of such surveys are
> >posted, they may unfairly influence the group.
>
> Only by you. This is your excuse for keeping thge results of your surveys
> secret.
Interesting how you removed, without acknoledgement, the relevant
information from the post you quoted me on where I identified that the
survey itself claimed the results would not be posted. It's not an excuse,
I'm just doing what I promised.
Richard
Subject: Re: group moderation - free speech and defamation issues (subject adjusted)
From: Antti Tirronen
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:01:13 -0700
Well, after over a month of "discussion" it should be pretty clear even
to RA, that reorg. is not desired, and particularly not with any RA
involvment what so ever.
Why don't you go and start you reorg. SPAM in some other group, for yet
another month of "entertainment" for yourself.
>Richard Adams wrote:
>
> mikejm@westworld.com wrote:
> >
> > Will you please refrain from posting non-geology related posts to
> > these groups? You have very poor netiquet and your ambitions to assume
> > control over the legitimate activities in these groups is a dead
> > issue. You will not become the moderater of these groups and your
> > participation in these discussions has been a selfish obstruction of
> > legimate posts to these groups. Non of your posts are geology related,
> > it is a field you are not involved in, and you do not have any support
> > by regular users. Your numerous 100+ line posts hog up bandwidth in
> > this group. I wish you would quit abusing these groups immediately.
> >
> > MikeM
>
> Would you be so kind as to cease your unfounded accusations
> that I want control. The discussion posted posted here
> regarding the reorganization is appropriate.
>
> Richard
Subject: Re: slow-motion earthquakes
From: Andy Michael
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:45:10 GMT
Chuck Karish wrote:
> >
> >that is why the USGS maintains various web sites to display
> >the raw data for magnometers, stress meters, earthquake plots, and
> >so on.
> >
> >that is why other sites display the raw data for GPS.
> >
> >So why can't sites be setup that give us other kinds of information
> >with the standard disclaimers.
> >
> >So how about automated sites that list the amount of fault creep
> >by location each day, slow-motion earthquakes and their locations,
> >ground deformation and tilt and the location of these measurements.
All of this data is indeed online. It's on http://quake.wr.usgs.gov
look under "Studying earthquakes" and then "Crustal Deformation."
However, the data is online not the interpretation. A slow earthquake
is an interpretation of the creep and strain data not a fundamental
observation on its own. In reality, the lists and maps of earthquakes
are interpretations of shaking data but we've gotten good enough at this
that we can automate it. This would be much harder to do for slow earthquakes
and perhaps impossible to do with current instrument networks.
> >Then the layperson that is interested in studying these kinds of
> >things will be able to pursue that interest, or is this something
> >that only geologists and seismologists are privy to?
No the data is there its just someone's interpretation that isn't.
My opinions about releasing preliminary scientific interpretations
have already been covered so I won't go back to that.
> WAAAAA! THOSE MEAN, SELFISH SCIENTISTS HAVE ALL THE TOYS AND
> THEY WON'T LET ME PLAY!
>
> There are better uses for government research funds than
> catering to your idle curiosity. If you seriously want to
> learn more about this stuff, make your interest known to the
> people who do the studies. Many of them will be happy to
> talk to someone who cares about what they do.
>
> The interested citizen has no inborn right to be spoon fed.
> Take an active interest and you'll very probably obtain
> more information than you can possibly use.
I'd just like to note that although Chuck is a geologist his views
do not represent those of the USGS.
Andy
Subject: UCLA short course on "Radar Interferometry"
From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:25:13
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
On November 18-22, 1996, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Radar Interferometry: Principles and Applications" on the UCLA campus
in Los Angeles.
The instructors are Anthony Freeman, PhD, Scott Hensley, PhD, and
Paul Rosen, PhD, all from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Radar interferometry involves coherently combining radar measurements
made by two or more radar antennas displaced by a relatively small
distance. Depending on the relative geometry of the two antennas, the
combined measurements can be turned into measurements of surface
topography, topographic change, or displacement over time. Advances
in techniques for measuring platform motion, and the advent of stable
spaceborne radar systems, have led to dramatic improvements in the
measurement capability of radar interferometry systems, where data
processing is automated to a much greater degree than in stereo
imaging (radar or optical). Mapping precision of around 2m in three
dimensions over a wide area is now possible from airborne
interferometric radars. Observations of large-scale surface deformation
at the millimeter-level have been reported over fault zones and
volcanically active regions. Surface ocean current speeds of less than
one meter per second have been measured.
This course provides an understanding of the basic principles and
applications of imaging radar and radar interferometry. The course
also reviews the design of interferometric radar systems and processing
algorithms. Limitations of radar interferometry are discussed and more
advanced techniques such as differential interferometry and
interferometry using longer wavelengths are addressed. The course
concludes with an overview of Earth science and commercial
applications of radar interferometry.
The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course materials.
These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
Subject: Next window Sept. 29th, 1996
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 01:24:26 GMT
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. 29th, 1996- A window is operational 1200
hours
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after
the window -
Thus 1200 Sept.28th through 1200 hours Sept. 30th - UTC is used. This
theory indicate
only the possibility for UNUSUAL weather and HIGH seismic activity.
Previous
windows have accurately pin pointed earthquakes of a minimum of 6.0
and well above
7.0 " 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. (
(Andrew/Edouard/Fran/volcanoes/ tornadoes/floods etc.).
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" (USGS
equipment failure :)
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 and both
Edouard and Fran again happened on the posted Supernova windows.
On the following windows for this Supernova month of September 1996,
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, flooding and large earthquakes.
Such has (on the window) the Caribbean volcano eruption-- PLYMOUTH,
Montserrat --
Spewing red-hot gravel, an erupting volcano torched several buildings
in an evacuated
zone and coated with ash the abandoned capital of that West Indies
island. It was the
largest eruption of the Soufriere Hills volcano since it rumbled to
life last year.
This energy will certainly affect airports electronics (USGS
computers :) -- and thousands of travelers will be
stucked "cancelation flights". Black out, lost of power and general
communication is a very high probability 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 satellites were lost during these "Supernova"
windows.
Here is the dates and please PRINT THEM!
September 2nd -
September 11th -
September 17th-
September 29th-
The next destructive Supernova window is for December 1996. Then again
the worse of nature devastating forces will plague the world --(just
commemorate this post, better print it!)
To all - A Supernova month is in action, thus be ready for a very
destructive celestial energy affecting the weather, producing
hurricanestornadoes and very large quakes on the given dates for
Sept. 1996.
Sample of previous posts - 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, flooding and large earthquakes.
Window of Sept. 11th -
Dr. Turi
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.
------------------------------
Window of Sept.17th,
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.
Well before the NWS found names for hurricanes, well before USGS
posted large
earthquakes, well before CNN reported major news (black out/Saddam
Hussein/OK/Atlanta Georgia bombings etc.etc. it was posted on the
net or WWW at http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html -
Thousands have my books and Fate magazine (Jan.1st 1996 issue )
printed my prediction (100 churches burning). Full proof of the
prediction of Kobe/Japan quakes on (Ch.10 Phoenix, AZ/Ch.3 Tucson,
AZ/KTAR radio) are available for the skeptics. See the program and
the date of Jan.16th, 1995 on camera preparing the audience for the
worse earthquake to hit Japan, 2 weeks before unfolding. Listen on
91X radio station San Diego, CA my prediction of the baseball strike
and the O.J. Simpson dilemma.
Again do not let jealousy or ignorance dictate what you should believe
or not! see for yourself the 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
I would like to thanks all the people on this group for their
participation.
Respectfully to all
Dr. Turi
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: kjn@netcom.com (Ken Navarre)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 01:20:31 GMT
Dorothy Smith (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
[snip]
: tested in the courts, but there is no law or case law which sides
: with your position that moderation is illegal.
You apparently misunderstood my reply. I didn't say anything about
moderation being "illegal"! Prior restraint issues are neither legal nor
illegal. They are just different opinions that are tested in the courts
against previous case law.
: moderation will always be permitted so long as there are unmoderated
: areas in which to post the unmoderated viewpoint.
Which is like saying that discrimination in housing will always be
permitted so long as there are places to rent that do not discriminate.
True, these issues haven't been resolved yet but it's a relatively new
issue and with all the people coming on-line you can bet that someday,
somewhere, somebody is going to test it.
Anyway, this isn't really relevant to anything about sci.* so I'm outta
here... sorry for the digression.
Ken
--
Subject: Re: What is rogue canceller?
From: williams@pangea.stanford.edu (Tom Williams)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 18:39:50 -0700
In article <529mnl$lfl@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mikew16461@aol.com
(MikeW16461) wrote:
> Someone keeps writing:
>
> >Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.<
>
> Can anyone 'splain to me what this means?
>
Let's not start any more threads about this on this group.
Here's a short reply:
If you're terribly interested, check the newsgroup
news.admin.net-abuse.announce and look for an article
by Chris Lewis titled 'massive cancel attack report'
Here's a snippet:
> Over the weekend, someone using sophisticated cancel-generating software
> posted nearly 30,000 cancels forged in the name of the original posters.
> The cancels purport to be legitimate spam/advisory cancellations, but,
> it is clear that they weren't. It appears that someone ran a program
> that simply listened into inbound Usenet on a server, and generated
> cancels for every article it saw in the groups it was listening to. The
> cancels were labeled with "tags" indicating why they were cancelled, but
> these tags were simply labels assigned to the groups the program
> was listening to.
Chris and other news administrators were able to restore
17,000 of the cancelled posts. If you read news over the weekend
you may see these articles twice.
--
Tom Williams williams@pangea.stanford.edu
Basin Analysis, Sequence Stratigraphy
Stanford Program on Deep-Sea Depositional Systems
http://pangea.stanford.edu/~williams/williams.html
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: kjn@netcom.com (Ken Navarre)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 02:00:22 GMT
David Stinson (daves@procom.com) wrote:
: The case could just as easily be reversed on you, Mr. Navarre. Show reason
: why he should be constrained to a mailing list.
There's no reason that he *should* be constrained, David. It is just an
alternative that has proven workable in numerous other areas where a
group of individuals have wanted to clear some "clutter" from their area
of interest.
Richard mentioned:
>I believe I have answered this question each time it was posed by you,
>including the very first time 2 months ago.
Sorry, must have missed it thru some error on my part... :(
Thanks for responding to it again.
>The answer is that a mailing list is NOT a news group. It may be
>similiar but it's distribution is more limited and obscure.
I agree it wouldn't have the immediate audience of new subscribers to
USENET but when people find a newsgroup that peaks their interest it
isn't unusual to learn tht a maillist also exists that screens some
messages and forwards others to the group of subscribers.
Mail lists are usually used by people with a limited amount of time and a
large interest in a specific area. They rely upon bots and moderators to
do the work of screening, much like the system that you're proposing.
> There are people that want a moderated news group.
Yes, there are. I look forward to the day when the Call for Votes arrives
so that we can see the ratio of those who want a moderated group vs those
who don't.
>For that matter, web pages, e-mailed magazines, IRchat are all channels
>of communication that could be used but they are likewise not news
>groups.
Nor do they fulfill the role of a moderated mail list. One of your
earlier arguments dealt with the problem of regional feeds such as
ca.earthquakes being unavailable to USENET subscribers throughout the world.
A moderated earthquake mail list would be a solution to issues like that
and would a single source for eq information for several newsgroups with
redistribution back to the original group. It'd be available to everyone
with e-mail service whether or not their ISP offered the specific USENET
ngs.
> Why should the people that want a moderated newsgroup have to place it in
> more obscure place? Other moderated newsgroups exist without being so
> hidden.
Of course, they shouldn't. Which is why we'll vote on the issue. If it
passes, fine. If it doesn't, I'm sure well be having this discussion
again... :)
>I apologize that I took an offensive position with you by turning
>the question around.
No problem. No offense taken. We're both just voicing opinions held by
ourselves as well as others.
>The fact is some people want a moderated newsgroup for these topics,
>and I believe it will have no negative impact on you personally, and ask
>that you not stand in the way of allowing other people to have the group
>they want. You'll still have your existing forums.
So, you're asking that I refrain from offering a "NO" vote when the CFV
arrives??? Ummmmm, I'll have to think about... Wouldn't that imply that
whenever a vote was offered all the "nays" should just "stay at home" and
let the issue pass???
take care.
Ken
--
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: daves@procom.com (David Stinson)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:28:33 -0700
In article , gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
: Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
:
: In article <32433899.17EC@oro.net>, Richard Adams writes:
:
: >gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: >> But then what is the make-up of CONGRESS? How did the
: >> representatives and senators get to be in the position that
: >> they are in?
: >>
: >> It's government of the people, by the people, for the people.
: >>
: >> The people are the government. Although you won't get no
: >> argument from me that things haven't been running that way. :-(
: >
: >
: >"For the people". But you have to be elected, then you pass laws
: >and those laws affect everyone. Rules that a group itself makes
: >when the group is not affecting EVERYONE are legal unless laws
: >exist to the contrary.
: >
:
: Yes, but it was the people who elected that official. The
: official just didn't assume office without being elected. But
: then their are some exceptions when somebody has to leave office
: early.
Dennis, you're arguing something out in left field. Can you get back to
the point?
: >> Since when is it legal bar people from participating in a
: >> public newsgroup just because their view differs from yours?
: >
: >
: >The group is not a public group. Access to the group is limited
: >by your internet service contract. It is LEGAL to bar people so
: >long as there is no law to the contrary. The group is free to
: >make its own rules.
:
: Sorry, but I don't agree.
:
: Mailing lists and e-mail servers were established for the
: type of moderation that your talking about. Usenet news groups
: was established as a worldwide discussion medium.
:
: This is out of a book by R. Wiggins entitled, "The Internet
: for everyone, A Guide for Users and Providers".
The information you got from the book is sort of marginal. Moderated
_newsgroups_ have also existed for a long time (with degrees of success &
failure). You also seem to be taking the book information as definitive,
when it is general.
:
: Its only that a few enterprising individuals are trying to
: carry the technique used with mailing lists and e-mail servers
: over into usenet.
Nope. As I said before, its been a long standing function on Usenet as
well. IK would recommend you to news.answers for the newsgroup FAQs.
: Oh! I didn't know that we were back in the days of taxation
: with representation. hmmmm...
:
: I thought people, at the next election, could elect a different
: person if they didn't think the original person was doing the
: job they elected that person for.
:
: Gee, I learn something new every day!!! We don't have any
: redress against elected officials. I guess re-calls are a
: thing of the past. hmmm....
And arguing with foolish arguments doesn't help your side of the argument
at all. Mr. Gentry.
: >The power of the states is written in other amendments
: >such as the fourteenth which define and limit these powers,
: >making the state laws subordinate to the US constitution
: >and federal laws.
:
: >Anything the US constitution controls also controls the
: >states. The states may opt for tighter controls to
: >again control the state governement. California has more
: >controls over government censorship. Again these are laws
: >that control the governement and not the private sector.
:
:
: Correct, but you were implying that the constitution only
: applied to Congress.
No, actually he was correcting your misinterpretation of the applicability
of the First Admendment.
: >Constitutional law is a complex subject. A more interesting
: >question would be why the government can pass laws against
: >pornography or against defamation when the constitution say
: >"congress shall make no law...". The answer is called the
: >compelling interest test. The courts have upheld that the
: >congress CAN make such laws if there is a compelling interest
: >to do so. The Supreme court has the task of applying the
: >absolute controls of the constitution to the world realities.
:
: True also. But that, IMO, make it any more right. We're the
: government and we can do damn well as we please. hmmm....
We are, and we _aren't, the government. Try to stay on track here...
: >> >For many news group participants, the groups have become
: >> >a place where people feel a false sense of impunity.
: >> >They proclaim a freedom of speech which does not exist,
: >> >and then fail to practice their real legal duty to speak
: >> >truthfully. They distort and destroy the true meaning of
: >> >the constitution to justify their lies.
: >>
: >>
: >> Usenet is a world wide discussion medium. If you moderate,
: >> then you are taking away the chance for somebody to discuss
: >> something.
: >
: >
: >Won't there be another place they can carry on the discussion
: >without the moderation?
:
: Will their?
It seems to be leading (the way most moderated proposals do these days) to
the creation of additional groups that are moderated, leaving the initial
groups intact. The success of the moderated groups depends on who
_chooses_ to use them. And the option of choice renders the censorship
argument somewhat specious.
:
: >Moderation didn't "take away" anything. Instead it gives a
: >particular group of people the meeting place they want.
: >You don't have to go there unless you want. It's still
: >your choice.
:
: Mailing lists and e-mail servers were established just for
: that purpose. So that people could discuss pieces of information
: relative to that group. I'm also a member of one of these
: types of groups.
So am I. That does not deny the right to create moderated newsgroups.
: Its also people's choice to hit the delete button, to use
: kill-files, over skip over something that doesn't interest
: them.
And it should be noted that in the huge list of different software out
there for reading newsgroups, many require that you download FIRST (sight
unseen) a newsgroup - costing connect time/real world cash - and many that
do not support killfiles.
:
: >> Even though I don't agree with the ideas by some of the
: >> posters, I still tolerate them and try and understand what
: >> they are trying to get across. Thats why it is a worldwide
: >> discussion medium. So that opposing views can be discussed.
: >>
: >> Lets not set this up to be a ng that only allows a certain
: >> viewpoint or topic to be allowed.
: >>
: >> Vote NO against moderation.
: >
: >
: >I respect all other opinions but this is not the time to
: >vote. Wait and see what is really proposed and weigh it out
: >to see if it will affect you in a negative way. If it does,
: >then a NO vote is justified. If it doesn't affect you
: >in a negative way and allows other what they percieve as
: >as positive, why stop them from having what they way?
: >If there is no negative effect on you, aren't you forcing
: >your own controls over someone else, thereby limiting their
: >freedom to meet and discuss as they want to?
:
: I'm not stopping anybody from pushing a delete key, or using
: a kill-file, or just skipping over a post. Everybody has
: that chance. Once a ng is moderated, then any poster is at
: the mercy of what was once called a "witch hunt".
Prove it. Don't make unfounded accusations without some kind of proof.
Maybe a little time on news.groups would educate you a little better as to
standards on the Usenet.
: I have several other concerns. Primarily as to where does it stop.
: Sure your only proposing that posts for "get rich quick schemes"
: would be weeded out (but we all know this started because of Turi),
: but the question is; Where does it stop? Maybe it should be
: incorporated into the proposal that a minimum of 1000 votes
: should be submitted with a 90% approval rate before a poster
: could be banned from the moderated group.
You could use a standard of OBJECTIVE criteria that limits the moderation to:
1) Outright SPAM (make money fast, etc).
2) Hand moderation for on-topic posting of those who CONTINUALLY post
off-topic (as defined in the newsgroup charter) posts.
Start everybody fresh (no past post will be taken in to account) and judge
them by their behavior AFTER the group is created. Have an automatic
message sent to every new poster informing them of the charter and
moderation rules of the group. And have automatic approval of posters who
do not misbehave by the criteria given in the charter.
BTW, the system I just listed is CURRENTLY in use in several successful
moderated newsgroups.
: Another concern is that scientists would stay away from the
: unmoderrated ng's and the layperson would loose the interraction
: with the scientists and teachers. There isn't anything to
: guarantee that they would participate in the unmoderated group
: let alone read it. Their time is limited too.
Then that is their choice, and not yours to make for them. Part of the
idea is to improve the signal to noise ratio.
: So instead of taking a chance with any of the above, I'd prefer
: to leave things as they are.
Your choice.
--
David A. Stinson Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html
Product Integration Work E-Mail : daves@procom.com
Engineer Personal E-Mail : dstinson@ix.netcom.com or
Procom Technology dastinson@aol.com
**** OPINIONS ABOVE ARE THOSE OF D.STINSON, AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF PROCOM TECHNOLOGY ****
Subject: Re: What is rogue canceller?
From: Bill Oertell
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 21:34:46 -0700
> Over the weekend, someone using sophisticated cancel-generating software
> posted nearly 30,000 cancels forged in the name of the original posters.
> The cancels purport to be legitimate spam/advisory cancellations, but,
> it is clear that they weren't. It appears that someone ran a program
> that simply listened into inbound Usenet on a server, and generated
> cancels for every article it saw in the groups it was listening to. The
> cancels were labeled with "tags" indicating why they were cancelled, but
> these tags were simply labels assigned to the groups the program
> was listening to.
What I can't understand is why some sicko numb-groined twerp with
not enough imagination to otherwise occupy their time would want to do
such a wasteful thing. I mean, really. If you're that bright, why not
put it to good use...you know...make some BUCKS! IMPRESS CHICKS or
DUDES, depending on your gender and persuasion.
Bill
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups*ILLEGAL MODERATION*
From: lofstrom@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 04:28:29 GMT
mikejm@westworld.com wrote:
: The 30,000 messages that were cancelled throughout usenet were
: cancelled from a bot program ran on a server owned by cottagesoft.
: This domain is a rogue site that leases their connectivity from
: Sprintlink and its main source of income is SPAM. They are located in
: Northern Oklahoma and complaints to their postmaster have in the past
: resulted in 5000 line nastygrams from the sites postmaster.
Close but not quite. So far there are reports of ONE spammer at
cottagesoft, who is presumed to have been the canceller, though we
don't know for sure. Cottagesoft did cut off the canceller, so they
can't be presumed to be rogue.
People complained to the upstream postmaster, at galstar, about the
spam and got nastygrams. This was NOT the postmaster at cottagesoft.
I know that we're all outraged by this attack on Usenet, but do let's
try to keep a sense of proportion and fair play.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofstrom@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Is this the Gordian knot? The thing doctors sever upon birth?
Personally, I like navel oranges the best." -- Ludwig Plutonium
Subject: Fun Science Projects for Kids!
From: David Englund
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:27:34 -0600
Check out http://edventures.com and let me know what you think.
Edventures! is a terrific new way to learn about your world. You'll have
fun with LEGO=AE products, surf on the Internet, send e-mail, participate=
in exciting contests, and meet new friends from all over the world that
are doing the same hands-on projects just like you. =
Sound like fun? =
You'll learn about everything from airplanes to dinosaurs -- from
fossils to fossil fuels. You'll build working models of all sorts of
machines, from four-wheel-drive vehicles to robots. You'll create useful
electronic stuff, like a real alarm system for your room.
=
You'll do chemistry experiments in the kitchen sink where you make your
own slime and ooze. You'll check out the latest and greatest computer
games and animation software. You can even make your own comic book!
There are tons of fun projects you can do starting today, no matter what
your age or skill level.
You can register now for FREE!
Examples:
Description of Chemistry Projects:
Chemistry covers the various elements and compounds that
make up everything in the world around us. Chemists design and
develop vital technology ranging from air and water purification
and treatment systems to new formulas for automobile paint and
soft drinks. Chemists need to also understand electronics,
physics, biology, mathematics, and geology. =
Within Edventures! students learn about Chemistry by first
studying the relationships between protons, neutrons, electrons,
atoms, compounds, particles, and the periodic table. Fun
experiments vary from making slime and ooze in the kitchen sink
to distilling a complex compound and identifying contaminants in
air and water samples. =
Description of Life Science Projects:
Life Science is the study of plants and animals in the world
around us. Biologists, Zoologists, and Botanists design and
develop technology ranging from new miracle drugs that cure
diseases to safe ways of eliminating solid and liquid wastes. =
Life Scientists need to understand many other areas in order to =
do their work, including electronics, computer modeling, animal and
plant development, geology, and organic chemistry. =
Within Edventures! students begin to learn about Life Science by
caring for and studying their own pets and progress to the study
of box turtles, iguanas, and other zoological topics. Life =
Science projects include plant identification and taxonomy, compiling
field notebooks and journals, and creating computer models of
populations with simulation software. =
The following are some of the first subject areas that Edventures! will
be offering upon its initial debut. In the following months, additional
areas will continue to be added making Edventures! a dynamic, growing
learning system. Best of all,these areas will be developed based heavily
upon student requests! So don't be shy, tell us what you are interested
in and we'll do our best to make it available soon! =
Mechanical Engineering
Architecture
Computer Graphics
Flight Studies
Chess
Physics
Life Sciences
Chemistry
Subject: Re: Public note- request from a French man!
From: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 14:44:34 GMT
In article <52al2u$bjq@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi) says...
>
>I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people voting
>no for a "controlled/moderated" newsgroup. Free speech is and must
>stay a part of this great nation (and the net). Many have tried to
>get rid of me hidding they desire for "power" behind the word
>regulation and netiquete. I am pleased to realize that the majority
>of people on this group do not want to be regulated in any way.
>
Aw, rats! There goes any chance we had of keeping s.g.* unmoderated. :-)
Seriously though Turi, you may be a raving loony but, as long as you stick
to on-topic stuff like earthquake prediction (even if it's based on what
colour the elephant at the foot of your bed was this morning), then I'll
defend your right to post such material. Of course, I'll also defend my
right to ignore/poke fun at 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.
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: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 14:49:34 GMT
In article <32483363.2C20@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams) says...
>
>Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>>
>> In article <3246EC20.15E2@oro.net>, happypcs@oro.net (Richard Adams)
says...
>> >
>> >Other claims have been stated that when the results of such surveys are
>> >posted, they may unfairly influence the group.
>>
>> Only by you. This is your excuse for keeping thge results of your surveys
>> secret.
>
>
>Interesting how you removed, without acknoledgement, the relevant
>information from the post you quoted me on where I identified that the
>survey itself claimed the results would not be posted. It's not an excuse,
>I'm just doing what I promised.
>
>Richard
But your excuse was all I was interested in and, unlike you, I try not to
bury the salient points in a load of crud.
You're the only person to have claimed that posting the results of such
surveys may unfairly influence the group. In your post above you imply that
others have made the same claim. The rest of your post bore no relation to
this point so I snipped it. If you insist on posting >100 line rants then
they'll get snipped.
So, who - apart from you- has claimed that the group would be influenced if
you published the results of your survey?
--
-- 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.
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: Richard Adams
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 10:56:33 -0700
Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>
> But your excuse was all I was interested in and, unlike you, I try not to
> bury the salient points in a load of crud.
>
> You're the only person to have claimed that posting the results of such
> surveys may unfairly influence the group. In your post above you imply that
> others have made the same claim. The rest of your post bore no relation to
> this point so I snipped it. If you insist on posting >100 line rants then
> they'll get snipped.
>
> So, who - apart from you- has claimed that the group would be influenced if
> you published the results of your survey?
Ah, but an excuse it was not, and my post from which you snipped the
relevant information was a mere 12 lines including spaces and signature
which is just a little longer than your signature alone TQ!
Each post that an open minded person reads will have some influence
on them, that is why many of us come here to learn, contribute and
be entertained. The ability of polls to influence voting outcomes
is will documented throughout history. It is why a close call in
the polls can be a landslide in an election as people may choose to
vote for the leader in the polls. A continued debate as such is
beyond the relevant topic here.
Actually, while keeping the survey respondent's anonymous, I've
utilized the results by remolding the proposal, all as I promised.
Sorry to totally blow away your suspicions.
Richard
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: karish@gondwana.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 20:02:01 GMT
In article ,
David Stinson wrote:
[ More on a topic that has something to do with the history
of moderation on line, but not much at all to do with earth
sciences or with the earth sciences newsgroups.
Richard, the persistence of this off-topic argument is exactly
why I suggested that you work out your innovative moderation
scheme in cooperation with the experts you could find through
news.groups rather than springing it on the groups to be
moderated as an untested (in the sense of "unexamined") idea.
No, further discussion of the philosophy of moderation is NOT
appropriate on the sci.geo groups, and if they were properly
moderated groups these threads would have been axed last week.
-- crk ]
>In article ,
> gentryd@pipeline.com wrote:
>: In article <32433899.17EC@oro.net>, Richard Adams writes:
[ some inaccurate babble about the applicability of the US
Constitution to usenet ]
>: I'm not stopping anybody from pushing a delete key, or using
>: a kill-file, or just skipping over a post. Everybody has
>: that chance. Once a ng is moderated, then any poster is at
>: the mercy of what was once called a "witch hunt".
>
>Prove it. Don't make unfounded accusations without some kind of proof.
Richard Adams' proposal specifically included banning people
as being easier than checking individual articles for appropriateness.
This approach, along with his suggestion that newsgroup "members"
(Richard's usage, not mine) vote on whether to exclude other
people, was why I first referred to organized witch hunts.
Richard's reply was to the effect that such votes wouldn't be needed
very often, ignoring the question of whether they would be
ethically justified by usenet standards.
>Maybe a little time on news.groups would educate you a little better as to
>standards on the Usenet.
Indeed.
--
Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com
(415) 323-9000 x117 karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Survey Results reorganize sci.geo.* groups
From: Richard Adams
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:56:05 -0700
Gordon wrote:
>
> >> If so, has anyone asked the good Dr and/or
> >>his ISP to desist? Just wondering.
> >>
> >> Adrian
>
> It would probably not work. A note to dartmouth.edu concerning that
> other bs artist, A. Plutonium, returns a standardized form-type letter
> about protecting free speech.
Adams says: -----> ( X ) No moderation of existing groups <------
Many people don't mind the BS artists, and find them entertaining.
Some don't have time for nonsense and if they have and operate
a news reader with kill files, they might ignore them through that
electronic filtering mechanism. Others simply want a better division
of topics and respect for those divisions. No classification of
participant is "smarter" or "better" by these choices. We all have
the freedom to choose.
Group charters here were originally written to invite other related
topics when they include wording such as "but not limited to".
This gives a stamp of approval to the BS artists and other
discussions that are only remotely on topic.
In my previous proposal, I did not want to force the predictors
and theology discussions off the net. I provided a new group
for predictors. Predictors can use the scientific method and
have a justified place in sci. Theological discussions are often
crossposted to s.g.g. although there are already many appropriate
groups on the net where the posters are actually carrying on the
discussion so if we exclude them here via our charters, they
definitely already have many existing places to post on topic.
I suggested the division of topics to place discussions of
predicitions in their own group, giving them both recognition
and a place to discuss that. There is good reason to believe
that the predictors would benefit from this division. One
predictor even asked for help to form "his own group".
I started the task to rewrite group charters to clarify which
discussion were appropriate.
I suggested moderation as a means to enforce the charter, and
from that developed a more heated debate ...Ooooops!
Some people feel the recent heated debate will prevent the
continuation of a meaningful discussion of the issues. Its
possible for some, but for most of us we can take what we
learned now and move ahead with it. Why wait only to rehash
the same stuff again in a few months? Only those online
services that charge for connect time would benefit.
Although I put forth the suggestion of a robot to moderate the
groups with group voting, it would have caused more problems
than it cured for moderation of human discussion areas. I had
therefore (yesterday) withdrawn my support for that idea.
Of course it would be unfair to force anyone off the net. But
if we improve our charter to clarify which subjects are excluded
and also make certain there is another group where that subject
is on topic, we have a good argument both with the individual
and their ISP. The cooperation level of ISPs is just as uncertain
as those of their clients, but if our charter doesn't specifically
exclude the topic, we'll never get many ISPs on our side.
Reality is that if the charter says the topics, "are not limited
to those listed", and there are no specific exclusions, the ISP
will tend to side with their client, as we have seen.
After reconciling the discussion, moderation does not carry
a sufficient consensus to utilize it for the purpose of stopping
the off topic or other BS from the main discussion areas. Rewriting
group charters to clarify the excluded topics for the main discussion
groups and ensuring that excluded topics have a reasonable place to
post will give us some tools to achieve better focus without moderation.
A new moderated group for some discussions is still possible but the
idea is that this is a new group, not a replacement for or a controlled
version of the existing groups. There should be at least two moderators.
One with a wealth of knowledge on the topic, and the other to serve as a
balance against potential bias. Either one allowed to approve posts, and
no automatic posts by robot. I specifically exclude myself from that
position. This is not new, I never wanted to "moderate", I only offer
to control a robot. I've got a couple of moderators in mind that
have applied. Perhaps we can combine the needs for an area like this
for both s.g.e and s.g.g. into one moderated group, perhaps not, and
perhaps none at all! ANYONE else that wants to be moderator please
post or e-mail me.
(from my post yesterday)
A better applicable usage for a robot moderator would be to control
posts to an earthquake event data group, where official facilities
from the around the world could post information and events only,
with no other posts. Although there are facilites to download this
information, not everyone has access to these. A news group that had
a sole purpose of reporting events could augment other services that
did this such as ftp, and web sites, and give a place where people
could always know to look for event information, and know that the
robot moderator would keep the information official. In this case
we've turned the robot moderator into a very selective system where
it only accepts posts that can have passwords or other security
features.
(new)
Although an official facility could operate the news post robot,
I think it would be cleaner if a set of sites, including backups,
performed the data post approval function. They could also serve
to collect this information from existing sources and post it,
thereby relieving the existing official facilities from the need
to rewrite their software to post the data. A standard form
easily readable by both humand and machine would be used.
None of this is perfect, but it is a workable compromise.
All comments invited, e-mail or whatever. Should I write up
and submit a new proposal to the effect of what's written herein?
Richard
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: mcorman@netcom.com (Mary Corman)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 20:07:49 GMT
Ken Navarre (kjn@netcom.com) wrote:
: Richard mentioned:
: ...
: >The fact is some people want a moderated newsgroup for these topics,
: >and I believe it will have no negative impact on you personally, and ask
: >that you not stand in the way of allowing other people to have the group
: >they want. You'll still have your existing forums.
: So, you're asking that I refrain from offering a "NO" vote when the CFV
: arrives??? Ummmmm, I'll have to think about... Wouldn't that imply that
: whenever a vote was offered all the "nays" should just "stay at home" and
: let the issue pass???
That was my reaction when Richard Adams asked me in email to refrain
from voting against the proposal if I don't plan to participate in
the moderated versions of the newsgroups.
If I were a geologist or seismologist, my needs for a moderated
group limited to professionals might be different. But as a lay
person who is interested in understanding more about those fields,
newsgroups provide education that is more complete when ideas are
countered by messages presenting opposing facts and viewpoints
(without flames). I worry that those who try to learn will lose
that opportunity if groups are split. Professionals won't have time
to check every group for questions from students and serious lay
persons. Many hesitate to post to moderated groups. I don't submit
questions to some moderated mail lists even though I read them.
It feels too much like a student asking a question in a room
full of schoolteachers.
--
Mary Corman
mcorman@netcom.com marycorman@aol.com tybg72a@prodigy.com
Subject: Re: Mankind's next step
From: Chuck Blatchley
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 17:10:39 -0700
Henry wrote:
>
> nobody's pointed out that the earth is alledged to have been created in
> 4004 BC on (I think) the twenty-somethingth of September, which means
> that the earth will be 6000 years old next week!
> Actually, we have a little longer yet to plan the party. The good Bishop
Ussher's date was October 26. We're planning a celebration that day
anyway, because it's my son's birthday. However, his age is still in two
digits rather than four.
--
Chuck Blatchley Department of Physics
(316) 235-4398 Room 303, Yates Hall
FAX: 235-4050 Pittsburg State University
email: cblatchl@pittstate.edu Pittsburg, KS 66762