Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 32895

Directory

In article  Fred Edwords  writes:
>From: Fred Edwords 
>Subject: Re: Religion of science and science of Relligion 
>Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 15:45:20 GMT
>On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Frank wrote:
>> James G. Acker wrote:
>> > 
>> > "Lord Garth" (danger@provide.net) wrote:
>> > 
>> > : In all seriousness can anybody identify a current complex life form in a
>> > : transitional state. I would think that we have many examples of this
>> > : phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different species on our
>> > : planet. Please do not cite single celled life forms since there is no
>> > : question that these mutate to adapt to their surroundings. I am looking for
>> > : something like monkeys with feathers, dogs with scales, birds that spin
>> > : webs and have eight legs, ...etc.
>> > 
>> >         My favorite current transitional life forms are the various
>> > species of penguins.
>My choice would be the hippo, an animal which occupies the same ecological
>niche that the land-mammal ancestor of modern whales once did.  The hippo
>spends most of its life in the water, gives birth in the water, yet 
>grazes on land, eating grass.  It's nickname of "sea cow" is most 
>appropriate, given the common creationist charicature of cetacian 
>evolution.  But will the hippo evolve into a completely aquatic or marine
>mammal as did the ancestor of the whales and dolphins?  I dunno.  Do I 
>look like a wizard with a crystal ball?
My choice would be the human being who has attained the ability to read in 
only the last 1,000-4,500 years.  Although this is a very small portion of the 
brain, it appears to be extremely important in the propogation of the species.
richard f hall
http://seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html

Mike Noreen wrote:
> 
> Replying to vhe@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de (Volker Hetzer)
> 
> : :>To which I would respond: a god is a supernatural being,
> : :>'supernatural' defined as capable of violating the natural laws of the
> : :>universe.
> :
> : Which leads us convieniently to the definition of "natural law".
> : Any ideas?
> 
> Dang! I was hoping I'd get away with being fuzzy on that. How about
> the laws of thermodynamics?
As far as I know, they are based on experience and able to explain much
of our observations , on nothing else.
> I know that if I met someone who could violate the laws of
> thermodynamics, I would seriously consider joining his religion...
Actually before doing so I would ask, how he does it.
When he explains it, I would know how it works and it would
not be holy anymore. And that god would simply become an advanced alien.
No need to build curches for aliens and life goes on.
But obviously, if it were necessary to build churches and prey in
order to get around our laws of thermodynamics I would do it.
Se you!
Volker

gillan@worldchat.com wrote:
> 
> In article ,
>    spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
> >Just one question ..
> >
> >How many creationists are non religious ??
> >
> >If the answer is very few, if any (the most likely answer) , then its about
> religion,
> >nothing to do with science.
> >
> 
> What is science?
> 
> Does the theory of evolution meet the criteria for a scientific theory?
-- 
This is one of the usual tricks of creationists and this is why we
usually waste our time trying to explain them the difference between
creationism and evolutionism. They will never accept the big difference
between the two : one is a mere belief which has absolutely no sign of
evidence to prop up its existence while the other is a theory (which
means weaknesses, errors and improvement-allowable) which has been based
on facts. The discussion is vaine. I know of people who still believe
that the Sun circles the Earth or others that will pretend that the
Earth is flat and so on. Science means a method, a logic and tests.
Disclaiming basic facts is easy but it leads to nowhere interesting. Let
the creationists believe and go back to useful tasks!
LP

                        New Job Vacancy Page
A list of jobs vacancies is now available on the Royal Astronomical Society's
web site at http://www.ras.org.uk/ras/
The job page is at http://www.ras.org.uk/ras/jobs/jobs.htm
Also included are links to other job pages on the web.
Thank you,
Mike,
--
Astronomy in the UK     http://www.u-net.com/ph/
Home page               http://www.personal.u-net.com/~ph/
Phoenix Electroplating  http://www.electroplating.co.uk

nikolay@scws40.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) wrote:
>In article  
>wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
>   This is a difference between science and religion.  A religion cannot allow 
>   for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of 
>   certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
>No.  It's irrelevant whether religion @allows@ change; what matters is
>the fact that religion @itself@ changes and adapts. Therefore, science
>and religion are not different in the respect of change.
>Cheers,					I am the God of New York.
>Philip Nikolayev			I fart
>nikolay@fas.harvard.edu			_The New Yorker_.
Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
Terran

Terran wrote:
> Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
> with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
...is not a scientific theory.
-- 
  		  Johnny Marr - wadh0269@sable.ox.ac.uk
	     Webpage at- http://www.wadham.ox.ac.uk/~jstacey
	     I left the North again, I travelled South again

Replying to S Krueger  
: theory. The explosion of mammals and birds into the Tertiary simply
: reflects the wide range of ecological niches which the extinction of
: dinosaurs left open.
I agree with this, but one thing puzzles me - why didn't the birds,
which'd been around for a very long time, radiate BEFORE the dinosaurs
went extinct? OK, the ground-based niches would be held by fellow
dinosaurs, but for quite a while they were the only vertebrates which
could fly. What kept the birds in check?
: * S Krueger (skrueger@arco.com)          *                        *
MVH: Mike Noreen       |"Cold as the northern winds 
Net: ev-michael@nrm.se | in December mornings,
                       | Cold is the cry that rings
                       | from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to 
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Johnny Marr wrote:
> Terran wrote:
> 
> > Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
> > with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
> 
> ...is not a scientific theory.
> 
Of course, the major difference between the two is the falsifiablity of
them.
Ask a creationist what they would accept as proof that the Creation story
is untrue, and they would not be able to give you any example. This is
because their faith very conveniently works independent of evidence, so no
evidence is able to contradict their faith.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, could give you hundreds of examples of
possible finds which would blow the theory of evolution out of the water.
For example, finding a fossil of a dinosaur with a human in it's
intestines would probably do the job.
This tells us that the theory of evolution is not a religion, whereas
adherence to the creation story, is.

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Terran wrote:
> nikolay@scws40.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) wrote:
> 
> >In article  
> >wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
> 
> >   This is a difference between science and religion.  A religion cannot allow 
> >   for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of 
> >   certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
> 
> >No.  It's irrelevant whether religion @allows@ change; what matters is
> >the fact that religion @itself@ changes and adapts. Therefore, science
> >and religion are not different in the respect of change.
> 
> >Cheers,					I am the God of New York.
> >Philip Nikolayev			I fart
> >nikolay@fas.harvard.edu			_The New Yorker_.
> 
> Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
> with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
> 
> Terran
> 
> 
> 
This view shows as much knowledge about the nature of science as the view 
of those socialites in the 20s who thought that the theory of relativity 
held that "everything is relative".
Leonardo

In  Anthony Potts
 writes: 
>
>
>
>On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Johnny Marr wrote:
>
>> Terran wrote:
>> 
>> > Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>> > with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
>> 
>> ...is not a scientific theory.
>> 
>Of course, the major difference between the two is the falsifiablity
of
>them.
>
>Ask a creationist what they would accept as proof that the Creation
story
>is untrue, and they would not be able to give you any example. This is
>because their faith very conveniently works independent of evidence,
so no
>evidence is able to contradict their faith.
>
>Evolutionists, on the other hand, could give you hundreds of examples
of
>possible finds which would blow the theory of evolution out of the
water.
>
>For example, finding a fossil of a dinosaur with a human in it's
>intestines would probably do the job.
>
>This tells us that the theory of evolution is not a religion, whereas
>adherence to the creation story, is.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  The fossil would be announce on american news by Tom Brokaw
as proof of tme travel wth an iinterview of Carl Sagan to explan how it
is possible.
'cin

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further responding to this thread. The subject is well outside the scope
of the newsgroup. Thank you for helping keep the usenet useable!

coredal@ix.netcom.com(Melanie Dunn) writes:
>
>Mike Munsil <75561.1231@CompuServe.COM> writes: 
>>
>>First you have to define "lake".  There are a LOT of oxbow lakes 
>>in Texas, all (or most anyway) of which are natural.  Many are 
>>called "resacas".  Anyway, why should a manmade lake not be 
>>natural?  Are we not part of nature?  
>>
>The gentleman merely asked the question whether or not all the lakes in
>Texas were formed by natural processes.  Your comment was way out of
>line.  Yes, we are part of nature but the lakes that were constructed
>by the Core of Engineers are not "natural" phenomenon.  To reiterate,
>Caddo lake is the only "natural" lake (not made by CoE).
Er, Melanie, you might want to look up the definition of an
oxbow lake.  Simply put, oxbow lakes are created when a river
meander cuts itself off, leaving a stagnant loop behind.
(Yes, I know - this is a bit of an oversimplification.)
These *are* natural lakes - I can assure you that the CoE
doesn't go around making them!   So, given that there
are meandering rivers in Texas, there are also other natural
lakes.
John DeLaughter

Hi,
I am doing some research on a book I am writing. Is there anyone who can
give me some clues about how a bad guy may stop the earth from rotating
around its axis (making China forever dark e.g.)?
If the answer is somewhat infeasible, that is no problem. What magnitude of
strength is necessary for something like that?
Thanx,
Anne.

After reading and analyzing George Bonser's ongoing
contribution to discussion of the new news groups
I've proposed, the following is presented as a
suggestion to organize his and other responses.
The discussion is broken down into three categories.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
Items 1 & 2 above are usefull to the group as a whole
since they promote progress in the discussion.  Item 3
is useful to a more limited set of persons and tend
to reflect back on the person making the attack rather
than contribute to the progress in the discussion.
Many e-mail messages I receive remind me that perhaps
there is some hidden underlying agenda for those that
often resort to item 3.  One guess would be that those
with a hidden agenda pop up asking questions, include
personal attacks, and yet never respond to the questions
asked of them.  I don't think George is in that group
though...
I view my role as the proponent to including proposing,
listening to and analyzing the discussions, and
revising the proposal to that which coresponds to the
interests and needs of the whole group.  As such,
all of the items 1 through 3 are invited.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
George Bonser.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
      [George offers none]
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
    George says: (I've reworded and organized this) 
      A) The new groups will draw away traffic from
         ca.earthquakes.
      B) I already have a way to ignore or delete
         posts I don't like so I don't need what
         you're proposing.
         Suggestions include retro-moderation, kill
         files, filters, etc.
      C) There's insufficient traffic in the existing
         groups to justify the new groups.
      D) There's insufficient kook traffic to justify
         the new groups.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
    George says:
       A) The discussion doen't belong here, move it
          far away.
       B) Adams has a need to be in charge of creating
          and controlling the group.
       C) Adams is a newbie, hasn't been around long
          enough to accomplish what he's talking about.
       D) Adams is an egomaniac.
       E) I'm suspicious of Adams.
---------------------------------------------------
I'll address the personal attacks first.
Thinking back, it seems that I challenged George's
recomendation to use retro-moderation.  If I
hurt your feelings by this, I most sincerely
apologize.  It wasn't my intention to attack
you personally.  Is there some other reason why
these personal attacks by you against me have
occurred in every post since then?
----------------------------------------------------
Now to George's contribution to the discussion.
 A) Why is it bad that the new groups draw
    traffic away from ca.eq?  Please
    answer why its bad for you, and why
    its bad for the news groups population
    as a whole, either or both.
 B) Yes you are correct in that there are
    other ways to ignore or delete posts.
    The need for the new groups I'm proposing
    offers a more universal method that will
    fit the need of many people to organize
    the discussion into two groups.
 C) & D) also:
    Yes you are correct in that there isn't
    much traffic by kooks or good posters here.
    [here being ca.eq]  Take a look at all of
    the off topic stuff going on in s.g.geology.
    Its coming here too soon, I promise.  Many
    people have complained about the dimished
    quality of the posts everywhere.  I'm willing
    to listen to any suggestion you have to
    enhance what's already going on and I'll
    update my proposal if there's a consensus.
That's all there is.
Richard

wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) wrote:
>In article  richhall@seanet.com (Richard F. Hall) writes:
>>Science is the discovery of God.  What we have done since Biblical days is to 
>>discover God.  
>"Science is the discovery of God."  Yes!!!  It could be a bumper sticker. I 
>have immersed myself in chemistry and biochemistry all my professional life.  
>But no matter how much we discover about Nature and life, in whatever detail, 
>the goosebumps never go away.  Knowing the details of how my cells 
>reproduce, live, and die doesn't make me appreciate the fine architecture 
>of the human body any less.  When I am filled with love for my wife, my 
>children, my grandchildren, I can understand that love probably  evolved as a 
>sociobiological mechanism for ensuring the survival of my genes.  But knowing 
>this doesn't make the emotion any less intense.  Why can't God be the 
>motivating force behind the miracle of the Universe?  It's as valid as any 
>other explanation, and has a comfortable commonsense appeal to it.  Everything 
>else, choice of religion, degree of belief in absolute truth of holy writings, 
>belief in afterlife, etc., are all froth.
>Bill
>********************************************************
>Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, 
Bill,
 I more or less share your views in that the possibility of God's
existence can't be ruled out a priori. I don't , however, see the need
of a 'motivating force behind the universe', nor the proof value of 'a
comfortable commonsense'.  Why don't we simply stop thinking about
gods, immortality & the like and begin accepting nature 'as is'?
Javier

In article <3222078C.5251@notes.ipl.ca>,
   Tim Blackmore  wrote:
>Maureen Soar wrote:
>> 
>> The trick to posts like this is to make extensive use of 
your
>> newsreader's KILL capabilities and to simply NOT reply to 
these
>> clearly trolling posts.  It is not censorship to choose 
not to
>> respond - and I think you'll find having responses is very
>> important to these kind of posters (and they exist in all
>> newsgroups).
>> 
>> Mo
A wise posting indeed!  I have had to resort to this, and it 
was very effective.  Regarding censorship: Censorship exists 
when I do not have the right to say or type my opinion.  
However, once I have this right, no one else in the whole 
world has any obligation to either read or respond to my 
comments, because they have just as much right to ignore me. 
I may not like being ignored, but that is still "the way it 
is".

Leonardo Dasso  wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Terran wrote:
>> nikolay@scws40.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article  
>> >wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose) writes:
>> 
>> >   This is a difference between science and religion.  A religion cannot allow 
>> >   for dissent or change, because its adherents are mainly in search of 
>> >   certainty.  Science must allow it, however reluctantly.
>> 
>> >No.  It's irrelevant whether religion @allows@ change; what matters is
>> >the fact that religion @itself@ changes and adapts. Therefore, science
>> >and religion are not different in the respect of change.
>> 
>> >Cheers,					I am the God of New York.
>> >Philip Nikolayev			I fart
>> >nikolay@fas.harvard.edu			_The New Yorker_.
>> 
>> Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>> with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
>> 
>> Terran
>> 
>> 
>> 
>This view shows as much knowledge about the nature of science as the view 
>of those socialites in the 20s who thought that the theory of relativity 
>held that "everything is relative".
>Leonardo
I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
read 'Origins of Species' and Einstein's writings (in the layest
contexts).  Darwin himself stated that without the discovery of an
intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.  Granted, when
pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a theory, yet it is
taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  How many windswept
whale bones have been produced from the Indian Ocean to prove that
whales became Peacocks?  Granted my comment was flip.  I came 
across this thread in a poetry newsgroup after all and had no idea I
might rise the ire of the adherents to this debate.  Do your work if
you're a scientist.  Prove Darwin right and I'll write a poem in your
honor.  Deal?
Terran

In article <32232B57.5842@world.std.com>,
   The ONE  wrote:
>> Perhaps if everyone annoyed by junk postings were to send 
back a reply
>> via mail (not newsgroups) the offender might be 
overwhelmed by the volume
>> of replies and at least reduce the number of offending 
postings.  Just a
>> suggestion, not necessarily a good one.  What's your 
thought on it?
>> --
>> Tim Blackmore    tim_blackmore@notes.ipl.ca
>
>My thought is that it's a great idea in theory, but in order 
for it to
>be an effective practice we'd need an email destination that 
had a non-
>artificial life-form at the console.
>
>> Plutonium:  useless as the fifth tit on a cow.
>
>
>Cows have six tits don't they? And aren't they ALL equally 
useful?
>Please leave these innocent creatures out of this or I'm 
gonna
>have to get upset or something... 
>
>*
I wonder if that poster knows how many "tits" a human has?

Anthony Potts  wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, Johnny Marr wrote:
>> Terran wrote:
>> 
>> > Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>> > with evolutionists.  A religion is a religion is a religion...
>> 
>> ...is not a scientific theory.
>> 
>Of course, the major difference between the two is the falsifiablity of
>them.
>Ask a creationist what they would accept as proof that the Creation story
>is untrue, and they would not be able to give you any example. This is
>because their faith very conveniently works independent of evidence, so no
>evidence is able to contradict their faith.
>Evolutionists, on the other hand, could give you hundreds of examples of
>possible finds which would blow the theory of evolution out of the water.
>For example, finding a fossil of a dinosaur with a human in it's
>intestines would probably do the job.
>This tells us that the theory of evolution is not a religion, whereas
>adherence to the creation story, is.
I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
read 'Origins of Species.'  Darwin himself stated that without the
discovery of an intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.
Granted, when pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a
theory, yet it is taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  How
many windswept whale bones have been produced from the Indian Ocean to
prove that whales became Peacocks?  Granted my comment was flip.  I
came across this thread in a poetry newsgroup after all and had no
idea I might rise the ire of the adherents to this debate.  Do your
work if you're a scientist.  Prove Darwin right and I'll write a poem
in your honor.  Deal?
Terran

In article <322A6A6C.3D12@ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Oertell   wrote:
>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
Within about 1000 miles, anyway.  I'd expect the "refocusing"
to be more precise than that.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

In article <509jo8$o3d@herald.concentric.net>,
Ralph Sansbury   wrote:
>  I was looking for a more through argument. The following is based on a 
>few geology and physics books I have. Please confirm or correct:
Try the new edition of Gunther Faure's _Principles_of_Isotope_Geology_
if you want a more detailed introduction.
The short answer to your question about zircon U-Pb is that
the intermediate isotopes are much shorter lived than the
parent uranium isotopes, and it's straightforward to correct for
their presence.
>I gather that rocks having
>> formed from slowly cooled molten elements inside the earth did not
>> contain any argon at the beginning since only rocks chilled rapidly
>> as lavas erupting on the ocean floor would be able to trap an
>> elusive unreactive gas like argon.
Rocks do often incorporate argon when they're formed and when
they're altered.  This is corrected for by using the non-
radiogenic isotopes of argon as a guide.  Faure explins
this, too.
--
    Chuck Karish          '81 Guzzi CX100
    karish@well.com       '83 Guzzi Le Mans III (Fang, RSN)
    DoD #89

Chuck Karish  wrote:
>Bill Oertell   wrote:
>>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
>
>Within about 1000 miles, anyway.  I'd expect the "refocusing"
>to be more precise than that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Deccan traps exactly opposite
the Chicxulub structure 65 million years ago (within the error introduced
by estimating continental drift rates)?
Of course, it certainly isn't at the antipodal point now, but that's
not relevant.
"Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur,
tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel
Ethan T. Vishniac ---> http://grendel.as.utexas.edu/Welcome.html
Dept. of Astronomy      also Associate Professor of Astrophysiology
The University of Texas      G.G. Simpson Hereditable Chair of Evilution
Austin, Texas, 78712         University of Ediacara                   
ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu    `Knowledge, Wisdom, Beer'

In article <322A6A6C.3D12@ix.netcom.com>,
Bill Oertell   wrote:
>   It's my opinon that these Indian basalts are the result of the
>refocusing of the impact shock waves at the antipod of the impact site.
>The Indian subcontinent was nearly opposite the Yucatan impact location.
What reconstruction is being used here? Yucatan and India were at least
30 deg away from being antipodal according to Smith et al "Phanerozoic 
paleocontinental world maps" Cambr Univ Press 1981. Subsequently Molnar 
et al 1988 (Basin Res. 1 23) redid India relative to Africa, and
Klitgord & Schouten 1986 (The Geol. of N. America, vol. M, Geol. Soc.
Am., Boulder CO) redid Africa relative to the Americas, but this work
didnt change things vastly.
The antipodes of Yucatan seem to have been in the Indian Ocean between 
India and New Guinea.
John Harper Mathematics Dept. Victoria University Wellington New Zealand

Ken Navarre wrote:
> 
> Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) asked:
> : One question is: why do you feel I want to control
> : a newsgroup?
> 
> Pullllleeeeeessse! You're constant hammering to bring in moderation is
> the FIRST clue! Why don't you just start an earthquake mail list? It'd be
> infinately easier on everyone involved. Then you could crosspost to
> whatever newsgroups you wanted to, could include or exclude whatever
> authors or topics that you wanted and anyone who wished to subscribe to
> your group could!
> 
> : Where in the proposal does its say that
> : I'll be doing that?  Both of the proposed groups are
> : controlled by the groups members, not by an individual.
> 
> Control is *C*O*N*T*R*O*L* no matter who does it. If you want a protected
> newsgroup environment the simplest way to form one is thru the listserve
> software. The end result would be the same as a moderated newsgroup and
> we'd be free of this topic (hopefully!). I'm sure that most of us would
> welcome a weekly or even daily post in ca.earthquakes that informed new
> readers of the mail list if it'd cut the S/N from you about this issue.
> 
> Ken
> --
Hi Ken,
I provide the following general breakdown to
responses about the proposal and discussion.
The discussion is broken down into three categories.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
Items 1 & 2 above are usefull to the group as a whole
since they promote progress in the discussion.  Item 3
is useful to a more limited set of persons and tend
to reflect back on the person making the attack rather
than contribute to the progress in the discussion.
I view my role as the proponent to including proposing,
listening to and analyzing the discussions, and
revising the proposal to that which coresponds to the
interests and needs of the whole group.  As such,
all of the items 1 through 3 are invited.
--------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll apply items 1-3 to the recent discussion with
Ken Navarre.
  1) Discussion about the positive aspect of the
     existing proposal.
    Ken agrees somewhat with moderation, but says
    to start a new moderated mailing list rather
    than a new moderated news group.
    (paraphrased)
  2) Discussion about the negative aspects of the
     existing proposal.
    Ken is against a new moderated news group.
    (not really stated but implied by him)
  3) Attempts to enhance the poster's negative
     argument by attacking the persons rather
     than discussing the issues.
     Ken says Adams is hammering us and this is
     proof that Adams wants control.
     (paraphrased)
My response to 1&2 is that the same benefit that
moderation provides to a mailing list can also
provide to a news group.  A mailing list is not
a news group.  Both have their own purpose of
communication, moderation can benefit the focus
and quality of both.
My response to item 3 is that any perception there
is of hammering or attempts control is in the mind
of the beholder.  All that I've been doing is
proposing, listening to and analyzing the discussions,
and revising the proposal to that which corresponds
to the interests and needs of the whole group.
I invite your contribution to refine the proposal.
Richard

Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
> I make no claim to great knowledge of science (I'm a poet) but I have
> read 'Origins of Species.'  Darwin himself stated that without the
> discovery of an intermediate form much of his theory falls apart.
> Granted, when pressed evolutionists will admit that Evolution is a
> theory, yet it is taught by lesser minds in our schools as fact.  
What do you think is the difference between a theory and a fact?
This isn't a rhetorical question: it's quite fundamental to
epistemology, and reasonable people can and do disagree about
the answer.