Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 33669

Directory

Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
> >DISTRIBUTION:
> >This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
> >
> >news.announce.newgroups
> >news.groups
> >sci.geo.earthquakes
> >sci.geo.geology
> >
> 
> OH NO IT ISN'T!!!!!
> 
> Check out the Newsgroups list - Richard's forgotten to add in the one group
> where this should be - news.groups.
> 
> Anybody with an interest in preserving free speech and not allowing their
> groups to be turned into fora where only those voices agreeing with the
> majority are allowed to be heard should head to news.groups where these
> changes will be discussed.
I posted the RFD to the following groups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.geo.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology
just like the distribution list shows.
The reason why you haven't seen that post is because the
news.announce.newgroups is moderated by a HUMAN, and has a very slow
turn around.  Until the RFD is official approved, none of the crossposts
I included will take effect.
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 disucssion should not
by buried in the news.group group.  It belongs here since it
affects the people already here.
The issue of free speech is a difficult one.  First I point out
the the laws of the constitution control the government, not the
people.  People are free to offer whatever control they want
in their own meeting areas.  Moderation of a newsgroup breaks
no law.  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.
Richard

In <3238EDF4.9ED@probe.net> Frank  writes: 
>
>Sean Webb wrote:
>> 
>> On 9/12/96 6:36PM, in message <32383C2B.9AB@hp.com>, Barry Vaughan
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> > Tom Potter wrote:
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > It is my observation that what separates
>> > > man from beast is not "intelligence"
>> > > but the trading instinct.
>> > >
>> >
>> > There is also self-awareness.
>> > Simply put, the ability to look into a mirror and say: "Hey,
that's me"
>> > rather than "Hey, who's that in my house?" ;)
>> >
>> > So far Humans, Chimps and possibly Dolphins exhibit
self-awareness.
>> >
>> > > There seems to be five levels of sophistication
>> > > in living things and their systems.
>> > > These, listed in order of sophistication, are:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Accept
>> > > 2. Get
>> > > 3. Take
>> > > 4. Share
>> > > 5. Trade
>> > >
>> > > Trade is superior to the other forms as it
>> > > elevates both the lazy and the industrious.
>> > >
>> > > I suggest that "trade" has only occured two times.
>> > > There is also a monkey in Japan that trades.
>> >
>> > It's getting more and more difficult to find distinguishing
features
>> > that apply only to Humans.
>> >
>> > Barry.
>> >
>> >
>> Try Bonking for fun !!
>> All other animals do it for procreation.
>> 
>> Sean Webb
>
>
>Good point, last time I went to a musical concert perfprmed by
>intelligent monkeys was in japan too. Not to mention they made the
>instument by melting steel and some other aloy. Japanies are actually
>learnig some computer programing from monkey too. They think monkey
have
>to fight horses and dolfine before they fight human inorder to
inhearth
>the earth as king of animals.
I wonder if these monkeys trade?
If not, maybe in a hundred thousand years,
the decendents of the Japanese monkeys 
will be studying their bones 
and wondering what they were.
Of course, trade is not symbiosis
but a conscious exchange of sets 
of possessions. 
Tom Potter       http://pobox.com/~tdp

In article <51aih2$4sf@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, matts2@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>In talk.origins Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net) wrote:
>
>
>>Just what is "continental rock" in this model? And where can I see some?
>
>Kraftwerk and Golden Earing come to mind. I think they both still
>perform.
>
;-)
That actually pretty funny, thanks. And here I though no one was reading 
my posts, especially since Dr. Brown has not answered any of my questions 
from the three posts I have made.
hmmmm.... I wonder why that is, oh well who cares.
Archae Solenhofen (jmcarth1@gtn.net)
>
>Matt Silberstein
>-----------------------------
>The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
>Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
>

In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
|> I remember reading that iron deposits date to the the transition from 
|> reducing to oxidizing atmosphere.  It was a truly massive event, if 
|> EPA would've existed at the time it would've got a fit.
In addition to disproving evolution, the EPA staffers would have
passed out from lack of oxygen.  If they started to have a fit, they
would have passed out even sooner.
Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   cats@CFAnet.com

Tom Williams wrote:>
> Anyone who single-handedly expects to revise the study of
> radiometric age-dating, planktonic biostratigraphy,
> magnetostratigraphy, Pacific marine Geology, intra-plate
> volcanism, plate tectonics, fold and thrust mountain building and
> arc volcanism, among others, as a 'hobby', all to .....
Dear Tom:
Thank you for recognizing the potential value of the ideas
being discussed.
As for myself, I ascribe to the motto of the George Soros
Foundation, which reads:
"The concept of open society is based on the recognition that
people act on imperfect knowledge and nobody is in possession
of the ultimate truth".
Now, let me say something to you in an authoritative manner:
SEE YOUR DOCTOR, I think your blood pressure may be dangerously
elevated.
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
Pelorus Research Laboratory
> Tom Williams             williams@pangea.stanford.edu
> Basin Analysis, Sequence Stratigraphy
> Stanford Program on Deep-Sea Depositional Systems
> Tom Williams             williams@pangea.stanford.edu
> Basin Analysis, Sequence Stratigraphy
> Stanford Program on Deep-Sea Depositional Systems
> http://pangea.stanford.edu/~williams/williams.html

Since this discussion is about web-based publishing, I thought I'd throw
in a few web pointers.
To see the call for papers of a "new refereed, archival internet journal",
take a look at
    http://www-mitpress.mit.edu/jrnls-catalog/videre.html
[In my opinion, peer review is a necessary process, even if it is painful and
imperfect.  To "publish" without peer review, try posting to the appropriate
bboard -- and if you make a controversial claim, you will still get peer-
flamed^H^H^H^H^H^H reviewed.  :-) ]
For an interesting essay on the concept of on-line publication, see
    http://peipa.essex.ac.uk/vision-online/
The essay examines *why* we publish at all and what publication methods are
currently used and their drawbacks, and in this context explores online
publication, including an analysis of (some of) the pros and cons of several
potential online publication mechanisms.  [This essay is entitled "Vision
Online: Electronic Publishing for Computer Vision", but the principles have
applicability far beyond computer vision.]
-Pete (rander@cs.cmu.edu)

S Krueger wrote:
> 
> - The age of the oceanic crust in the Pacific, based on actual dated
> samples from drill sites, goes back well past 65 Ma, and approaches 200
> Ma in the western reaches.
I would expect that there should be old oceanic crust in several locations 
that are much older than the Hawaii-forming impact.  RDB
> 
> - Analysis of dozens of drill cores from the Pacific consistently shows
> conformable Cretaceous rocks below the Tertiary strata throughout the
> basin. No significant deformational event occurred in the Pacific basin
> at 65 Ma.
> Misinterpretation of the data and what I am saying. I didn't realize you'd 
drilled to the Moho. Remarkable engineering.  Please share the data with us. RDB
> - Despite the fact that many of the mountain ranges which rim the Pacific
> basin form an approximately circular pattern at 65 Ma (as they do today),
> the ages of much of the deformation from these ranges significantly
> predate the K/T boundary, often recording episodic orogeny throughout the
> last billion years or so. 
You seem not to be reading my posts very clearly.  Stored "tectonic" energy, e.g. the energy that builds up 
secondary to plate motions, get released by large impacts of the type proposed.  RDB
The current continental margins of the Pacific
> have been continental margins for a long time prior to the K/T boundary.
Where have I said the continental margins have been ablated by the Hawaii-forming
impact? I have not said this.  RDB
> There is nothing at all unusual about that small portion of the total
> orogenic picture which occurred near the K/T boundary, and there is
> nothing to suggest the kind of catastrophe you suggest.
I see a lot of mountains out there.  I even have skied on some of them.  RDB
> 
> - A massive impact did not occur in the middle of the Pacific, as the
> preservation of the K/T boundary clay (possibly from the proposed Yucatan
> impact site) in numerous drill cores from the Pacific show it to be a low
> energy deposit, probably representing the pelagic rain of impact detritus
> out of the atmosphere and settling through the water column.
This whole paragraph is self-contradictory.  RDB
> 
> - There is no evidence from any K/T boundary site anywhere in the world
> for the kinds of volumes of impact debris which would be produced from a
> crater the size of the Pacific.
> 
You are totally confused.  I am not claiming that the Pacific Basin was 
created by an impact. Good time for early retirement or a medicine 
called Cognex. RDB
> - Numerical modelling of extremely large impacts, like the one proposed
> to have formed the moon more than 4 billion years ago, suggest that an
> impact of the size needed to form a crater the size of the Pacific would
> actually vaporize the bulk of the earth's mantle, melting the rest. This
> clearly didn't happen at the K/T boundary.
> Missing my point entirely.  Not claiming the Pacific Basin formed by the 
Hawaii impact and the proposed orogeny REGUIRE the presence of an oceanic 
body of water, to proceed as described. RDB
the Hawaii
> Your only stated evidence to support your hypothesis is the circular
> nature of the mountain chains around the Pacific in a 65Ma
> reconstruction. 
Not true at all, lots of evidence.  Crater rim best type.  RDB
In light of the counter evidence stated above, I suggest
> you have no credible case for continuing to push your hypothesis.
In light of what I've said, I would suggest you re-read my posts and
refuse that next cup of coffee.  Second opinion, have a cup of coffee, then
re-read my posts. RDB

Darren Beckstrand said:
%       As it seems to me, science and religion is not completely inseperable.
%   Many times science doesn't say why something happened, just that it did
%   and this is how it happened. While religion on the other hand just says
%   why something happened, and says nothing of how it happened. For all we
%   know the six days mentioned in the bible, these days were on somekind of
%   logrithmic scale and that we called our 24 hour periods 'days'
%   incorrectly. Also when one reads about the seperation of the red sea one
%   doesn't think about that the red sea is very shallow where Moses crossed
%   and the on extrodinary tides could be to blame for this. Also if one looks
%   at the area where Biblical cities have been "swallowed into the Earth", my
%   money is on some faults to lie under the city.
%	What many scientists seem to lack is religious faith, and faith is
%   what religion depends on. Science on the other hand has its own faith
%   sometimes, for instance the 'ether' that had been contrieved to explain
%   the propigation of light waves though space. The difference being that
%   science is always looking for a better explanation and religion has all
%   the explanation it needs.
%	For me this is a way of not diminishing or degrading one belief or
%   another, because if one has an open mind, on both sides of the argument,
%   one can see that religion and science can coexist.
%
%   Darren Beckstrand 
%   Mormon and geology major
Personally, I think it is wrong to view science as a 'belief system' - it is
a methodology for the investigation of natural phenomena. Science is useful
in plenty of the fields that concern people today; we use scientfic findings
to predict phenomena, and in a sense this is all we do. A scientific
'discovery' usually takes the form of an improved or completely new model
of a particular natural phenomenon, and it would be arrogant to think that
science is dealing in profound truths about the universe. History is filled
with the revision of scientific ideas and paradigms.
Science ceases to be the right 'tool' when it comes to understanding that
which we cannot or do not know how to measure. Science has nothing to say
on the existence or otherwise of God and 'supernatural' phenomena. In this
field, it is experience and faith which are relevant.
In this sense, I think that matters of scientific research and religious
belief cannot be considered together in a rigourous way. This is probably
because I do not possess a fundamentalist belief in my particular religion.
As I am a member of the Church of England, I'll use the example of the
Christian Bible (I hope this doesn't prejudice readers against the generality
of my argument). Many people (myself excluded) spend a great deal of time
and effort (not to mention money) trying to somehow 'validate' the claims
of the Bible. Why? Don't they have the faith they profess? Probably, it
is that they think that the public will be much more receptive to their
ideas if they have scientific evidence (which modern society will believe
no matter what) in support. Of course, as in any scientific work, small
amounts of data can be easily fitted to a multitude of different
hypotheses - I remember an interesting article which had claimed to show
Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat; My first thoughts on seeing the aerial
photograph were 'What a beautiful example of an eroded pericline'.
Admittedly, It looked like a big boat in a poor light.
As to the desire of explaining the seemingly miraculous events of the
Bible by well-understood phenomena, I can see the attraction in doing
this (the Principle of Mediocrity again) - but surely there is a danger
in removing the miracles to be replaced by 'natural phenomena'. How
impressed would a Californian be if it were revealed that Jericho was
razed to the ground by a mere 6.5'er ? I think it likely that plenty
of powerful phenomena would have been, in the absence of 20th century
scientific expertise, been ascribed to acts of God. Of course, I'm not saying
that what we see as nature is completely divorced from a God, and out of
His (Her?) control - one of the great dangers of these investigations
is that we are in danger of creating an anti-religion, in which we dismiss
the possibility of a God merely by saying that 'it's all natural and easily
explained.'
I suppose that I've gone off at a tangent somewhat. What I originally
meant to say was that religion and science are not equivalent concepts
in different spheres. If there had to be some such relation drawn up, then
I would say that science is equivalent to faith, in that it is a mechanism
for moulding our belief of the world. Science's equivalent of religion is
a paradigm - that which we believe to be true of the world of measurable
phenomena, and a word I've probably used too often in this post. Why
the concepts of science and religion should particularly be seen either as
mutually exclusive or inexorably intertwined beats me. They're just
different.
Adam Cherrett
Earth Scientist Graduand and long-winded poster extraordinaire!

In _Geology_, June 1984, vol 12, no 6 in an article by Gibbons, Megeath,
and Pierce it is stated that "the number of glacial-interglacial
oscillations in the past 0.9 m.y." are "provisionally" choosen to be 10.
As this article is a few years old I was wondering if thought about this
number had changed in light of more recent research.
Please respond to rwjohnso@silver.sdsmt.edu.
Thanks for your help,
Roger Johnson

I agree and support the concept.  The problem I see is that it may be
that many of the scientific journals will not be happy about being
second in line for a paper though it could force them to provide
electronic subscriptions.  However, for many University people,
advancement is based on publications in refereed publications.  Unless
this attitude changes, and I have doubts about that happening quickly,
the best materials will still be published two years after the research
is done.  However, a site such as you suggest could be used by such
researchers to publish interim reports. This could provide them with
feedback during the research process as well as establish and/or
maintain their presence in the field.
Alan S. Wicks

In article <323998DC.36D9@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>> >DISTRIBUTION:
>> >This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>> >
>> >news.announce.newgroups
>> >news.groups
>> >sci.geo.earthquakes
>> >sci.geo.geology
>> >
>> 
>> OH NO IT ISN'T!!!!!
>> 
>> Check out the Newsgroups list - Richard's forgotten to add in the one group
>> where this should be - news.groups.
>> 
>> Anybody with an interest in preserving free speech and not allowing their
>> groups to be turned into fora where only those voices agreeing with the
>> majority are allowed to be heard should head to news.groups where these
>> changes will be discussed.
>
>
>I posted the RFD to the following groups:
>news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.geo.earthquakes,sci.geo.geology
>just like the distribution list shows.
>
>The reason why you haven't seen that post is because the
>news.announce.newgroups is moderated by a HUMAN, and has a very slow
>turn around.  Until the RFD is official approved, none of the crossposts
>I included will take effect.
>
>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.
No, it's not.  Discussion on the affected groups takes place
before the RFD is submitted, so that as much as possible
the RFD reflects a consensus of opinion on those groups.
Carrying on a private discussion of the official RFD hides
the opinions of the affected readers from the news administrators
who monitor news.groups.
Once you've submitted the RFD, the right thing to do is to
post to the affecteed groups, saying "Look for an official RFD
in a few days".
>The disucssion should not
>by buried in the news.group group.  It belongs here since it
>affects the people already here.
It shouldn't be buried in the sci.geology groups, either.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

R. Tang wrote:
> 
>         I find it amusing when an amateur tries to tell a professional
> he's wrong.
> 
> --I think Chuck is amusing.  
I think you're in the wrong war zone, Roger.  Again.  RDB

R. Tang wrote:
> 
>         I find it amusing when an amateur tries to tell a professional
> he's wrong.
> 
> --I think Chuck is amusing.  
I think you're in the wrong war zone, Roger.  Again.  RDB

Does anybody have any info/references on the formation, geochem, etc of 
Palaeozoic biotite rich lenses/layers (glimmerites). Is the formation of 
Palaeozoic glimmerites the same as in the Proterozoic?
Thanks
Jo

In article <51c1hb$qc@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, christw@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>|> I remember reading that iron deposits date to the the transition from 
>|> reducing to oxidizing atmosphere.  It was a truly massive event, if 
>|> EPA would've existed at the time it would've got a fit.
>
>In addition to disproving evolution, the EPA staffers would have
>passed out from lack of oxygen.  If they started to have a fit, they
>would have passed out even sooner.
>
The sooner, the better.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

People seem to be getting the two key impacts of this discussion 
confused.  There was a planetary scale collision between 4 and 4.5 
billion years ago that formed the Moon.  This same impact created the 
first land on Earth via plasma deposition mechanisms. That "first land" 
extended from one pole of planetary rotation to the other and was widest 
at the equator.  It had a geologicaly large deposit of metallic iron at 
its geocentric midpoint.  This "Pangaea" or "proto-Pangaea" subsequently 
fractured and formed the existing plates.  At all times since these very 
early events, the portion of Earth not covered by continental rock was 
covered by ocean.  This is generally called the Panthallassa Ocean.  The 
Hawaii-forming impact is much more recent: 65.1 million years ago.  It 
occurred in the Pacific Ocean.  It DID NOT CREATE THE PACIFIC BASIN IT 
OCCURRED IN THE PACIFIC BASIN.
These matters will be taken up next week in posts under the title:
Theory of Land and Life"
Have a nice weekend.  
Robert D. Brown, M.D.
Pelorus Research Laboratory

In article <3238E6F8.2720@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
>The majority of people now joining into the internet
>would prefer that some moderation reduce the level of
>off topic net wide spam, and the system proposed here
>is a good working system to do that.
The majority of all people who read usenet news want to see
signal rather than noise.  What distinguishes new users is
they don't have experience with the practical issues
involved with censorship/editing/moderation/whatever.
Richard, your willingness to make grand generalizations
on behalf of others is one of the reasons people
mistrust your judgement.  The response to your "polls"
is self-selected to those who agree with you.  I've
received a number of unsolicited contrary opinions in
e-mail.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

Oliver Seeler wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:45:44 -0700, Adams spewed:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >The majority of people now joining into the internet
> >would prefer that some moderation reduce the level of
> >off topic net wide spam,
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable) assumption presented as
> self-serving fact... pure propaganda.
> 
>            Returning to watchfull silence (sorry, that was too
> much...),
> 
>                                  Oliver Seeler
> 
> Hands Off Usenet!!!!
My statement is substantiated by the recent survey I've
conducted.  There are still responses coming in each
day.  There are currently 56 responses and every one
of them is a positive vote for the robot moderation.
Hey Oliver, why not e-mail me a survey and be the
vote of opposition?
Anyone live near Grass Valley care to come over here
and look into my computer and count the survey responses
in case Oliver continues his accusations?  Sorry but the
survey responses are private e-mail and won't be forwarded
since the survey originally promised this.  You're free
to come and see them here, you just can't take it with
you!
Later today I'll be posting a survey looking for feedback
on the current RFD version 6.
Richard

I am a big fan of onl;ine scholarly publishing, but see no need for a
fee-based site. I can post my papers on my own web site, and search
engines will find them. What need is there for a central repository?
Eric Schiller
linguist@chessworks.com
http://www.chessworks.com
---ooo---
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously at the chessboard, awaiting user input

In Article , S Krueger  wrote:
>In article <5195pd$mep@news.unocal.com> Richard Ottolini,
>stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM writes:
>>I recall, although certain parts of my structural geology memory is
>>fading, that many decades ago Hubbert King (?) did a dimensional
>>analysis of the forces, materials, and timescales of geologic tectonics
>>and found the earth's crust essentially has the strength of a liquid
>>film when you look at geologic scales.
>
>More recently, Brian Wernicke and others have been talking about the
>"fluid lower crust" to describe the mechanical behavior of full thickness
>continental crust over geologic time. The argument is based on the
>strength profile of rocks composed of feldspar and quartz, the
>predominant minerals in continental crust. At the P and T conditions
>below 10-15 km, at normal geothermal gradients, their strength diminishes
>to a negligible value. Of course the mantle immediately beneath the crust
>(olivine dominated) is quite rigid, as are quartzofeldspathic rocks at
>shallower depths, so the "fluid" layer is sandwiched between more rigid
>slabs - the "plates" of plate tectonics. Global plate tectonics is
>largely governed by the motions of the thick mantle slabs, while the
>microplate tectonics of the continental margins is likely just the
>jostling of small upper crustal slabs at the boundaries where the larger
>mantle slabs interact.
>
While Brian has been quite a vocal advocate for the "fluid" lower crust,
there were others basically in front of him with "intracrustal
asthenospheres."  And the argument was based less on rock physics and more
on observations of extrodinary lateral variations in crustal extension
without equally extreme variations in the thickness of the crust.  There is
still some question regarding the reconciliation of rock deformation data
from the lab with this inferred fluidity.
Regardless, this sort of extreme behavior is only present in very thick
silicic crust with high heat flow, a combination that only reflects a very
small fraction of the Earth's surface (a very interesting fraction, but
small).  More frequently, the lower crust will be somewhat weaker than the
upper crust but not so much as to wholy decouple the system.  Over plate
scales, such local features do not alter fundamental plate behaviors and
large masses of the Earth's surface travel as plates.  And "geologic time"
for a "thin film" is an interesting problem.  For instance, the
Appalachians, >200 m.y. old, are not gone.  Perhaps the analysis meant
billions of years.... 
Craig Jones                                    cjones@mantle.colorado.edu
      Research Associate, CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder
WWW: http://cires.colorado.edu/people/jones.craig/CHJ_home.html

In article ,
Stephen Hildreth  wrote:
>I have a ton of whole-rock XRF data and have run into a snafu with my
>analyses of the numbers.  Basically, I need help converting the major
>element data from wt% into cation molar proportions (ie, Si from SiO2 and
>Al from Al2O3).  Assuming that I've got 51.23 wt% SiO2 and 7.58 wt% Al2O3,
>how would I convert those numbers into cation mole proportions?
Divide each percentage by the molecular weight of the
cation, add up the results, and divide each of the results
by the total to normalize back to 100%.
--
    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu

In article <32399F7A.4A12@navix.net>,
Robert D. Brown  wrote:
>R. Tang wrote:
>>         I find it amusing when an amateur tries to tell a professional
>> he's wrong.
>>
> --I think Chuck is amusing.  
>I think you're in the wrong war zone, Roger.  Again.  RDB
	Don't think so. Particularly since Chuck and I got our geology 
degrees at the same place and time.
-- 
Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director  PC Theatre
	Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue: 
	http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes

In article <3239915F.66F0@navix.net>,
Robert D. Brown  wrote:
>Tom Williams wrote:>
>> Anyone who single-handedly expects to revise the study of
>> radiometric age-dating, planktonic biostratigraphy,
>> magnetostratigraphy, Pacific marine Geology, intra-plate
>> volcanism, plate tectonics, fold and thrust mountain building and
>> arc volcanism, among others, as a 'hobby', all to .....
>
>Dear Tom:
>
>Thank you for recognizing the potential value of the ideas
>being discussed.
	Methinks you miss the point entirely.
	Since your ideas is NOT consistent will all these fields, you're 
gonna have to do a hell of a lot more work than airmchair armwaving to be 
convincing.
>As for myself, I ascribe to the motto of the George Soros
>Foundation, which reads:
>
>"The concept of open society is based on the recognition that
>people act on imperfect knowledge and nobody is in possession
>of the ultimate truth".
	Of course, in this area, some knowledge beats no knowledge...
>Now, let me say something to you in an authoritative manner:
>SEE YOUR DOCTOR, I think your blood pressure may be dangerously
>elevated.
	120/80.
-- 
Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director  PC Theatre
	Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue: 
	http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes

Chuck Karish wrote:
> 
> In article <3238E6F8.2720@oro.net>, Richard Adams   wrote:
> 
> >The majority of people now joining into the internet
> >would prefer that some moderation reduce the level of
> >off topic net wide spam, and the system proposed here
> >is a good working system to do that.
> 
> The majority of all people who read usenet news want to see
> signal rather than noise.  What distinguishes new users is
> they don't have experience with the practical issues
> involved with censorship/editing/moderation/whatever.
> 
> Richard, your willingness to make grand generalizations
> on behalf of others is one of the reasons people
> mistrust your judgement.  The response to your "polls"
> is self-selected to those who agree with you.  I've
> received a number of unsolicited contrary opinions in
> e-mail.
Chuck,
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 do not dispute your claim that you have contrary
opinions in your e-mail.  By the same token you
have no basis for your claim that I have slanted what
I am reporting.  Yes, I definitely have received
e-mail from those that said they would vote no
to the RFD proposed as it stand now.  However, most
of my e-mail is from those that believe there will a
very positive impact for the group members as a result
of a yes vote in this process.  They offer suggestions
and support.
I notice that your current post here does not address
any positive or negative aspect of the proposal before us.
The only things you bring to the table are now unfounded
personal attacks against me.  What is the point?  Clearly
those against this reorganization will stoop to any level
to sabotage it with rhetoric and false accusations.  Is
that truely the level you want to present your case to 
the group from?
Why blow your chance to contribute to the final form
of a proposal that will probably pass, by offering
only personal attacks against those that disagree
with you?
Richard

Mr. LincMad:
Just because Dr. Turi misses an earthquake doesn't make him a fraud or 
a charlatan, just makes him human.  You know not like the god you are 
pretending to be by judging.
In article , 
LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com says...
>
>In article <515kfr$lf5@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (Mr. Turi) wrote:
>
>> 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.  
>
>You still haven't explained how you MISSED the much LARGER 7.1 
earthquake
>earlier in the week, that was completely OUTSIDE all of your 
"windows."
>
>You are a fraud and a charlatan.
>
>-- 
>** Unsolicited commercial Email delivered to this address will be
>subject to a $1500 charge. Emailing such items, whether manually or
>automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms & conditions.**
>Linc Madison  *  San Francisco, Calif. *  LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com