Subject: Re: Publishing Scholarly Work on the Web -- opinion anyone?
From: dking@amphissa.com (David N. King)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 07:16:01 GMT
In article <51kk84$a0c@news.esrin.esa.it>, Nick Kew wrote:
>My original suggestion is to hold *abstracts* online, with the provision
>to hold full papers where appropriate. Keeping abstracts in an easily-
>searchable website would surely be a valuable service to researchers,
>while referring them to the traditional publishing media for full papers.
This is a terrific idea. It was first implemented three decades ago with the
MEDLINE system. There are currently several thousand bibliographic databases
that provide citations and abstracts "pointing" to the printed publications.
A few hundred are widely available through "vendors" like Dialog. Some of
them are already migrating to the web. MEDLINE is available on the web thru
several sites, the best public access being via the National Library of
Medicine's GratefulMed web-based system. Others are getting there.
>
>My software will index and cross-reference the abstracts,
There are already many systems that do this, but the fact is, 20+ years of
R&D; has not yet resulted in a machine indexing system that is satisfying.
Mechanically, you can do it pretty easily; in practical terms, it produces
marginal intellectual access to conceptual content. But maybe your
parsing, weighting, and automated Boolean algorithms are better than anyone
else has conceived yet, and I'd really like to see it, if it is. Have you
published it? If you have, I'm sure you are aware of the large research
literature on the problem of machine indexing of scholarly/technical
literature. If all you are planning to do is parse words from abstracts into
a database searchable with a typical web search engine query mechanism,
thanks but I'll pass.
Of course, that all assumes you have legal right to use the abstracts to
create a publicly accessible, searchable database and serve up the
abstracts. Have you discussed this idea with publishers and agreed upon an
acceptable framework for putting their copyrighted material up on your web
site? Or were you planning to simply download the abstracts from existing
databases, capitalizing on the work of those who create and maintain those
databases? Have you negotiated the legal aspects of that? Or were you
planning to write and keyboard your own abstracts? That's an option with
fewer legal hurdles, but it sounds like a lot of work.
>and has the option
>to hold any or all of the full papers online according to publisher choice.
Ah, now we are getting to the present. You are interested in creating a
digital library! Comparable to a traditional library, only in electronic
form. Tools for bibliographic control and access (electronic indexes with
abstracts) to a collection of literature in electronic form, all accessible
from one electronic "location." Great idea! There is a substantial
literature on this which I'm sure you are familiar with. ACM devoted a
special issue to it last year. There is an electronic journal on the subject
and of course there is a wealth of literature in traditional paper format.
You can find a bit on the web too. Digital libraries. Great idea!
There are some notable R&D; projects under way. National Science Foundation
has funded, I think, 9 major R&D; projects to the tune of $25 million at
major institutions: U of Michigan, Berkeley, Illinois, Stanford, etc. Those
projects are getting under way. But a couple of projects got an
earlier start. Perhaps the most impressive to date is the Red Sage project
at UCSF which is now in its 3rd year. A collaboration between the UCSF
Library & Center for Knowledge Management, AT&T; Bell Labs, and 20 publishers
of the biomedical literature. It is pretty small-scale: 70 medical and
biomedical research journals, including the major titles in clinical
medicine -- bitmapped images of every printed content page including
graphics, tables, photos, etc. The electronic journal collection is linked
to the MEDLINE database with a top-notch forms-based web search interface
called Medsage. Every UCSF doctor, nurse, researcher, student, etc, with a
network link or web access has access to the electronic library from their
office desktop. Pretty slick! Yes, it is fully operational. (Access is
restricted to UCSF of course. If you are interested, you can find out more
at http://www.library.ucsf.edu)
Make a wild guesstimate of the size of the database. 70 journals, maybe 1000
pages per year in each, abstracts and citations, one per article. 3 years in
the collection. That's, let's see, only 210,000 pages of articles. Not all
that small when you think about it, but manageable. But of course, there are
3500 journals in medicine alone. There are around 6 million records in the
MEDLINE database, most with abstracts. Consider the kind of system required
to manage and serve that up. How about if we just limit the system to the
top 500 journals? Maybe 50,000 articles per year. That's only 50,000
abstracts. Then throw in all the journal pages for those articles. Better
limit the collection to just the last couple of years, I guess. That's,
let's see, maybe around 1,000,000 pages of content, plus 100,000 abstracts
plus a database for searching. But to be a major digital library (a Harvard
or Illinois or Berkeley), expand that to include all of the quality journals
in all areas published; a minimum collection would be 50,000 titles out of
the 200,000+ published worldwide. And they can't limit it to the last year
or two; the have to meet the research and academic needs of their
university. I can't add that high.
Consider the mess of irrelevant junk you get trying to search using current
web-based search engines, and that the web at present has relatively little
meaningful content. Multiply that by millions of content-rich pages
annually. This is not something one just does overnight and serves up on
a little Indy. One needs equipment and technical staff to deal with the
technology (easy to come by if you can afford it) and needs people
knowledgeable about conceptual design and construction of complex
knowledge-based systems (harder to come by) and needs economic models and
evolutionary development strategies (virtually non-existant).
But the current, more serious obstacles are economic and legal. You might
want to consider those aspects in developing your system. Do you have any
publishers signed up yet to participate in your project? Have you figured
out how you will pay them for the right to provide access to their
copyrighted publications? And how to cover the costs you incur from them?
There are very thorny problems involved in this, and the publishers don't
really know what economic models to work with, what the "marketplace" of
electronic publishing looks like, or how to price their electronic product
yet. But you can bet for sure that they are not going to give away their
product or sit by and watch others distribute it without reimbursing them.
The long tradition of libraries providing free access to the literature
disguises the truth: information is not free, it is very expensive.
>
>As others have pointed out, the peer-review process is an important element
>of academic publishing. I believe web-based collaboration software can
>be used to facilitate this process, providing a forum ("workgroup") whose
>members are a paper's authors together with recognised referees in a
>subject area. Such papers may have readonly access to the general public
>(or subscribers-only if a publisher prefers) while in the review process,
>thus accelerating the publication cycle.
This idea has been floated by a few people. To date, there has not been a
mad rush by authors to abandon the established schorlarly publishing
channels. The realm of print publishing is too closely intertwined with
academic and professional recognition, grants and funding, careers and
livelihood. If you give a researcher the choice of publishing in a major
print journal like "Science" or an IEEE journal, or just tossing their paper
(their ideas and work -- their intellectual property) out there on the web
for others to "contribute to" using collaboration software, I don't think
you'd have a hard time guessing which he would choose. This is a nifty idea
conceptually and an attractive one technologically. It will be interesting
to see if it ever catches on. I'd say that chances are very slim in the
short run, but may be marginally better down the road in a very few
specialized areas like law and engineering.
>
>The technology is ready: we need only apply it!
I'd say current technology is not yet ready on the scale that is needed,
although it is getting there. I'd say the current crop of typical web search
engines and indexing systems are inadequate for current web content and
completely worthless for anything more substantive. But the web is a very
solid foundation for growth and improvement, and there will be real progress
made over the next 5 years.
I think it likely, in the short term, that we'll see print publications
migrating to the web via digital libraries -- first, university libraries
subscribing to electronic versions of print journals with access limited to
their campus (this is already happening per the Red Sage example), then,
professional societies providing access to the journals they publish to
their members free and to non-members for a fee (this is beginning now too;
IEEE journals are going up now for example), and a few publishers testing
marketing models for publishing on the web (Journal of Biological Chemistry
and a few others are doing that now). Then we'll see commercial sites run by
"vendors" of the literature with professional indexing/abstracting linked to
electronic collections (still a year or two away).
Of course, all of the above is just my personal opinion, and I'd be just as
glad to be wrong about any of my predictions. :-)
David N. King
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* newsgroups
From: kjn@netcom.com (Ken Navarre)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:23:21 GMT
Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
[snip]
: Notice that the amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law".
: It does not say what groups of people can or cannot do, it
: limits the power of the government, not of the people.
Your comment is true, as far as it goes. However, case law has protected
prior restraint issues under the "first amendment" concept. Just because the
Constitution says one thing is no reason to believe that a court will not
uphold a tangent argument. It happens all the time!
: Since when is it illegal for any non-government group of
: people to establish rules for what they accept or won't
: accept as topics in their meeting areas, i.e. news groups?
It isn't *illegal*, Richard. It's a civil issue NOT a criminal one. You
know, you REALLY need to get some understanding of US law! You may find
it difficult to believe but PRIVATE organizations have been sued (and
more importantly won the cases) because they restricted membership to
individuals with whom they disagreed. It has nothing to do with race,
creed, religion, or any of the usual banishment phrases. A recent issue
was raised regarding a moderated mail list where some posts were deleted.
The problem was resolved before court action was taken but you can rest
assured that in the future there will be a case regarding these issues.
: Since when are the members of news groups or the news groups
: administrators the Congress of the United States such that
: the rules of moderation are like laws passed by congress?
Irrevelent point. Case law has been interpreted to widen the concept of
"freedom of speech" beyond the precise written word of the Constitution.
Haven't you noticed Supreme Court decisions over the past few decades?
: How could a cause of action in a lawsuit brought against
: a moderator claim a violation of constitutional laws, when
: the constitution only states what the the government cannot
: do, and the moderator is not the government?
Sigh... Poor Richard.
: Isn't the cause for action likely to instead be one of
: defamation, i.e. false statements which cause damages?
That certainly is cause for action...
: What relevance does this have to "free speech" in the
: constitution? Don't the tort laws of defamation promote
: a control of speech and the press, requiring a duty to
: tell the TRUTH, rather than a freedom to speak or publish
: in a defamatory manner?
No. Unfortunately it doesn't. The posts that have set you on your path
have had NOTHING to do with defamation. Instead they represent a
non-scientific approach in a scientific discussion group. Furthermore,
what's this about "...promote a control of speech..." The civil case law
of the United States is *typically* against ANY control of speech other
than the classic agrument about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater!
And since when has "duty" and "truth" had any connection with "freedom of
speech" (used in the broadest sense of the phrase)???
: There is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH on the internet. There is
: no constitutional basis for claiming this. The rights
: you have to access the internet are in accordance with
: whatever commercial agreement (contract) you have with
: your internet service provider.
: For many news group participants, the groups have become
: a place where people feel a false sense of impunity.
That's true enough.
: 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.
So hopelessly out of touch!
Ken
--
Subject: Re: good engineering
From: me@no.spam.bots.com (Michael W. Fisher)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:17:18 -0700
On Sat, 21 Sep 1996 21:32:13 GMT, Jeff Baldwin wrote:
->Solution: define the owner as human, yes (otherwise the
->funding could not be approved since the research grant was for _human_
->tissue research), but without ownership rights.) The report stated
->that it is up to those _with_ human rights to define who will be those
->humans who are _without_ rights. The villans here cross
->racio-political, geographical, and temporal boundaries.
->
Okay, here's a question for you then.
Do you own your own body? If so, then is it moral for you to sell
parts of your body for pecuniary recompense? ( A healthy kidney is worth a
lot. Even a healthy cornea. Big traffic in such in some third world
countries)
If you say no, it is not moral, then please since you appear to be a
Christian, support that position with scripture. Further, if you say no,
then are you saying you do not own your own body? If you have no property
rights in your own flesh, then is it okay for a doctor, who gets a tissue
sample from you in the course of normal medical procedures to say, clone
another you when the technology becomes available?
No?
But then on what grounds? If you say you have no property rights in
your tissue, then isn't any tissue you lose merely so much trash, like a
fallen leaf, to be disposed of as whoever happens to posses it chooses?
No? Why not?
Who does own your genes? And why?
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., lawstudent
http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/Library/intraits.html
* * *
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Subject: ALH84001 Nomination: TOP TEN Fossil List
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 16:09:29 -0500
I think the rock known as ALH84001 belongs at the very top of the TOP
TEN
list of most important fossils. The below listed reasons constitute a
nomination speech on its behalf.
(1) ALH84001 is an Earth rock, not a rock from Mars. It was spalled off
the surface of Earth following a large asteroid impact with its surface,
orbited Earth for millions of years, and then came back 13,000 years
ago,
acquiring a fusion crust in the process. That ALH84001 is an Earth rock
can be understood from a close reading of papers cited by McKay et al.
For
example, Ash, Knott, and Turner (Nature 380: 57-59, 1996) reported that
their isotopic analysis of argon trapped in ALH84001 contained a
significant terrestrial component while they could not find any evidence
at
all for the Ar isotopic signature characteristic of the Martian
atmosphere.
"Trapped" gases in rocks are entirely different from "adsorbed" gases
and
AK&T; report the differences in their papers. The trapped argon in
ALH84001
got there when it was flung into space from Earth's surface.
(2) The flawed reasoning that NASA scientists have used in respect to
the
stable oxygen isotope ratios for Earth, Mars, and ALH84001, reconfirms
the
wise old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out". The Viking lander missions
of
the 1970 found that there are no statistically significant differences
between Earth's stable oxygen isotopic ratios and those of the Martian
atmosphere. Besides the fact that NO ONE ANYWHERE HAS EVER PUBLISHED
THE
O-TRILOGY VALUES FOR ALH84001, NASA's own bulletin boards declare these
values to be the best available evidence that the rock is from Mars. To
the extent that there is no difference between Earth's and Martian
stable
oxygen isotopic ratios, there is no way that one can use the ratios
found
in ALH84001 (whatever they may be) to distinguish its planetary body of
origin. Someday, NASA-affiliated scientists may actually publish the
O-trilogy values for ALH84001, but for now let's assume that they "are"
statistically different from the values for Earth's rocks. Residence in
space is a process that will constantly transform any relatively small
object's O-trilogy values in the direction of chondrites, and this
happens
as
a function of time and as a consequence of "chaotic" plasma mediated
processes powered by the Sun's magnetic field (see more detailed
discussions of this subject in the sci.geo.geology newsgroup). [NOTE:
Try
to track down the values for ALH84001 through the McKay et al citations
and
one ends up with a few sentences in a newsletter saying someone did them
and they look like the values for SNC-class meteorites].
(3) ALH84001 confirms the usefulness of the old phrase: "Don't believe
anything that you read, and only half of what you see".
This statement is the evolutionary precursor of the wisdom often
delivered
by
teachers to their newest students that: "Half of what we teach you
is wrong, and we don't know what half that is". The structural
morphologies
present in ALH84001 that are said to represent fossilized microbes, DO
look
just like bacteria. Now, remember the quotations of this paragraph and
realize that the larger scientific community believes the visual effects
constitute the _weakest_ line of evidence in the whole fiasco.
(4) The hoopla surrounding ALH84001 confirms the workings of the Peter
Principle: "Over time individuals in large organizations are promoted to
the level of their incompetence and no further". The ALH84001 dog and
pony
show informs us that ENOUGH time has passed since the inception of NASA
for
it to have evolved into an entirely incompetent organization. NASA's
newly
formulated goals for the year 2000 (to find evidence of life on Mars)
directly undercut our confidence in everything NASA seemed to accomplish
in
the past (future work is designed to prove that past work was wrongly or
inadequately performed, e.g. the Viking Lander missions that resulted in
an
overwhelming consensus that life does not presently and has never
previously existed on Mars). How incompetent has NASA become? NASA
shot
itself in the foot with a bullet that has passed through its groin.
(5) ALH84001 profoundly demonstrates the importance of figure-ground
relationships in all paleontological investigations. Fossils "found" in
a
fossil-merchant's sales cabinet have precious little "scientific" value.
When one does have a newly found fossil in the ground, one has to
characterize the rocks surrounding the "bone" before one can determine
where,
what, and when the fossil was a living creature. The people claiming
that
ALH84001 is from Mars are employees of the commercial NASA subcontractor
(Lockheed-Martin) most likely to benefit from any new Mars exploration
adventure. Know one's motivations and one knows one's cognitive
prejudices, whether admitted or not.
(6) The ALH84001 lessons that we WILL learn over the next decade will
profoundly affect the public funding of all scientific endeavors over
the
course of the next century, and these effects can already be seen. The
Clinton administration's 9/20/96 announcement that there will be no
manned
mission to Mars by the year 2019 represents a crushing blow for NASA
itself, whose budget will be many billions of dollars less than has been
contemplated ever since the Bush administration declared that "Man On
Mars"
was a national goal. Rightly or wrongly, the fate of science funding in
general is now linked to science funding for NASA in particular. The
appropriate lesson should be this: scientists in every subdiscipline
must
always maintain links to the larger world around themselves and/or their
respective sub-disciplines. There SHOULD be established an
international
board of examiners that certifies the fact that someone is, in fact, a
"Scientist", e.g. an individual fluent with the most contemporary
understandings of mathematics and statistical reasoning, astronomy and
cosmology, geology and biology, abiogenesis and genetics, etc. The
general public needs some standard through which they may recognize what
science really is and which individuals represent "science" per se, as
opposed to people who went to college, now count pixels for a living,
and
pretend to render "scientific" opinions on unpixellated topics because
they
have (gone to college) and do (count pixels for a living). All of the
medical professions do this through their boards of certification and
their annual requirements that licensed physicians regularly attend
conferences to maintain their licensure. These certification programs
are
good things for medicine, for physicians, and for patients. Similar
goods
would derive to science, scientists, and the people who rely on the
opinions of "scientists". The short-lived NASA-sponsored career of
ALH84001 has so profoundly disappointed serious thinkers all over the
world
that its acceptance to the "TOP TEN" list (on the grounds outlined in
this
paragraph alone) will facilitate the development of a formal program for
the certification of scientists, a good thing for paleontologists.
(7) No matter what dissociative statements NASA officials may make on
the
subject, the entire "life on Mars" issue that surrounds ALH84001 has
drawn
a "line in the sand" between many "creationists" and many additional
"evolutionists". Regardless of the outcome, the combatants who have
positioned themselves on the opposite sides of this line recognize the
symbolic and logical value of ALH84001 in their 300 year old debate.
Both
sides have determined that the results of the NEXT round of Martian
explorations will be FINAL results in the question of whether or not
life
on Earth is mystically unique or incidentally common within the "local"
cosmos. We can now all look forward to a flameless Internet universe in
the year 2001 as this relates to the greatest source of noise in the
system
as it exists now. Hopefully, that majority of individuals who see no
intrinsic contradictions between the "Whys" of religion and the "Hows"
of
science will comfort and cool both sides when the line between the
combatants is shown to be one that genuinely surrounds us all. As
things
are now, our collective perceptions of this line (and the debate it
defines) is one that retards science and undermines faith, harming all.
In
these regards, ALH84001 can be regarded as an omen of better times to
come,
revealing as much about the future as it does the past. No other
"fossil"
is so uniquely defined.
(8) Because ALH84001 is an Earth rock thrown into space by a large
terrestrial impact, its fate over the next decade is invariably linked
to
the maturation of our understanding that the collisions of cosmic bodies
with our home planet has always functioned as the principal catalysts
for
change in the rocks and the creatures that walk upon them. A planetary
civilization that recognizes this threat as real, not hypothetical, is a
civilization that might not conduct global wars between its national
members. If we see that "our way of life" is most greatly threatened by
our "stars", instead of "ourselves", we might model global commerce at
every
level around an internationally financed/operated "space" program
designed
to protect our planet from harm. This is good for paleontologists
because
all fossils of multicellular organisms are found in fine-grained
sediments,
the products and best evidence for these earlier blasts. Earth's
paleobiogeographical record can help guide our course into the future.
That would improve the regards for all fossils and may also vertically
improve understandings between generations in co-residence on Earth.
ALH84001 brings family values to the TOP TEN list (tongue --partially--
in
cheek).
(9) The lessons of ALH84001 can teach us all something about humility
and
nobility. ALH84001 is a "potato-sized rock", yet so massively complex
and
profoundly old, that it restates the reality that: "Dynamite comes in
small
packages". This should cheer children and short people everywhere and
remind anyone whose feet reach the ground that even "little things"
matter.
Life is not the place to be lazy, there's plenty of time for that.
(10) Though no single one of the reasons outlined above provides
conclusive cause to believe that ALH84001 should be accepted into the
list
of the TOP TEN fossils, these individual lines of reasoning taken as a
whole make a compelling case for its reclassification at the highest
level
of that group. Once we do so, and do so for these reasons, it will
resolve
the issues surrounding the question: "What should we do with the
hazardous
nuclear wastes that threaten the biosphere's genetic composition over
the
course of millennia". Put them in outer space as part of an Earth
Protection System orbiting the Sun in the vicinity of MARS!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May we have a call for a Second to the nomination, please.
Subject: Re: Moderated sci.geo.* - FAQ for sci.arch.mod
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 17:31:52 -0600
In article ,
heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich) wrote:
> In article <9609191845142380@mtnswest.com>,
> ted.smith@mtnswest.com (Ted Smith) wrote:
>
> > Murray Forster wrote in a
> > private message to Ted Smith:
> > (forwarded with permission)
>
> ....stuff snipped....
> > commands do tend to eat up a good chunk of my time). I'm
> > also not certain whether it would be possible to set
> > up such a 6-moderator beast without potentially ending
> > up with duplicate posts, approval controversies, etc.
>
> ...stuff snipped...
>
> Sci.archaeology.moderated has six moderators. As far as I
> know, they hav managed to avoid this problem. Also, they
> have a system for arbritrating disputes. For advice on how
> this done, you should contact one of the newsgroup's
> moderators, e.g. Doug Weller. I will try to find and posts
> its charter.
Given that people on the sci.geo.geology are considering some
sort of moderation, I am posting the FAQ to the
sci.archaeology.moderated newsgroup as an indiaction of how
the problems of multiple moderators, guidelines, etc. have been
resolved. This FAQ is from:
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/sam/guide.txt
As it I setup, there is both a moderated and unmoderated
sci.archaeology newsgroup.
I hope that this is of interest and use to this discussion.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
------------ reposted material below this line ---------------
Last Modified 20 May 1996
New additions and updates are marked with **.
**Some changes to tidy text, new policy on web pointers, new
contact adddress.
WELCOME TO SCI.ARCHAEOLOGY.MODERATED!
Sci.archaeology.moderated is to a moderated newsgroup dedicated to
the discussion of archaeology. All viewpoints and levels of knowledge
are welcome, subject to the moderation policy described below.
Please check that your Subject header is appropriate, that long included
quotes have been edited, and that your linelength is no more than 72
characters (to allow room for quoting).
The text itself will either be accepted as is, or rejected however
if only a minor aspect of an article is inappropriate, the moderator
will usually suggest changes.
If an article is rejected, reasonable effort will be made to notify
the prospective poster regarding the reason.
Posters are asked not to resubmit an article which has been rejected. The
moderators would be grateful if all posters would abide by this. Any
poster who feels that their article has been wrongly rejected has a right
to appeal as detailed below.
The moderators take NO responsibility for the content of accepted
posts. There are no endorsements, either explicit or implicit.
SUBMITTING ARTICLES
With most newsreaders you can simply post to sci.archaeology.moderated
as you would to any newsgroup, and your article will be automatically
sent to the correct submission address. If for some reason this doesnt
work for you, please email articles directly to the submission address
(below).
Submissions will be sent randomly (by software) to any of the active
moderators. Because different people have different schedules, there
might be a difference in approval time for articles submitted at the
same time, depending on which moderator receives the prospective post.
Please be patient. Also, remember that your article must first reach us
and then make its way back to your service provider. It is probably on
the net before you see it. Moderators will do their best to remove their
names from the active file when they will be unavailable for more than a
day or two. Submissions are almost always processed within 24 hours,
usually sooner.
Prospective posters will usually receive a confirmation letter as soon as
their article is approved (plus any delay in email delivery). If this is
not received in a few days and there is no sign of your article on the
net, please inquire at the administrative address (below) to find out if
there is a problem. Please wait a few days to account for any propagation
delays. Do NOT send queries to the submission address.
**SIGNATURES
All articles should have an easily identified name and email address
**for the poster. Because of the variety of newsreaders, *all submittals
**should be signed with the senders name and email address.* If this is
missing, moderators may add one at their discretion.
In keeping with Usenet netiquette conventions, signatures should be
restricted to 4 or 5 lines. Moderators may, at their discretion, trim
.sigs to four lines before posting articles.
**POINTERS TO WEB PAGES
Pointers to web pages may be posted at the discretion of the moderators
in order to minimise the amount of special interest material actually
posted to the group.
A short description of the web page must accompany pointers. Descriptions
and pages will be expected to be in line with the moderation policy.
The contents of any web pages referred to in articles posted to
sci.archaeology.moderated are obviously the responsibility of their
authors, not the newsgroup moderators, who presume readers will make
their own judgements as to the relative merits of materials pointed to
elsewhere on the Internet.
CANCELLING ARTICLES
Articles can only be cancelled by emailing the moderation panel at
**arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk with your request. Please include the Message-ID.
Submission address:
**Contact address:
These addresses will appear in the headers of most articles.
The following guidelines will be used:
I. Submission Acceptance Policy
Articles may be requests for information, announcements of relevance,
etc. Lengthy quoting (more than 30 lines) of source material must be
accompanied by commentary or by other text which ties it to on-going
discussions. Articles which quote substantially the same source
material repetitively will not be approved. Articles consisting of
materials which are available on-line at ftp or WWW sites will not be
approved, rather pointers to sites may be given. Moderators may waive
this rule at their discretion.
Articles which contain personal attacks of any sort, racist comments,
ad hominem arguments, etc. will not be approved for posting.
Disagreements are welcome (so long as they contain no flames), but if
a thread looks as though its never going to be resolved, the moderators
reserve the right to terminate it/suspend it until new evidence is produced.
Blank messages, test messages, MAKE.MONEY.FAST, binaries, uuencoded
messages, and so forth, will not be approved for posting. Archaeology
related advertisements for courses, jobs, new book notices, etc. will
be accepted, but not advertisements for metal detectors or the sale of
antiquities, etc.
The purpose of a moderated archaeology group is the exchange of useful
archaeological information. Although postings generally should be scholarly
and include verifiable citations of the hard evidence which supports them,
alternatives to presently accepted views, when well researched and
presented in a verifiable format, will not be denied a fair hearing.
Posts which reference works in which a consistent pattern of false and/or out
of context claims have been demonstrated will not be considered appropriate.
Racist and Ethnocentric remarks will not be tolerated in postings to
the moderated group. Regardless of label the quideline shall simply be
whether ethnocentrism and racism are involved. For example: In the case
of assumptions like those once promulgated by Hyperdiffusionists,
that cultural evolution cannot explain observed phenomena because people
X obviously could not have produced artifact Y without help, ethno-
centrism and racism are clearly present and the post should be rejected.
Moderators may, at their discretion, change the Subject: lines for
threads which have strayed from the initial subject.
Cross-posting is discouraged and where they occur will obviously have
to be clearly archaeologically relevant. Due to the nature of Usenet,
rejected posts do not get crossposted.
Rejected articles which would be acceptable after editing will be
returned to the poster with an explanation and suggestions for change.
Articles rejected for other reasons may be shared with the other
moderators for group consideration if the poster wishes to appeal.
Any article that contains more than fifty percent quoted material (and
the authors signature shall not count as original material for
purposes of determining the proportion) may be trimmed or rejected at
the discretion of the moderator. In exercising this discretion, the
moderator shall take readability considerations into account, such as
the amount of quoted material at the beginning of the message, and the
size of the blocks of quoted material. If the entire length of the
article (excluding header and signature) is less than 24 lines of 80
characters, then the requirement of 50% original material *may* be
waived at the moderators discretion.
If an article is rejected for any reason by any moderator, and the author
feels that these guidelines have been wrongly applied, this issue may be
taken up with the panel of moderators as a whole. In cases where the
moderation panel agrees that the article is inappropriate, it will not be
posted. Of course, the author may always post it to the unmoderated groups
**sci.archaeology, sci.archaeology.mesoamerican and/or alt.archaeology.
Finally, the moderation panel will endeavour to be consistent in its
decisions.
II. Moderators
The object of these guidelines is to have a clear policy, in the
event that there is conflict in the affairs of the moderation panel
itself. It is generally believed that moderators will come and go
throughout the course of the group, and in all cases the goal will
be a consensus amongst the panel regarding the addition of new
moderators. Anyone, professional or amateur, who would like to
volunteer and who agrees with the moderation policy should email their
interest and a (short) note about their experience and interest
to the contact address, arch@lists.colorado.edu. Full details
about the procedures for adding or dropping moderators, etc. are
enclosed in the text available from the url mentioned at the top of
this document or from the contact address.
Anyone may volunteer to join the moderation panel with the consent of
a two-thirds supermajority of the current moderators. If the number of
moderators fall below 8, volunteers will be solicited by a posting to
the newsgroup.
An automatic script will be used to share postings among the
moderators. Moderators may at their discretion consult other
moderators about posts or send a post to another moderator with that
moderator's agreement.
It is important to have a clear policy to cover the possibility that
there is conflict in the affairs of the moderation panel itself. It
is generally believed that moderators will come and go throughout the
course of the group, and in all cases the goal will be a consensus
amongst the panel regarding the addition of new moderators. A
standard group decision process will be followed: a motion will be
made to add a new moderator, and if there are no objections it will go
ahead. Friendly relations are certainly expected.
If there is an objection to a motion, and a group decision is not
reached by discussion, a vote can be carried out in accordance with
the statements below. In any of the following cases, a secret ballot
may be requested -- and if a suitable (meaning: agreeably neutral)
volunteer on the panel to collect the ballots cannot be found, will be
carried out via point #5 below -- but voting will generally be public
(within the confines of the moderation panel itself).
1. If it comes to a vote, new moderators must be approved by a two-
thirds supermajority amongst the moderation panel. Abstentions will
not affect the outcome of this vote, meaning that a supermajority
among voting moderators must be obtained. In the case of only two
voting moderators who disagree, the prospective moderator will not be
added.
2. Moderators who will be on vacation for more than a day or two are
expected to have their names removed from the active file for that
period. This implies no permanent change in status, and they will be
simply returned to active duty afterward.
3. Moderators can be removed by a supermajority (as above) vote
amongst the moderation panel (including the moderator in question).
Abstentions will count as votes against removal.
4. If there is controversy amongst the moderators concerning the
application of these guidelines, the moderation panel agrees to submit
to binding arbitration by moderators-advice at UUNET. This situation
covers true interpretive controversy, as well as such technical
scenarios as: only two moderators, one wanting to remove the other; so
many moderators on extended leave or genuinely unresponsive that the
active panel cannot remove them to get on with business, etc.
5. Any votes or motions may be called into question by moderators
returning from leaves of absence.
6. All prospective moderators must agree to abide by these guidelines
in their entirety before consideration for moderator status. By
acting as a moderator, this point is implied, regardless of written
confirmation. Moderators will not be allowed to moderate their own
postings.
Doug Weller
--------- end of reposted material ---------------
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: jhvh-1@geocities.com (Mike Turk)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:33:46 GMT
/On the date of Fri, 20 Sep 1996 05:16:57 GMT, (Morty) did inscribe
into the group alt.atheism and unto the ether thereof:\
>walter@physics7.berkeley.edu (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote:
[snip]
>>And do you think living things really violate the second law? That when
>>we eat food, extract energy from it, and excrete the waste, we are
>>somehow pulling some cosmic trick, and violating thermodynamics?
>Thank you for bringing this up! I LOVE that topic, although you may
>not care for my conclusions...
>Yes, I think that certain living things violate this in a sense. More
>specifically, THINKING things go against the tendency that this law
>describes. I used an example of this in my previous post. I, for
>instance can stack items (such as grains of salt in my previous
>analogy) in an orderly manner. The ability to choose, and think seems
>also to be the ability to oppose this entropic tendency. Sort of the
>"equal and opposite force" to randomness if you will let me play
>semantics with physical laws....
However, you used a great deal of energy to stack up the salt
crystals. Entropy increases.
> -Morty
Mike Turk
--
These opinions are not my own. They're not yours either. I frankly don't
know where they came from. In the middle of the night, I have these voices.
I transcribe what they say. Sometimes, they yell really loud, and I scream,
and I wake up, and they're gone. bye.
Subject: BCPG V44 No2 - Triangle Zones and Tectonic Wedges
From: karleng@cadvision.com (Glenn Karlen)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 01:26:31 GMT
Abstracts for the following publication can be viewed through the
CSPG's website at www.cspg.org
BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
Volume 44, No, 2
Triangle Zones and Tectonic Wedges
Office of Publication: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists,
505, 206 - 7th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P OW7
CONTENTS
Preface
P.A. MacKay, J.L. Varsek, T.E. Kubli, R.G. Decbesne, A.C. Newson and
J.P. Reid
Triangle Zones and Tectonic Wedges: an Introduction 1-1
P.B. Jones
Triangle zone geometry, terminology and kinematics 139
A.G. Skuce
Frontal Foothills structures in central Alberta: the thin end
of the intercutaneous wedge? 153
B.A. Couzens and D.V. Wiltschko
The control of mechanical stratigraphy on the formation of triangle
zones I 165
W.R. Jamison
Mechanical models of triangle zone evolution 180
S.N. Iiliebert and D.A. Spratt
Geometry of the thrust front near Pincher Creek, Alberta 195
G.S. Stockmal, P.A. MacKay, D.C. Lawton and D.A. Spratt
The Oldman River triangle zone: a complicated tectonic wedge
delineated by new structural mapping
and seismic interpretation 202
P.A. MacKay
The Highwood Structure: a tectonic wedge at the foreland edge of the
southern Canadian Cordillera 215
R.T. Slotboom, D.C. Lawton and D.A. Spratt
Seismic interpretation of the triangle zone at Jumping Pound, Alberta
233
G.S. Soule and D.A. Spratt
En 6chelon geometry and two-dimensional model of the triangle zone,
Grease Creek Syncline area, Alberta 244
D.C. Lawton, C. Sukaramongkol and D.A. Spratt
Seismic characterization of a "compound tectonic wedge" beneath the
Rocky Mountain foreland basin, Alberta 258
R.G. Dechesne and J.W. Muraro
A relict triangle zone at Benjaniin Creek gas field, southern Alberta
Foothills: geometry, kinematics and preservation 269
D. Lebel, W. Langenberg and E.W. Mountjoy
Structure of the central Canadian Cordilleran thrust-and-fold belt,
Athabasca-Brazeau area, Alberta: a large, complex intercutaneous
wedge 282
S. Liu, D.C. Lawton and D.A. Spratt
Three-dimensional geometry of the structural front between Berland
River and Smoky River, central Alberta Foothills 299
D.A. Spratt and D.C. Lawton
Variations in detachment levels, ramp angles and wedge geometries
along the Alberta thrust front 313
S. Lingrey
Structured patterns of imbrication in the Pine River area
of northeastern British Columbia 324
L.S. Lane
Geometry and tectonics of Early Tertiary triangle zones,
northeastern Eagle Plain, Yukon Territory 337
J.L. Varsek
Structural wedges in the Cordilleran crust, southwestern Canada 349
J.S. Chester
Geometry and kinematics of a passive-roof duplex in the interior
of the Idaho-Wyoming-northem Utah thrust belt 363
M. Sans, J.A. Mufioz and J. Verges
Triangle zone and thrust wedge geometries related to evaporitic
horizons (southern Pyrenees) 375
K.O. Sobornov
Lateral variations in structural styles of tectonic wedging in
the northeastern Caucasus, Russia 385
D.M. Medd
Recent triangle zone deformation in Papua New Guinea 400
M. Cooper
Passive-roof duplexes and pseudo-passive-roof duplexes at mountain
fronts: a review 410
A.C. Newson, T.E. Kubli, R.G. Dechesne, P.A. MacKay, J.P. Reld and
J.L. Varsek
Triangle Zone Beer & Bull May 11, 1994 422