From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:44:39

In article <foo> fxt@helios.ucsc.edu (oxide owner) writes:
   > From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
   > This is a request for discussion about creating a new moderated group
   > for discussion of physics.

   a yes vote from me. i agree with the fellow (sorry cant seem to find the
   article) who made the suggestion that all submissions be posted in either
   sci.physics.moderated, sci.physics, or alt.physics.new-theories.

Yes.  I like the idea of a tripartite group, mainly to sort out the different
kinds of stuff without having to swim through it all.  Sci.physics used to
have almost as much volume as now, but a much lower noise level.  I'd like
to see that come back.  Remember about six months ago, when several 
professors posted that they no longer had the time to subscribe?  


   >                                                         As long as an
   > article is "serious" (I can't define it, but I know it when I see it)
   > and is related to physics, I think that should be good enough.

   yep. just enough knife's edge to stop the abian's, the hannu's, the snarfy's,
   the dale versus blair (for example) flame fests, the mega group cross 
   posters, the verbage denoted to the relationship of religion and physics, 
   and the qm and/or sr paradox specialists. 

Yes.  It would be nice to have a special group of interest primarily
to trained physicists, with a much lower volume.  But I would hope the
moderation would stay pretty light -- I don't want the moderated group
to become a `club' that only the Sneetches with Stars can post to.

Here's how I envision a tripartite split:

sci.physics.moderated [sci.physics.d?] [sci.physics.erudite :-]
	for serious discussions of interest to trained 
	physicists, and questions that can *not* be 
	gotten out of, say, Tipler or Halliday and Resnick
	(two freshman physics texts).
	eg people arguing about gravitational lensing
	and its use to measure the Hubble constant,
	or asking about second quantization. *new*
	relativity paradoxes.

	Moderated, but hopefully sparingly.  Same FAQ as
	sci.physics, below, but posted monthly?

	I'd like this to become much like sci.optics --
	relatively low volume, but with lots of `serious'
	people in the field subscribing.
	
sci.physics 
	for most questions and discussions about systems
	that are thought to be well understood, eg 
	Newtonian physics, trains entering tunnels, 
	and that sort of thing.  Also cross-posts that
	are relevant to physics from, eg, rec.autos.
	Big FAQ, frequently (biweekly?) posted.
	Not moderated.

	I'd probably subscribe to this, but wouldn't expect, 
	for example, my thesis advisor (if he used
	computers at all) to wade through the higher
	volume I'd expect here.

sci.physics.new-theories [sci.physics.alternative?]
	for anything that's counter to the generally
	held beliefs of the physics community (eg 
        Beckmann relativity, Hannu's space-potato, etc.)
	Hopefully, providing a separate forum for
	these ideas would keep the flamage level
	down, and allow more interesting discussions
	of 'em, much as sci.physics.fusion has.
	Not moderated.

	Again, I'd probably subscribe to this, but wouldn't
	expect everyone to.  In particular, I'd hope the
	``this-is-different-so-it's-just-plain-wrong'' flamage
	would go down a bit, while posters would still
	criticize and share one anothers' theories.

So how's it sound?  Any other ideas?
--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!
Newsgroups: sci.physics