From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:46:00 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec24115137@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.074121.11426@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>   In article <D0s0VB1w165w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> marco@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (John Perry) writes:
>   >merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>   >
>   >> When I was a grad student the department set aside a class room for
>   >> tutoring undergrads. When times were slow we go to the chalk board
>   >> and "play" with physics and I learned more from my fellow grad
>   >> students at that chalkboard than I did from any Prof. When
>   >> undergrads did come they too were interested in what we were discussing.
>   >> I see this group more like the chalk board in that classroom
>   >> than a "public restroom wall.". I also see no need for the
>   >> creation of another group as I feel USENET is already too
>   >> diluted by schisms. Most new groups are created because a
>   >> certain sect wants to silence others. On the rare happy occasion
>   >> a new gorup is created to accomadte a truly new subject of
>   >> interest. I believe that your "middle ground" exist in the
>   >> minds of many of the readers in this group already.
>   >
>   >This is one of the more sensible points made in this newsgroup in a long 
>   >time. I suggest everyone consider its contents.
>
>%	The only problem is that the local Moose Lodge has sent over
>%	the 50 man tag-drinking team right after an important match.
>%	They've stolen all the chalk and are eating the erasers.
>%	The professors are cowering in their offices, the grad students
>%	have wandered off in search of the beer, and the undergrads
>%	left in the room are filling out applications to join the Lodge.
>%
>%				 dale bass
> 
>Let's face it, this new call is to censure a few individuals. If the
>sci.physics.research is to be moderated by Mr. Stale(jokes) Cameloon Bass 
>I should strongly oppose it's creation. My comments were of a serious nature
>and this proposal should be dicussed with that  decorum in mind.

    Now it can't be stale if I just made it up.  Lame, yes.  Stale, no.
    Of course, that wouldn't go very well with the above name alteration.
    No, not well at all.  By the way, is an alteration of another's name
    for humourous purpose representative of said 'decorum'?

    And my comments were as serious as yours, they were simply couched
    in a rather allegorical language.  Participation by those people
    necessary to create good blackboard pictures seems to have fallen 
    off of late.  There also seems to be pretty widespread agreement that
    actual physics seems to be clunking into oblivion.

    Do not mistake attempts at humor for insincerity or lack of 
    'seriousness'.  I don't have to be wearing a scowl to be serious.
    I disagreed with you, and I thought it best to attempt a colourful
    representative example as a counterpoint to the previous poster's
    idyllic setting.

    The proposal is not to censure or censor posters in sci.physics,
    but to create a *separate* newsgroup that might be more fertile 
    ground for discussion of actual physics.  Neither God, motherhood,
    apple-pie nor the Queen are threatened by a new newsgroup.

>There is no hinderence of the exchange of ideas or communication of
>facts here for those who have decent News-reading software. 

     But there is.  It is fine for *me*.  I've been reading this stuff
     for nearly a decade.  I know how to work the reader, and I 
     am willing to sort through the crap to get to the stuff I 
     like.  The typical graduate student or professional, however,
     may not be willing to sort through the crap to get to the 
     rare pearl.  Indeed, from the raw feed, they may think that there
     *are* no pearls.  Think of this as a barrier-lowering exercise.

     I am also beginning to get worried about the first year undergraduate
     who plops on here and thinks this representative of the field.

>With a program that allows you to view all subjects in a newsgroup
>one need not read what he finds uninteresting. Further more one
>particularly offensive individual from the start said he would not
>resopnd to artciles without a certain title. Yet many of those
>who are calling for the new group(whom I contend were "provoked"
>to do so by said un-named individual) responded repeatedly
>to that "Crackpot". If nobody had responded he would have "dried-up
>and blown away". I contend that is these people (whom Mr. Bass
>is one have created this Frankenstien). And now since they are
>softwarily-challenged or too damn lazy to excercise their own
>personal judgement they are calling for the creation of a group
>which I think will be nothing more than a "mutual admiration 
>society" and consequently rather boring.

     If boring is the only sin, what is your objection?  There must
     be 1500 groups that are more boring.  As far as mutual admiration 
     goes, just take a look at some of the 'serious'
     discussions that have taken place recently.  I don't recall 
     a bunch of backpatting.

>Still if there is a sincere desire to create useful new media
>of exchange consider this counter-proposal:

      As opposed to the insincere desires stated earlier?

>Create not one but several unmoderated groups based on the 
>the divisions of Phyics as done Physical Review(A,B,C,D).
>
>This seems much more likely to succeed and much more equitable.
>
>I formally call for the creation of unmoderated groups:
>
>sci.physrev.a
>sci.physrev.b
>sci.physrev.c
>sci.physrev.d
>
>And instead of a moderator each group have a keeper of a FAQ file
>to be posted monthly.


     Feel free to formally go through the procedures for 
     newsgroup creation.  I suspect that such groups will not be 
     exceedingly popular, if only for the reason that probably many people
     do not know what categories Phys Rev A etc, denote, and it should
     probably be sci.phys.physrev-a, etc.  Your way, everyone will probably 
     think that the .d group is the discussion for whatever goes on in the
     other three. You are also going to have to get people to keep the 
     FAQ files.  It is not an easy task, and I suspect that no one will
     volunteer.

     And your own argument about newsreaders seems to weigh in 
     against creating *four* new newsgroups.  Also, there seems to 
     be no compelling need to create new unmoderated newsgroups for 
     this subject.  That would just increase the unnecessary 
     crossposting in proportion.

>Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
>Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
>merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel

      Though I tend to disagree with ol' Albert, think of this as a 
      revolt.

                                dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics