From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:35:20 GMT

In article <479@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.182355.20379@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> [...]
>>      I think the difference here is between discussions that have
>>      new information and discussions that have no substantial new
>>      information.  Quantum mechanics interpretations should certainly
>>      not be a proscribed subject.  On the other hand, if no one
>>      is saying anything new, perhaps we should move on.
>
>New in what context? New relative to what has been published or
>new relative to what has been posted in the last two months.
>My suggestion would be to eliminate discussions that are answered in
>a standard ungraduate physics curriculum or that have become repetitive
>in the last few months. I would not object to repetition over longer
>time periods.

     New in the context of the rehashing we were discussing.  At the
     very least there should be some substantial time lag before
     the very same content is posted.  My feeling is at least six months,
     but I hope that posters will feel it incumbent upon themselves 
     to provide new stuff in any case.

     Besides, how good do you think our collective memory really is?
     When we've forgotten the last time one was posted, it's probably
     about time.  For my memory, that's probably about six months.

>>[...]
>> >1. It is a bad idea to have the word crackpot in the charter. You need to
>> >be able to reference the charter when you give the reason for rejecting
>> >an article and calling someone a crackpot is not good form especially for
>> >someone in a position of authority (even the limited authority of
>>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >a newsgroup moderator). Miss Manners would not approve. It is also too
>> 
>>      I'll say.  However, I think all of us have enough politesse
>>      to prevent open rudeness in such a situation.  The phrase has
>>      the advantage of giving a vivid picture of what is being precluded.
>
>If one of the four main criteria for selection is to eliminate crackpot
>postings then I do not see how you avoid explicitly referring to it when you
>given a reason for rejecting some articles. Certainly this would not always
>be necessary but I assume, at the least, you would do it for a first time
>poster.

     Not necessarily.  There are certainly ways to phrase correspondence
     that would still be consistent with the charter and yet would
     still be polite.  The charter seems unambiguous, as it probably should,
     but politesse requires a degree of ambiguity. 

>> [...]'Not even wrong' is a succinct way of saying that the phrase
>>      'muons decay because of their innate desire to be free' would
>>      be unacceptable.  In my view, this would not necessarily apply
>>      to postings about philosophy of QM.
>
>I doubt if you will have many posters that submit articles like that.
>I am not clear about the criteria for rejecting articles under
>the crackpot (not even wrong) item. I think you need to spell it out
>more clearly. It should not be a catch all to reject the articles that the
>moderators think are inappropriate without explaining the criteria.

     I hope you're right and we don't have any postings like that.  
     In that case, we won't need to use that codicil at all.  And 
     that criterion is not a catch-all.  I'm sure we've all seen clearly 
     crackpot postings in our day,  something like '1=1 so the cheese is 
     purple'.  One does usually equal one, and I could forsee the cheese being
     purple under some circumstances, so it is not exactly wrong,
     but it is not postable.

     I don't know how to further explain it except by using examples.
     What is it exactly that you are worried about?

                           dale bass

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