From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Date: 23 Dec 1992 14:55 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <MERRITT.92Dec21110641@macro.bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes...
>In article <MATT.92Dec15152210@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> 
>   In article <BCR.92Dec16000355@hfl3sn02.cern.ch> bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) writes:
> 
>   > Here! Here! I'll second this even with the name as-is.  I for one
>   > normally am not subscribe to sci.physics, because it is too long and
>   > redundant.  I Only read this group when I have work I'm really
>   > trying to aviod doing.  I'm sure most of us are two busy to garentee
>   > to read through 50+ some articles posted here a day to see what
>   > passes the moderation policy criteria.  However, if we can figure
>   > out a way to split that equally amoung 4-5 people I'd be happy to be
>   > one of them.
> 
>We don't need censorship here. Everyone is quite capable of choosing 
>for himself. This not a Journal of Physics. It is a great big
>public-restroom-wall. People who feel that they cannot stand having
>"Crackpots" should leave the group and start your own Facist/Moderated
>group, which I will predict now will be a very boring place indeed.

What about those of us who don't want to participate in a 
public-bathroom-wall free-for-all?  No one is suggesting that sci.physics
go away - only that those individuals who themselves want to go away
will have an intelligent place to go to.

Personally, I support the Austern model of a very soft cut by the
moderators.  We should exclude the obvious crackpots, as well as all
unsubstantiated claims that quantum mechanics is wrong, etc., regardless
of how well couched in QM lingo and math the article seems to be.  And
most (but not necessarily all) discussions of the relationship between
religion and science should be off limits.  But that's about it.

I think that the new group should reflect the goals which I describe
in the FAQ:  Sci.physics.moderated should be a newsgroup dedicated to 
the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and 
physics-related social issues, i.e., any subjects which would be of 
general interest to physicists and students of physics.

The moderator(s) should be able to limit the damage that the softer
political and social issues can do to the newsgroup without eliminating
their discussion altogether.

>If this call for moderation of this group succeeds it will be a 
>sad day for freedom of thought.

I don't see why.  No one will ever be prevented from posting in places
they may now post.  It's actually a victory for free speech if we can
create yet another forum the meets the needs of even more people, who,
for one reason or another, are driven away from sci.physics as it is 
currently constituted.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas