Request for Discussion
Edward Green
discussion groups. The format will be mildly moderated discussion with
pre-screening of members. "Mild moderation" means that after an
initial probation, members will only be silenced for flagrant abuse. I
will undertake the moderation.
Any suggestions for content, interest in studying particular texts,
topics, welcome. Reply here or email me directly at this address.
Randy Poe
Edward Green wrote:
> I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> discussion groups. The format will be mildly moderated discussion with
> pre-screening of members. "Mild moderation" means that after an
> initial probation, members will only be silenced for flagrant abuse. I
> will undertake the moderation.
I was going to ask "why" but...
>
> Any suggestions for content, interest in studying particular texts,
Joint studying of texts seems like a worthy goal. For years
I've been planning to revisit QM, perhaps reading through
Messiah's text, and see what I can glean from it with a few
extra decades of mathematical and physical experience
since the last time I read that stuff.
Also, I never did take a course in GR, and I've been meaning
to read MTW.
Having other people to work through it and discuss it with
seems like it would be hugely valuable.
- Randy
Randy Poe
Edward Green wrote:
> I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> discussion groups. The format will be mildly moderated discussion with
> pre-screening of members. "Mild moderation" means that after an
> initial probation, members will only be silenced for flagrant abuse. I
> will undertake the moderation.
I was going to ask "why" but...
>
> Any suggestions for content, interest in studying particular texts,
Joint studying of texts seems like a worthy goal. For years
Edward Green
> Edward Green wrote:
> > I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> > discussion groups. The format will be mildly moderated discussion with
> > pre-screening of members. "Mild moderation" means that after an
> > initial probation, members will only be silenced for flagrant abuse. I
> > will undertake the moderation.
>
> I was going to ask "why" but...
Through the years, a signficant number of people have dropped out of
discussion, pleading that the crank/citizen level was too high. Others
have no doubt similarly disappeared without explanation. Kill files
and filtering software are not up to the task -- technically adequate
no doubt, but operationally? Maybe the learning burden is too great or
people use the wrong software: yet another set of bells and whistles
most people just won't use.
On Usenet, there only seem to be two options: anarchic free-for-all, or
(labor intensive) post by post moderation. Google groups (not the only
such vehicle no doubt) offers a third: screening at the member level.
There is also an option to screen posts from new members until the've
passed a probation. The burden to acheive civility is reasonable
therefore, and not unduly stiffling to free discussion among peers.
Of course, this idea suffers from the defects of all Utopian ideals
that it merely defers the renewed onset of schism and rancor. But that
doesn't mean we cannot or should not renew social forms: because
organisms grow old and die, should we conclude births are pointless?
That was my "why" in general, if anybody was interested.
For more particular ideas...
> > Any suggestions for content, interest in studying particular texts,
>
> Joint studying of texts seems like a worthy goal. For years
> I've been planning to revisit QM, perhaps reading through
> Messiah's text, and see what I can glean from it with a few
> extra decades of mathematical and physical experience
> since the last time I read that stuff.
>
> Also, I never did take a course in GR, and I've been meaning
> to read MTW.
Well then... I own both texts. Do you think we could plow through MTW?
The thing is daunting... There has been a text in differential
geometry recommended to me several times (I think the same one). Maybe
I can figure out which one that is, and one or more "advanced
undergraduate" level thinkers would be interested in working through
it. Oh... and I also own Wald.
Let me know if you want to start MTW: I think I need to send you an
email to invite you.
MathFreak NoMore
<news:1166192625.0...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
It will fail.
If you cannot conduct the same in this newsgroup,
there'll be _less_ chance for it in a moderated one.
I've seen your honest efforts to make this forum more
of a physics place and I (and others) appreciate it.
But if you're really keen on discussing only physics,
why wouldn't you do it the right way? Be realistic. Go
for tutoring college students. Charge them something or
fuck them, doesn't matter. But do a good job of
creating demanding and fruitful physics get-togethers.
I did that in the 90s for a while with upper undergrad
cources (EM and CM). Just for the heck of it really.
The extent of physics involved was wonderful and really
got me worked. It paid something too.
--
"be zarbe gheychi motemadden shodan."
- Ali Ashrafi, darbAreye minizhuppush-hA
Edward Green
> Edward Green in
> <news:1166192625.0...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> > discussion groups. The format will be mildly moderated discussion with
> > pre-screening of members. "Mild moderation" means that after an
> > initial probation, members will only be silenced for flagrant abuse. I
> > will undertake the moderation.
> >
> > Any suggestions for content, interest in studying particular texts,
> > topics, welcome. Reply here or email me directly at this address.
>
> It will fail.
You're an optimist. ;-)
> If you cannot conduct the same in this newsgroup,
> there'll be _less_ chance for it in a moderated one.
Not sure why. At least it won't fail for the same reasons.
> I've seen your honest efforts to make this forum more
> of a physics place and I (and others) appreciate it.
> But if you're really keen on discussing only physics,
I'm not a fanatic about "only physics". But we seem to have dipped
below some threshold for a self-sustaining reaction.
> why wouldn't you do it the right way? Be realistic. Go
> for tutoring college students. Charge them something or
> fuck them, doesn't matter. But do a good job of
> creating demanding and fruitful physics get-togethers.
Thanks for the constructive suggestion.
MathFreak NoMore
news:1166300220.5...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>> If you cannot conduct the same in this newsgroup,
>> there'll be _less_ chance for it in a moderated one.
>
> Not sure why. At least it won't fail for the same reasons.
>
What is the reason that it has failed in sci.physics? I hope
you're not blaming the noise in here for it because that's
not the reason.
--
"I wouldn't join any club that would take me as a
member. "
- Groucho Marx
Edward Green
> "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
> news:1166300220.5...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> If you cannot conduct the same in this newsgroup,
> >> there'll be _less_ chance for it in a moderated one.
> >
> > Not sure why. At least it won't fail for the same reasons.
> >
>
> What is the reason that it has failed in sci.physics? I hope
> you're not blaming the noise in here for it because that's
> not the reason.
Given ambiguity in "it" and "the reason", I take the noise level to be
a major factor in the paucity of enlightening discussion. The few
regulars are bored with each other, and talented newcomers are scared
off, perhaps.
What are you going to cite?
Sorcerer
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in message news:1166366725.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Given that you requested a discussion in sci.astro, that I gave
in to your request and then you failed to answer my post there,
YOU are the fucking noise.
|
MathFreak NoMore
>> What is the reason that it has failed in sci.physics? I
>> hope you're not blaming the noise in here for it because
>> that's not the reason.
>
> Given ambiguity in "it" and "the reason", I take the noise
> level to be a major factor in the paucity of enlightening
> discussion. The few regulars are bored with each other,
> and talented newcomers are scared off, perhaps.
>
> What are you going to cite?
>
Engaging in physics takes energy (and more). How do you even
supply that energy for the participants, let alone the more
subtle (but as important) arrangements that must be there.
If one wants engagement from others, one must go where it either
pays them, or otherwise required of them to do physics.
Filters and moderators have not helped anyone in any newsgroup.
Newsgroups are hangouts, not classrooms. Place a rule on them
and have someone stand by the door to let only a certain
category come in, and you've blown your own customers. Would you
eat at a hamburger place where Blacks weren't invited?
Each time I got fired at a job (a few times happened of course)
it made me so happy! I had just gotten the long-sought proof
that I did not want to be there :-) They always did a service to
me. Where I'm not invited, it is _me_ who doesn't want me to be
there, not them. Their loss or not, I don't know, but not my
loss.
--
"Stupidity isn't always bad for you. It
is only sometimes bad for you."
- Maleki
Edward Green
Sorcerer wrote:
> Given that you requested a discussion in sci.astro <...>
No.
Edward Green
MathFreak NoMore wrote:
> "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
> news:1166366725.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> What is the reason that it has failed in sci.physics? I
> >> hope you're not blaming the noise in here for it because
> >> that's not the reason.
> >
> > Given ambiguity in "it" and "the reason", I take the noise
> > level to be a major factor in the paucity of enlightening
> > discussion. The few regulars are bored with each other,
> > and talented newcomers are scared off, perhaps.
> >
> > What are you going to cite?
> >
>
> Engaging in physics takes energy (and more). How do you even
> supply that energy for the participants, let alone the more
> subtle (but as important) arrangements that must be there.
>
> If one wants engagement from others, one must go where it either
> pays them, or otherwise required of them to do physics.
>
> Filters and moderators have not helped anyone in any newsgroup.
> Newsgroups are hangouts, not classrooms.
There may be a demand for a hangout where it is possible to exclude
incorrigibles. Even bars can throw out noisy patrons.
<...>
hanson
w/i news:Xns989C72BA289EDMa...@216.168.3.66...
> "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
> news:1166366725.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> What is the reason that it has failed in sci.physics? I
>>> hope you're not blaming the noise in here for it because
>>> that's not the reason.
>>
>> Given ambiguity in "it" and "the reason", I take the noise
>> level to be a major factor in the paucity of enlightening
>> discussion. The few regulars are bored with each other,
>> and talented newcomers are scared off, perhaps.
>> What are you going to cite?
>>
> Engaging in physics takes energy (and more). How do you even
> supply that energy for the participants, let alone the more
> subtle (but as important) arrangements that must be there.
> If one wants engagement from others, one must go where it either
> pays them, or otherwise required of them to do physics.
>
right on!, Mehram
>
[Mehram]
> Filters and moderators have not helped anyone in any newsgroup.
> Newsgroups are hangouts, not classrooms. Place a rule on them
> and have someone stand by the door to let only a certain
> category come in, and you've blown your own customers. Would you
> eat at a hamburger place where Blacks weren't invited?
>
I don't know if your disdain, (as a Persian), for Arabs or Blacks
is an applicable example here, but you are right, NG's are not
class rooms. A decade+ back a swarm of teacher types infested
s.p. and they, the prof/ret physicists, were the FIRST ones who
got nasty and called posters crackpots and cranks, to cover up
their own lack and failure to explain and convince the dilettantes.
And to boot, a NEWS-group by definition ought to discuss
NEWS not century old Einstein shit ad nausea. But whenever
anybody talks of a new idea in his mind, all the teacher types
and the students they have infected cry: "crank".... ahahaha...
So, these days the NG's are mostly like exchanges you have
seen in the barbershop in Andy Griffith "Mayberry", only not
that civilised... but much much more funny... at least to me.
>
[Mehram]
> Each time I got fired at a job (a few times happened of course)
> it made me so happy! I had just gotten the long-sought proof
> that I did not want to be there :-) They always did a service to
> me. Where I'm not invited, it is _me_ who doesn't want me to be
> there, not them. Their loss or not, I don't know, but not my loss.
> >
[hanson]
.... ahahahaha... and what were their reasons that you got fired
so many times?... ahahahaha... Cm'om, let's hear it!. It'll make
excellently funny copy, Mehram!..... ahahahaha.... Now on the
serious side you do have a valid issue which we have successfully
dealt with. In every one of my divisions/enterprises there's a flyer
on the wall that says: "If you become unhappy here for whatever
reason go straight to the GM and complain loudly. He will actively
help you to find another job. We owe you that for the good job
you have done for us, but we do not want to have unhappy team
members here".. This has paid off with dividends, fantastically!
And for management personnel we have annual contracts like
most Euro- or Multinational corps do... It's like (re-) elections.
>
[Mehram]
"Stupidity isn't always bad for you. It is only sometimes bad for you."
> - Maleki
>
[hanson]
ahahahah... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
If there is a corollary in the Koran to the Bible's verse of ~
"Blessed are the idiots and the mentally feeble for they
shall enter/inherit the lord's heavenly kingdom"... then
Mehram, then I do understand why you are so deeply
religious.... maharaja... THANKS FOR THE LAUGHS!
ROTFLMAO....ahahaha... ahahahanson
MathFreak NoMore
> There may be a demand for a hangout where it is possible to
> exclude incorrigibles. Even bars can throw out noisy
> patrons.
>
Good luck.
--
"Suddenly it was all about telling lies;
telling the truth became irrelevant."
- Victor Ostrovsky
Sorcerer
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in message news:1166382913.1...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| > Given that you requested a discussion in sci.astro <...>
Did you snip something? I'm sorry, I must have missed it, what
were you saying?
Jim Black
Well, I, for one, like the idea. I've found that as slow as
sci.physics.research is, I wind up looking to sci.physics for
interesting discussion. Something along these lines might strike the
right balance. At worst, it might end up not attracting very many
people and traffic, and turn into a hangout used by only two or three
people.
Attracting newcomers could be a major problem. If you search Google
Groups, you can find hundreds of physics discussion groups that attract
no more than a few posts per month. On the other hand, if
professionals, particularly professionals who have popular websites,
are attracted to the group, that could do a lot for attracting other
people. For example, I found out about sci.physics because of Dr.
Baez's website.
Will newcomers be able to read this group? There won't be many
newcomers if people can't lurk a little first. Is there a URL we can
visit yet?
Would the types of posts that would be considered acceptable be similar
to sci.physics.research? Or would they be a bit different? Or are you
still trying to feel this out?
As for content, the joint studying of texts would be worthwhile even if
the discussion group doesn't drum up very many posters. Currently,
I've just started another whack at Peskin & Schroeder. Randy Poe
mentioned MTW, which I would also welcome taking a whack at.
--
Jim Black
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> discussion groups.
I don't use web-based forums, including Google Groups, because I find the
user interfaces unbearable. I save so much time by using a real newsreader
that the time spent skipping over the noise here is trivial in comparison.
Honestly I don't understand how anyone can stand to use web forums.
You can do user-based access control on Usenet with a robomoderator. To
avoid spoofing, you can (e.g.) give authorized users a password, different
for each user, which has to be included at the top of each post. I don't
actually know the Usenet cabal's position on this sort of thing, though. You
could ask on news.groups.
-- Ben
Edward Green
> Edward Green wrote:
> > I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> > discussion groups.
>
> I don't use web-based forums, including Google Groups, because I find the
> user interfaces unbearable. I save so much time by using a real newsreader
> that the time spent skipping over the noise here is trivial in comparison.
> Honestly I don't understand how anyone can stand to use web forums.
Apparently, many can't. Not investing the time time to master a real
newsreader, maybe unaware of the possibilities, they simply opt out. I
used trn4 for a space, even mastering a line editor, but never educated
myself in the power of its kill file. But even if one does this, that
simply filters the available signal more efficiently, but does not
boost it. The right forum could attract new voices.
> You can do user-based access control on Usenet with a robomoderator. To
> avoid spoofing, you can (e.g.) give authorized users a password, different
> for each user, which has to be included at the top of each post. I don't
> actually know the Usenet cabal's position on this sort of thing, though. You
> could ask on news.groups.
Neat idea.
Using a newsreader efficiently, one can create one's own virtual
private group, with exactly the same vetting as on Google Groups. The
difference between this and the Google groups or robomoderator idea is
marketing -- one puts the filtration burden on the user, the other
allows the user to give up some control in return for convenience. One
approach has demonstrably been tried, and we see the current results.
So, count you out of any Google venture (too bad), but possible
participation in a Usenet equivalent. Ok.
Sorcerer
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in message news:1166459828.8...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
| Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
|
| > Edward Green wrote:
No.
arvee
> Edward Green wrote:
> > I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> > discussion groups. The format will be mildly moderated discussion with
> > pre-screening of members. "Mild moderation" means that after an
> > initial probation, members will only be silenced for flagrant abuse. I
> > will undertake the moderation.
>
> I was going to ask "why" but...
>
> >
> > Any suggestions for content, interest in studying particular texts,
>
> Joint studying of texts seems like a worthy goal. For years
> I've been planning to revisit QM, perhaps reading through
> Messiah's text, and see what I can glean from it with a few
> extra decades of mathematical and physical experience
> since the last time I read that stuff.
>
> Also, I never did take a course in GR, and I've been meaning
> to read MTW.
What is MTW?
R.G. Vickson
Phineas T Puddleduck
"arvee" <C6...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Also, I never did take a course in GR, and I've been meaning
> > to read MTW.
>
> What is MTW?
>
> R.G. Vickson
>
> >
Gravitation by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. Called the Bible by some, not
just due to its canonical nature but due to its size, and the tendency
to wail and gnash your teeth whilst working through it ;-)
--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!
http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics/msg/f9488b70976a3a4b?&hl=en
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sorcerer
"arvee" <C6...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:1166460752.4...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
| What is MTW?
Gravitation by Charles W. Misner,Kip S. Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler
"If Hawking succeeds in making his case, he will lose a bet that he and theoretical physicist Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology made with John Preskill, also of Caltech."
http://www.space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html
I bet I'm wrong... -- Thorne
Edward Green
> Well, I, for one, like the idea. I've found that as slow as
> sci.physics.research is, I wind up looking to sci.physics for
> interesting discussion. Something along these lines might strike the
> right balance. At worst, it might end up not attracting very many
> people and traffic, and turn into a hangout used by only two or three
> people.
>
> Attracting newcomers could be a major problem. If you search Google
> Groups, you can find hundreds of physics discussion groups that attract
> no more than a few posts per month.
No kidding. Are these Usenet groups, or prior manifestation of my
idea? I think I've found some of what you speak of... many seem to be
still born.
> On the other hand, if
> professionals, particularly professionals who have popular websites,
> are attracted to the group, that could do a lot for attracting other
> people. For example, I found out about sci.physics because of Dr.
> Baez's website.
>
> Will newcomers be able to read this group?
Yes.
> There won't be many
> newcomers if people can't lurk a little first. Is there a URL we can
> visit yet?
http://groups.google.com/group/physics-discussion-group-i
> Would the types of posts that would be considered acceptable be similar
> to sci.physics.research? Or would they be a bit different?
I would encourage free expression. ;-) The ideal is a bar, not a tea
time, but one where most of the patrons happen to be discussing
physics... mostly on the backs of napkins and with gesticulations.
Off-topic conversation is natural and admitted, within reason.
Of course this is all a pipe dream, at the moment.
> Or are you still trying to feel this out?
Work in progress.
> As for content, the joint studying of texts would be worthwhile even if
> the discussion group doesn't drum up very many posters. Currently,
> I've just started another whack at Peskin & Schroeder. Randy Poe
> mentioned MTW, which I would also welcome taking a whack at.
Cool. I'll have to find a copy of Peskin & Schroeder.
Interest permitting, I've laid out a few areas, so one could be for
people discussing a given text, another for general discussion, and so
forth.
There has to be an exchange of email for me to list you as a member.
Jim Black
> Jim Black wrote:
>
> > Well, I, for one, like the idea. I've found that as slow as
> > sci.physics.research is, I wind up looking to sci.physics for
> > interesting discussion. Something along these lines might strike the
> > right balance. At worst, it might end up not attracting very many
> > people and traffic, and turn into a hangout used by only two or three
> > people.
> >
> > Attracting newcomers could be a major problem. If you search Google
> > Groups, you can find hundreds of physics discussion groups that attract
> > no more than a few posts per month.
>
> No kidding. Are these Usenet groups, or prior manifestation of my
> idea? I think I've found some of what you speak of... many seem to be
> still born.
The groups I'm looking at are at:
http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=hpsfg&q=physics
The first pages are to be mostly Usenet groups, but if you look at the
pages that follow, you can find page after page of low-volume
physics-related Google groups. A lot of them seem to be related to
specific physics classes at specific colleges, but a few of them are
more general in scope, such as:
http://groups.google.com/group/science-lovers?lnk=gschg
http://groups.google.com/group/PhysicsWorld?lnk=gschg
http://groups.google.com/group/theoretical-physics?lnk=gschg
I can't tell how these groups were moderated, if at all, so I can't say
that any of them are a prior manifestation of your idea.
> > As for content, the joint studying of texts would be worthwhile even if
> > the discussion group doesn't drum up very many posters. Currently,
> > I've just started another whack at Peskin & Schroeder. Randy Poe
> > mentioned MTW, which I would also welcome taking a whack at.
>
> Cool. I'll have to find a copy of Peskin & Schroeder.
>
> Interest permitting, I've laid out a few areas, so one could be for
> people discussing a given text, another for general discussion, and so
> forth.
>
> There has to be an exchange of email for me to list you as a member.
I've got a Google Groups account, so I clicked the link provided to
sign up, and now it says my membership is pending. The option to allow
anyone to join without waiting for an invitation, and moderating posts
from new members, would probably expedite getting newcomers signed up,
although I recognize this would take additional work. But I think that
one to three posts ought to be enough most of the time to figure out
whether a poster is willing to act reasonably.
Alternatively (or in addition), there's an option that allows everyone
to post, but puts posts from non-members through moderation. This is a
bit hidden. On the access settings page, there's an option that reads
"Anyone can post." When this option is selected, a check box appears
labeled "Hold messages from non-members for moderation." Once they've
made a post, you have their e-mail address, and can add them or send
them an invitation.
The former method has the advantage that people sign themselves up, and
the only change you have to make is to their posting permissions. The
advantage of the latter method is that the newcomer doesn't have to use
the web interface; the only time they might have to visit the Google
website is when they click the confirmation link in the invitation
e-mail. Posting and reading can be done via e-mail to and from the
group address.
Jim Black
> Edward Green wrote:
> > I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> > discussion groups.
>
> I don't use web-based forums, including Google Groups, because I find the
> user interfaces unbearable. I save so much time by using a real newsreader
> that the time spent skipping over the noise here is trivial in comparison.
> Honestly I don't understand how anyone can stand to use web forums.
Apparently Google Groups can also be accessed like a mailing list; you
have to sign up for e-mails from the group, and once signed up, you can
post messages by mailing to the group address. Would that help?
I do agree, however, that a Usenet solution would be preferable.
Edward Green
> Edward Green wrote:
<...>
> > > Attracting newcomers could be a major problem. If you search Google
> > > Groups, you can find hundreds of physics discussion groups that attract
> > > no more than a few posts per month.
> >
> > No kidding. Are these Usenet groups, or prior manifestation of my
> > idea? I think I've found some of what you speak of... many seem to be
> > still born.
>
> The groups I'm looking at are at:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=hpsfg&q=physics
>
> The first pages are to be mostly Usenet groups, but if you look at the
> pages that follow, you can find page after page of low-volume
> physics-related Google groups. A lot of them seem to be related to
> specific physics classes at specific colleges, but a few of them are
> more general in scope, such as:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/science-lovers?lnk=gschg
> http://groups.google.com/group/PhysicsWorld?lnk=gschg
> http://groups.google.com/group/theoretical-physics?lnk=gschg
The ground is littered with spent cinders.
<...>
> I've got a Google Groups account, so I clicked the link provided to
> sign up, and now it says my membership is pending. The option to allow
> anyone to join without waiting for an invitation, and moderating posts
> from new members, would probably expedite getting newcomers signed up,
> although I recognize this would take additional work. But I think that
> one to three posts ought to be enough most of the time to figure out
> whether a poster is willing to act reasonably.
Someone once said that even crazy people know enough not to act crazy
at first.
> Alternatively (or in addition), there's an option that allows everyone
> to post, but puts posts from non-members through moderation. This is a
> bit hidden. On the access settings page, there's an option that reads
> "Anyone can post." When this option is selected, a check box appears
> labeled "Hold messages from non-members for moderation." Once they've
> made a post, you have their e-mail address, and can add them or send
> them an invitation.
>
> The former method has the advantage that people sign themselves up, and
> the only change you have to make is to their posting permissions. The
> advantage of the latter method is that the newcomer doesn't have to use
> the web interface; the only time they might have to visit the Google
> website is when they click the confirmation link in the invitation
> e-mail. Posting and reading can be done via e-mail to and from the
> group address.
Thanks for your interest and suggestions. Google certainly provides an
adequate list of options -- some of them somewhat hidden, as you say.
I happen to share the distaste for email lists that others hold for web
interfaces. I personally don't find web interfaces objectionable, and
they do share a very desirable trait with your traditional newsreader
with a dial-up account -- the material is never downloaded to your
computer except as an image. (I remember finding the net quite
readable at 2400 baud -- that's not slow, that's _fast_ ; see how fast
the characters stream onto the screen, much faster than you can read
them! Everything else is overkill ;-).
I've changed the options somewhat following your suggestions.
arvee
> "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in
> news:1166366725.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> What is the reason that it has failed in sci.physics? I
> >> hope you're not blaming the noise in here for it because
> >> that's not the reason.
> >
> > Given ambiguity in "it" and "the reason", I take the noise
> > level to be a major factor in the paucity of enlightening
> > discussion. The few regulars are bored with each other,
> > and talented newcomers are scared off, perhaps.
> >
> > What are you going to cite?
> >
>
> Engaging in physics takes energy (and more). How do you even
> supply that energy for the participants,
The contributors to the group sci.math often help people with
questions, sometimes in lengthy posts and all free of charge. So do the
participants to comp.text.tex and (less so) in sci.op-research. The
math newsgroup has fewer psychotics scrambling the forum with word
salad than does this one (although there are some that will not go
away). The two other groups I mentioned seem to have no weirdos posting
to them, although they have started to have some machine-generated
spam. Are you claiming that the people who do serious physics are less
charitable than mathematicians, operations researchers, and the
scientists/computer folks who go to comp.text.tex? They are all busy.
They are all pressed for time. Neveretheless, they contribute
willingly.
R.G. Vickson
Sorcerer
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in message news:1166659008....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Jim Black wrote:
|
| > Edward Green wrote:
|
| <...>
Yeah, he does that to avoid serious matters. What an idiot.
MathFreak NoMore
@trnddc02:
> what were their reasons that you got fired
> so many times?..
It happened two times for an identical reason (asked for an
outrageous raise) and another for getting stuck in traffic and
late at work once too often. This is within a span of 32 years.
Not that bad actually. How about you?
The formal reasons they brought for firing me in the two former
cases were branding my request "a case of insubordination."
--
"We need legislation more because of the ignorance
out there than the scientific fact."
- John Craig Venter
MathFreak NoMore
news:1166660078....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
> The contributors to the group sci.math often help people
> with questions, sometimes in lengthy posts and all free of
> charge.
This is done in sci.physics too of course, but to the same
extent that's done in math and computer forums, not more.
Well, problem is that "more" is needed in physics.
> So do the participants to comp.text.tex and (less
> so) in sci.op-research. The math newsgroup has fewer
> psychotics scrambling the forum with word salad than does
> this one (although there are some that will not go away).
> The two other groups I mentioned seem to have no weirdos
> posting to them, although they have started to have some
> machine-generated spam. Are you claiming that the people
> who do serious physics are less charitable than
> mathematicians, operations researchers, and the
> scientists/computer folks who go to comp.text.tex? They are
> all busy. They are all pressed for time. Neveretheless,
> they contribute willingly.
>
There is an important difference between a physics issue and a
math (or computer) issue. In physics it is much more easy to
take a careless or naive step from a familiar, simple, and
known spot and land to a vastly complicated and unanswerable
spot right adjacent to it. In math and computer fields this
feature, if present, is not a dominant feature.
Jim Black
> The contributors to the group sci.math often help people with
> questions, sometimes in lengthy posts and all free of charge. So do the
> participants to comp.text.tex and (less so) in sci.op-research. The
> math newsgroup has fewer psychotics scrambling the forum with word
> salad than does this one (although there are some that will not go
> away).
I've noticed that on sci.math, they've managed to get James Harris to
mark the threads he initiates with [JSH], so that those who enjoy
arguing with him can freely do so, while those who don't like it can
easily ignore / kill the threads. I wonder if something like that
would be possible here on sci.physics?
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Edward Green wrote:
> I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> pre-screening of members. "Mild moderation" means that after an
> initial probation, members will only be silenced for flagrant abuse. I
> will undertake the moderation.
>
The beauty of sci.physics is that it is completely uncensored.
The proof of this is the poor grade postings present here.
That anyone can contribute without fear of censorship is valuable.
The people who shit here are sort of the da da artists of physics.
I believe that the proper form of censorship is a filtration of
sci.physics.
In effect the base layer remains as is; an unfiltered viewer sees it
all. You as a moderator would then have the ability to present a
customized interface to the generic pool. It could even allow access to
the censored material, but would allow a user who opts for your
censorship to save his own filtration time by reusing yours. Now we
could have the option of parallel filtration. Theoretically this would
allow a user whose persuation is aligned with particular other readers
to adopt their filters in parallel.
This is potentially a consensus model where universally rejected
messages have a high likelyhood of being garbage. Numerous features are
possible but the beauty of such a system is really the act of
filtration rather than deletion. This model might actually cause the
shitters to generate more sincere content.
It's scary how megalithic Google has become. It is tempting to ask them
to implement this interface. Already they have a simple rating flag.
The filtration implementation could be as simple as you replying to the
content that you wish censored with a vote of for instance 'errant',
'overemotional', or 'junkmessage'. The structure is already present.
The implementation is an addition to the existing protocol and so is
compatible with any existent interface. The new interface hides
information without conceit. A group methodology allows for a master of
the group who lets in or denies fellow consors thereby preventing
censorship abuse for that particular group which is admittedly biased
toward the master. This then alleviates the master's responsibility of
reading every message thanks to teamwork.
This is quite a competition model. Somewhat like a stock market
democracy. The negative model rather than an 'in' and 'out' model seems
to make sense doesn't it? Just 'outing' information is actually a
positive format since it tends toward diversity. We probably need a
shrink to assess what human behavior will yield under these models.
I do not have enough USENET protocol knowledge to identify the pitfalls
of this approach.
-Tim
hanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:VUghh.710$HT5.357@trnddc02:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/65a0eb47a52ace67
>> what were their reasons that you got fired so many times?..
>
> It happened two times for an identical reason (asked for an
> outrageous raise) and another for getting stuck in traffic and
> late at work once too often. This is within a span of 32 years.
> cases were branding my request "a case of insubordination."
> Not that bad actually. How about you?
>
Sheesh, Mehram, once in 16 years.. Why do you even cry
about it. Any employee who keeps his job for 16 years is
a valuable asset. --- Me, no. Never got fired. Went into biz
after my second job. Why make money for some other fuck.
>
[Mehram]
> "We need legislation more because of the ignorance
> out there than the scientific fact."
> - John Craig Venter
>
Mehram, your own proverb of wisdom is far, far more
profound then ass-Venter's above (was he a Muslim?)....
Let me repost your own deep, seminal insight:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/65a0eb47a52ace67
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3858fbe0205e9ce8
.... drum roll....... here come Mehram:
MathFreak NoMore
@trnddc03:
> Me, no. Never got fired. Went into biz
> after my second job.
>
Ah, so that's where the Greens cut you.
--
"kasi ku kherad rA nadArad zepish
delash gardad az kardeye khish rish"
- Ferdowsi
hanson
<MathFre...@FakeAddress.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98A2B54C9A106Ma...@216.168.3.66...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:BzCih.4113$Jb6.2436@trnddc03:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d6580370e032fcca
>> Me, no. Never got fired. Went into biz after my second job.
>>
> Ah, so that's where the Greens cut you.
>
ROTFLMAO... ahahahaha... You wish!... don't you, Mehram.
You'd be wallowing in fully ecstatic religious and political
"Schadenfreude" over your ill wishes for me.....ahahahaha..
Now go and check my archive which contains many detailed
precisely because of these green shits... ahahahahaha...
Go see, read it, mooch!.... ahahahaha....
>
The transparency of your revenge bite at me is another
example of your fine religious character and wisdom
which you have explained with great finesse here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d6580370e032fcca
wherein you said, while you're pissing at walls in public again :
hanson
<MathFre...@FakeAddress.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98A2B54C9A106Ma...@216.168.3.66...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:BzCih.4113$Jb6.2436@trnddc03:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d6580370e032fcca
>>
> Ah, so that's where the Greens cut you.
>
ROTFLMAO... ahahahaha... You wish!... don't you, Mehram.
You'd be wallowing in fully ecstatic religious and political
"Schadenfreude" over your ill wishes for me.....ahahahaha..
Now go and check my archive which contains many detailed
precisely because of these green shits... ahahahahaha...
Go see, read it, mooch!.... ahahahaha....
because of these green shits... ahahahaha...
>
The transparency of your revenge bite at me is another
example of your fine religious character and wisdom
which you have explained with great finesse here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d6580370e032fcca
wherein you said, while you're pissing at walls in public again :
MathFreak NoMore
@trnddc08:
>> "We need legislation more because of the ignorance
>> out there than the scientific fact."
>> - John Craig Venter
>
>
>
> [hanson]
> Mehram, your own proverb of wisdom is far, far more
> profound then ass-Venter's above (was he a Muslim?)....
>
Venter is of the only type of American that can still beat my
type. True frontiersmen. The once heart of USA. And yes, they're
good Moslems knowingly or unknowingly. I'm not surprized that
you envy them.
A lot of Americans only smell of him, by mere proximity. Very
few these days also have the trait. If only you could understand
the saying below :)
--
"gAvhAye yek tavileh hamkhu ke nashavand
hambu ke mishavand."
- Jalal Ale-Ahmad
hanson
<MathFre...@FakeAddress.com> wrote in message
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> w/i news:B0ljh.1872$%M1.446@trnddc08:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/65a0eb47a52ace67
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3858fbe0205e9ce8
>
[Mehram]
>>> "We need legislation more because of the ignorance
>>> out there than the scientific fact."
>>> - John Craig Venter
>>
[hanson]
>> profound then ass-Venter's above (was he a Muslim?)....
>>
> Venter is of the only type of American that can still beat my
> type. True frontiersmen. The once heart of USA. And yes, they're
> good Moslems knowingly or unknowingly. I'm not surprized that
> you envy them.
> A lot of Americans only smell of him, by mere proximity. Very
> few these days also have the trait. If only you could understand
> the saying below :)
>
> hambu ke mishavand."
> - Jalal Ale-Ahmad
>
ahahahaha... that is your Farsi/Persian/Iranian original which
you plagiarized from and translated yourself into your immortal
1-liner that said .... drum roll....... here come Mehram:
schoenf...@gmail.com
arvee wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Edward Green wrote:
> > > I've reserved some real estate on Google groups for one or more physics
> > > discussion groups. The format will be mildly moderated discussion with
> > > pre-screening of members. "Mild moderation" means that after an
> > > initial probation, members will only be silenced for flagrant abuse. I
> > > will undertake the moderation.
> >
> > I was going to ask "why" but...
> >
> > >
> > > Any suggestions for content, interest in studying particular texts,
> >
> > Joint studying of texts seems like a worthy goal. For years
> > I've been planning to revisit QM, perhaps reading through
> > Messiah's text, and see what I can glean from it with a few
> > extra decades of mathematical and physical experience
> > since the last time I read that stuff.
> >
> > Also, I never did take a course in GR, and I've been meaning
> > to read MTW.
>
> What is MTW?
One of the various roads to confusion.