Try a little enforcement, on the worst of it, see if it helps. For my .02, sometimes the discussions, even if they're not ideal--and sometimes because of it-- can still be productive/illuminating.
D On Dec 19, 11:00 am, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > The original goal of this googlegroup was to transmit information that would > be useful to professionals and informed citizens concerned with issues > relating to intentional intervention in the climate system. > > The quality of posts on this group has, in my opinion, deteriorated to the > point that it is no longer able to fulfill this primary purpose adequately. > > I think there are two basic options: > > 1. I can moderate this group more ruthlessly and reject any message that > does not actually transmit new relevant information or raise a question that > has not already been discussed at length. ( In this case, I will make many > enemies as I reject messages from well-intentioned people. ) I will not have > time to give each submitter of a rejected posting my reasons for rejecting > the posting. > > 2. I can abandon this group to people with much more time on their hands. > > So, for me, the question is down to tightening the reigns, or letting them > go. > > Comments? > > Best, > > Ken > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > [email protected]; > [email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab+1 > 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
