On Jun 17, 2009, at 12:28 AM, John Berry wrote:
The alternate list however would not kill the current Vortex, Ok
I'd go since I don't care for 99% but no one will miss me as I have
tended to lurk 99% of the time.
THIS vortex will stay the same as it is essentially free of such
content anyway and this content will get a chance to perhaps grow,
at any rate it won't be necessarily swamped by the current excess
of political and more conventional energy schemes.
And I think that though Grok was the catalyst for Bill's banning of
politics he has made it very clear that he has the current ban in
place as an attempt to reset this Vortex back to what it was
originally meant to be, a Vort that he cares for. The alternative
is not changing nothing rather the alternative is changing THIS
Vort back to something like it's old era style Vort.
If change is necessary then changing this list is the superior thing
to do because the present archives would then remain a useful tool.
However, be careful what you ask for. Limiting posting to highly
scientific content requires an anal amount of attention. The more
moderating that occurs the less posting. Many highly moderated lists
just die off. Vortex has survived *because* it is lightly
moderated. Then there is the issue of just exactly *what* is
sufficiently scientific discussion, *what* is sufficiently anomalous,
and *who* decides. Should we complain every time a computationally
handicapped post appears? If a post has no equations should the
poster be chastised or banned? If a post demonstrates a woeful lack
of knowledge of physics should the poster be slowly roasted over the
fire of criticism? Just what *is* a viable standard? To what
degree should content be valued over courtesy? Just how anal do we
have to become?
Also the fact that freenrgy died out doesn't mean that Vortex-
classic would,
furthermore Vortex-Classic would not be suggestively limited to
just free energy.
The principal limitation to the freenrg list was not the discussion
of free energy, but rather that all discussion be centered on
*experimentation,* specific experiments. That can mean a lot of work
to keep involved.
I don't see a down side, what harm is there in giving such subjects
some light, some breathing room?
I don't see the problem. All "such subjects" already have breathing
room. If you want to post on a subject then post on the subject. If
anyone has interest in contributing they will post on it. If not,
then not. Where is the suppression? What's the big deal? If you
want more moderating then you want *less* breathing room.
I feel tempted donate and it was Bill's suggestion so I don't thing
money is an argument against it either.
Money is an issue for me, but time is even more of an issue. Before
posting I wish people would ask themselves if their content has any
prospect of changing the world for the better, or at least making the
list a scientifically more interesting or productive place. A little
common courtesy and respect for each other's time would go a long way
toward keeping this list alive. What distinguishes this place from
sci.physics or sci.physics.fusion *is* primarily courtesy and
tolerance, followed by the focus on scientific anomalies and energy.
Losing that just because people are too self indulgent to constrain
their own posting would be a huge waste.
One thing I appreciate is that if anything anomalous develops the
news will likely end up here and be visible in the noise. The more
inclusive we are, the more members who find vortex worth subscribing
to, the more likely that is true.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
