On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Horace Heffner <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 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. > I don't see why any special moderation would be required, vortex would have the emails it currently enjoys and the new group would be unlikely IMO to attract too many of these. Personally I would think that the list could/should also have posts that dissect and correlate experiments or suggest experiments (or could suggest experiments). Plus anything of a "weird sci" nature. > 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. > I think it is clear Bill isn't a fan of a high level of moderation, I personally see the experimental list about experimentation working, i see no reason that off topic posts would flourish as there is vortex and vortex-B for that. > Should we complain every time a computationally handicapped post appears? > If a post has no equations should the poster be chastised or banned? > Equations are not the only way to talk about experiments, I should know as I am computationally handicapped myself. > If a post demonstrates a woeful lack of knowledge of physics should the > poster be slowly roasted over the fire of criticism? > Does that not occur anyway? Just what *is* a viable standard? To what degree should content be valued > over courtesy? Just how anal do we have to become? > You are the only one being anal about it so far... > > 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. > For me I didn't join or stay joined because my interest in free energy is less than my interest in antigravity or the aether. > > > > > 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. > No, if there are lots and lots of posts about, well just look, most of it really is not in all honesty about progressing the state of science in any real way. There are discussions about alien life on mars, useful? no. There are discussions about the politics of CF, useful? not in any way I can imagine. There are discussions about the latest better battery or high altitude wind farm, any vort looking to start one? There are discussions of algae and biofuels. Debates about global warming. Most of it really honestly is just making conversation, talking about energy news is not really honestly useful. IMO the "classic" list could be about anything that actually IS useful, anything that relates to experiments, hence ideas/theories would be welcome as long as they relate. (IMO anyway) Anything that leads to progress of a weird-sci nature should be acceptable. And only when something reaches a proportion of swamping the useful content making it hard to find (hurting the signal to noise ratio) as is the case currently with vort should there be any cause for moderation IMO. As you already said you don't read many posts in Vortex, you get swamped. That is how the off topic stuff kills whatever may be genuine, not soley due to lack of interest. (that and even if they see it it is still possible to be distracted by the latest discussion of something essentially pointless) > > 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 > YES! That is my point, do you think that 1% of posts on vort have this thought in place? No. Now sure Bill is considering killing Vort as it is and in essence getting people to do something similar to that but be sure it will be a Vort without most of the current on goings and that would be a shame, no not for me but those who have contributed and like to hang out and chat with their friends about stuff generally related to science and technology. He is proposing a kinder alternative to that. Truth be told I doubt Bill would go that far even though he wants the old vort back I doubt he'd have the will to force every current not-so-useful thread away, I was hoping that a "no politics" would do it and a ban of Jed but that seems unlikely because now the topic of conversation is how no one can talk about politics. And algae farms... (Is any vort honestly planing to open one?) As a random but regular example. > , 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. > That seems unlikely. The current inertia of vort being the way vort has been for a very long time will make that unrealistic IMO. Indeed I have been here a decade I think and missed the "Golden" era. > 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. > I do think that people should do that and I think that is a great rule, not to the point of making people afraid to speak but as a general guideline. > > > 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/<http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/> > > > > > >
