lmb7421@ultb.UUCP (L.M. Barstow) (10/09/89)
Okay, since they can't police themselves, how about we decide if it's
junk for them...
Talk.religion.newage was a nice group (lots of discussion, but somewhat
informational), a group where something actually got done. Right now,
sci.skeptic is just a pain in the ***. I don't have 1000 blocks for my
KILL file, which is about the size it would be if I bothered to use it.
The material that's been coming across the group has an abysmal quality
level - talk.rumor-monger.unknown would be a better title for what's been
coming across...
I think we've given the group enough time to show its colors...rather
than create yet another group, how about just renaming the sucker to
where it belongs...a sci.* group that's 80% noise (by your own estimate)
is way out-of-line. At least in talk.* it fits the description.
Also, since we're going to have to re-vote, how about taking new age
topics out and putting them back where they seem to do better. I'll put
up with a lot of bull (I'm not one of those timid new-agers - I know how
to deal with taking a few lumps), but I'm not up for weeding through 100
articles every other day to find 2 or 3 that I like reading. New Age
topics belong in talk.religion.newage, not a conglomeration group...
Anyone else?
--
Les Barstow **All of the paths work!!!!**
LMB7421@RITVAX.BITNET lmb7421@{ultb,vaxa,vaxb,vaxc,vaxd}.isc.rit.edu
UUCP: ...rutgers!rochester!rit!ultb!lmb7421
LENSMAN@DRYCAS.BITNET lensman@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edudoug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (10/10/89)
In article <4319@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <4204@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: >>that will post the sorts of things that I proposed. Talk.sckeptic >>would have been all crap rather than the 80% figure I calculate now. > >Well let's make talk.skeptic and move the other 80% out of sci.*... Once again, don't be silly. This suffers from the same flaw as your comment about the establishment of *.flame. People very, very rarely flame in *.flame _rather_ than in the original newsgroup. If you establish talk.skeptic, it will only move about 5% of the traffic. It may simultaneously create new traffic in larger volume than we're seeing here... Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (10/11/89)
In article <4287@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I think it's time to create a talk.skeptic, for the old chestnuts, and if this >leaves sci.skeptic empty so be it. Go for it Peter! Have some Gall! Brian
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (10/11/89)
In article <4204@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: >that will post the sorts of things that I proposed. Talk.sckeptic >would have been all crap rather than the 80% figure I calculate now. One man's Crap is another man's goldmine. Talk."sckeptic" is full of "gold". Brian
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (10/11/89)
In article <4208@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: >Oh well, another good idea shot to hell... > >The point is that we cannot trust everyone to police themselves >according to our tastes. Leave everything as it is. KILL files work >quite well I hear. RMGROUPS work even better. Brian
kayvan@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) (10/11/89)
>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Merritt <doug@xdos.UUCP> writes: [about talk.skeptic]
Doug> Once again, don't be silly. This suffers from the same flaw as your
Doug> comment about the establishment of *.flame. People very, very rarely
Doug> flame in *.flame _rather_ than in the original newsgroup. If you
Doug> establish talk.skeptic, it will only move about 5% of the traffic.
Doug> It may simultaneously create new traffic in larger volume than we're
Doug> seeing here...
The obvious solution, then is to rmgroup sci.skeptic and re-establish
it as talk.skeptic. If you have followed any of the discussions on
talk.skeptic (errr... I mean, sci.skeptic) like I have, it would be
obvious why such a renaming is so incredibly appropriate.
It would not even be such a great loss to have a reduced distribution
because of the change of heirarchies.
The latest subjects of discussion on "sci.skeptic":
Re: Does the Earth really go around the Sun?
Re: Science
Re: Science vs. religion
Re: BM UFO Case
UFO's in general (was BM UFO Case, Rebuttal^2
Re: Billy Meier / Shroud of Turin
Chiropracty Marches Forward
Hundredth Monkey
Re: "Creation-Science"
Natural Vs. Supernatural (Was Sci. Vs. Religion)
Re: TASS says aliens have arrived.
NSA docs, Deuley, and Klass
Re: sci.skeptic? talk.skeptic!
Re: Mysterious crop-field rings.
The level of science in these postings is almost entirely non-existent.
More precisely, the level of science in these postings is no more than
that found in an ordinary conversation with the average American.
Therefore, the group should be renamed talk.skeptic.
QED.
---Kayvan
--
Kayvan Sylvan @ Transact Software, Inc. -*- Los Altos, CA (415) 961-6112
Internet: kayvan@Transact.COM -*- UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,mips}!mrspoc!kayvan
= Interested in story telling group? Mail yarn-spinners-request@transact.com =wsdwgk@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (g.v.rooij) (10/11/89)
In article <19920@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) writes: ->In article <4204@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: ->>that will post the sorts of things that I proposed. Talk.sckeptic ->>would have been all crap rather than the 80% figure I calculate now. -> ->One man's Crap is another man's goldmine. Talk."sckeptic" is full of "gold". -> ->Brian - I agree. I like to read it, so hands off please... Guido
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/12/89)
Since removing a group is currently impossible... how about we conspire to
convince Norman Gall, the brains behind sci.skeptic, to moderate the damned
thing. I myself posted the only appropriate article in there for the last
two weeks, and I got a better response from TIME magazine than from the
supposedly hotshot paranormal debunkers.
Alternatively, let's get CSICOP a feed and talk *them* into moderating it.
--
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
'U`
Quote: Structured Programming is a discipline -- not a straitjacket.gwh@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/14/89)
In article <6516@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Since removing a group is currently impossible... how about we conspire to >convince Norman Gall, the brains behind sci.skeptic, to moderate the damned >thing. I myself posted the only appropriate article in there for the last >two weeks, and I got a better response from TIME magazine than from the >supposedly hotshot paranormal debunkers. > >Alternatively, let's get CSICOP a feed and talk *them* into moderating it. I like the moderate it idea. It is getting _both_ junk and good stuff, and I would personally (in order of preference): 1. Moderate It, getting rid of the pointless junk 2. Leave it as is. I prefer to sift through than not get the stuff i DO read. My two cents. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------