[talk.religion.newage] *** CALL FOR DISCUSSION *** Creation of group sci.fringe.news

gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) (07/11/89)

It seems that my idea for sci.skeptic has somewhat backfired on me.
Even though I have a 70:30 yes:no ratio in the on-going vote, I feel
that the dissent is much too strong to let it go through with no
concensus.

This then is a counter proposal:

a) creation of talk.skeptic with just about the same charter as was
   proposed for sci.skeptic.

b) creation of a group called sci.fringe.news with a charter not unlike this:

"A moderated newsgroup that will report on the public goings on in the
fields of Parapsychology, UFOlogy, Perpetual Motion Machinery,
Cryptozoology, Flat Earth Societies, Spontaneous Human Combustion,
Dowsing, Hollow Earth theorists, Alien abduction, etc.  The group will
report with little if any embellishment (that being reserved for the
hallowed halls of talk.skeptic).  The kinds of articles that WILL be
posted are: 

  i) book reviews 
 ii) reports on conventions that you attended 
iii) paraphrased news articles 
 iv) news releases  
  v) any other somewhat objective piece of reporting

The kinds of articles that WON'T be posted:

  i) ideological diatribes (i.e. expressions of personal belief)
 ii) attacks on a belief system (i.e. 'New Ageism is shit...')
iii) personal experience reports (i.e. ' I had an OBE last night')

Moderation will come in the form of editing out:

a) articles of the above type
b) articles thapronouncemens of the above type
c) advertisements for things other than in the process of informing
   the newsgroup that such a thing exists. (general regs for advertising
   in USENet)

Articles will not be selected on the basis of ideology, but according
to the above rules.  Exclamations of Scientism will editied as readily
as those of New Ageism, for lack of a better term.

Norman R. Galll (gall@nexus.yorku.ca) will be the moderator.

Co-moderators are not needed as every news report according to the
above criteria goes in.... period.




There.... will that please everyone?  ....anyone....

nrg
-- 
York University          |"_Wanting_ to think is one thing;
Department of Philosophy |      having a talent for thinking another"
Toronto, Ontario, Canada |                          - L. Wittgenstein (CV 44)
_____________________________________________________________________________

charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (07/11/89)

In article <2626@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes:

> It seems that my idea for sci.skeptic has somewhat backfired on me.
> Even though I have a 70:30 yes:no ratio in the on-going vote, I feel
> that the dissent is much too strong to let it go through with no
> concensus.
>
> This then is a counter proposal:
>
> a) creation of talk.skeptic with just about the same charter as was
>    proposed for sci.skeptic.
>
> b) creation of a group called sci.fringe.news with a charter ...

No. No. No.

First see how the vote on sci.skeptic comes out (I voted yes, BTW).

Then, if it succeeds, let's just have sci.skeptic.  One group is
enough, and it really doesn't matter if some people are "opposed" to
the group, whatever that may mean.  If they just don't subscribe,
there won't be any problem.

If the vote fails, perhaps it's time to rethink whether any group is
needed.  Depends on how the vote comes out.

If this call is a forgery, I apologize in advance.

> There ... will that please everyone?  ... anyone ...

Not me.

dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (07/11/89)

In article <2626@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes:
>It seems that my idea for sci.skeptic has somewhat backfired on me.
>Even though I have a 70:30 yes:no ratio in the on-going vote, I feel
>that the dissent is much too strong to let it go through with no
>concensus.

The proposal was not bad, but there were a few minor problems with it.

The wording of the proposal wasn't clear enough.  The newsgroup
sci.skeptic should not be about the topics that were listed.  It should
be about *methods* of examining these topics.  I suspect it was meant
to be that, but this was not clearly stated.

The proposal made it difficult for people to cast votes by requiring
them to type (or carefully edit in) a brand-new reply address for a yes
or no vote.  You can almost bet there were many unnecessarily-bounced
votes.  There should have been a reply-to address ready for minor
editing.

Finally, this big cross-posting.  The referenced article was posted to
about eight different newsgroups but follow-ups were not directed
anywhere.

So what can we do about this?

I think sci.skeptic is needed.  Not just Usenet, but the whole world,
needs a more scientific examination of various paranormal claims.

It may be wise to cancel the current vote, allow some breathing time,
and propose the newsgroup again.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
UUCP:    ...!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi