OTA@S1-A@sri-unix (08/12/82)
From: Ted Anderson <OTA at S1-A>
12-Aug-82 1431 m.andrews at UCLA-Security (Richard Andrews) Content Controversy
Date: 12 August 1982 1423-PDT (Thursday)
From: m.andrews at UCLA-Security (Richard Andrews)
Date: 12 August 1982 1423-PDT (Thursday)
From: m.andrews (Richard Andrews)
Subject: Content Controversy
To: OTA at S1-A
I'd just like to respond to a lot of the comments flying around on this
digest concerning what belongs and what does not.
I've only been on this mailing list for about a month, and in that time
there have been an awful lot of messages supposedly explaining scientific
theories and phenomena, many of them contradictory. For example, I recall
messages stating explicitly that it IS possible to tell gravitation from
acceleration, and that it IS NOT possible to tell gravitation from acceleration.
Now I've had a couple of semesters of physics, but I'm a computer
scientist with a strong interest in the topics that this digest is supposed to
be addressed to. I can't follow a lot of the physics presented here, but I
think I could learn something if it is presented clearly by someone who knows
what they're talking about. Speculation is fine if it is presented as such.
Rich Andrews
andrews@ucla-securityVAF@CMU-20C@sri-unix (08/13/82)
From: Vince Fuller <VAF at CMU-20C> Hmm. Not knowing a lot about physics, I must admit that I don't really follow some of the discussions and agree with m.anderws about how nice it would be if those who know would be so kind as to explain simply to those of us who don't. I don't mind reading the speculations, tho, and really don't think that they should be eliminated - I mean really, this list gets pretty slow when no one has any random topic to discuss and there isn't a shuttle launch pending, so why not a little speculating to make things more interesting?