SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

July 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Richard Levins <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:50:28 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (170 lines)
You have my endorsement. Good luck!

>>> Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]> 7/3/2007 10:06 AM >>>
Garda:

You have asked questions that seem to require long thoughtful answers or
brief ones.  I am going for brief ones.  Hope this helps.

Larry Romsted

On 7/2/07 5:33 PM, "Garda Ghista" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> dear members,
>  
> the rules list is a bit intimidating. as i mentioned before, on my lists we
> try to do it as a participatory or collective democracy thing - we moderate
> each other right on the list.  anyway.....   may i ask a couple of questions,
> and please bear with me if they are weird - but i need to get some grounding
> of the collective mindset of this list.
>  
> 1. would it be correct to say that all of you oppose American Empire?  and US
> foreign imperialist wars?
> 
> Yes, speaking for myself
>  
> 2. would it be correct to say that all of you oppose capitalism as a
> demonstrated failed economic model?
> 
> Yes.
>  
> 3. what is the solution or alternative to Empire?
> 
> Revolution, but it may be difficult to do it within the empire without
> powerful resistance from other countries.
>  
> 4. what economic model would you prefer implemented - if supposing capitalism
> collapses?
> 
> Some kind of democratic socialism.
>  
> thanks for bearing with me, and hope to get some response,
>  
> garda
> 
> 
>  
> On 7/2/07, Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dear SftP list members,
>> 
>>  
>> If you approve, I am willing to take on the task of list "co-owner."
>> 
>>  
>> George Salzman, who did so much to found this list and increase its
>> membership has asked twice now to be relieved of the burden as "co-owner,"
>> which means, in essence moderator. I am grateful he has reinstated Michael
>> Balter, though I was critical of the way he removed him in the first place.
>> 
>>  
>> A while ago, in response to George's first request, I offered to be
>> moderator, but most who responded did not want a moderator. In the light of
>> that, and subsequent events, I want to make clear that I would try to avoid
>> censorship of any sort, unless a clear consensus forms that someone is doing
>> great damage to the list. The only exception would be clear emergencies.
>> 
>>  
>> I am forwarding my original moderation guidelines unchanged, but want to make
>> clear these would only be guidelines, not rules. If I note violations, I
>> would suggest to the violator(s)  that maybe they could modify their posting
>> habits accordingly. I would be open to further suggestions as to how to
>> improve these guidelines, of course.
>> 
>>  
>> Herb Fox is willing to be a more passive (yet) co-owner, ready to jump in if
>> I flag overmuch.
>> 
>>  
>> Anyone else who wishes to be a candidate should let us all know.
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Michael H Goldhaber < [log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: June 5, 2007 11:56:45 AM PDT
>>> To: [log in to unmask] 
>>> Subject: Moderation
>>> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <
>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I am willing to be one of several people taking turns moderating, but I
>>> would rather start my turn in about three  weeks.
>>> Here are the ground rules I would propose to  use:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 1. A maximum of four posts per person per day, of which no more than two can
>>> be on the same topic or thread. (This will allow for the Phil's posts of
>>> articles.)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 2. Respect for other's viewpoints in replies. If one can find no basis for
>>> respect, either one is very far out on a limb or enough others will feel the
>>> same that no reply is required.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 3. Germaneness to the list. Does this post have to do with science? Does it
>>> have a connection with a left perspective, loosely defined?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 4. Originality. Does the post say something that has not been said within
>>> the last couple of months, at the very least?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 5. Some respect for the intelligence and knowledge of the average group
>>> member in each post.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 6. No blanket condemnations or personal attacks.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 7. No posts whose point is to argue that one's particular version of leftism
>>> is better than someone else's.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 8. An urge that everyone exercise self-restraint. Despite the limits of four
>>> post per day, most people should post far fewer, probably no more than one
>>> every few days.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Optional:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 9. Moderators should encourage the practice that each post should try to
>>> offer a constructive alternative to what is being criticized, for example a
>>> sounder policy about vaccinations or how drug innovation should properly
>>> occur. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 10. Moderators should encourage the practice of humility in the form of
>>> posts. It is an open question as to what would truly constitute "science for
>>> the people" or even how to bring about a better, fairer world. We have more
>>> questions than answers, and that is appropriate to acknowledge.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> If no one else is willing to co-moderate, I would urge everyone to try to
>>> follow these suggestions (perhaps a smodified by others) for the time being
>>> anyway. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> (In the meantime, for those who find the last few days entertaining, I
>>> suggest somene start a new list:Vituperation for the People. Each post would
>>> at least have to explain why the poster deserves to be on that list but
>>> someone else does not. )
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
>>  
> 
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2