Ironically, George Salzman's posting reminding us about the departure of a
couple valued members of the listserve inspired a couple interesting
Discussion of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and how that is misused to
promote hogwash seems analagous to an earlier discussion regarding the
manner in which Steve Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution was
misused to promote creationism. I found both discussions valuable, and
would like to see them continue.
I find the reposters generally to be highly annoying, and have blocked the
worst of them. Some remain in the category of "occasionally interesting",
but I dispatch most of them after reading the subject line.
The postings I read without hesitation are mostly those from folks from the
old days of Science for the People, even those I had strong disagreements
with "back in the day." They at least continue to make attempts to adhere
to the original spirit of the list when started by George Salzman and Steve
Cavrak, who are two of those "folks from the old days", as am I.
There are the occasional spirited discussions of relevant issues that make
the list, with all its flaws, worthwhile. However, the time may be right to
reopen the discussion of whether the list should be moderated, and, if so,
how. Perhaps a transition to a moderated list could slow the departure of,
or attract back, folks such as Stuart Newman and Judy Norsegian, both of
whose postings I invariably read. (I also had not seen the posting
regarding the "feminist stranglehold", possibly due to blocking, and perhaps
for that reason did not respond to Newman's posting on that subject.)
Eric Entemann, Boston
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!