July 2007


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

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

Print Reply
Eric Entemann <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:56:49 -0400
text/plain (109 lines)
You have my vote.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List              
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Should I replace George as co-owner?
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:39:45 -0700

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 

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.


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 <SCIENCE-FOR-THE- 
>[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.
>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 
>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. )

Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!