Print

Print


Go to list.uvm.edu, click on Search Archives, scroll down to 
SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE

----Original Message Follows----
From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List              
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:05:27 -0500

How does one access the SftP listserve archives?

Thanx.

Mitchel



At 12:36 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote:
>"that all comments regarding this particular discussion (the so-called 
>"anti-science left") be restricted to valid critiques of the articles 
>(scientific analysis) rather than broad-based attacks on the authors or 
>their supporters."
>
>For the reasons I outlined in my post yesterday, I think that this 
>particular restriction would basically take the politics out of political 
>discussions of science. In the example of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it 
>would require posters to disprove the theory point by point and could 
>disallow comment on the politics and psychology behind these theories; same 
>with HIV denialism. Politics is about polemics and analysis, and sometimes 
>broader interpretations--some would call them attacks--are necessary.
>
>Michael
>
>On 2/19/07, Jonathan Campbell <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>George,
>
>       I didn't pay enough attention to that aspect of Jose's proposal; I 
>interpreted it as the people who comment would be doing so with the intent 
>of critique of the article rather than the person who wrote it. That is, 
>comments like "xxx is a known quack" would be disallowed as part of the 
>discussion because it does not relate to the article at hand. But now that 
>I look at the wording more carefully I agree with you, and I would propose, 
>in substitution, that all comments regarding this particular discussion 
>(the so-called "anti-science left") be restricted to valid critiques of the 
>articles (scientific analysis) rather than broad-based attacks on the 
>authors or their supporters.
>
>Kind Regards
>Jonathan
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>George Salzman
>To: 
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:01 PM
>Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus
>
>Hi Josť,
>       I realize you proposed some rules in an attempt to resolve 
>disagreements. A priori not a bad idea, if the rules are not rigid. One of 
>the things you wrote is: " I say that we agree up front that the people who 
>choose to participate speak for the whole list.  Anyone who disagrees, say 
>so up front.  No second guessers."
>       To me that's unacceptable. Only I can speak for myself. And whether 
>or not others on the listserv answer you is irrelevant, because no mature 
>person can willingly surrender the right to speak for him/herself.
>Sincerely,
>George
>
>
>
>
>
>--
><http://www.michaelbalter.com>www.michaelbalter.com
>
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>******************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. 
Intro*Terms  http://www.NexTag.com