Print

Print


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]
>******************************************