"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 <[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: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">George Salzman
To: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> [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





--
www.michaelbalter.com

******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
[log in to unmask]
******************************************