p.s. also, doesn't "science" interact with just about everything else on the
planet? can't we look at the interdisciplinary nature of science and be a
bit broad-minded as to topics brought up here?  just wondering...

garda


On 7/2/07, Garda Ghista <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> dear members,
>
> the rules list is a bit intimidating. as i mentioned before, on my lists
> we try to do it as a participatory or collective democracy thing - we
> moderate each other right on the list.  anyway.....   may i ask a couple of
> questions, and please bear with me if they are weird - but i need to get
> some grounding of the collective mindset of this list.
>
> 1. would it be correct to say that all of you oppose American Empire?  and
> US foreign imperialist wars?
>
> 2. would it be correct to say that all of you oppose capitalism as a
> demonstrated failed economic model?
>
> 3. what is the solution or alternative to Empire?
>
> 4. what economic model would you prefer implemented - if supposing
> capitalism collapses?
>
> thanks for bearing with me, and hope to get some response,
>
> garda
>
>
>
> On 7/2/07, Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > emergencies.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > 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 <
> > [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.
> >
> >
> > Optional:
> >
> >
> > 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
> > occur.
> >
> >
> > 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. )
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> World Prout Assembly
> http://www.worldproutassembly.org
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: 859 781-4979
> Skype: garda.ghista




-- 
World Prout Assembly
http://www.worldproutassembly.org
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 859 781-4979
Skype: garda.ghista