[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Subscription to the meteorite list




P. Craig wrote:

I've gotta agree with
|Phil. As we've seen through this debate, continued discussion threads on
this
|don't seem to be a deterrant, and some members are interested in what
others
|term "woo-woo B.S.".  So ... if you're not into it, just ignore it.

In order to make this a productive thread, if anyone wishes to continue (I
have said enough of what I thought), it will be necessary to define the 'it'
to which you refer - the NASA bashing, pseudo-science, anything goes, etc.
In agreeing with Phil, you essentially are removing any restrictions on
subject matter.  While I think Art Jones would be the first to agree that
the list is very good at self-regulation, I do not believe his intent is to
have this a totally open forum for discussion of anything.  To that end,
there must be limits.  We have self-regulated ourselves on the subject
currently being reintroduced by J. Warren.

I wanted to make the distinction between NASA bashing and pseudo-science as
subjects for discussion.  It seems to me that the current trend for NASA
bashing is a result of the movie industry.  NASA may want a forum (not sure
this is the correct one) in which to respond to all of these suspicions and
claims)   The discussion of pseudo-science on the other hand will only
destroy the quality of what makes this list special.  That, of course, is
only my opinion.

I merely support the idea of boundaries,  to be reevaluated on occasion, as
opposed to Phil's 'no line to be drawn' approach.

Best backatcha,  Wake me when it's over.  I'm outta here.

Julia



----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html

For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------
Follow-Ups: