🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1iva8aINNhef@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler ) writes:
>dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman) writes:
>
>>I know you are not proposing to "touch" SCI.PHYSICS but rather to introduce
>>SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH.  But in the body of the first posting, the statement
>>was made that SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH absolutely has the possibility of becomming
>>as "wild" or rather "speculative" as this forum (SCI.PHYSICS) is today.  
>
>>In the attempt to keep SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH "clean," you will at some point have
>>to filter a posting or two from that forum.  It is this process that I think is
>>doomed to failure before you start.  It just doesn't make sense to stem the free
>>flow of information, no matter how "non-serious" you happen to believe it is.
>
>   Why not?  It's done all the time.  Scientific journals have very stringent
>rules on what material they'll accept, for example.  Sci.physics.research will
>be an intermediate medium between the complete freedom (and anarchy) of 
>sci.physics, and the very restricted state of a scientific journal.  That seems
>to be just what we need to complement sci.physics. 
>   Free flow of information (and garbage) is wonderful, and I for one will 
>continue reading sci.physics as long as I can afford the time, but there's no
>reason why one can't have places for more controlled flow of information as
>long as there are places where free flow is not stifled.
>

Yes, journals do it all the time, your point is well taken and understood.  But
I still am left unsettled when the community is divided along the lines of who
is "serious" and who is not.  If you really want to control the flow of info.,
wouldn't you just publish your own trade rag?  

Again, I understand what you are saying (and truthfully I am beginning to be
swayed---*in theory only*).  But I am still uneasy with this whole subject.  
The whole "seperate but equal" idea or rather segregation based on one's
technical ability to write articulate ideas smacks of elitism (I do not like
those "---ism" labels, but could not think of a better term at the moment).

As dumb as we are sometimes, we still deserve and retain the right to be heard.
And not just by others like us, but by those who would catagorize us dumb as 
well.  True, the trade rags do it all the time.  But that does not make it 
right.  The net is one of the last places to ask questions and get direct 
answers.  When (if) we reduce the field of readers, and divide our most precious
and collective resourse (our minds) we diminish our ability to continue the
dynamic education process.  That in deed would be a shame.

dks.

ps.  Teachers learn; Learners teach;  The relationship is symbiotic.