Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: Vince Morgan on 16 Jul 2010 05:12 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:46d238f1-d6bb-413b-9335-e91792b2d4f6(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > >Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the >stick could equivocate. > >If it is your belief that ALL ideas should have a venue to be aired, >then you have it. It is called a blog, and you can publish yourself on >the web in a completely unconstrained, unmoderated, unfiltered way. > >There is, however, a market of subscribers who DESIRE to have content >moderated before being delivered to them. The covenant between the >publisher or venue-moderator and his market, then, is that the >publisher will in fact exercise certain standards of moderation before >making the content available to his subscribers. Remember that this is >what this market DESIRES. A successful venue will be one who seems to >apply moderation at the level most appealing to his market. > >Now, what it is you seem to be ranting about is that you want access >to the market of subscribers who specifically want to exclude content >that you would offer. This you cannot have, and there is no reason to >whine about it. And there lies a bit of a dilemna. If what one can learn has to first be rigorously filtered through those who have learned via the very same process, it's a rather closed loop don't you think? Although the current system has obvious advantages, it most certainly has obvious flaws as well, and that's the real issue I think. You can talk about the positives all day, but it's the otherwise that's in question here I beleive. Do you think it's reasonable for the police to investigate police corruption? The police usualy insist it is, and surely they would know a bit about investigations etc etc etc and so on and so forth. The fox now guards the hen house I'm afraid. Who gaurds the guard while the gaurd guards you? Regards, Vince
From: harald on 16 Jul 2010 05:58 On Jul 15, 9:00 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. Huh? No I wasn't informed at all - where did you get that info form? Harald
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 10:08 On Jul 16, 4:12 am, "Vince Morgan" <vin...(a)TAKEOUToptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:46d238f1-d6bb-413b-9335-e91792b2d4f6(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > >Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the > >stick could equivocate. > > >If it is your belief that ALL ideas should have a venue to be aired, > >then you have it. It is called a blog, and you can publish yourself on > >the web in a completely unconstrained, unmoderated, unfiltered way. > > >There is, however, a market of subscribers who DESIRE to have content > >moderated before being delivered to them. The covenant between the > >publisher or venue-moderator and his market, then, is that the > >publisher will in fact exercise certain standards of moderation before > >making the content available to his subscribers. Remember that this is > >what this market DESIRES. A successful venue will be one who seems to > >apply moderation at the level most appealing to his market. > > >Now, what it is you seem to be ranting about is that you want access > >to the market of subscribers who specifically want to exclude content > >that you would offer. This you cannot have, and there is no reason to > >whine about it. > > And there lies a bit of a dilemna. > If what one can learn has to first be rigorously filtered through those who > have learned via the very same process, it's a rather closed loop don't you > think? Not really. Because what is taught to physicists in training is not so much *content* as it is *how to investigate*. This makes the key difference. > Although the current system has obvious advantages, it most certainly has > obvious flaws as well, and that's the real issue I think. > You can talk about the positives all day, but it's the otherwise that's in > question here I beleive. Do you think it's reasonable for the police to > investigate police corruption? The police usualy insist it is, and surely > they would know a bit about investigations etc etc etc and so on and so > forth. The fox now guards the hen house I'm afraid. > Who gaurds the guard while the gaurd guards you? You've missed my point. The OP feels strongly, apparently, that everyone should be made aware of things he feels are important, whether those things are important to everyone or not. He is not satisfied with having a place where he can speak his mind freely (like a blog), and where those who are *interested* can find him. He wants access to the audience that is not so interested in what he has to say. > Regards, > Vince
From: Marvin the Martian on 16 Jul 2010 11:44 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:51:19 -0700, PD wrote: > On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific >> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of >> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. >> >> > Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the > stick could equivocate. True enough, moderation is not censorship. But your logic is flawed; censorship can be imposed by "moderators". Actually, the leftist who can resist being a dictator when handed a little power is rare. Interesting that you support such abuse and shutting down of dialog. And yes, the staff of "Scientific American" abandoned science for left wing politics decades ago. It's a worthless rag now.
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 12:00
On Jul 16, 10:44 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:51:19 -0700, PD wrote: > > On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > >> I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > >> American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > >> Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > > Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the > > stick could equivocate. > > True enough, moderation is not censorship. But your logic is flawed; > censorship can be imposed by "moderators". Moderation is imposed by moderators. Whether that is perceived as censorship is in the hands of the beholder. > > Actually, the leftist who can resist being a dictator when handed a > little power is rare. That may be so, but keep in mind that a lot of societies DELIBERATELY choose someone to exercise that kind of control over certain aspects of their lives. Such is the case with subscribers to moderated forums. They are choosing them BECAUSE they are moderated. They are not choosing them because they are the only things available and they have to suffer with the fact that they are moderated. I will reiterate that there are AMPLE opportunities to publish information in a completely unmoderated fashion, and in such a way that they can be easily discovered. There is no ADDITIONAL need to break the moderation in a moderated forum, so that unmoderated information is displayed to that audience. To do so would make that forum undesirable to the audience that subscribed to it. There are unmoderated forums and moderated forums, with subscribers to each. It does absolutely no good to desire the abolition of moderated forums. > > Interesting that you support such abuse and shutting down of dialog. > > And yes, the staff of "Scientific American" abandoned science for left > wing politics decades ago. It's a worthless rag now. |