Re: [asa] List rules?

From: Allan Harvey <>
Date: Thu Dec 17 2009 - 22:02:40 EST

Just to clarify, after which I won't have any more to say on this meta-discussion.

Note that I did not say all of the things John forwards are silly. In some cases they have had legitimate issues worthy of consideration. I'm mainly asking for discretion -- rather than forward every anti-AGW thing that comes along, at least filtering out the things that truly are silly by any reasonable measure, like the "31,000 scientists" petition from the phony institute in Oregon, or the rants by people who don't even appreciate the difference between weather and climate, or items that contain no science but only political attacks against Gore or conspiratorial scientists or whoever.
And I would have the same negative opinion if somebody forwarded something that did not engage the science and/or public policy and/or stewardship issues but was merely a propaganda rant against the "denial" side.

Allan (ASA member)

From: John Walley
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:18 AM
To: Allan Harvey ;
Subject: Re: [asa] List rules?

12/17/09 Post #1

"with some of the posts having value, others being simple forwarding of often silly anti-AGW propaganda"

I contend this is subjective. What some consider to be propaganda, others consider to be hard science and truth. This comment affirms Ted's observation about entrenched positions.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 17 22:03:13 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 17 2009 - 22:03:13 EST