Re: [asa] List rules?

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Dec 21 2009 - 11:31:59 EST

I second Allan's excellent observations.

There seem to be zealots at both extremes. They are properly ignored.

On 12/17/09, Allan Harvey <steamdoc@q.com> wrote:
> 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 ; asa@calvin.edu
> 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.
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 21 11:32:29 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 21 2009 - 11:32:29 EST