Well I was going to say that though it was a good idea to discourage
crossposting, when the physics' groups were first created, I don't think
it is relevant anymore due to the different situation now. But I thought
I better check the FAQ to see if crossposting is still discouraged
before I spew forth. And it isn't, which is a good thing. The physics'
groups FAQ has changed with the times. :-) (You can't really separate
Relativity and Particle from Physics.)

But anyway I have a few other minor comments:

----- I suppose that any rational person will know which groups to
follow up to when responding to a big thread.

----- Alt.sci.physics? I think it is time to ditch this group from all
correspondence. Sometimes you don't need a shadow. Besides, I think Bill
Rowe and Tadchem should be posting in sci.physics. ;-)

----- Make more use of the expression: "...the poster...". It sort of
throws the words up in the air so other people can see them and then
comment, if they so desire. ;-)
--
The Poster
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

Nine Stones wrote in message ...
Well I was going to say that though it was a good idea to discourage
crossposting, when the physics' groups were first created, I don't think
it is relevant anymore due to the different situation now. But I thought
I better check the FAQ to see if crossposting is still discouraged
before I spew forth. And it isn't, which is a good thing. The physics'
groups FAQ has changed with the times. :-) (You can't really separate
Relativity and Particle from Physics.)

But anyway I have a few other minor comments:

----- I suppose that any rational person will know which groups to
follow up to when responding to a big thread.

----- Alt.sci.physics? I think it is time to ditch this group from all
correspondence. Sometimes you don't need a shadow. Besides, I think Bill
Rowe and Tadchem should be posting in sci.physics. ;-)

----- Make more use of the expression: "...the poster...". It sort of
throws the words up in the air so other people can see them and then
comment, if they so desire. ;-)


I think it would be better if people limited their cross posting only
to the groups that should logically be included, especially when
starting a new thread. It's easy to respond to a message without
noticing all the groups on the posting list, and then start getting a
lot of non-physics responses from such groups as alt.astrology,
alt.atheism, alt.philosophy, alt.mensa, and the like. If one realized
he was posting to some of these groups, he might have worded his posts
a little differently.

Within the physics groups, I think the idea of establishing some of
them was to lesson the traffic in sci.physics. When you cross post,
you defeat that purpose.

Double-A

In message , Double-A
writes
Nine Stones wrote in message news:O7UYdKM
...
Well I was going to say that though it was a good idea to discourage
crossposting, when the physics' groups were first created, I don't think
it is relevant anymore due to the different situation now. But I thought
I better check the FAQ to see if crossposting is still discouraged
before I spew forth. And it isn't, which is a good thing. The physics'
groups FAQ has changed with the times. :-) (You can't really separate
Relativity and Particle from Physics.)

But anyway I have a few other minor comments:

----- I suppose that any rational person will know which groups to
follow up to when responding to a big thread.

----- Alt.sci.physics? I think it is time to ditch this group from all
correspondence. Sometimes you don't need a shadow. Besides, I think Bill
Rowe and Tadchem should be posting in sci.physics. ;-)

----- Make more use of the expression: "...the poster...". It sort of
throws the words up in the air so other people can see them and then
comment, if they so desire. ;-)


I think it would be better if people limited their cross posting only
to the groups that should logically be included, especially when
starting a new thread.

Yes of course..... that's what a rational person would do. But the
correlation between irrational person and massively crossposted, new
thread is 100%. Any crosspost which is sent out to widely disparate
groups is guaranteed to be just another misinterpretation of some thing.
Google has the evidence.

It's easy to respond to a message without
noticing all the groups on the posting list, and then start getting a
lot of non-physics responses from such groups as alt.astrology,
alt.atheism, alt.philosophy, alt.mensa, and the like.

For me, I always look to see which groups I may be posting to. I might
punish them with the Truth or I might withhold the truth from them, and
this is not dependent on my mood.

If one realized
he was posting to some of these groups, he might have worded his posts
a little differently.

Well that's down to whether the person is rational or not.... or maybe
feeling a bit mischievous.

Within the physics groups, I think the idea of establishing some of
them was to lesson the traffic in sci.physics. When you cross post,
you defeat that purpose.

Yes that's the crux of the issue. A certain departmentalising was
required. But rational people can easily cope with crossposting between
the departments. Of course this thread only applies to rational people -
irrational people will carry on as they see fit no matter what the f***
anyone else says.
--
Quiet sobbing
"Aah the old days in the aspn-t." :-)
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

In article ,
(Patrick Reany) wrote:
(Double-A) wrote in message
. com...
Nine Stones wrote in message
...
Well I was going to say that though it was a good idea to discourage
crossposting, when the physics' groups were first created, I don't
think
it is relevant anymore due to the different situation now. But I
thought
I better check the FAQ to see if crossposting is still discouraged
before I spew forth. And it isn't, which is a good thing. The physics'
groups FAQ has changed with the times. :-) (You can't really separate
Relativity and Particle from Physics.)

But anyway I have a few other minor comments:

----- I suppose that any rational person will know which groups to
follow up to when responding to a big thread.

----- Alt.sci.physics? I think it is time to ditch this group from all
correspondence. Sometimes you don't need a shadow. Besides, I think
Bill
Rowe and Tadchem should be posting in sci.physics. ;-)

----- Make more use of the expression: "...the poster...". It sort of
throws the words up in the air so other people can see them and then
comment, if they so desire. ;-)


I think it would be better if people limited their cross posting only
to the groups that should logically be included, especially when
starting a new thread. It's easy to respond to a message without
noticing all the groups on the posting list, and then start getting a
lot of non-physics responses from such groups as alt.astrology,
alt.atheism, alt.philosophy, alt.mensa, and the like. If one realized
he was posting to some of these groups, he might have worded his posts
a little differently.

Read the following excerpt from a lecture Einstein gave and tell me if
you think it is sci.physics.relativity-worthy post material or
alt.philosophy-worthy post material:

Within five weeks the special theory of relativity
was completed. I did not doubt that the new
theory was reasonable from a philosophical
point of view. I also found that the new theory
was in agreement with Mach's argument.
--- Found in: How I created the theory of
relativity, translation of a lecture Einstein
gave in Japan in 1922, translated by
Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, Aug.
1982, p45.

The issue isn't whether it's "philosophical" or not; the question is,
if it is "philosophical," if it directly bears on the doing or
interpreting of physics or not.

Now note that a class in the philosophy department at my college,
spent a semester on truth tables. Then you might
get an idea about which philosophy Einstein might have been
talking about. Hint: it has nothing to do with religious
truth, justice or contemplations of navels (I forgot the word
for that). There used to be more to philosophy than a
sociological interpretaion of the state of mind of the why.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

(Double-A) wrote in message . com...
Nine Stones wrote in message ...
Well I was going to say that though it was a good idea to discourage
crossposting, when the physics' groups were first created, I don't think
it is relevant anymore due to the different situation now. But I thought
I better check the FAQ to see if crossposting is still discouraged
before I spew forth. And it isn't, which is a good thing. The physics'
groups FAQ has changed with the times. :-) (You can't really separate
Relativity and Particle from Physics.)

But anyway I have a few other minor comments:

----- I suppose that any rational person will know which groups to
follow up to when responding to a big thread.

----- Alt.sci.physics? I think it is time to ditch this group from all
correspondence. Sometimes you don't need a shadow. Besides, I think Bill
Rowe and Tadchem should be posting in sci.physics. ;-)

----- Make more use of the expression: "...the poster...". It sort of
throws the words up in the air so other people can see them and then
comment, if they so desire. ;-)


I think it would be better if people limited their cross posting only
to the groups that should logically be included, especially when
starting a new thread. It's easy to respond to a message without
noticing all the groups on the posting list, and then start getting a
lot of non-physics responses from such groups as alt.astrology,
alt.atheism, alt.philosophy, alt.mensa, and the like. If one realized
he was posting to some of these groups, he might have worded his posts
a little differently.

Read the following excerpt from a lecture Einstein gave and tell me if
you think it is sci.physics.relativity-worthy post material or
alt.philosophy-worthy post material:

Within five weeks the special theory of relativity
was completed. I did not doubt that the new
theory was reasonable from a philosophical
point of view. I also found that the new theory
was in agreement with Mach's argument.
--- Found in: How I created the theory of
relativity, translation of a lecture Einstein
gave in Japan in 1922, translated by
Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, Aug.
1982, p45.

The issue isn't whether it's "philosophical" or not; the question is,
if it is "philosophical," if it directly bears on the doing or
interpreting of physics or not.

Patrick