Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!oliveb!amdahl!pacbell!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: sci.psycoloquy.moderated
Message-ID: <9781@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 21 Jan 90 20:07:42 GMT
References: <9001191751.AA12839-mod@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 29

Apart from being hard to type, "psycoloquy" is one of the ugliest
examples of wordplay I've ever seen.  "Psychology" is perfectly
adequate, and more consistent with the straightforward naming of the
existing sci groups.

The group is probably a good idea; we've frequently discussed in
sci.psychology and here the unfortunate fact that people who know
nothing about psychology, or who support bogus mental disciplines
claiming to be psychology, have been frequent contributors to
sci.psychology and have seemingly driven out most of the academics.
Moderation would be one answer; previous proposals along these lines
failed only because no one volunteered to be moderator.

I would like to see a co-moderation approach, with articles mailed to a
central drop, then routed randomly to one of a group of moderators.
Rejected articles should be archived, and all rejections should be
explained.  In short, the approach of soc.feminism should be used.  The
proposed moderator does seem to be rather limited in his understanding
of non-staid writing styles, so there should be some alternatives who
are less stuffy.  Genuine does not have to mean boring.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

FROM THE FOOL FILE:
"American women, especially some of those on the net, might profit by being
 less concerned with their careers and more concerned with getting a good,
 old fashioned roll in the hay."
	-- William J. Fallon, wjf@cbnews.att.com, on soc.women
	  (also uses the alias Walter J. Ficklestein)