Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jp
From: jp@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: this newsgroup
Message-ID: <28492@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 11:15:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.28492
Posted: Fri Jul 19 11:15:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 15:07:52 EDT
References: <1801@pur-phy.UUCP> <640@hou2e.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 54

> >      I read this newsgroup when I can't get a big enough laugh from net.jokes
> > or net.flame, because of the total absurdity of the majority of the articles
> > posted.  It appears as if most of the posters are lost in a Niven-like fantasy 
> > universe where one may invent physical "facts" when knowledge falls short. 
> > 
> > 
> >      I propose two solutions to this problem :
> > 
> >   1) Abolish net.physics and create two new groups. Net.physics.true and
> >      net.physics.make-believe where articles would be posted to the approp-
> >      riate group.
> > 
> >   2) Before you submit an article, READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT IN A PHYSICS BOOK.
> >      This will serve a two-fold purpose. It will reduce the idiocy in this
> >      group and the poster will run a far smaller chance of making a fool out
> >      of his/her self.   
> 
>  	I wholeheartedly agree with solution number 2. I personally enjoy
> very much chatting about PHYSICS with people that know physics and I am
> quite bothered by those who litter this newsgroup with questions that are
> answered in chapter 1 of any textbook on the subject. However, I am bothered
> even more by those who answer such questions with meaningless jibberish
> that indicates that they know even less about the subject than the person
> asking the question.  Thus, I propose the following addendum to solution 2 :
> 
>     2b) Before you submit a follow-up to an article ask yourself: " Is it
>         likely that among all the people reading this article I am the
>         one that knows the most about this subject ?"  If the answer is not
>         an emphatic YES, keep in mind that your posting will appear alongside
>         the follow-up postings of people that know more than you, and you
>         are rather likely to make a fool of yourself.
> 
> 	If rules 2 and 2b were followed, the volume of stuff in net.physics
> would probably be reduced by a factor ten, but the amount of real substance
> will certainly increase dramatically.
> 
> 		Giovanni Vannucci
> 		AT&T Bell Laboratories      HOH R-207
> 		Holmdel, NJ 07733
> 		hou2e!gv


All of this has a certain flavor of elitism that is all too prevalent in the
physics community.  I once knew a PhD physicist (Post-doc) that thought that
maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote unless you had a PhD in physics.  The
technicians went right to work trying to set him straight.  I don't think
that they completely succeeded, however.

Perhaps a rational (and polite) way out of the dilemma would be to establish
a net.physics.expert similar to the astronomy group.   Then those who can't
(won't) lower themselves to converse with the unwashed heathens won't be
obliged to read their contributions/questions.

Jim Potter  jp@lanl.arpa