sci.space.science moderation has re-started

This post is to let you know that sci.space.science is now being moderated
again.

George Herbert has graciously passed the reins on to the new moderators so
that perhaps these newsgroups can have some life again.

The moderators are the same as sci.space.tech:

Greg Moore (mooregr (at) greenms.com)
Derek Lyons (fairwater (at) gmail.com)
Mary Shafer reunite.gondwana (at) gmail.com

Some of you may be wondering why us. The honest answer is simple: because
we undertook the work to make this happen. Derek and I discussed at length
what we thought it would take to try to bring back these newsgroups from the
dead. Among the issues we discussed was making sure we had an odd number of
moderators so we decided to look for a third. We hoped to find someone
whose integrity and experience would be above reproach. Graciously and
fortunately Mary Shafer has agreed to be that person.

We want to thank Paul W. Schleck for his unselfish help in setting up the
account and getting the software working.

As for posting guidelines, we are working on those but in general we will be
trying to use the standards outlined below.

Posts will initially be judged on content. NO posters will initially be
blacklisted. However, posters who continually post and repost rejected
material may find themselves eventually blacklisted.

For sci.space.science, any post should have a majority of the content be of
a scientific in nature. Articles that clearly cite references or avoid
unsubstantiated claims are more likely to pass moderation.

There is room for non-technical details, but if the moderators feel the post
is to far from technical we are likely to ask for a rewrite. A post that is
obviously non-technical in nature or completely off-topic will be rejected
outright.

Posts that include cites, equations and proven science references are
preferred. If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such as alien life,
non-mainstream scientific thought, please make sure to have recent and
citable references for the topic. Pie in the sky posts will generally be
rejected.

Personal attacks generally will NOT be tolerated. Quips at others expense
or ribbing may be tolerated as long as they are not the main point of the
post and are specific to the points being addressed. Topics that we feel
have run their course will generally be closed off until new scientific
information is posted. Rehashing topics over and over again will not be
permitted.


As moderators we realize that we can probably please all the people some of
the time and some of the people all the time, but will never please all the
people all of the time. So be it.

If you have issues with how we are moderating or an issue with why specific
posts were or were not approved, we will consider all reasonably written
emails to us. Part of the reason for an odd-number of moderators is so that
if necessary, we can vote on any posts that require that.

Please keep in mind the three of us are all volunteers and spending out
time, effort and to an extent money to make this happen.

Thank you

Your sci.space.science moderation team.

Greg Moore
Derek Lyons
Mary Shafer


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Jul 17, 1:41 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
This post is to let you know that sci.space.science is now being moderate
d
again.

George Herbert has graciously passed the reins on to the new moderators s
o
that perhaps these newsgroups can have some life again.

The moderators are the same as sci.space.tech:

Greg Moore (mooregr (at) greenms.com)
Derek Lyons (fairwater (at) gmail.com)
Mary Shafer reunite.gondwana (at) gmail.com

Some of you may be wondering why us. The honest answer is simple: beca
use
we undertook the work to make this happen. Derek and I discussed at le
ngth
what we thought it would take to try to bring back these newsgroups from
the
dead. Among the issues we discussed was making sure we had an odd numb
er of
moderators so we decided to look for a third. We hoped to find someone
whose integrity and experience would be above reproach. Graciously and
fortunately Mary Shafer has agreed to be that person.

We want to thank Paul W. Schleck for his unselfish help in setting up the
account and getting the software working.

As for posting guidelines, we are working on those but in general we will
be
trying to use the standards outlined below.

Posts will initially be judged on content. NO posters will initially b
e
blacklisted. However, posters who continually post and repost rejected
material may find themselves eventually blacklisted.

For sci.space.science, any post should have a majority of the content be
of
a scientific in nature. Articles that clearly cite references or avoid
unsubstantiated claims are more likely to pass moderation.

There is room for non-technical details, but if the moderators feel the p
ost
is to far from technical we are likely to ask for a rewrite. A post th
at is
obviously non-technical in nature or completely off-topic will be rejecte
d
outright.

Posts that include cites, equations and proven science references are
preferred. If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such as alien life
,
non-mainstream scientific thought, please make sure to have recent and
citable references for the topic. Pie in the sky posts will generally
be
rejected.

Personal attacks generally will NOT be tolerated. Quips at others expe
nse
or ribbing may be tolerated as long as they are not the main point of the
post and are specific to the points being addressed. Topics that we feel
have run their course will generally be closed off until new scientific
information is posted. Rehashing topics over and over again will not b
e
permitted.

As moderators we realize that we can probably please all the people some
of
the time and some of the people all the time, but will never please all t
he
people all of the time. So be it.

If you have issues with how we are moderating or an issue with why specif
ic
posts were or were not approved, we will consider all reasonably written
emails to us. Part of the reason for an odd-number of moderators is so
that
if necessary, we can vote on any posts that require that.

Please keep in mind the three of us are all volunteers and spending out
time, effort and to an extent money to make this happen.

Thank you

Your sci.space.science moderation team.

Greg Moore
Derek Lyons
Mary Shafer

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Applause . . . especially for the moderators

Could one ask what is the best group to ask questions if you are interested
in science topics, but not directly involved in science. IE a lot is often
said about educating the masses about science, and to me one of the ways of
doing this is to have areas where what some may see as stupid questions, can
be asked and the reasons explained carefully not in a put down elitist kind
of way.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"John" wrote in message
...
On Jul 17, 1:41 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
This post is to let you know that sci.space.science is now being moderate
d
again.

George Herbert has graciously passed the reins on to the new moderators s
o
that perhaps these newsgroups can have some life again.

The moderators are the same as sci.space.tech:

Greg Moore (mooregr (at) greenms.com)
Derek Lyons (fairwater (at) gmail.com)
Mary Shafer reunite.gondwana (at) gmail.com

Some of you may be wondering why us. The honest answer is simple: beca
use
we undertook the work to make this happen. Derek and I discussed at le
ngth
what we thought it would take to try to bring back these newsgroups from
the
dead. Among the issues we discussed was making sure we had an odd numb
er of
moderators so we decided to look for a third. We hoped to find someone
whose integrity and experience would be above reproach. Graciously and
fortunately Mary Shafer has agreed to be that person.

We want to thank Paul W. Schleck for his unselfish help in setting up the
account and getting the software working.

As for posting guidelines, we are working on those but in general we will
be
trying to use the standards outlined below.

Posts will initially be judged on content. NO posters will initially b
e
blacklisted. However, posters who continually post and repost rejected
material may find themselves eventually blacklisted.

For sci.space.science, any post should have a majority of the content be
of
a scientific in nature. Articles that clearly cite references or avoid
unsubstantiated claims are more likely to pass moderation.

There is room for non-technical details, but if the moderators feel the p
ost
is to far from technical we are likely to ask for a rewrite. A post th
at is
obviously non-technical in nature or completely off-topic will be rejecte
d
outright.

Posts that include cites, equations and proven science references are
preferred. If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such as alien life
,
non-mainstream scientific thought, please make sure to have recent and
citable references for the topic. Pie in the sky posts will generally
be
rejected.

Personal attacks generally will NOT be tolerated. Quips at others expe
nse
or ribbing may be tolerated as long as they are not the main point of the
post and are specific to the points being addressed. Topics that we feel
have run their course will generally be closed off until new scientific
information is posted. Rehashing topics over and over again will not b
e
permitted.

As moderators we realize that we can probably please all the people some
of
the time and some of the people all the time, but will never please all t
he
people all of the time. So be it.

If you have issues with how we are moderating or an issue with why specif
ic
posts were or were not approved, we will consider all reasonably written
emails to us. Part of the reason for an odd-number of moderators is so
that
if necessary, we can vote on any posts that require that.

Please keep in mind the three of us are all volunteers and spending out
time, effort and to an extent money to make this happen.

Thank you

Your sci.space.science moderation team.

Greg Moore
Derek Lyons
Mary Shafer

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Applause . . . especially for the moderators

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
This post is to let you know that sci.space.science is now being moderated
again.

George Herbert has graciously passed the reins on to the new moderators so
that perhaps these newsgroups can have some life again.


You know what you _should_ take over...sci.space.moderated.
Their isn't enough traffic on either of the others to get a lot of
postings, due to fracturing of space subjects.
(And, I know, I was the big critic of you three taking over
sci.space.tech without a election, but you did a great job at it,
looking like some pretty benevolent dictators when it came right down to
it.)
Still, if it gets rolling big time, there should be a election every
year among posters to either support the moderators in power or suggest
new ones for consideration.

Pat

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:22:43 -0400, Brian Gaff wrote:

Could one ask what is the best group to ask questions if you are
interested in science topics, but not directly involved in science. IE
a
lot is often said about educating the masses about science, and to me
one of the ways of doing this is to have areas where what some may see
as stupid questions, can be asked and the reasons explained carefully
not in a put down elitist kind of way.

Brian

I think the best group would be Amazon.com and a list of physics and
astrodynamics books.

Dover editions are generally cheap and good. I like "Introduction to
Space Dynamics" by Thomson.

You can pick up the Barron's outline series on various subjects, like
physics and chemistry. I like those.

For when you must have a college textbook, look for an older edition. I
can pick up the copy of "Physics" by Halliday and Resnick for $1 plus $4
shipping and handling because it is a 30 year old edition.

Usually, when you have a question it is because the book you're reading
doesn't explain it very well, or didn't cover prerequisite subject
matter. So, a couple of cheap books on the same subject usually clears
that up.

Asking questions in newsgroups? Not really the way to become educated.
Too many wackos.

And no, I don't like moderators. They tend to have biases and their own
tin-god issues. I think a big, well fed killfile works better.


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Allowed through because of the useful content - be careful of the attacks however. JDL

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...

This post is to let you know that sci.space.science is now being moderated
again.

George Herbert has graciously passed the reins on to the new moderators so
that perhaps these newsgroups can have some life again.

The moderators are the same as sci.space.tech:

Greg Moore (mooregr (at) greenms.com)
Derek Lyons (fairwater (at) gmail.com)
Mary Shafer reunite.gondwana (at) gmail.com

Some of you may be wondering why us. The honest answer is simple: because
we undertook the work to make this happen.

Did anyone ask you to do this?

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message m...

This post is to let you know that sci.space.science is now being
moderated
again.

George Herbert has graciously passed the reins on to the new moderators
so
that perhaps these newsgroups can have some life again.

The moderators are the same as sci.space.tech:

Greg Moore (mooregr (at) greenms.com)
Derek Lyons (fairwater (at) gmail.com)
Mary Shafer reunite.gondwana (at) gmail.com

Some of you may be wondering why us. The honest answer is simple:
because
we undertook the work to make this happen.

Did anyone ask you to do this?


Specifically ask us, no. Have people over the past few years expressed a
desire for sci.space.science to start "working" again, yes.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
om...


You're welcome to ask science questions in sci.space.science. If they range
too far off topic or are more appropriate elsewhere, we'll let you know.

Could one ask what is the best group to ask questions if you are
interested in science topics, but not directly involved in science. IE a
lot is often said about educating the masses about science, and to me one
of the ways of doing this is to have areas where what some may see as
stupid questions, can be asked and the reasons explained carefully not in
a put down elitist kind of way.

Brian



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

You know what you _should_ take over...sci.space.moderated.

Thanks, but I was never a fan of the manner in which it was created, or the
moderation scheme approved for it.

Their isn't enough traffic on either of the others to get a lot of
postings, due to fracturing of space subjects.

That may be true. Time will tell.

(And, I know, I was the big critic of you three taking over
sci.space.tech without a election, but you did a great job at it, looking
like some pretty benevolent dictators when it came right down to it.)

Thanks, we do the best we can.


Still, if it gets rolling big time, there should be a election every year
among posters to either support the moderators in power or suggest new
ones for consideration.

I am always willing to listen to recommendations and open to discuss various
options. I'm not sure elections are practical or the manner in which I
would want to see things go, but I would not rule them out immediately
either.

(I mean imagine if YOU got elected moderator, we'd all be forced to post in
iambic pentameter with at least one reference to Eartha Kitt in every 10th
post. ;-)

Pat



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote
in m:


This post is to let you know that sci.space.science is now being
moderated again.

George Herbert has graciously passed the reins on to the new
moderators so that perhaps these newsgroups can have some life
again.

The moderators are the same as sci.space.tech:

Greg Moore (mooregr (at) greenms.com)
Derek Lyons (fairwater (at) gmail.com)
Mary Shafer reunite.gondwana (at) gmail.com

Some of you may be wondering why us. The honest answer is simple:
because we undertook the work to make this happen. Derek and I
discussed at length what we thought it would take to try to bring
back these newsgroups from the dead. Among the issues we
discussed was making sure we had an odd number of moderators so we
decided to look for a third. We hoped to find someone whose
integrity and experience would be above reproach. Graciously and
fortunately Mary Shafer has agreed to be that person.

We want to thank Paul W. Schleck for his unselfish help in setting
up the account and getting the software working.

As for posting guidelines, we are working on those but in general
we will be trying to use the standards outlined below.

Posts will initially be judged on content. NO posters will
initially be blacklisted. However, posters who continually post
and repost rejected material may find themselves eventually
blacklisted.

For sci.space.science, any post should have a majority of the
content be of a scientific in nature. Articles that clearly cite
references or avoid unsubstantiated claims are more likely to pass
moderation.

There is room for non-technical details, but if the moderators
feel the post is to far from technical we are likely to ask for a
rewrite. A post that is obviously non-technical in nature or
completely off-topic will be rejected outright.

Posts that include cites, equations and proven science references
are preferred. If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such as
alien life, non-mainstream scientific thought, please make sure
to have recent and citable references for the topic. Pie in the
sky posts will generally be rejected.

Personal attacks generally will NOT be tolerated. Quips at others
expense or ribbing may be tolerated as long as they are not the
main point of the post and are specific to the points being
addressed. Topics that we feel have run their course will
generally be closed off until new scientific information is
posted. Rehashing topics over and over again will not be
permitted.


As moderators we realize that we can probably please all the
people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but
will never please all the people all of the time. So be it.

If you have issues with how we are moderating or an issue with why
specific posts were or were not approved, we will consider all
reasonably written emails to us. Part of the reason for an
odd-number of moderators is so that if necessary, we can vote on
any posts that require that.

Please keep in mind the three of us are all volunteers and
spending out time, effort and to an extent money to make this
happen.

Thank you

Your sci.space.science moderation team.

Greg Moore
Derek Lyons
Mary Shafer