Sci.space.tech under new moderation

This post is to let you know that sci.space.tech is now being moderated
again. Moderation of sci.space.science will soon follow.

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

The moderators a

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 are still in the early stages of getting details worked out. In fact we
are finalizing the setup of the approval software. 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.tech, any post should have a majority of the content be of a
technical nature.
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 and technology
references are preferred. If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such as
FTL, anti-gravity and other non-proven scientific principles, 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 technical 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.tech moderation team.

Greg Moore
Derek Lyons
Mary Shafer

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

Good luck and ... be brave! It will be an adventure. Yeah, that's the
ticket, think- fun!

I hope you get your headache relief at a bulk discount.

wrote in message
...
Good luck and ... be brave! It will be an adventure. Yeah, that's the
ticket, think- fun!

I hope you get your headache relief at a bulk discount.


So far in the past week or so the spam level has been pretty low. We have
spam filtering setup which should help.




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

On Mar 24, 2:18*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
This post is to let you know that sci.space.tech is now being moderated
again. Moderation of sci.space.science will soon follow.

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

The moderators a

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 are still in the early stages of getting details worked out. *In fact we
are finalizing the setup of the approval software. *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.tech, any post should have a majority of the content be of a
technical nature.
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 and technology
references are preferred. *If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such as
FTL, anti-gravity and other non-proven scientific principles, 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 technical 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.tech moderation team.

Greg Moore
Derek Lyons
Mary Shafer

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

IMO there are many who should feel that your statement

"If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such as
FTL, anti-gravity and other non-proven scientific
principles, please make sure to have recent and
citable references for the topic By "citing
verifiable sources"

would itself have to be open to debate! In particular,
"non-proven scientific principles" that have become
particularly demonstrated in laboratory environments,
principles that may have since become antithetical to
certain "status quo" science is in itself, a
debatable issue.

Some might actually not want to divulge their sources
on the basis that certain "tidbits" of information
could become extracted for purposes other than what
the original poster considers to be a valid scientific
application - with maligned intentions, of course.

Since things like FTL must wander into mostly unknown
scientific territory, it behooves the curious-minded
to search out the truth, and ask questions, does it
not? IMO this is what forums like this are supposed
to be good for - not just accepting everything posted
at "face value" either because of its "monetary worth"
or "so-in-so said that".

My hope is that the door to intelligent discussion
will not be closed to insular science, insular physics,
and insular technology - IMO it's the growth in
awareness that makes people question the world
around them.


American

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:28:59 -0400, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
Good luck and ... be brave! It will be an adventure. Yeah, that's the
ticket, think- fun!

I hope you get your headache relief at a bulk discount.


So far in the past week or so the spam level has been pretty low. We have
spam filtering setup which should help.

...Personally, I wish the three of you the best of a luck roll with
proper modifiers to ensure you slay the Chromatic Dragon. With Mary to
act as a control unit for the two of you, .tech has a damn fine chance
of coming back to life. The question that remains was whether you
considere also geting .science from George.

We are in the process of getting that setup. I wanted to get sci.space.tech
working first.

Expect sci.space.science in the next week or two.


And yes, we're grateful to Mary.


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

On Mar 24, 4:48*pm, OM wrote:

for years. Don't like it? Tough.

Read it numbskull:

"Some might actually not want to divulge their sources
on the basis that certain "tidbits" of information
could become extracted for purposes other than what
the original poster considers to be a valid scientific
application - with maligned intentions, of course."

.... You freakin gusher

PLONK

American wrote:

Some might actually not want to divulge their sources
on the basis that certain "tidbits" of information
could become extracted for purposes other than what
the original poster considers to be a valid scientific
application - with maligned intentions, of course.

If it isn't open, generally it can safely be treated as not
scientific. There's a reason why 'refuses to divulge details' is
considered one of the litmus tests for determining the presence of
crackpottery.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Mar 24, 1:18*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

This post is to let you know that sci.space.tech is now being moderated
again. Moderation of sci.space.science will soon follow.

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

The moderators a

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

Blessings and good luck to y'all. If I might make a suggestion for
pump-priming, might you be able to suggest topics or former s.s.t.
threads that you think worth further discussion?

I'd like to see long-term life support topics discussed again, as well
as high delta-v propulsion systems get revisited.

On the science side, maybe priority targets (asteroids, planets, giant
planet moons) for solar system studies. Ginormous telescopes of
various sorts for extra-solar work.

etc.

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

This post is to let you know that sci.space.tech is now being
moderated again. Moderation of sci.space.science will soon follow.

snip

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.tech moderation team.

Greg Moore
Derek Lyons
Mary Shafer

==================================================

Good!

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Mar 24]

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" writes:



And yes, we're grateful to Mary.

Thanks...


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433