FAQ Maintainers Mailing List: Re: disclaimer for *.answers

------=_NextPart_000_0064_01BEC137.DEAB8FA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To: "FAQ-Maintainers" <faq-maintainers@lists.consensus.com>
Subject: Re: disclaimer for *.answers
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:11:23 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Unfortunately, the actual kooks are true
believers in stuff some on this ng support,
based on their belief that authority is correct.

It is my material en re sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
that stirred up various storms, the stormy clo(u)ds in question
not being willing to submit to math authority, which has already
debunked the physics (true believer) positions.

When they say 'some coordinates are invariant' and I and
math say otherwise, and they are the accepted academic
authority, it should be obvious:

(a) authority can be just as wrong in the supposed hard sciences
as elsewhere,
(b) letting authority decide in re questions that oppose them is a bad
idea, and
(c) having only the 'controversial' persons use a disclaimer is a point
against intellectual freedom, marking their e-foreheads with a
big K or X.

David feels that the X-disclaimer and (aux) disclaimer cut down on
the flames, but it was probably my supplement to the aux header
that did the work. It pointed out that it was ignorance and atrocious
netiquette to flame hard-working selfless *.answers folk.

It further undermined the flamers by once again calling for the flamers
to submit to arbitration.=20

However, I feel that arbitration should not in general become neither
a requirement nor a custom.

Eleaticus
----------
> From: Doug Herbert <dherbert@tradskin.org>
> To: FAQ-Maintainers <faq-maintainers@lists.consensus.com>
> Subject: Re: disclaimer for *.answers
> Date: Saturday, June 26, 1999 1:35 PM
>=20
> Thamer Al-Herbish <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:
>=20
> > On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Andrew A Gill wrote:
> =20
> > > >I also=E4=F2

------=_NextPart_000_0064_01BEC137.DEAB8FA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To: "FAQ-Maintainers" <faq-maintainers@lists= .consensus.com>
Subject:=20 Re: disclaimer for *.answers
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:11:23=20 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: = Microsoft=20 Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: = text/plain;=20 charset=3DISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Unfortunately, the actual kooks are=20 true
believers in stuff some on this ng support,
based on their = belief=20 that authority is correct.

It is my material en re sci.physics and = sci.physics.relativity
that stirred up various storms, the stormy = clo(u)ds in=20 question
not being willing to submit to math authority, which = has=20 already
debunked the physics (true believer) positions.

When they say 'some coordinates are = invariant' and=20 I and
math say otherwise, and they are the accepted = academic
authority, it=20 should be obvious:

(a) authority can be just as wrong in = the supposed=20 hard sciences
     as elsewhere,
(b) letting = authority=20 decide in re questions that oppose them is a = bad
    =20 idea, and
(c) having only the 'controversial' persons use a = disclaimer is a=20 point
     against intellectual freedom, = marking=20 their e-foreheads with a
     big K or = X.

David feels that the X-disclaimer and = (aux)=20 disclaimer cut down on
the flames, but it was probably my supplement = to the=20 aux header
that did the work. It pointed out that it was ignorance = and=20 atrocious
netiquette to flame hard-working selfless *.answers=20 folk.

It further undermined the flamers by = once again=20 calling for the flamers
to submit to arbitration.

However, I feel that arbitration should = not in=20 general become neither
a requirement nor a custom.

Eleaticus
----------
> From: = Doug Herbert=20 <dherbert@tradskin.org>
&g= t;=20 To: FAQ-Maintainers <faq-maintainers@lists= .consensus.com>
>=20 Subject: Re: disclaimer for *.answers
> Date: Saturday, June 26, = 1999 1:35=20 PM
>
> Thamer Al-Herbish <shadows@whitefang.com> = wrote:
>=20
> > On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Andrew A Gill wrote:
> =
>=20 > > >I also=E4=F2