RE: the ASA email list

I agree with George. I've been annoyed (if that's the word) at the
"political harangues" both because they are a bit too strident for my liking
but also because it comes across to "us foreigners" as a bit too parochial
for an organization that invites or accommodates non-US members. As to
"nuclear energy &c," I hope that the "&c" would include other energy
conversion processes. I'm not so sure that the topic of the involvement of
the State in the definition of marriage is outside the range of science and
faith unless one limits "science" to exclude political science.

There is no reason why discussions on "taboo subjects" could not be
relegated to off-line discussions between interested participants.

Chuck

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 6:23 AM
To: Terry M. Gray; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: the ASA email list

Terry's statement, "Also, I don't see what's happening on the list these
days to be particularly beneficial to the reputation of the ASA," is
important. I recently got a post from someone in a 3d world country looking
for some guidance in studying science & theology. In replying yesterday I
thought of mentioning the ASA list, then reflected for a moment on some of
the political harangues and fringe stuff & thought "Naah."

I have not always been as observant of the 4 post a day limit as I should
have been. It's difficult to remember in the heat of debate - & especially
in the heat of debates - i.e., when one gets involved in more than one
thread at a time. But those of us who offend ought to make more of an
effort here.

IMNHO the single most problematic thing here is topics that are not in the
science-religion area. Of course in one sense religion, as a matter of
"ultimate concern" can include everything & some political issues are
certainly of religious interest. But some practical limits are necessary.
Political discussions ought to be out of bounds unless they are dealing with
things like legislation on stem cell uses, nuclear energy &c. & same sex
unions - yes, I know I've been involved in these discussions - should be
out. That doesn't mean that all discussions of homosexuality - scientific
basis, religious treatment &c - should be out. But whether or not the state
&/or church should allow same sex marriage should be out.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----

From: Terry <mailto:grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> M. Gray

To: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 12:36 AM

Subject: Re: the ASA email list

Paul, Glenn, and all who've contributed to this thread,

Composing meaningful combined replies is the recommended approach to the
problem Glenn and Paul raise. Those of us who don't sit in front of our
computers all day reading and answer ASA list mail are well-served by such
thoughtfulness. I'd suggest that the debate is actually well-served also
since it causes us to synthesize our thoughts a bit.

And, by the way, it's 4 posts per day. Also, I'd suggest that a post that
simply says "please explain your reasoning" could be sent off-list and not
count as one of your 4.

So who wants to volunteer as moderator? It's a huge time sink--we've tried
it in the past. I'd not recommend going that direction.

I'm quite open to an ASA member only list--if that's what we want. I don't
really see a point to managing an open list if there is going to be a second
list where serious discussion takes place. Also, I don't see what's
happening on the list these days to be particularly beneficial to the
reputation of the ASA. But, on the other hand, it's not that big of a
deal--there are only about 300 list members and only 10-20% of those are
active. I suspect that little over half are actually ASA members. Of the
active participants there are just a handful of non-members. If non-members
want to follow our discussions, they can read the web archives and then
comment on them in their blog. If they want to join in the discussions, they
can join the ASA. i don't really think it's unreasonable to go this
direction.

What do you think, Jack, Randy, Ted (some of the ASA big-wigs who
participate in the list, if you're wondering why I mention them in
particular)?

As for switching to a web-based system--I'm all for it. The last vote we
took, as someone noted, had the email format preferred in a near 2-1
majority.

TG

On Jun 11, 2006, at 9:48 PM, Paul Seely wrote:

glenn wrote

<<Look, today I asked David Siemans to explain his reasoning. That was a
very short post, but would have counted as one of my 2 per day and it didn't
really say anything. And lately I have had several people throughout the day
send questions to me.>>

Yeah. I was on a different list for awhile where a number of people would
answer me all at once, and I would be faced with trying to answer all of
them. I know Glenn gets this all the time. So, whatever rules are made, they
should take this into consideration. Perhaps, two posts/day per thread?

Paul

________________

Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.

Computer Support Scientist

Chemistry Department

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO 80523

(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

 
Received on Mon Jun 12 12:21:53 2006