Date: Wed Feb 7 14:47:57 2007

Author: Bernard Cleyet

Subject: Re: List conversations. Please Read.

Post:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050203080003000401030808
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pati!

I see I wrote ambiguously. I applied for membership, was referred to
owner for vetting, I await reply.

bc, waiting.

Patricia Sievert wrote:

> OK, I was being lazy. Here is the page to join the list. Earlier I
> just sent the email address that we use once you have joined the list.
> This is the PHYSOC listserve for people interested in the social
> concerns related to physics. There is plenty of discussion of global
> warming, peak oil, relative advantages of different energy sources,
> population issues, etc. This group sponsors several sessions at each
> AAPT meeting through the Committee on Science Education for the Public.
>
> http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=physoc&A=1
>
> Pati, who is not used to arousing suspicions
>
> Bernard Cleyet wrote:
>
>> Pati!
>>
>> I tried, was referred to list owner and have not received a reply.
>>
>> bc, suspicious
>>
>> Patricia Sievert wrote:
>>
>>> It is nice to see that this topic has evolved to demonstrations that
>>> relate to global warming or green houses, but if you want to discuss
>>> the social/political side of these topics there is an active list
>>> appropriate to those topics:
>>> PHYSOC@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>>> Pati
>>>
>>> Sam Sampere wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm going to stand up for Keith 'the Hammer' here. For once, I'll not keep my opinions to myself. Hmm. did I just say that??
>>>>
>>>>I've seen alarming data on global warming. Sure, CO2 emissions correlates with a temperature rise. The industrial revolution also correlates, but correlation doesn't imply cause-effect. And I don't think there's any data that proves cause-effect. Nor do I think we have either an intro or advanced lab experiment that could prove this.
>>>>
>>>>I look to you experts on tap-l for instant answers to questions that I don't know the answer. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that none of us on tap-l have answers to these gw questions, though we all have opinions. And we can all certainly spout data, either pro or con.
>>>>
>>>>Just because we cannot prove cause-effect, does this imply that we should not act? That's a great question, but I'm not so sure it belongs on tap-l.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps we could start a tap-l-gw listserv? I agree with Keith, we should keep religion/politics/etc. off tap-l. Though most of us are thick skinned and can handle criticism (please don't respond negatively to this post or I'll cry!!), some may not and that would just make some a little apprehensive about posting anything. Let's keep this a friendly place to discuss physics, experiments, equipment, and such.
>>>>
>>>>It's ok, Keith, come back out and play.
>>>>
>>>>Sam
>>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>>
>>>>From: tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu on behalf of trappe@physics.utexas.edu
>>>>Sent: Mon 2/5/2007 7:42 PM
>>>>To: tap-l@lists.ncsu.edu
>>>>Subject: Re: [tap-l] List conversations. Please Read.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, Keith, it came across as very vindictive, as if someone was
>>>>expressing an opinion that you did not want to hear, so you redefined
>>>>the "allowed" conversations. During Vietnam, the slogan of the day
>>>>was "America, love it or leave it." Of course, such a position (then
>>>>or now) is about as un-American as anything can get. Your edict came
>>>>across like that slogan.
>>>>
>>>>Regarding the appropriateness of the subject of global warming, it is
>>>>clearly physics related, and certainly we could conjure up a
>>>>demonstration under tap-l...but not if we do not understand the issue.
>>>>So far, the discussion has been reasonably tame. I think that your
>>>>monitoring for "re-centering" is perfectly in order, but not
>>>>monitoring for gagging.
>>>>
>>>>Phys-l has a very similar thread going in which a private granting
>>>>agency is offering funding (get this...If you start with the
>>>>conclusion and do the research to prove it). That particular
>>>>conclusion is that global warming is bunk, and needs to be disproved.
>>>>Perhaps phys-l is more appropriate for such discussions since it is
>>>>about teaching, and tap-l is about apparatus...
>>>>
>>>> From my own perspective, all of these physics related listserves
>>>>*COULD* be under the single banner of AAPT, but historically, they
>>>>have resided at colleges or universities which saw the value of
>>>>discourse. I personally would like to see a listserve devoted to
>>>>"professional concerns", because there are so many modifications of
>>>>academia taking place which are contrary to academic enlightenment. I
>>>>doubt that even the AAPT Committe on Professional Concerns would dare
>>>>discuss some of these happenings. Under some political conditions,
>>>>global warming cannot be discussed. Perhaps we live in that country.
>>>>Karl
>>>>Quoting Keith Warren :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes Doug. You are correct. I think my email was perceived differently
>>>>>than I intended for it to be.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Keith
>>>>>
>>>>>Douglas Johnson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Jerry and others,
>>>>>> I have to agree with Keith, but maybe not as strongly as he put
>>>>>> it. It truly reflects the best interest of Tap-L as a whole, not
>>>>>>to have these types of discussions. I think it would be best if
>>>>>>another forum was used in place of Tap-L. Maybe if you checked to
>>>>>>see who may be interested in further discussing on this subject and
>>>>>> start e-mailing them directly and not on Tap-L. I don't think
>>>>>>anyone would mind that. Keith, what do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My two cents worth... Doug J.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PS.. I do think Keith
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision. As noted
>>>>>>> in the past, many of us are teachers. The topic of climate
>>>>>>>change certainly has a lot of physics in it. There are "Physics
>>>>>>>and Environment", and other similar courses that might spend a
>>>>>>>lot of time on this topic. Even if we don't teach, most of us
>>>>>>>interact with students or other scientists, and discussions like
>>>>>>>this help to keep us up to date. So I think a topic like this
>>>>>>>could be very relevant to this listserv.
>>>>>>> I don't think the discussion has been too political, and
>>>>>>>nobody has been nasty about it. What I see happening, and what
>>>>>>>causes the discussion to continue, is that we hardly ever respond
>>>>>>>directly to each others' points. We offer opinions and/or
>>>>>>>evidence, but when we respond it appears that we have not read or
>>>>>>>understood the other side.
>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that discussions like this be allowed
>>>>>>>to continue, but with a different focus. Instead of firing back
>>>>>>>and forth at each other, let's try to be a little more scientific
>>>>>>>about it. If someone makes a point let's acknowledge it. If the
>>>>>>>point is not valid let's explain why. Let's not issue opinions
>>>>>>>without supporting evidence or reasoning. We all know what the
>>>>>>>rules are, let's play by the rules.
>>>>>>> Threatening people with removal from the list seems a little
>>>>>>>harsh. We all know that's a possibility in the back of our minds.
>>>>>>> If somebody gets way off base, I'm sure they can be brought back
>>>>>>>to center with calm reasoning. When discipline is handled this
>>>>>>>way, everybody's behavior improves. Would you please reconsider.
>>>>>>> Thank you...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jerry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At 11:43 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>TAP-L is a friendly group and is here for us to collaborate on
>>>>>>>>physics demonstrations, laboratories and outreach. It is not a
>>>>>>>>venue for political views or much else. We tolerate a bit of the
>>>>>>>> extra because we are all friends. We must however, keep
>>>>>>>>politics and religion off this list. Those topics will heat
>>>>>>>>things up faster than throwing a stray cat in front of my dog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If global warming or George W. Bush have anything to do with this
>>>>>>>> weeks lab, then discuss it. If not, take it to another group.
>>>>>>>>If this continues, I will be forced to remove people from the list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks for making TAP-L great everybody.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-Keith
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patricia Sievert
>>> Physics Outreach Coordinator
>>> Department of Physics
>>> Northern Illinois University
>>> DeKalb, IL 60115
>>> sievert@physics.niu.edu
>>> (815) 753-6418
>>
>
> --
> Patricia Sievert
> Physics Outreach Coordinator
> Department of Physics
> Northern Illinois University
> DeKalb, IL 60115
> sievert@physics.niu.edu
> (815) 753-6418


--------------050203080003000401030808
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit








Pati!

I see I wrote ambiguously. I applied for membership, was referred to
owner for vetting, I await reply.

bc, waiting.

Patricia Sievert wrote:



OK, I was being lazy. Here
is the page to join the list. Earlier I just sent the email address
that we use once you have joined the list.
This is the PHYSOC listserve for people interested in the social
concerns related to physics. There is plenty of discussion of global
warming, peak oil, relative advantages of different energy sources,
population issues, etc. This group sponsors several sessions at each
AAPT meeting through the Committee on Science Education for the Public.

http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=physoc&A=1

Pati, who is not used to arousing suspicions

Bernard Cleyet wrote:



Pati!

I tried, was referred to list owner and have not received a reply.

bc, suspicious

Patricia Sievert wrote:



It is nice to see that
this
topic has evolved to demonstrations that relate to global warming or
green houses, but if you want to discuss the social/political side of
these topics there is an active list appropriate to those topics:
PHYSOC@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Pati

Sam Sampere wrote:

I'm going to stand up for Keith 'the Hammer' here. For once, I'll not keep my opinions to myself. Hmm. did I just say that??

I've seen alarming data on global warming. Sure, CO2 emissions correlates with a temperature rise. The industrial revolution also correlates, but correlation doesn't imply cause-effect. And I don't think there's any data that proves cause-effect. Nor do I think we have either an intro or advanced lab experiment that could prove this.

I look to you experts on tap-l for instant answers to questions that I don't know the answer. I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that none of us on tap-l have answers to these gw questions, though we all have opinions. And we can all certainly spout data, either pro or con.

Just because we cannot prove cause-effect, does this imply that we should not act? That's a great question, but I'm not so sure it belongs on tap-l.

Perhaps we could start a tap-l-gw listserv? I agree with Keith, we should keep religion/politics/etc. off tap-l. Though most of us are thick skinned and can handle criticism (please don't respond negatively to this post or I'll cry!!), some may not and that would just make some a little apprehensive about posting anything. Let's keep this a friendly place to discuss physics, experiments, equipment, and such.

It's ok, Keith, come back out and play.

Sam

________________________________

From: tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu on behalf of trappe@physics.utexas.edu
Sent: Mon 2/5/2007 7:42 PM
To: tap-l@lists.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: [tap-l] List conversations. Please Read.



Yes, Keith, it came across as very vindictive, as if someone was
expressing an opinion that you did not want to hear, so you redefined
the "allowed" conversations. During Vietnam, the slogan of the day
was "America, love it or leave it." Of course, such a position (then
or now) is about as un-American as anything can get. Your edict came
across like that slogan.

Regarding the appropriateness of the subject of global warming, it is
clearly physics related, and certainly we could conjure up a
demonstration under tap-l...but not if we do not understand the issue.
So far, the discussion has been reasonably tame. I think that your
monitoring for "re-centering" is perfectly in order, but not
monitoring for gagging.

Phys-l has a very similar thread going in which a private granting
agency is offering funding (get this...If you start with the
conclusion and do the research to prove it). That particular
conclusion is that global warming is bunk, and needs to be disproved.
Perhaps phys-l is more appropriate for such discussions since it is
about teaching, and tap-l is about apparatus...

From my own perspective, all of these physics related listserves
*COULD* be under the single banner of AAPT, but historically, they
have resided at colleges or universities which saw the value of
discourse. I personally would like to see a listserve devoted to
"professional concerns", because there are so many modifications of
academia taking place which are contrary to academic enlightenment. I
doubt that even the AAPT Committe on Professional Concerns would dare
discuss some of these happenings. Under some political conditions,
global warming cannot be discussed. Perhaps we live in that country.
Karl
Quoting Keith Warren :



Yes Doug. You are correct. I think my email was perceived differently
than I intended for it to be.

-Keith

Douglas Johnson wrote:


Hi Jerry and others,
I have to agree with Keith, but maybe not as strongly as he put
it. It truly reflects the best interest of Tap-L as a whole, not
to have these types of discussions. I think it would be best if
another forum was used in place of Tap-L. Maybe if you checked to
see who may be interested in further discussing on this subject and
start e-mailing them directly and not on Tap-L. I don't think
anyone would mind that. Keith, what do you think?

My two cents worth... Doug J.

PS.. I do think Keith



I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision. As noted
in the past, many of us are teachers. The topic of climate
change certainly has a lot of physics in it. There are "Physics
and Environment", and other similar courses that might spend a
lot of time on this topic. Even if we don't teach, most of us
interact with students or other scientists, and discussions like
this help to keep us up to date. So I think a topic like this
could be very relevant to this listserv.
I don't think the discussion has been too political, and
nobody has been nasty about it. What I see happening, and what
causes the discussion to continue, is that we hardly ever respond
directly to each others' points. We offer opinions and/or
evidence, but when we respond it appears that we have not read or
understood the other side.
I would like to suggest that discussions like this be allowed
to continue, but with a different focus. Instead of firing back
and forth at each other, let's try to be a little more scientific
about it. If someone makes a point let's acknowledge it. If the
point is not valid let's explain why. Let's not issue opinions
without supporting evidence or reasoning. We all know what the
rules are, let's play by the rules.
Threatening people with removal from the list seems a little
harsh. We all know that's a possibility in the back of our minds.
If somebody gets way off base, I'm sure they can be brought back
to center with calm reasoning. When discipline is handled this
way, everybody's behavior improves. Would you please reconsider.
Thank you...


Jerry


At 11:43 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:


All,

TAP-L is a friendly group and is here for us to collaborate on
physics demonstrations, laboratories and outreach. It is not a
venue for political views or much else. We tolerate a bit of the
extra because we are all friends. We must however, keep
politics and religion off this list. Those topics will heat
things up faster than throwing a stray cat in front of my dog.

If global warming or George W. Bush have anything to do with this
weeks lab, then discuss it. If not, take it to another group.
If this continues, I will be forced to remove people from the list.

Thanks for making TAP-L great everybody.

-Keith













--


Patricia
Sievert
Physics
Outreach Coordinator
Department
of Physics
Northern
Illinois University
DeKalb,
IL 60115
sievert@physics.niu.edu
(815)
753-6418



--


Patricia
Sievert
Physics
Outreach Coordinator
Department
of Physics
Northern
Illinois University
DeKalb,
IL 60115
sievert@physics.niu.edu
(815)
753-6418





--------------050203080003000401030808--


Back