Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2e!gv
From: gv@hou2e.UUCP (A.VANNUCCI)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: this newsgroup
Message-ID: <640@hou2e.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 17:50:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2e.640
Posted: Mon Jul 15 17:50:17 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 06:52:40 EDT
References: <1801@pur-phy.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 46

>      I read this newsgroup when I can't get a big enough laugh from net.jokes
> or net.flame, because of the total absurdity of the majority of the articles
> posted.  It appears as if most of the posters are lost in a Niven-like fantasy 
> universe where one may invent physical "facts" when knowledge falls short. 
> 
>      We have people insisting on the existence of the ether, varying the speed
> of light, saying that quantum mechanics is still much in debate, arguing about
> what mass is, posing self-contradictory relativity questions, this list is 
> almost endless. We have such great statements as "radio is like light but
> slowed down" and "gravity is grainy" (paraphrased). Where do people get this
> crap?
> 
>      I propose two solutions to this problem :
> 
>   1) Abolish net.physics and create two new groups. Net.physics.true and
>      net.physics.make-believe where articles would be posted to the approp-
>      riate group.
> 
>   2) Before you submit an article, READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT IN A PHYSICS BOOK.
>      This will serve a two-fold purpose. It will reduce the idiocy in this
>      group and the poster will run a far smaller chance of making a fool out
>      of his/her self.   

 	I wholeheartedly agree with solution number 2. I personally enjoy
very much chatting about PHYSICS with people that know physics and I am
quite bothered by those who litter this newsgroup with questions that are
answered in chapter 1 of any textbook on the subject. However, I am bothered
even more by those who answer such questions with meaningless jibberish
that indicates that they know even less about the subject than the person
asking the question.  Thus, I propose the following addendum to solution 2 :

    2b) Before you submit a follow-up to an article ask yourself: " Is it
        likely that among all the people reading this article I am the
        one that knows the most about this subject ?"  If the answer is not
        an emphatic YES, keep in mind that your posting will appear alongside
        the follow-up postings of people that know more than you, and you
        are rather likely to make a fool of yourself.

	If rules 2 and 2b were followed, the volume of stuff in net.physics
would probably be reduced by a factor ten, but the amount of real substance
will certainly increase dramatically.

		Giovanni Vannucci
		AT&T Bell Laboratories      HOH R-207
		Holmdel, NJ 07733
		hou2e!gv