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