Cliff B wrote: > William > > Are you any closer to having an answer to your original question - is > a new group needed? > > Did you have in mind setting up the group yourself if you could have > sufficient help from others as moderators? > > An interesting question that was asked in this thread was whether > sci.math had terms of reference/ a statement of purpose. I don't > think the question got an answer - or else the answer is that there > are no TOR. My feeling is that the group's value is in providing > answers to questions about maths - that is, to genuine questioners, > not lazy students trying to get someone to do their homework for them. > > Does this group presently have an 'owner'? I know that all google > groups do, but I don't know how usenet groups work. > > There is an important debate about whether people who use this group > to repeatedly make baseless claims that they have made fundamental > discoveries in mathematics should be denied entry to a new group. My > own feeling is that the problem is not so much the 'cranks' but rather > that some people insist on having endless debates with them. On the > other hand, the latter group includes many talented mathematicians who > make a positive contribution to the group. They make the mistake of > trying to have a rational debate with irrational people. I would > have to reluctantly say that for any new group to work, it would be > necessary to exclude the cranks.
There could be a common tag-word system, a generalization of "OT" for off-topic. So for anti-crank, a tag something like NTCRNK . Those who do not wish to read anti-crank posts, if those are labeled NTCRNK in the "Subject:" header, could create a filter to kill-file any message with NTCRNK in the subject: header.
Sensible people who want to respond to W. Muekenheim might well be willing to add an NTCRNK tag. Or, the anti-Muck. tag specifically for Mueckenheim could be NTMNHEIM.
Those who debate with anti-cantorians could add a nCANT tag to a reply to an anti-cantorian.
If the tags are well-designed and adhered to, at least to some extent, they could serve as keywords for filtering on Subject: .
For advanced topics, some of the AMS designations of fields could be offered as keywords that may be included.
This potential discussion could be done with the same civility used in the RFC documents that led to Networking standards under DARPAnet, Arpanet and later on the Internet, and Web standards and protocols.
> The answers in this thread provide a perfect illustration of the > problems that exist in the group as a whole. > > On Aug 14, 3:56 pm, William Elliot <ma...@rdrop.remove.com> wrote: >> Who all would like to have a new math discussion group >> sci.math.moderatered or sci.math.mod that would >> be a moderated group with a platform or topic focus >> similar to sci.math's platforum? >> >> If such a group was set up, who would be willing to >> be the moderator? >