Ken Quirici wrote: > On Aug 16, 1:25 am, David Bernier <david...@videotron.ca> wrote: >> 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. >> > > I do not believe Google groups allow killfiling, and I only > use Google to access groups (there are others - in fact > AP on occasion complains about the slowness of > Google). I would ask for any solution to be useable > on Google as well as other usenet access methods. > This does complexify things I guess.
I thought about that after sending my reply. Maybe sci.math has no charter, since it was created in the early days of Usenet. A sci.math.mod could have a charter, which is a plus I think.