|
|
Re: A new math usenet group
Posted:
Nov 25, 2012 5:20 PM
|
|
On Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:54:25 PM UTC+2, quasi wrote:
> Tonico wrote:
>
> >quasi wrote:
>
> >>amzoti wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>Leave the cesspool that is sci.math.
>
> >>
>
> >> Sorry you see it that way.
>
> >>
>
> >>>See a real math newsgroup.
>
> >>
>
> >>>http://math.stackexchange.com/questions
>
> >>
>
> >> math.stackexchange is _not_ a newsgroup.
>
> >>
>
> >> It's fine for what it is -- questions and answers, but
>
> >>
>
> >> not much good for back and forth discussions -- it's
>
> >>
>
> >> not designed for that.
>
> >
>
> >Almost agree with that. As it is now, sci.math is a dumper where
>
> >many of us come to have a little fun, to let steam out, etc.
>
>
>
> Sure, you can have fun here if you want to -- nothing wrong with
>
> that, but of the non-crank, non-troll sci.math participants (of
>
> which I would estimate that there are currently about 40 regulars
>
> and perhaps 100 or more less regulars), most do not participate
>
> in the mode you describe.
>
>
>
> >It doesn't serve almost for mathematics,
>
> I disagree.
>
> Math _is_ done here, and sci.math's free-form, multi-way
>
> discussion format makes the interaction very easy.
>
*********************************************
I disagree with your disagreement: I don't think there's more than 50%, in the best of cases, of mathematical, actual mathematical, traffic in this site.
*********************************************
>
> >but only for trolls, cranks, or any other bored cyberscum (WM,
>
> >Archimedes P., Musatov, Herc = Cooper, Julio, etc.) to live
>
> >without any fear of being kicked out at once.
>
>
> Cranks and trolls are no big deal -- they are easily ignored.
>
****************************************************
NOW they are, with the new interface, and even then there remains a grayish row saying that the thread was removed because...etc.
Still, it is much better than before in this respect as, at least, noise can be put aside.
*****************************************************
> >These poor characters wouldn't remain active more than a few
>
> >minutes in SE, Physics Forum or any other more or less serious
>
> >site, and they'd have to dedicate their lives to make up new
>
> >nicks and to have several IP numbers in order to avoid complete
>
> >eviction.
>
> sci.math has free speech, so yes, cranks and trolls are part of
>
> the environment, but as I said, it's no big deal -- that stuff
>
> is easily ignored. It's a small price to pay for the luxury of
>
> true free speech.
>
*****************************************************************
stackexchange also has free speech...as long as you abide by its rules, just as in any really free country/community.
If you want to bother, spam, troll around or crank up then you're out.
It's not about freedom but about respect to the site's rules, which MANY in sci.math do not respect (and sci.math has rules, oh yes!), but NOTHING can be done against that people.
So no: i don't think sci.math has free speech. What is has is lots of holes that allow trash to kick in and bother people that otherwise could try to deal with mathematics, which is what the site is, supposedly, about.
*******************************************************
> >Nevertheless, it'd be nice to have a site that, besides maths,
>
> >could accept open discussions,
>
>
>
> It exists -- it's called sci.math.
********************************************************
If you hadn't written what you wrote above I'd say you must be kidding...alas, I know you aren't.
********************************************************
> >as long as the people involved in them are minimally serious.
>
>
>
> In a democratic environment, you can't have everything go the
>
> way you want.
******************************************************
"Democratic"?? What the hell has democracy to do with mathematics and discussions?
I'd rather have a seriously moderated site, where people trying to BOTHER others and not abiding by the site's rules are expelled after one warning.
******************************************************
> >Too bad the intentions of 3-4 years ago to have such a
>
> >moderated site here didn't work out...
>
>
>
> In the end, the moderated site concept fails precisely because
>
> of the moderation. It would create a barrier to entry, slow
>
> down the interaction, and leave an anti-democratic stigma of
>
> censors and censorship.
*********************************************************
Nonsense, and there are several examples that prove you wrong.
Tonio
> quasi
|
|
