On Sunday, November 25, 2012 11:55:28 PM UTC-5, amzoti wrote: > On Sunday, November 25, 2012 8:44:23 PM UTC-8, quasi wrote: > Tonico wrote: > > >quasi wrote > > >> Tonico wrote: > > > > ... > > ... <debate about sci.math vs math.stackexchange> > > ... > > > > >>>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. > > > > Exactly. > > > > And I, for one, am not here just to poke fun at the cranks and > > trolls. For the most part (with some exceptions), I pay no > > attention to them. I view sci.math as a legitimate forum to > > discuss mathematics. > > > > So when amzoti calls sci.math "a cesspool" and tonico > > calls it "a dump", I regard such remarks as insulting to those > > of us (and as I previously indicated, it's more than just a few > > of us) whose participation in sci.math keeps the group alive, > > interesting, and basically centered on mathematics. > > > > quasi Quasi, don't get me wrong, I like it when there is actual discourse related to mathematics in this NG. However, over the past 5 years, it has seen a very rapid decline in the wonderful math discussions that used to happen.
5 Years? Try at least 25 years. In the mid to late 80's and even into the early 90's this NG was quite pleasant.
It has degenerated to the point where the S/N ratio is ~1% (or less!)
Now, we mostly see cranks, trolls, and spammers filling the airwaves and the ratio is not even close. The cesspool says that there is still some water left left in the pond, but it is very little compared to the excrement. Surely, you see this (and I enjoy some of the items you bring up and some of the answers you provide). sci.crypt has unfortunately also fallen into the same cesspool!