Re: [Utah-astronomy] Looking for Opinions
Hi Cynthia, I think the list is self-regulating for the most part. Usually when we go off in the weeds it's because of an insufficiency of astronomy--bad weather, long work days, etc. The evolutionary thread appears to be dying a natural death now, so there's probably no need to hit it with the morphine. While it's been extraordinarily long-lived, it was also important, I think. We're all interested and involved in science, and this thread centered on the validity of legislating scientific truth. That affects all of us, and it's pretty hard to hold back. Once in a while, someone gets inadvertently rubbed the wrong way, but most contributors sense when to back off the throttle (did I mix that metaphor enough?). But I think it's good for you to ask the overall sense of the list. Michael P.S. Perhaps a Utah-astronomy-vent list is in order. -------------------------------- I'm just curious what the general thoughts are of those on the list. I'd appreciate some input... you all can reply onlist or privately to me if you like. Has the subject matter on the list moved away from Astronomy too much for your liking? Do you not read most of the emails from the list anymore? Would you prefer to snuff out the political/evolutionary/etc content, and just read about Astronomy? Thanks! Cynthia _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Michael phrased it well. I am in total agreement. I think the ID thread has about run its course, and I do think some good came out of all of it, and drove people to action while there is time. It served a purpose in my mind and was science based. I also agree that our tangents are self limiting. But, thanks for asking. Jim Michael Carnes <michaelcarnes@earthlink.net> wrote: Hi Cynthia, I think the list is self-regulating for the most part. Usually when we go off in the weeds it's because of an insufficiency of astronomy--bad weather, long work days, etc. The evolutionary thread appears to be dying a natural death now, so there's probably no need to hit it with the morphine. While it's been extraordinarily long-lived, it was also important, I think. We're all interested and involved in science, and this thread centered on the validity of legislating scientific truth. That affects all of us, and it's pretty hard to hold back. Once in a while, someone gets inadvertently rubbed the wrong way, but most contributors sense when to back off the throttle (did I mix that metaphor enough?). But I think it's good for you to ask the overall sense of the list. Michael P.S. Perhaps a Utah-astronomy-vent list is in order. -------------------------------- I'm just curious what the general thoughts are of those on the list. I'd appreciate some input... you all can reply onlist or privately to me if you like. Has the subject matter on the list moved away from Astronomy too much for your liking? Do you not read most of the emails from the list anymore? Would you prefer to snuff out the political/evolutionary/etc content, and just read about Astronomy? Thanks! Cynthia _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (2)
-
Jim Stitley -
Michael Carnes