Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Imagine a World Without Religion


On 2015, Dec 05, , at 10:37, Anthony Lapinski <alapinski@pds.org> wrote:

I agree. And the moderator of this list should keep it about physics
education. And any postings that are religious/political/etc. should not
be allowed. There are other listservs/blogs for this purpose.

There was (is?) one list, physoc, that served that purpose. However I was either admonished or kicked off the list for too frequent posting. I checked my archive and found others had posted more frequently, so, if I wasn’t kicked off, I quit.

Another list kicked me off three times. The last time the owner, wrote I’d not be allowed on, ever.

Here’s the post:
-----------
Purchase them as special use bulbs such as severe duty service... Second, vote Against idiot politicians instead of voting for them…

Only those that can insure that their rights cannot be taken can exercise them…
------------
To which I replied, and was the proximate reason for being kicked off:
----------
I see. X's extremely narrow interest outweighs efforts to gain energy independence and to mitigate AGCC.

bc wonders if CP is a GCC denier, and by switching to LED domestic lighting halved his electric bill.

p.s. the International Commission on Stratigraphy is debating whether to call the current epoch the Anthropocene instead of the Holocene, because we have initiated the sixth major specie catastrophe, inter alia.

Subcomission on Quaternary Stratigraphy, ICS » Working Groups

http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/workinggroups/anthropocene/
-------------

That same person (CP) had posted this (which was countered by the first line)
----------
False see
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/physics.asp

Bill Reitz

X... wrote:
Unkown if this is true but it has a familiar 'ring' to it...
From a senior level Chrysler person:
Monday morning I attended a breakfast meeting where the speaker/guest was David E. Cole, Chairman of the Center for Automotive Research (CAR), an Engineer with 40+ years automotive experience, full Professor at the Univ. of Michigan. You have all likely heard CAR quoted, or referred to in the auto industry news lately. Mr. Cole told many stories of the difficulty of working with the folks that the Obama administration has sent to ‘save’ the auto industry.

There have been many meetings where this very experienced automotive expert has had to listen to a newcomer to the industry; someone with zero manufacturing experience, zero auto industry experience, zero business experience, zero finance experience, zero engineering experience, and apparently zero brains tell them how to run their business.

Mr. Cole's favorite story is as follows:
There was a team of Obama people speaking to Mr. Cole. They were explaining to Mr. Cole that the auto companies needed to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas (LNG) with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles, so we wouldn't "need" so many gas stations (A whole other topic). They were quoting BTU's of LNG and battery life they had looked up on some web site.

Mr. Cole explained that to do this you would need a trunk FULL of batteries, and a LNG tank as big as a car to make that happen. And that there were problems related to the laws of physics that prevented them from...

The Obama person interrupted and said (and I am quoting here), "These laws of physics? Whose rules are those? We need to change that (while others wrote down the name of the law so they could look it up). We have the Congress, and the administration. We can repeal that law, amend it, or use an executive order to get rid of that problem. That's why we are here, to fix these sort of issues."

My friends ... we are screwed.


——————————
So, I conclude that list’s owner is biassed. I spoke w/ Mary Mogge (SCAAPT meeting) who thought unreasonable and wouldn’t have me kicked of. (Certainly the tenor of her conversation, but my memory is not necessarily exact.)

And if people keep posting such things here, then they should be removed from the
list. Simple.

I'm not sure why these things keep happening.

My final thought(s): I agree some of the posts are rather distant from physics teaching. However, by posting controversials (sorry for the neologism) that may engender thought which increases crit. thinking. And I find it interesting that there is not criticism of posts distant from teaching, but of little political or religious nature. Curious.

"And any postings that are religious/political/etc. should not be allowed."

bc, devout atheist.

p.s. This is just an estimate, but surely these “rogue” posts are less then several % of the total, no? But engender such “vociferous” complaint. Not BTW, that conversation (Imagine a world …) was much longer than the average; surely indicative that some “rogue” posts are of general interest.