Sci.nanotech sure seems dead.

Anyone care to speculate why?

Myself I think it's because speculation posts are no longer allowed. All
the fun is thus now gone.

Sci.nanotech sure seems dead. Anyone care to speculate why?

Myself I think it's because speculation posts are no longer allowed. All
the fun is thus now gone.

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Sci.nanotech sure seems dead.

It's not dead - it's just resting!

Anyone care to speculate why?

Gordon is busy and posted a message indicating there might be long
delays until he got un-busy. So that may have impacted traffic within the
last few days (even though I am checking daily as a backup moderator).

But you probably mean the general slow pace of postings that has been
gripping the group for a while.

Myself I think it's because speculation posts are no longer allowed. All
the fun is thus now gone.

I don't think speculative posts have been disallowed - merely discouraged.
I noticed that Gordon (and Chris and Steve when they can find time) might
not immediately approve a post whose science is clearly wrong, but will
e-mail the poster, point out their mistakes, and ask if the poster still
wishes to have the message approved, given that the moderators will point
out their errors in public. That tends to discourage posts with loose
thinking.

But I think perhaps the slow pace is due to there now being several other
nanotechnology discussion forums on the net, such as on http://nanodot.org,
Yahoo groups, and so on. Active posters haven't grown much in numbers but I
think they have become diluted among a larger number of discussion forums.
And it seems that Usenet itself is generally having visibility problems.

And of course sci.nanotech has been around since 1988 and a lot of stuff
has been discussed in 15 years. Until the development path is clarified and
the viability of some approaches are ascertained, too much speculation
would be a waste of time since some will eventually be shown to be founded
on unviable approaches. At least that is what I suspect is going through
people's minds. Development is in deep flux and it is impossible to know
if certain approaches are being worked on in stealth mode somewhere - or
perhaps not at all. Speculation is difficult when it may have already been
shown that your ideas are incorrect or irrelevant by research you didn't even
know had already been done!

Finally, sci.nanotech has gone through slow periods in the past so perhaps
this is one of those glacial periods.

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Sci.nanotech sure seems dead.
It's not dead - it's just resting!

Sci.nanotech sure seems dead. Anyone care to speculate why?

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:

Myself I think it's because speculation posts are no longer allowed. All
the fun is thus now gone.


I don't think speculative posts have been disallowed - merely discouraged.
I noticed that Gordon (and Chris and Steve when they can find time) might
not immediately approve a post whose science is clearly wrong, but will
e-mail the poster, point out their mistakes, and ask if the poster still
wishes to have the message approved, given that the moderators will point
out their errors in public. That tends to discourage posts with loose
thinking.

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
Sci.nanotech sure seems dead.

It's not dead - it's just resting!

Anyone care to speculate why?

Gordon is busy and posted a message indicating there
might be long delays until he got un-busy. So that may
have impacted traffic within the last few days (even
though I am checking daily as a backup moderator).

But you probably mean the general slow pace of postings
that has been gripping the group for a while.

Myself I think it's because speculation posts are no longer
allowed. All the fun is thus now gone.

I don't think speculative posts have been disallowed - merely
discouraged.

I noticed that Gordon (and Chris and Steve when they can
find time) might not immediately approve a post whose
science is clearly wrong, but will e-mail the poster, point out
their mistakes...

...and ask if the poster still wishes to have the message
approved, given that the moderators will point out their
errors in public. That tends to discourage posts with loose
thinking.

But I think perhaps the slow pace is due to there now being
several other nanotechnology discussion forums on the net,
such as on http://nanodot.org, Yahoo groups, and so on.
Active posters haven't grown much in numbers but I think
they have become diluted among a larger number of
discussion forums. And it seems that Usenet itself is
generally having visibility problems.

And of course sci.nanotech has been around since 1988 and
a lot of stuff has been discussed in 15 years. Until the
development path is clarified and the viability of some
approaches are ascertained, too much speculation would be
a waste of time since some will eventually be shown to be
founded on unviable approaches. At least that is what I
suspect is going through people's minds.

Development is in deep flux and it is impossible to know
if certain approaches are being worked on in stealth mode
somewhere - or perhaps not at all. Speculation is difficult
when it may have already been shown that your ideas are
incorrect or irrelevant by research you didn't even know
had already been done!

Finally, sci.nanotech has gone through slow periods in the past
so perhaps this is one of those glacial periods.

"James Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
Gordon is busy and posted a message indicating there
might be long delays until he got un-busy. So that may
have impacted traffic within the last few days (even
though I am checking daily as a backup moderator).

As it appears that the three voted to become co-moderators are at best
now just one, we really should replace the two who are deadwood.

It was nice of them to volunteer but they're non-existant.

One of the
ideas behind having co-moderation is how it makes replacing deadwood
moderators that much easier. This should be done now.

But you probably mean the general slow pace of postings
that has been gripping the group for a while.

That and the vanishing moderators.

Myself I think it's because speculation posts are no longer
allowed. All the fun is thus now gone.

I don't think speculative posts have been disallowed - merely
discouraged.

I think it goes beyond "discourage".

I noticed that Gordon (and Chris and Steve when they can
find time) might not immediately approve a post whose
science is clearly wrong, but will e-mail the poster, point out
their mistakes...

This is wrong. Plain and simple. Let the post go through. Let's
have a discussion. Perhaps Gordon is wrong in his assessment. Others
here will point that out. Perhaps others have the same idea but
simply never post it. Let the post through and they too can learn.

...and ask if the poster still wishes to have the message
approved, given that the moderators will point out their
errors in public. That tends to discourage posts with loose
thinking.

That can easily be taken as a threat and thus no wonder they don't
request it to be posted anyway.

But I think perhaps the slow pace is due to there now being
several other nanotechnology discussion forums on the net,
such as on http://nanodot.org, Yahoo groups, and so on.
Active posters haven't grown much in numbers but I think
they have become diluted among a larger number of
discussion forums. And it seems that Usenet itself is
generally having visibility problems.

The above sounds more like a poor excuse. This group used to be quite
lively and that was when speculation posts were allowed and not
browbeated away.

And of course sci.nanotech has been around since 1988 and
a lot of stuff has been discussed in 15 years. Until the
development path is clarified and the viability of some
approaches are ascertained, too much speculation would be
a waste of time since some will eventually be shown to be
founded on unviable approaches. At least that is what I
suspect is going through people's minds.

When not browbeated to not post such to the newsgroup. And so what if
the speculations don't pan out? This is a DISCUSSION newgroups. Let
the discussion take place. If someone doesn't like such discussions,
they need not read those threads. No one is forced to read all
threads.

Development is in deep flux and it is impossible to know
if certain approaches are being worked on in stealth mode
somewhere - or perhaps not at all. Speculation is difficult
when it may have already been shown that your ideas are
incorrect or irrelevant by research you didn't even know
had already been done!

So the best thing someone can do is remain silent?! "Sorry, dear, but
please don't speculate about anything because you MIGHT not have all
the facts. After all, dear, if you did post such a thing, someone
might ... horrors of horrors ... inform you of research you weren't
aware of. Now we cannot allow that in this newsgroup, can we? That
might actually educate people. That might actually cause an lively
discussion and possibly even further input about other related
research. After all, this newsgroup is only for those that already
know all the answers or only have the courage to post what they're
absolutely positively sure of."

Finally, sci.nanotech has gone through slow periods in the past
so perhaps this is one of those glacial periods.

Perhaps. Perhaps it has simply been summer when it is nicer outside
doing fun activities than inside posting to newsgroups.

On 2 Sep 2003 05:10:47 GMT, "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:


Sci.nanotech sure seems dead. Anyone care to speculate why?


Because the moderators like it quiet?

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

On 2 Sep 2003 05:10:47 GMT, "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:


Sci.nanotech sure seems dead. Anyone care to speculate why?


Because the moderators like it quiet?

No doubt less work to do. Except for all that spam you don't see, or the
6000 e-mails dumped on the sci.nanotech submission address by an irate
poster whose off-topic posting was rejected but who had been advised on
another more topical group to direct their posting. The deluge managed to
take down not just sci.nanotech for a half day but several moderated
business groups hosted by my home system.

But if you want to see even an even quieter group, check out
alt.sci.nanotech. It is not moderated. But then there are no volunteer
moderators there to complain about low posting volume or to abuse.

Development is in deep flux and it is impossible to know
if certain approaches are being worked on in stealth mode somewhere - or
perhaps not at all. Speculation is difficult when it may have already been
shown that your ideas are incorrect or irrelevant by research you didn't
even
know had already been done!

I don't think speculative posts have been disallowed - merely
discouraged. I noticed that Gordon (and Chris and Steve when they can
find time) might not immediately approve a post whose science is
clearly wrong, but will e-mail the poster, point out their mistakes,
and ask if the poster still wishes to have the message approved, given
that the moderators will point out their errors in public. That tends
to discourage posts with loose thinking.

But I think perhaps the slow pace is due to there now being several other
nanotechnology discussion forums on the net, such as on http://nanodot.org,
Yahoo groups, and so on.

And of course sci.nanotech has been around since 1988 and a lot of
stuff has been discussed in 15 years. Until the development path is
clarified and the viability of some approaches are ascertained, too
much speculation would be a waste of time since some will eventually
be shown to be founded on unviable approaches.