A

>... If Russell were to only count the number of people
> that have voiced an opinion that the GW thread belongs in 
> [OT] instead
> of [EE], compare that to the count of people who claim 
> it's actually
> good engineering content and apply some democracy, there 
> wouldn't be
> a problem.

> So far he has failed to do this,

Ya reckon?
And, do you think that your counting and mine would tally ? 
:-)

> which IMO demonstrates a total lack of
> respect for his peers,

A poll of list members based on my past history may, 
perhaps, suggest otherwise.
If you have been lurking as long as you say I'll have to 
excuse that comment as mere oversight - besides, you're too 
far away to challenge you to mortal combat with whatever it 
is that Floridians use for duelling :-).

> and leads me to have little or no expectation
> that he would use [SCI] or other tags properly either.

I'll ignore the "either". And I'll even ignore the more than 
implict slur in "little or no"
Apart from that, I assure you that your leading misleads 
you.
[TECHO] or [SCI] or whatever would be sacred ground to me 
and I'd happily defend and use it.
Much more rigorously than eg you are doing by posting this 
in EE. (As I'm replying to it in EE we pots and kettles will 
just have to be all black together).

> The stigma [OT] has is unfounded.

The term "stigma" is yours, not mine.
And the statement is in fact an opinion.
My opinion differs.
No surprise I'm sure :-).

MANY people do not subscribe to OT because it is filled with 
religious-religious, religious-other, political and even sex 
related discussions that have no relationship to engineering 
and science. What I would dearly love to see is a forum here 
where the global villagers can discuss the wider areas of 
engineering and science. I am an electrical engineer by 
genetic compulsion and I would be very pleased indeed to 
have an area that was truly electrical engineering related - 
free from lesser matters such as science, OT and PICs.

> This is PICList, mainly subscribed to
> by Engineers. Therefore

non sequitur

> the PICList [OT] can be better described as
> "Off Topic that Engineers might find interesting". This is 
> not a bad
> place for a thread to be.

As above.
That's an opinion.
And, as above, not one that I agree with.
There is utterly no reason that you have to agree with me, 
but you do need to recognise that your opinions carry as 
little value in absolute terms as mine do :-).

> I like the idea of [EE] encompassing non-electrical 
> engineering, in the
> context of "Everything Engineering" but when we drift off 
> into
> politics, Nazis, conspiracy theories etc. it is 
> unquestionably OT.

> Science (Pure or Pseudo) <> Engineering

And yet, you are suggesting, and  expecting me to agree, 
that science should be in with the Nazis, conspiracy 
theories and politics.

> It would be far safer to introduce these Environmental 
> Science and
> Physical Science subjects into [OT] and should we be lucky 
> enough that
> a branch of discussion enters back into real engineering, 
> at that
> point, bring that part of it back into [EE].

That is in fact exactly what I did and exactly what started 
this furore.
So far nobody arguing the "anti" line, as you are, has seen 
fit to comment on my repeatedly raised example of a NASA 
report, based on NASA satellite data, which related to 
Antarctic ice melting. That, surely, is as real as the data 
gets but BB called it pseudo science and that was the 'last 
straw", he said, that caused him to leave. It's easy to say 
things such as the above but the BB / NASA example 
demonstrates that they don't translate into real world 
tolerance.

And fwiw, and it's probably not worth much, GW promises to 
be THE largest engineering effort, guided or misguided, EVER 
undertaken by manunkind. Many seem to be either happy with 
this or uncaring.



        R




-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist