Russell wrote:
>A poll of list members based on my past history may,
>perhaps, suggest otherwise.

I'm talking about your stubbornness in keeping the GW thread in [EE], not
your past history. And no poll is needed... review the number of people who
have found it necessary to involve themselves in this matter, and nearly all
with the opinion that the GW thread belongs in [OT].

I realize you are passionate about the GW issue, but that alone should have
raised a flag to you that it is NOT suitable [EE] topic matter. The lack of
Engineering content is a simple one to spot too.

Personally I'm much happier monitoring a discussion on GW with people that
are actually qualified to be part of the discussion. For that, there are
plenty of forums more suitable than one made up of PIC users. Anyway,
Godwin's law applies... as soon as you mentioned the Nazis on an internet
forum, you've lost the argument... whatever it was. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

>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 :-).

I joined just over 5 months to the day, and have enjoyed a number of your
past [EE] posts, because of their Engineering, rather than General Sciences
/ Political bend.

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

>[TECHO] or [SCI] or whatever would be sacred ground to me
>and I'd happily defend and use it.

I fail to see why you would do that, but don't consider [EE] sacred ground?
Is just because [EE] isn't moderated and you can get away with 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).

Reasons to continue the discussion about topic suitability inside [EE] have
already been given.

>> 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.

Fine, and I think you should have raised this point earlier; from your prior
posts on the matter it had appeared to me your issue with OT was simply
there isn't enough [OT] readers to annoy. Anyhow 'Science' doesn't belong in
that sentence... By listing science separately to engineering, you obviously
agree that they are NOT the same thing. Regardless of the arguments about
what the [EE] tag actually means, this much I am certain of... One of those
'E's is for engineering and neither of them are for science.

So, just because you have a url to a NASA page, and that page has a very
firm footing in Science, that does not make it engineering, therefore it is
offtopic.

>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.

I surely hope the purpose of your massive [EE] GW thread assault was not
simply to set the stage for a [SCI] forum, because there were far better,
and less painful ways of achieving this.

>> 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.

Erm, it was you who brought the Nazis into [EE], I didn't realize they were
already in [OT], but yes, as it stands right now, without a [SCI] forum, sex
& science would lay together in [OT]. I'll concede that this situation
should be improved, but until/if it ever is, PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES.

>> 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.

Again, those NASA urls look like solid science, but nada on the engineering
front. Therefore they are [OT]

This is quite simple isn't it?  Engineering to [EE], and science isn't
engineering.

>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.

When you want to discuss the engineering details of any specific effort,
tool, invention or problem rather than the Environmental Science or
Political aspects of GW, that would be a good time bring it into to [EE].
I'm not belittling the GW issue, just arguing that what you present is not
engineering, the link to engineering you are describing above is a reach.

Andy.

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