XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.space.shuttle   
   From: No_Email@no.no   
      
   "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"  wrote   
   in news:GaWdncQ0v8FVOf3XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink.com:   
      
   >   
   > This post is to let you know that sci.space.science is now being   
   > moderated again.   
   >   
   > George Herbert has graciously passed the reins on to the new   
   > moderators so that perhaps these newsgroups can have some life   
   > again.   
   >   
   > The moderators are the same as sci.space.tech:   
   >   
   > Greg Moore (mooregr (at) greenms.com)   
   > Derek Lyons (fairwater (at) gmail.com)   
   > Mary Shafer    
   >   
   > Some of you may be wondering why us.  The honest answer is simple:   
   > because we undertook the work to make this happen.  Derek and I   
   > discussed at length what we thought it would take to try to bring   
   > back these newsgroups from the dead.  Among the issues we   
   > discussed was making sure we had an odd number of moderators so we   
   > decided to look for a third.  We hoped to find someone whose   
   > integrity and experience would be above reproach.  Graciously and   
   > fortunately Mary Shafer has agreed to be that person.   
   >   
   > We want to thank Paul W. Schleck for his unselfish help in setting   
   > up the account and getting the software working.   
   >   
   > As for posting guidelines, we are working on those but in general   
   > we will be trying to use the standards outlined below.   
   >   
   > Posts will initially be judged on content.  NO posters will   
   > initially be blacklisted.  However, posters who continually post   
   > and repost rejected material may find themselves eventually   
   > blacklisted.   
   >   
   > For sci.space.science, any post should have a majority of the   
   > content be of a scientific in nature.  Articles that clearly cite   
   > references or avoid unsubstantiated claims are more likely to pass   
   > moderation.   
   >   
   > There is room for non-technical details, but if the moderators   
   > feel the post is to far from technical we are likely to ask for a   
   > rewrite.  A post that is obviously non-technical in nature or   
   > completely off-topic will be rejected outright.   
   >   
   > Posts that include cites, equations and proven science references   
   > are preferred.  If you want to discuss esoteric subjects such as   
   > alien life, non-mainstream scientific thought, please make  sure   
   > to have recent and citable references for the topic.  Pie in the   
   > sky posts will generally be rejected.   
   >   
   > Personal attacks generally will NOT be tolerated.  Quips at others   
   > expense or ribbing may be tolerated as long as they are not the   
   > main point of the post and are specific to the points being   
   > addressed. Topics that we feel have run their course will   
   > generally be closed off until new scientific information is   
   > posted.  Rehashing topics over and over again will not be   
   > permitted.   
   >   
   >   
   > As moderators we realize that we can probably please all the   
   > people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but   
   > will never please all the people all of the time.  So be it.   
   >   
   > If you have issues with how we are moderating or an issue with why   
   > specific posts were or were not approved, we will consider all   
   > reasonably written emails to us.  Part of the reason for an   
   > odd-number of moderators is so that if necessary, we can vote on   
   > any posts that require that.   
   >   
   > Please keep in mind the three of us are all volunteers and   
   > spending out time, effort and to an extent money to make this   
   > happen.   
   >   
   > Thank you   
   >   
   > Your sci.space.science moderation team.   
   >   
   > Greg Moore   
   > Derek Lyons   
   > Mary Shafer   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)