Usenet sci.phys. - can intelligence be obscene?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intelligence
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the quality of discourse in the Usenet sci.phys groups, noting a prevalence of inappropriate language and unproductive arguments. John Baez, recognized for his intelligence and professionalism, is mentioned as a positive figure amidst the chaos. The moderated groups, sci.physics.research and sci.physics.strings, are viewed as more reliable compared to the unmoderated sections, which are criticized for being filled with unhelpful content and poor manners. Participants express a preference for more structured environments like physicsforums, emphasizing the challenges of finding valuable discussions in Usenet groups. Overall, the sentiment leans towards the necessity of moderation to maintain a respectful and informative physics community.
Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
The Usenet sci.phys. (where people "use" each other). It is obvious these people know how to swear, but how well do they actually know their physics? I won't wade in their offal to find out. However, John Baez (the monitor?) seems intelligent and I've yet to see him use obscenities. Do they represent the physics community?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The only two groups of the sci.physics.* hierarchy that are moderated are sci.physics.research and sci.physics.strings, the two groups we carry here on physicsforums. The rest are basically chock-full of nuts and flame wars.

John Baez is a very accomplished professor at UCR -- you can definitely trust him.

- Warren
 
Cool, I just sit back and tune into PF!
 
The usenet groups are crap. To find anything worthwhile is quite an effort. Lots of idiots, lots of bad manners, not much else.
 
I just saw a familiar name. Is that really Ed Witten posting at sci.physics.strings?
 
If there is anyone here who thinks we shouldn't be moderating language or intervening as moderaters to keep people's attitudes in check needs only put on their highwaters and go wading over there to see why we do it.

I haven't even glanced at that place in over two years, and I don't miss it one bit.
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Back
Top