Re: Re: A word about posts that never make it to the board

[Guest guest]

Aq: thanks for your .02. We want your .02 for the express reasons that you state below (i.e. to prevent " inbreeding " ).

You say:

" Yet on this board I'm seeing censuring of some very logical and informative posts, apparently mostly for those people that do not toe the " party line " religiously enough. "

How could you be " seeing " this? The only posts you would " see " that might be censored are your own. Only the moderators see the posts from others that are censored.

Are we censoring important posts that might stimulate interesting discussion? IMHO we are not; or at least we certainly try not to. After all the moderators desire an interesting, stimulating board just like everyone else in the group. I've seen differing opinions than the " party line " (?) often here. In most cases, if a person has citations, and is coherent they get posted. I assume what you mean by the " party line " is scientific evidence and agreement on the best way to live a healthy life.

Here is how we run the group and some recent examples:

1. We have a committe of moderators who consult on policy, not just one or two people.

2. We just went through several days of posts that are of the genre you mention as desirable and that could have been censored. In fact they were not. We tread very lightly on the censoring and (unfortunately IMHO) usually put through posts in " gray " areas. My personal preference is to censor more heavily, but we don't.

3. Without censoring you would be quite overwhelmed with the nonsense posts you mention as undesirable, that are on other boards - and of course that includes SPAM which is avoided here thanks to the hard-working moderators.

Of course, if the moderators found a better way to run the group or if someone had a constructive suggestion that would be practical to implement, we would be only too happy to change policy.

on 2/9/2006 3:36 PM, aequalsz at aequalsz@... wrote:

>

>

> Thanks to everyone for your cooperation. As always we are always

open to

> suggestions for running the show better.

>

Hello Francesca,

I really enjoy and have learned a lot reading the posts on your

CRON forum but methinks I do detect a tad bit of inbreeding here.

Seems like often times new genetic material is not allowed into the

gene pool. So we often keep getting the same old CRON party doctrine.

Which is OK but sort of repetitious. I (and would suspect many

others as well) enjoy reading a few different points of view. Now I

could see censuring some of the idiotic posts I see on many other of

the boards. Yet on this board I'm seeing censuring of some very

logical and informative posts, apparently mostly for those people that

do not toe the " party line " religiously enough. So to improve this

CRON group, methinks you should encourage those with a lot of medical

acumen to freely express themselves. Were all grownups here and can

decide for ourselves what is worth reading or not. Sorry - guess

I must be a liberal but just don't like censureship. Especially by

many of your would-be scientists.

My 2 cents.

a=z

PS Bet this doesn't make it past one of the four or so " party line "

post moderators.

[Guest guest]

Aq: thanks for your .02. We want your .02 for the express reasons that you state below (i.e. to prevent " inbreeding " ).

You say:

" Yet on this board I'm seeing censuring of some very logical and informative posts, apparently mostly for those people that do not toe the " party line " religiously enough. "

How could you be " seeing " this? The only posts you would " see " that might be censored are your own. Only the moderators see the posts from others that are censored.

Are we censoring important posts that might stimulate interesting discussion? IMHO we are not; or at least we certainly try not to. After all the moderators desire an interesting, stimulating board just like everyone else in the group. I've seen differing opinions than the " party line " (?) often here. In most cases, if a person has citations, and is coherent they get posted. I assume what you mean by the " party line " is scientific evidence and agreement on the best way to live a healthy life.

Here is how we run the group and some recent examples:

1. We have a committe of moderators who consult on policy, not just one or two people.

2. We just went through several days of posts that are of the genre you mention as desirable and that could have been censored. In fact they were not. We tread very lightly on the censoring and (unfortunately IMHO) usually put through posts in " gray " areas. My personal preference is to censor more heavily, but we don't.

3. Without censoring you would be quite overwhelmed with the nonsense posts you mention as undesirable, that are on other boards - and of course that includes SPAM which is avoided here thanks to the hard-working moderators.

Of course, if the moderators found a better way to run the group or if someone had a constructive suggestion that would be practical to implement, we would be only too happy to change policy.

on 2/9/2006 3:36 PM, aequalsz at aequalsz@... wrote:

>

>

> Thanks to everyone for your cooperation. As always we are always

open to

> suggestions for running the show better.

>

Hello Francesca,

I really enjoy and have learned a lot reading the posts on your

CRON forum but methinks I do detect a tad bit of inbreeding here.

Seems like often times new genetic material is not allowed into the

gene pool. So we often keep getting the same old CRON party doctrine.

Which is OK but sort of repetitious. I (and would suspect many

others as well) enjoy reading a few different points of view. Now I

could see censuring some of the idiotic posts I see on many other of

the boards. Yet on this board I'm seeing censuring of some very

logical and informative posts, apparently mostly for those people that

do not toe the " party line " religiously enough. So to improve this

CRON group, methinks you should encourage those with a lot of medical

acumen to freely express themselves. Were all grownups here and can

decide for ourselves what is worth reading or not. Sorry - guess

I must be a liberal but just don't like censureship. Especially by

many of your would-be scientists.

My 2 cents.

a=z

PS Bet this doesn't make it past one of the four or so " party line "

post moderators.