re suggestion about moderated group (v. infra, below MN's post): I'm
for it. I had high expectations when I first logged on, but afraid
most of the serious participants have been crowded out or discouraged
from loggging in. There is a wealth of wasted talent out
there--OCCASIONALLY posting (Gutnikov apleasant surprise, at long
intervals), but far short of wht the neuroscience community has to
offer (I'm a member of Society for Neuroscience).
Some of the "other" posts are amusing, and some queries from the naive
present really thought-provoking personal reports (re unexplained
apparently neurological coonditions), AND I am leery of
censorship...but how about some sort of triage? e.g. distributing
mesages to "neuroscience" or "anti-neuroscience" or "neurocience
query", as seems appropriate?
F. LeFever
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <6gf2d1$rqb at news.acns.nwu.edu> m-natarajan at nwu.edu (Madhusudan
Natarajan) writes:
>>In article <352A4829.12B5 at uthscsa.edu>, casada at uthscsa.edu wrote:
>>$$
>$$What is happening to this newsgroup? It used to be that science
>$$predominated. Now we have posters "critiquing" science by noting we
>$$have not accounted for magic and we don't used drug abusers enough.
We
>$$have people who fantasize about what brains do and treat it like the
>$$truth.
>$$
>$$For those that continue to post neuroscience, sorry for the rant.
For
>$$the others, please get a grip on SCIENCE or direct your posts to a
more
>$$appropriate newsgroup.
>$$
>$$John
>>True, too many pseudo-poets and fantasy writers abound. Maybe its time
for an
>RFD for bionet.neuroscience.moderated?