Conference 7.286::digital

	I purposely avoided that one, so I don't know how bad it
	got, but...

>How much moderation is enough?

	I'd say that depends on the conference. I'd like to see
	moderation chores kept to a minimum. If the authors don't
	delete them, why should you bother? Let them remain as an
	example of what you don't want to see in the future? If
	you delete them, they may pop up again as a "new" topic.

>has effectively been stapled to their resume.  Is this reasonable?

	That's an interesting statement. I've never thought of it
	that way before, but it's definitely a valid assumption in
	any public conference, at least for internal copies of
	your resume.

-Bob B.

		

I'm not sure it's *reasonable* that note file entries are effectively stapled
to your resume, but it's certainly *true*.

--PSW

    seems it's just as reasonable (or unreasonable) as the replies themselves!

    I rather suspect that a reply/file/series of replies _could_ be
    stapled to your internal resume; however, I suspect people who bother
    to read notes like NO_SMOKING aren't likely to be looking for evidence
    of the writer or moderator, pro or con.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr
    

    There is someone here who has his name associated in a bad sense
    to notesfiles. He deliberately flamed at alot of people throughout
    the company (whom he did not know) and his name is well known
    throughout various groups in the company from that incident. People
    in some of these groups have told me about this "kid" whom they
    have never met but don't like, anyway. In this sense, notefile replies
    follow the author around.
    
    B.
    

    Re: .5
    
    Does this constitutes a defamation of character? (assuming the alleged
    person actually has one :-)
    
    Seriously even if .5 did not name any names, almost everyone knows
    the identity of the person.  Now my question is if the said person
    takes an offense at reply .5 would s/he be justified?
    
    - Vikas
   

    RE: .6 I can think of 6-10 people who could be the person in
    	reply .5.
    
    		Alfred

    RE: .6, RE: .5
    
    Is the person involved doesn't know, that person never will.
    
    If that person knows it's him or doesn't think it's him, he will
    still be more careful about his choice of words in the future. I
    believe that would improve the overall quality of the notesfiles.
    Sometimes you have to hit someone over the head with a hammer before
    you can catch their attention.
    
    I didn't name the person because some people don't know who I'm
    talking about; it's entirely possible you don't. That person deserves
    SOME privacy.
    
    
    The Mad Chinaman
    
    
    PS: Notice, I never said WHERE "here" in the building meant!   :-)
    
    PPS: No flames intended...
    

    Please wander back to the subject of this note, and refrain from
    getting specific about any one individual. 
    
    Thanks,
    
    - M

    what a bummer...I was in Maynard all  day so I didn't read #.9 before
    the author deleted the response.  Or was that the person who sent
    me mail?...
    
    RE: -.1
    
    If you were talking to me (relatively), I was talking about the
    incident instead of the person, which is why I didn't bother to
    mention any names.
    
    Whatever, it is worth thinking about....
    
    
    The Mad Chinaman
    

Re: .6 "Defamation of character"


Don't you mean DEFLAMATION of character? Afterall, it is a HOT issue!


:-)
MartyJ

	[Especially for today, the "Great American Smokeout"]

CHOOSING

	The following research appeared in the 
	"Journal of the American Medical Association",
	(Vol.257, pp. 3373-3376) and was quoted in the
	December, 1987 issue of "Psychology Today" p.24:

"Is choosing to smoke an informed decision? Although the risks have been
well publicized for more than two decades, there's evidence that this 
information is not reaching those most likely to start."

Those who made the most errors in tests about smoking knowledge were those
who had the most contact with smokers! It is thought that cognitive dissonance
shields them from "awareness and/or acceptance of information about smoking 
and health."  In other words, if parents and friends smoke, you don't want
to admit what they are doing to themselves!


PERFORMANCE

	The following research was conducted by 
	George J. Spilich, Ph.D at Washington College
	in Chestertown, Maryland, and was presented
	at the last meeting of the American Psychological
	Association, and was quoted in the December, 1987
	issue of "Psychology Today."

"SMOKERS DON'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO THINK SERIOUSLY AS WELL AS NON-SMOKERS DO."
[Capitals mine] Dr. Spilich bases this conclusion on several years research
where smokers and non-smokers were tested on three types of tasks. He found
that the common belief that nicotine in cigarettes improves mental performance
applies only to the simplest of tasks, such as finding a particular letter
in a mixed group of letters.  More difficult tasks showed the smokers' 
performance became increasingly poorer.

An example of a simple task was to scan a screen filled with 20 identical 
letters and press SPACE when one letter changed to another. The middle
task was to recall ideas presented in a 600-word story. "Nonsmokers
recalled the highest percentage of ideas, and particularly the highest
proportion of the most important ideas." (PT,12/87,p.24) The smokers
did the worst.

An experiment with a driving simulator showed smokers "drove further"
BUT had "three times as many collisions as the non-smokers and twice 
as many as the abstaining smokers."

	Rick
	Merrill

    <--(.13)
    
    Sounds like unjustified conclusions, t'me.  The findings can be
    accounted for in other ways (based on the information you quote).
    
    						=maggie
                                                                     
    (no I don't smoke and yes I seriously dislike the presence of smoke in
    the atmosphere I'm trying to breathe.) 

        Re: .14
        
>    <--(.13)
>    
>    Sounds like unjustified conclusions, t'me.  The findings can be
>    accounted for in other ways (based on the information you quote).
        
        I don't think that your conclusion is justified.  There is not
        enough information in reply .13 to tell how well the experiment
        was constructed and how well the results were interpreted. 
        
        If you do want to discuss the research, a better place to
        continue the discussion would be JOET::NO_SMOKING (where .13
        was also posted). 
        
        					B.J.

    re: "the research"  PLEASE note that the reason that I quoted the
    sources was so that you COULD access the original data. Call or
    write to those named.  That is the only responsible way to post
    or to critique the experimental and mathematical methods.
    
    re: "conclusions"  Given that you accept the results of the tests,
    what other conclusions would you draw? Can you be more specific?
    
    rmm