>Now, as any 12 year old should know, this one sentence is wrong geologically, astronomically, >seismologically, oceanographically and chronologically.

You can add to that list, grammatically. It is just a bunch of meaningless nouns, verbs, and adverbs strung together with appropriate conjunctions, yet adding up to what I would write, were I grading this mess, jargon. It's not even good jargon. As English, it doth sucketh out the proverbial wazoo.

But let me speak to your former point:

> As a consequence this board is not as active as it used to be. But, on the whole, I think quality is >more important than quantity.

I do know to what you are referring, and have to agree to a point. I would like to see the group we have presently still post the hard science for those here who want that, but I'd also like everyone to feel free to post some OT messages as well. It's hard to get to "know" people on the internet (as much as anyone can ever know someone from cyberspace), and if they stick to straight science, no one will ever really get very far past the facade.

I, for one, like hearing about others' lives, in addition to what project they are currently working on. Do I think posts about someone's latest children's toy (a subject that was once posted here) are appropriate? No. Who cares, for one thing? But do I enjoy reading about Chris's wintertime tales of speedscating and reports of Canie's cat shows? I do.

I think we should loosen up a bit here. When the reins were tightened (after some really inappropriate stuff went down over a year ago), people here tended to go a little overboard, IMHO. So I certainly don't want pseudoscience posted here, but I don't want nothing but hard science, either.

Guess I have to differ on that point with you a bit, Michael. Or maybe you're in agreement about OT posting—I have no idea. It's never come up before in all the years I've "known" you.

Cathryn