[Openeeg-list] On-topic and off-topic posts

[Helga I. <hel...@ya...>]

Hai Kala <sharkbeta <at> gmail.com> writes:

> There have been many very kind people answering 
> me, and I highly appreciate everyones answers and 
> I hope I have notoffended anyone but one person 
> on this list ( H.I. ) to whom I apologize if I 
> have somehow offended her, but it surely was not
> my intention. 

Hello Hai -

I very much regret that I seem to have 
hurt your feelings by the response I made 
to your three new posts of April 7th.  Still, 
your most recent post leads me to believe 
that you may have misinterpreted what I 
was trying to say. 

I do NOT object to posts about 
applications of EEG that have at 
least some relevance to the project, 
or to posts about brain science that 
are even just a little relevant to the 
design of EEG hardware and software.  
Nathan's recent post about whether EEG 
recordings of scalp gamma represent 
actual brain activity or are just muscle 
artifact is a good example of such. 
Obviously, if scalp gamma represents 
actual brain activity, then our EEG 
hardware designs will need to change 
in order to capture it; different filters 
and higher sampling rates would 
need to be used.

Nor do I object at all to more general 
neuroscience posts and threads that 
relate  in some way to EEG. There are 
not only tremendously talented electronics 
engineers who frequent this group, but 
some extraordinary specialists in neuro-
science. I believe It would be a VERY 
significant loss to the group if they 
were to feel excluded from sharing 
their particular knowledge here.
The thread on ESES (electrographic 
status epilepticus of sleep) or CSWS 
(continuous spike wave sleep activity), 
and how to monitor it, that occurred 
February 24th - 28th between Chris 
Veigl, Helen, Liam, Scott, and Ray 
Cole, under a couple of different 
subject lines is a perfect example of 
that. It was an application discussion, 
certainly, but one that provided new 
ideas and useful information to think 
about for those of us who are interested 
primarily in hardware.

I do find such posts very much "on topic"    
and would be sorry to see them excluded.    
Those of us who are more interested in the 
hardware side do need the expertise of the 
neuroscience people here if we're to be  
able to design EEG hardware and software 
that keeps up with the constantly 
developing, ever increasing body of 
knowledge about the beautifully 
complex organ we're all so very 
interested in "listening to", via EEG.  

I will admit, however, that I've 
occasionally felt some slight annoyance 
at posts that have very little to do 
with EEG, or that pose questions that  
could be easily answered in a few 
moments by a simple web search.  
And it's true that there were a rather 
large number of such posts last month 
relative to other months. But a certain 
measure of that is inevitable for any 
group, and it hardly seems to me to 
present any serious problem here. 
Certainly the group should not, in 
reaction against that kind of 
annoyance, seek to exclude the 
genuinely valuable contributions 
from the neuroscience and 
applications-oriented people here.

In deference to the stated purpose of 
the group, and in proper respect 
to the hardware people who constitute the 
majority of members of the list, however, 
I do think that ancillary posts should be 
limited to around 20% - 25% of list 
content, rather than the 50% number you 
seem to favor, Hai.  It would not be right 
to allow the list to "drift" so far from 
its original orientation, in my opinion. 

But whatever percentage the group 
consensus ultimately allows, I think 
most members would agree that some 
degree of "cross fertilization" among 
hardware, software, applications, and 
neuroscience related to EEG does 
contribute substantial value here, 
and should be received with a 
certain genial tolerance, at the 
absolute minimum.

Besides, some of the same (VERY) few 
people who have complained in the past 
about what they've considered "off topic" 
posts made by others have themselves 
made posts concerning video game 
controller design, extra-sensory 
perception, general electronics 
discussion that's unrelated to EEG, 
and want to include non EEG topics 
that they happen to be interested in 
like skin conductance measurements, 
SEMG, and the like.  And I really have 
no problem with that, either; they're 
interesting in their own right, even if 
they're not much related to the openEEG 
project, and are not frequent enough 
to cause any significant distraction 
from the goals of the list and the project.

In summary, it was not that your posts 
weren't about EEG hardware or software,
per se, that I took exception to.  My 
objection had much more to do with  
your having included so much "stream 
of consciousness" material, including
your criticism of other kinds of scientists 
in your posts. No hard feelings, of course, 
but I just didn't see how any of that was 
relevant to the project at all.

- Helga