>>without the postings either based on speculation or of a non-scientific
nature that have
put many people off in the past<<
 
I have no problem with cutting down on "speculation," (if by that you mean
"pseudoarcheology") but "non-scientific" is a problematic concept.  As an
anthropologically trained archeologist who works much of the time with material
and documentary remains left by literate peoples, I have found "science" (as
defined by those who have either read too much--or perhaps too little-- of the
old "New Archaeology) woefully limiting, even inadequate, as an interpretive
framework.  In addition, I find that there is utility in the work of
archaeologists who would consider themselves "humanists," rather than
scientists, yet who nonetheless follow logical principles of inference in their
work.
 
What I want to know is this.  Will your elimination of postings of a
"non-scientific nature" serve to expand the boundaries of the "scientific," or
will it serve to limit the debate on this issue to a perspective that other
social sciences have discarded over the last several decades?  If the former,
sign me up!  If the latter, please remove me from your list.
 
Lauren J. Cook
Principal Archeologist/Project Manager
JMA, Philadelphia