gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (04/12/85)
A week or so ago I suggested to the net that net.politics.nukes or net.politics.arms be created. As usual, most of the posters in net.politics are preoccupied with actually arguing about weapons and war than with whether or not there should be a subgroup created for such discussion. Nevertheless, the following people mailed to me indicating that they wished for a new subgroup: Login: Name: Voted for: gjk@talcott Greg Kuperberg net.politics.arms egs@gamma Ed Sheppard net.politics.arms msb@lsuc Mark Brader net.politics.arms matthews@harvard Jim Matthews net.politics.nukes mjk@ttrdc (none given) net.politics.nukes dbrown@watarts Dave Brown net.politics.nukes cjh@petsd Christopher J. Henrich net.politics.arms Also, note that three nukes people did not say that an arms subgroup would be unacceptable or even worse than a nukes subgroup. Therefore I think that we should go ahead with net.politics.arms. While, it's true that not that many people replied in favor, it's also true that absolutely *no one* replied by mail against the creation of a subgroup. Only one dissenting opinion was posted, and that was by Mike Williams (mike@erix). Mr. Williams, however, was concerned with the fact that Europe was about to be cut off from net.politics entirely; since he lost that argument (i.e. net.politics is no longer on eunet), his objections to net.politics.nukes/arms are now moot. So I think it's high time we created net.politics.arms. Those of you with administrative powers on the net know who you are. Please, someone, *create this subgroup*! -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "The eerily accurate drawing of Goetz showed the face of the 'before' figure in comic-book ads for body-building devices."-Time Magazine, April 8
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (04/14/85)
> A week or so ago I suggested to the net that net.politics.nukes or > net.politics.arms be created. As usual, most of the posters in > net.politics are preoccupied with actually arguing about weapons and war > than with whether or not there should be a subgroup created for such > discussion. Nevertheless, the following people mailed to me indicating > that they wished for a new subgroup: > > Login: Name: Voted for: > gjk@talcott Greg Kuperberg net.politics.arms > egs@gamma Ed Sheppard net.politics.arms > msb@lsuc Mark Brader net.politics.arms > matthews@harvard Jim Matthews net.politics.nukes > mjk@ttrdc (none given) net.politics.nukes > dbrown@watarts Dave Brown net.politics.nukes > cjh@petsd Christopher J. Henrich net.politics.arms > > Also, note that three nukes people did not say that an arms subgroup would > be unacceptable or even worse than a nukes subgroup. Therefore I think > that we should go ahead with net.politics.arms. > > While, it's true that not that many people replied in favor, it's also true > that absolutely *no one* replied by mail against the creation of a > subgroup. Only one dissenting opinion was posted, and that was by Mike > Williams (mike@erix). Mr. Williams, however, was concerned with the fact > that Europe was about to be cut off from net.politics entirely; since he > lost that argument (i.e. net.politics is no longer on eunet), his > objections to net.politics.nukes/arms are now moot. > > So I think it's high time we created net.politics.arms. Those of you with > administrative powers on the net know who you are. Please, someone, *create > this subgroup*! > -- > Greg Kuperberg > harvard!talcott!gjk > > "The eerily accurate drawing of Goetz showed the face of the 'before' > figure in comic-book ads for body-building devices."-Time Magazine, April 8 I for one wouldn't like to see a seperate news group. I think many others out there agree with me, but didn't think the issue was that important. Let me then go on record opposing a new group... Milo
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (04/16/85)
I agree with Milo: we should *not* have a separate group just for arms discussions. Sad though it may be, arms (and often nuclear arms) are a potential component of almost any discussion of international politics. I see little reason for the net to cater to those who irrationally wish to exclude this component from their discussion. Those who oppose the use of arms have a special stake in avoiding such segregation. On the otherhand, a separate group for discussing international politics, superpower foreign policy, and other such things would be a good idea. This would filter out a lot of the libertarian/seatbelt/gun-control/-type discussions. If traffic and content are resonable, it might even allow a political newsgroup to receive European distribution again. So, net.politics.arms, No; net.politics.international, Yes. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall.UUCP edhall@rand-unix.ARPA