wls@astrovax.UUCP (12/18/83)
> I agree with Adam on this one. Here's the test: do you read > net.astro.expert and not net.astro, or net.astro and not net.astro.expert? > > As long as few or no people actually read one group and not the other, > there's no need for separate groups. > > Dave Sherman -- Unfortunately I shot the time I had to spend on net.astro and had to turn my attention to other things. Thus my followup to alice!alb was more terse than it should have been. I think his point that most things were posted to both groups was ill founded anyway. I see one such article in our system now. I don't recall seeing more than two other double postings since the groups were founded. I'll agree that there have been what I consider inappropriate postings. My goals in the establishment of net.astro were 1) to get astronomers involved in the net 2) to increase the support of astronomers and astronomy sites for net as a whole and to encourage new astronomy sites to join. I know how tenous the initial support for the net really is, if it wasn't for my own action astrovax would not be on the net. Before I proposed net.astro I talked to the astronomers here and at the Institute for Advanced Study about the the idea. The responses I got from this people guided the path I took. I could see that the main excuse these people might give for not contributing was that the level of the discussion was too low and that it was wasting their time. There also had just been a discussion in net.misc of "Why does the moon look larger at the horizon". I was very afraid that this might be an example of the discussion on an net.astro. I also have not been particularly impressed with net.physics. Thus the idea of net.astro.expert to give the experts a place to speak. It has been my hope (and still is) that some of the interesting discussions I hear at lunches here and elsewhere I might begin to hear on the net. I proposed (and created) net.astro.expert to break the "chicken and egg" paradox. I knew the potential for its use is there but if it was not created at the beginning ITS NEED WOULD NOT ARISE BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NEVER COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK. If net.astro.expert had been created later the astronomers would have written off the whole idea of the net. I have not been overwhelmed by the response yet but I very strongly think it is too early to call it a failure. I have some ideas to stimulate things that I might carry out after I'm back from Christmas vacation. It also be after Christmas that I take further part in this discussion or answer mail. Astronomers, please get your collegues to post something (or better yet, post something yourselves). As Dr. John Bahcall says at the Tuesday lunch at the Institute for Advanced Studies, "Tell us something interesting..." Back to working on my Ap.J. paper... Still hoping, Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls