fuller@ecsvax.UUCP (03/03/84)
> From: alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) Fri Mar 2 06:19:15 1984 > (alice.2631) net.news.group : net.bio -- A Failure > > Well, net.bio has had a startling 18 messages since its > creation. I don't really think that's justified. How > about removing it and chalking it up as a failure? > > Adam How about leaving net.bio alone. It may not be a heavily trafficked group, but it has an advocacy on our machine and in our region (NC Triangle area -- Duke, Chapel Hill, Raleigh) where there are a number of hospitals, medical centers, biology depts, etc. Possibilities for serious discussion are abundant, not to mention the fact that it provides a separate forum for the creationist debate. I'm not a biologist, but I hope something can come of this group, and carping about its volume can only discourage its use.
alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (03/04/84)
Possibilities for discussions do not sustain the net. There is a possibility (a good one) of discussions on how to best trest ingrown toenails, but we do not make a net.toenail. Potential is not what the net is based on.
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (03/05/84)
There were several peculiarities about the creation of net.bio, at least
from this area of the net, which may explain its lack of use. First,
I don't remember any announcement of its creation. It simply appeared
one day (who knows how long before that the create item came though.)
Second, it was not created on all machines. One of the majore contri-
butors to the creation/evolution debate could not submit to the group
so I, probably like many, continued to submit to net.misc until the
situation stabilized. We don't know yet whether this group is
available on all machines. I suspect we will find more problems of this
kind as USENET continues its slow decline due to increasing load on
already overburdened machines and communications links.
--
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Byron Howes
UNC - Chapel Hill
({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!bch)jwb@mcnc.UUCP (Jack W. Buchanan Jr.) (03/06/84)
Discussion of evolution and discussion of biological research at various institutions cannot successfully coexist in a single newsgroup--period. I thought net.religion was established in part as a home for arguments regarding evolution. Must these sorts of discussions where no one's mind is ever changed metastasize to every corner of the net! The problem is that net.bio means radically different things to two radically different groups Jack Buchanan Medicine and Biomedical Engineering University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill decvax!mcnc!jwb
fuller@ecsvax.UUCP (03/06/84)
I agree completely, Jack! Despite my earlier ill-conceived invitation
to the creationists, let those who would challenge the foundations of
biology form their own newsgroup. They could call it 'net.creation' or
'net.biblestudy', but a group called 'biology' -- science of life -- should
be reserved for those who would practice it. Perhaps the new net.creation
could form an alliance with net.abortion, which has recently been created.
They probably have the same readership.
Yes, I can see it now: net.creabortion
Bill Fuller
{akgua,decvax}!mcnc!ecsvax!fullermark@elsie.UUCP (03/07/84)
Sadly, although I was one of its early supporters, I must agree that net.bio should be zapped. My major fear about the group has been comming to the the fore: it is becoming a place for the creationists to urinate into. There are simply not enough biological scientists on the net (as yet) to sustain the group. Net.sci(ence) will be a reasonable forum for discussions on the biological sciences until such time as traffic warrants the creation of net.sci.bio. I also would suggest the creation of net.creation as a place for the creation/evolution debate to be conducted. Not that the creationists will be able to contain themselves in a group that we can unsubscribe to. -- Mark J. Miller NIH/NCI/DCE/LEC UUCP: decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!elsie!mark Phone: (301) 496-5688