usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (02/25/89)
A few weeks ago I posted an article in sci.misc and news.groups
about starting a new group for
chemistry. I have only seen one reply to that article. Is anyone
interested? Which groups should I post to to find any interested
parties?
There are many groups for sci and bio but none of them are appropriate
for the four areas of chemistry. I envision four new news.groups for
this subject. They might be called:
Chem.org
Chem.inorg
Chem.phys
Chem.analyt
or other appropriate names for organic, inorganic, physical, and
analytical chemistry. If there is no need for four groups I would be
satisfied with just one group for chemistry.
Is there anyone else who shares my views?
---Greg Cook
Michigan State Universitymwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) (02/25/89)
In article <1951@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: > > A few weeks ago I posted an article in sci.misc and news.groups > about starting a new group for > chemistry. I have only seen one reply to that article. Is anyone > interested? Which groups should I post to to find any interested > parties? I'm not exactly sure what net.protocol calls for on this count, but between the ones you posted to here and in the previous article, you probably have covered the necessary bases. > There are many groups for sci and bio but none of them are appropriate > for the four areas of chemistry. I envision four new news.groups for > this subject. [i.e., for organic, inorganic, etc.] [...] Clearly excessive. If one rummages throug sci.misc and sci.physics, which have been the most active chemistry "groups" that I've read, a modest number of chemistry postings emerge, but not nearly enough to justify subgroups. Settle for sci.chem; I'd vote for that one. > Is there anyone else who shares my views? Sure; do it. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov)
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (02/25/89)
[Note: the original Newsgroups: line included "bionet.followup" which, as far as I know, is not a valid group; I've changed it to bionet.general] In article <1951@cps3xx.UUCP> cook@frith.UUCP (Greg Cook) writes: > I posted an article in sci.misc and news.groups about starting a new group > for chemistry. I have only seen one reply to that article. I would assume, therefore, that nobody is interested. > I envision four new news.groups for this subject [...] Chem.org, Chem.inorg, > Chem.phys, Chem.analyt. Egad, he can only find one person who is interested in chemistry at all, and he wants to form 4 new groups all at once! My suggestion is to just use the existing sci.misc group for now. Bionet is "officially" for talk about biology, but I don't think people would be too worked up if you posted your chemisty discussions to bionet.general; biologists have been known, on occassion, to talk about chemistry. Maybe the thing to do is to form a mailing list. If you are trying to find people who are interested in being on the list, I don't think it would be a breach of net ettiquette to post a single "mailing list forming, sign up now" type article to many newsgroups. -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net "The connector is the network"
sukenick@ccnysci.UUCP (George Sukenick) (02/25/89)
In article <1951@cps3xx.UUCP> cook@frith.UUCP (Greg Cook) writes: >this subject. They might be called: > Chem.org > Chem.inorg > Chem.phys > Chem.analyt You forgot polymer and instrumentation :-) and don't forget the prefix sci. :-) So far, there hasn't been much discussion on chemistry.. Topics are found sometimes in sci.misc , sci.electronics ,sci.med, mostly in sci.physics ((-: somehow people think that physicists know chemistry :-) ) but not enough discussion (yet) to warrant a newsgroup let alone several. Perhaps look into starting a mailing list. Be warned that a mailing list was tried a year or so ago (I don't remember who),I havent heard about it since. Also, look at the news net guide lines for some ideas..
kaduwela@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Ajith Kaduwela) (02/26/89)
I am in favor of creating a Chemistry newsgroup. I agree with Bill Johnson. We should start with sci.chem. If there will be enough interest for subgroups like sci.chem.phys, one can create them later. Ajith
Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram) (02/26/89)
In article <1951@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: > A few weeks ago I posted an article in sci.misc and news.groups > about starting a new group for chemistry. [...] > There are many groups for sci and bio but none of them are appropriate > for the four areas of chemistry. I envision four new news.groups for > this subject. They might be called: [...] How about starting with sci.chem (analogous to sci.bio and sci.physics)? If you really get overwhelmed, you can branch out into sci.chem.organic etc., but there doesn't seem to be any need to start out with four groups. Also, where would biochemistry and biophysical chemistry fit in? I suppose they could be cross-posted to sci.bio and sci.chem (and bionet.general perhaps). [Further discussion of this should probably take place on news.groups, and follow-ups have been directed there.] -- Ashwin.