andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (08/26/88)
In article <134@laffu.UUCP> chuck@laffu.UUCP (Chuck Sites) writes: >NO. The consiquneces of the technology we develope will always have >political overtones which should be debated and are being debated >(All thanks to you) Fine, most people seem to feel that sci.physics should carry physics politics as well as physics. Is there interest in sci.physics.only "for the rest of us"? Yes, it's an evil plot. I want a group for physics, not physics politics. I get my political discussions elsewhere. -andy UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@polya.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (08/26/88)
In article <3732@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >Fine, most people seem to feel that sci.physics should carry physics >politics as well as physics. > >Is there interest in sci.physics.only "for the rest of us"? Past experience has shown that this DOESN'T WORK. We've tried it a number of times, with net.women.only (the failure of which was directly responsible for the start of the very successful feminist mailing list) and net.astro.expert. In the more modern era, we have comp.unix.wizards vs. comp.unix.questions (the latter was supposed to keep the novices out of the former). In every case it has not worked. Please DON'T create another new newsgroup that has virtually zero chance of accomplishing its intended purpose. --Greg
obrien@anpiel.aero.org (Mike O'Brien) (08/27/88)
In article <641@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <3732@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >>Is there interest in sci.physics.only "for the rest of us"? > > Past experience has shown that this DOESN'T WORK. We've tried it a number >of times, with net.women.only (the failure of which was directly responsible >for the start of the very successful feminist mailing list) And there's the right answer. Why don't those who want a more pure discussion of physics form a mailing list? I don't know of any case where that solution, once implemented, hasn't worked to perfection. -- Mike O'Brien obrien@aerospace.aero.org {sdcrdcf,trwrb}!aero!obrien
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (08/27/88)
Actually, alt.individualism has mostly worked as an example of a group meant to confine a discussion. At the start there was a bit of silliness, and there were "individualism is wrong." postings, but now it seems to be limited to cross-postings from talk.politics.theory and so on. But most such attempts have failed, that's true. But it could be done with the right structure. As far as sci.physics is concerned, I don't think very many people really think politics has nothing to do with physics. They simply want to discuss physics. Not surprising since political discussion on the net rarely gets anywhere. An I think it would also be nicer if "What's New" simply had the courtesy to bill itself as a newsletter about the government funding of science done by the USA, and not as "What's New from the APS." -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tdsnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu ( Todd/Dr. Nethack ) (08/29/88)
The idea that some people can invade any group deciding that knee-jerk politics
is the cheif subject of that group, is stupidity.
If the two are inseperable in your mind, then start a mailing list, or another
group to discuss the two.
Sci.physics already exists for the discussion of physics.. politics can be
used to invade any group with the concept that it is (of course) part of
the whole picture..
So is religion, and philosophy, and psychology, and behavioralism..
Do we make all groups to include this type of invasion? Only to a degree of
reason.
Unfortunately, there are those who would prefer to psuedo-reason about meta-
logical political viewpoints, than to discuss physics.
I for one would prefer to discuss physics in sci.physics.
--
"Of course they'll give you an account... You know Weemba!!"
--Cliff
...ames!hc!unmvax!nmtsun!titan!tdsnsr / tdsnsr@titan.nmt.edu
Dr. Nethack: Box 3693 C/S Socorro NM. 87801 jhgr@ziebmef.uucp (James HG Redekop) (08/31/88)
Though I'm quite new to the net, and am not familiar with it to any great
extent, it DOES seem odd to me that of the 5 new messages in sci.physics,
4 of them only mentioned physics, and but one had anything to do with
physics as physics...
Perhaps, if sci.physics.only is not viable, sci.physics.politics would work?
)O+
chuck@laffu.UUCP (Chuck Sites) (09/03/88)
I admit it. I was one of those originators (posters) which caused this debate regarding politics in sci.physics. Basically, the issue was initially SDI but it has degraded to a much less nobel debate, and as such, followers of the debate will have noticed that, I haven't followed up to the issue, and flames. (which would be the normal knee jerk reaction of any sane person) In other words, I'm with you guy's that beleive sci.physics should be sci.physics. But as I said about a week back thier are issues in science which are political in nature that should be debated... Whatever, there have been some posting regarding creation of a new group in 'sci' section. To be quite honest, the best I've heard so far is 'sci.policies'. Think about it. When a select few of us debate whether SDI is feasable in the sci.physics section, really we're arguing here is because the source of the science which makes this possible is physics. But really, the issue is one of goverment policy which relies on science to produce it's results. So who ever sugjested 'sci.policies', right on! -- +-------+ /|CHUCK /| UUCP: mit-eddie|bloom-beacon|coplex|chuck +-+-----+ | AT&T: 502-454-7218 \laffu!chuck | | | | CHUCK SITES | +-----+-+ Disclaimer: |/SITES |/ Not responsible for optical illusions. +-------+