williamt@athena1.Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow) (02/08/90)
In article <1990Feb7.030722.15380@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >Good group, bad name. This sounds like a perfect candidate for >'talk.politics.drugs', with the other highly-charged political >issues. ---------- This brings up a question that I've been meaning to raise. What is the distinction between the soc and talk heirarchies? From their names, I would think that 'talk' is more for 'chatting' and conversations about topics, while 'soc' it would seem, would be more for societal/social issues -- things that impact or are heavily impacting our society. In addition to the placement of social-drug issues (perhaps talk.society.drugs?), I also was told by a few people that a moderated group like t.r.pagan would have been better placed/proposed as soc.religion.pagan. I guess I missed the fine distinction, or was it simply the fact that it was moderated? Thanks for comments... -wat- --- An it harm none, do what you will.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/08/90)
In article <131368@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, williamt@athena1 (William A. Turnbow) writes: > What is the distinction between the soc and talk heirarchies? From >their names, I would think that 'talk' is more for 'chatting' and >conversations about topics, while 'soc' it would seem, would be more >for societal/social issues -- things that impact or are heavily >impacting our society. I dunno about this. "Talk" has the political groups, whereas "soc" has social chat clubs like soc.singles, the various ethnic and gender and lifestyle clubs, as well as a few religion groups. Of course, talk has talk.bizarre, which probably ought to be soc.bizzaroids. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "To name the unnamable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start arguments, shape the world and stop it from going asleep". -- 'The Satanic Verses'
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/08/90)
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >> What is the distinction between the soc and talk heirarchies? From >>their names, I would think that 'talk' is more for 'chatting' and >>conversations about topics, while 'soc' it would seem, would be more >>for societal/social issues > I dunno about this. "Talk" has the political groups, whereas >"soc" has social chat clubs like soc.singles, the various ethnic >and gender and lifestyle clubs, as well as a few religion groups. It was pragmatic: stuff went into talk because it had a high signal/noise ratio (or it figured to when created). Stuff went into soc if it were more likely to have discussions in it than noise, or if the sponsors didn't want to go into talk (the large majority of talk groups wnet in there during the Great Renaming). That way, sites that didn't want the noise groups could simply turn off talk.all rather than having to write funky sys files to kill the groups off one by one. No great philosophy, unless you want to relate it to a Bill Cosby quote: "Parents don't want justice. Parents want quiet" -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] Rumour has it that Larry Wall, author of RN, is a finalist in the race for the Nobel Peace Prize for his invention of the kill file.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/08/90)
In article <38445@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >It was pragmatic: stuff went into talk because it had a high signal/noise >ratio (or it figured to when created). As I rather tiresomely pointed out at the time, this is FALSE. It is not true now, and never was true. Stuff went into "soc" because the Gurus of the Great Renaming wanted it there, and into talk for the same reason. In order to put a veneer of reason over it all, it was decreed that soc.singles was "signal" and talk.philosophy.misc was "noise". I was there, I remember. I wish people could distinguish between facts and excuses. The same problem we had with Sexton over sci.aquaria, isn't it? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "Slime is the agony of water" -- Jean-Paul Sartre
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/08/90)
In article <1990Feb8.074349.24094@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > In article <38445@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >It was pragmatic: stuff went into talk because it had a high signal/noise > >ratio (or it figured to when created). > As I rather tiresomely pointed out at the time, this is FALSE. > It is not true now, and never was true. Stuff went into "soc" > because the Gurus of the Great Renaming wanted it there, and into > talk for the same reason. In order to put a veneer of reason over > it all, it was decreed that soc.singles was "signal" and > talk.philosophy.misc was "noise". I was there, I remember. Gene was there. I was one of the designers. It's nice to know Gene knows why this happened better than the people who were actually doing it. > I wish people could distinguish between facts and excuses. Definitely. And I wish people wouldn't explain my thinking for me, too. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] Rumour has it that Larry Wall, author of RN, is a finalist in the race for the Nobel Peace Prize for his invention of the kill file.