felix@swi.psy.uva.nl (Felix van Rijn) (11/24/89)
I did not read news for a week. So I had to go through over 300 articles in news.groups to see if there was anything of interest. Most of it was not at all, on the contrary. At least, if you are not a psycho-analyst. BUT, my patience was not in vain at all. I am in favour (very strongly) for the SCI.VIRTUAL-WORLDS group. But why such a discussion about the name of the group? I guess that Bob Jacobson suggested a name that most adequetely reflected his ideas about this group. So, why not leave it like this and continue with the formal procedures (whatever they are) to have it established. Felix van Rijn.
paleo@uncecs.edu (Constantine A. LaPasha) (11/28/89)
I think there is a definite need for a newsgroup in this area
and that the timing is appropriate. "Virtual-worlds" seems
appropriate since that is the term in current use by those
involved in this research, as opposed to the "cyber..." versions
which seem to be in vogue with the fiction writers. The
subject IS real science, and systems of this nature exist now.
We need a forum for serious discussion of the technology and
its implications, and since the site here does not carry
any alt or talk groups, I'll be selfish and push for sci. even
though I think it really belongs in sci. anyway.
summary: yes to sci.virtual-worlds
since a serious cross-discipline forum is needed
and virtual-worlds is the defacto accepted term
by workers in this fieldkjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/29/89)
Constantine A. LaPasha writes: > The subject IS real science [...] I remain unconvinced. Am I alone? I can see scientific aspects, yes, but the proposed charter allows the discussion of anything remotely related virtual-worlds, and I don't think these discussions belong in the sci hierarchy.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (12/09/89)
In article <1989Nov28.173100.10249@talos.uucp>, kjones@talos (Kyle Jones) writes: >Constantine A. LaPasha writes: > > The subject IS real science [...] >I remain unconvinced. Am I alone? No, you're not. The way the proponents of this group as science spout off about what they are doing makes me doubt if they know what the hell science is. Also, it would be better if we had some way of telling in advance what the level of discussion would be like. Is this just alt.cyberspace in a false mustache, or what? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahmsgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 "Your notation sucks!" Serge Lang