chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/10/89)
A couple of weeks ago I brought up the concept of a "name space spring cleaning" -- tweaking the name space to fix up those little glitches that occur and shift around groups that, based on content, got placed in the wrong place. I got a fair amount of positive feedback on the concept, but I've decided that right now it's not worth the inevitable fight -- the rec.aquaria vs. sci.aquaria issue has convinced me that (1) there is enough dissension over namespace conventions on the net to make any attempt at a minor renaming scheme a massive flamefest, (2) that I don't particularly want to be part of a massive flamefest right now, especially as point man, and (3) that, on reflection and research, there aren't any namespace issues I consider serious enough to start a major fight over. So I'm dropping it for now -- I think there are areas of the namespace that ought to be cleaned up, but on balance it's not worth doing at this point. Maybe later. Maybe not. Anyway, just for giggles, I'm attaching draft 0.9Alpha of the recommended changes. A few notes: The justifications haven't been written for any of the proposed changes except the top-level domains. If someone really, really wants to know why I'm proposing something they can ask. Also, this is currently an "Everything I thought I might want to suggest" type document, including all of the changes I thought might be improvmenents; needless to say, I know of a number of things I'd been planning to remove from the proposal before officially releasing it; I left them in primarily for completeness and giggles. Finally, there are a number of non-official groups in the deletion list because the active file here at Apple isn't particularly up to date and I didn't reconcile it to an official list yet. Anyway, have fun looking to see if your favorite group is on the hit list. Maybe next time. chuq --- Top-level organization: Rename the "news.*" top-level to "netnews.*". There has been a continuing problem with the ambiguity of the name "news" -- the intention is to have netnews administration related groups, but people continually misintepret it as news-of-the-day. Rename the "sci.*" top-level to "tech.*" -- this would closer reflect reality and remove some of the dissension about how strictly to define the concept of 'sci'. There is no need for new top-level domains. Groups to create: rec.birds (rec.birds.watching) rec.birds (rec.pets.birds) Groups to rename: old name (new name) comp.dcom.telecom (misc.telecom) comp.lang.sigplan (comp.org.acm.sigplan) comp.laser-printers (comp.periphs.printers [unmoderated]) comp.mail.maps (netnews.maps) comp.music (rec.music.computers) comp.newprod (biz.newprod) comp.realtime (comp.os.realtime) comp.society (soc.computers) comp.society.futures (soc.futures) comp.society.women (soc.women.computing) news.lists (netnews.announce.lists) news.sysadmin (comp.os.sysadmin) rec.arts.int-fiction (reg.games.int-fiction) rec.arts.wobegon (rec.radio.npr) rec.ham-radio (rec.radio.amateur) rec.ham-radio.packet (rec.radio.amateur.packet) rec.ham-radio.swap (rec.radio.amateur.swap) sci.economics (soc.economics [misc.economics?] sci.edu (soc.edu) sci.environment (sco.environment) sci.lang (soc.culture.english) sci.lang.japan (soc.culture.japan) sci.philosophy.* (soc.philosophy.*) sci.skeptic (soc.skeptic) Group Deletions: ([[[under construction!]]]) comp.ai.digest comp.ai.edu comp.ai.nlang-know-rep comp.ai.shells comp.ai.vision comp.archives comp.bugs.2bsd comp.dcom.lans.hyperchannel comp.dcom.lans.v2lni comp.doc comp.doc.techreports comp.edu comp.edu.composition comp.graphics.digest comp.lang.clu comp.lang.forth.mac comp.lang.idl comp.lang.rexx comp.lang.scheme.c comp.lang.visual comp.mail.headers comp.os.cpm.amethyst comp.os.eunice comp.os.v comp.protocols.kermit comp.protocols.pcnet comp.protocols.pup comp.std.internat comp.std.mumps comp.sys.cdc comp.sys.celerity comp.sys.intergraph comp.sys.m68k comp.sys.m68k.pc comp.sys.masscomp comp.sys.northstar comp.sys.nsc.32k comp.sys.proteon comp.sys.ridge comp.sys.tahoe comp.sys.workstations comp.terminals.bitgraph comp.theory.info-retrieval comp.theory.self-org-sys news.newsites rec.games.rpg rec.games.vectrex rec.music.reviews sci.philosophy.meta sci.physics.fusion soc.human-nets soc.politics soc.politics.arm-d soc.politics.arms-d soc.rights.alien soc.singles.nice -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Future home of the San Jose Photons! I was a Kings fan before it was politically correct. NHL to San Jose!
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) (10/10/89)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: |Groups to rename: |old name (new name) |sci.skeptic (soc.skeptic) I'd buy this!!! nrg -- York University Department of Philosophy Toronto, Ontario, Canada _____________________________________________________________________________ "'I have compelling grounds for my certitude.' These grounds make the certitude objective." -- L. Wittgenstein
gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan) (10/10/89)
In article <4232@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes: >chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >|Groups to rename: > >|old name (new name) >|sci.skeptic (soc.skeptic) > >I'd buy this!!! Who out there besides myself thinks that Norman should have to post the entire lyrics to "We Believe You, Dr. Whoosie" (from the animated _Horton_ _Hears_ _a_ _Who_ people, get an educashun!) to atone for sci.septic ? "we believe you, Dr. Whoosie you were absolutely right you warned us, and you warned us but we wouldn't see the light" -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=- Gilbert W. Pilz Jr. gil@banyan.com Banyan Systems Inc. (617) 898-1196 115 Flanders Road Westboro, MA 01581 -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
kayvan@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) (10/11/89)
>>>>> "Norman" == Norman R. Gall <gall@yunexus.UUCP> writes: Norman> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: Norman> |Groups to rename: Norman> |old name (new name) Norman> |sci.skeptic (soc.skeptic) Norman> I'd buy this!!! Better yet, sci.skeptic ---> talk.skeptic ---Kayvan -- Kayvan Sylvan @ Transact Software, Inc. -*- Los Altos, CA (415) 961-6112 Internet: kayvan@Transact.COM -*- UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,mips}!mrspoc!kayvan
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (10/11/89)
About once every five years seems about right. That is about enough netreader mean lifes that most participants will have forgotten the pain of the preceding time. That should give Chuq time to really refine this list of his. And include all the badly named groups that will be added in the next couple of years. -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031 dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868
bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) (10/13/89)
In article <KAYVAN.89Oct10124126@mrspoc.Transact.COM> kayvan@mrspoc.Transact.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) writes: >>>>>> "Norman" == Norman R. Gall <gall@yunexus.UUCP> writes: > >Norman> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Norman> |Groups to rename: > >Norman> |old name (new name) >Norman> |sci.skeptic (soc.skeptic) > >Norman> I'd buy this!!! > >Better yet, sci.skeptic ---> talk.skeptic Better yet, *.skeptic ---> /dev/null Or just rmgroup it. I think that Norman's posting shows that sci.skeptic was placed in the sci domain for political reasons rather than "scientific" ones and, therefore the whole concept should be rmgrouped ASAP. Moving it to the soc domain would be clearly wrong. Brian
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (10/14/89)
(The news flow here is somewhat unstable, My apologies if this article is redundant.) Chuq von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) writes: >A couple of weeks ago I brought up the concept of a "name space spring >cleaning" Of course we can't have a spring cleaning *this* year. Spring is gone and we can't turn the clock back. :-) Seriously, although Chuq has renounced his idea, I cannot keep from commenting the draft ofd proposed cleaning activities. At least some of the ideas reveals that Chuq doesn't know very well what some groups are being used for. Chuq said in his article that he had been thinking of removing some of the items. If these are the same as I have objections against, fine. Then I'm writing this article unnecessarily. >Rename the "news.*" top-level to "netnews.*". There has been a continuing >problem with the ambiguity of the name "news" -- the intention is to have >netnews administration related groups, but people continually misintepret it >as news-of-the-day. Good idea. Actually, couldn't we go ahead with this one now? (OK, I know it's a a pain to do it, but it is temptning.) >Rename the "sci.*" top-level to "tech.*" -- this would closer reflect >reality and remove some of the dissension about how strictly to define the >concept of 'sci'. NO! The vast majority of news-readers and writers are computer professionals, but not everyone. And I would suspect that the amount of other scientists taking advantage of international networks is increasing. Another issue is whether they are interested in having conferences on Usenet where their scientific articles runs the risk of drowning in all articles from not-always-so-well- informed laymen. But some maybe would. Sci.lang is a prime example that I will return to. Then why not "tech"? Because not all sciences are technical. Electronics, no problem. But linguistics, economics and medicine? True, there maybe are not many economics and doctors hanging round on the net currently, but there may be in the future. (But there will never be any scientists devoting there prime time to acquariums to justify a newsgroup.) "Tech" could still be an idea if one wants to distinguish technical, not directly computer-related groups from non-technical sciences, but right now I don't think it is worth it. >There is no need for new top-level domains. Unless, one should try to form a top-level domain covering the aspects of commercial life and workplace issues. This should be a "serious" domain, and be honoured as such. Given the people on the net it would be many issues related to the computer industry, but not from a techical point of view. Some sample issues: non- techical management, offices and cubicles (which turns up in comp.software-eng of all places from time to time), discrimination, marketing. Whether there is interest enough for all these topics to justify any groups, I don't know. There is one obvious example of a group to move to this domain, namely comp.society.woman. There are probably more. I'd like to emphasize the domain I'm looking for is not "soc". Soc is directed much more private life, and besides I wouldn't call "soc" a serious domain with soc.singles et al there. Neither isn't it "biz", although that's closer. "Biz" is not part of mainstream Usenet currently, but if it were maybe that would do the trick. >old name (new name) >comp.music (rec.music.computers) Or just delete it and refer people to rec.music.synth. I think comp.music have a very low traffic. Anyway, it doesn't seem like a group that should be in comp. (I don't read it, so I don't know.) >comp.society (soc.computers) >comp.society.futures (soc.futures) >comp.society.women (soc.women.computing) All are probably candidates for the domain I suggested above. As for comp.society.women, "soc" was not an alternative when the group was created. (In "soc" there would be no moderator available.) Unless Patricia Roberts has changed her mind, I guess this still is true. A cleaning that moves groups to where they very consciously were kept away from in the first place is not a good cleaning. >sci.economics (soc.economics [misc.economics?] The name is sci.econ, but ought to be renamed to *.economics. Economics is a science, so I have no problem with that. But unless the group is moderated it may run the risk of becoming another talk.politics.misc. I would advocate that it'll stay in sci for another while. >sci.lang (soc.culture.english) Do you read sci.lang Chuq? I conclude you do not. If you did, you wouldn't come up with that proposal. Sci.lang, if anything is a scientific group, devoted to the science of linguistics. Basically there are three kinds of people particpating: educated linguists whose articles are not always understandable to me who belongs to category two, well-informed laymen. The last category are Americans, whoops I mean not-so-well-informed laymen who thinks the group is intended for langauge trivia and spelling flames. The group is far from perfect, but better than many other. The SNR is unnecessarily low due to all triva stuff that turns up. ("What English word has most vowels in a row" belongs somewhere else than sci.lang.) Admitted the language mostly discussed is English, but sci.lang is *not*, I repeat, *not* a soc.culture.english in disguise. (Another issue that the creation of soc.culture.english could relieve sci.lang from some traffic.) One could think of reorganize the group in sci.linguistics, sci.lang.misc, sci.lang.ethymology, soc.culture.english and rec.puzzles.lang, but the traffic in sci.lang is not that high. Renaming it to sci.linguistics would remove much of the crap. >sci.philosophy.* (soc.philosophy.*) So philosophy is not a science? (Once again, a group I don't read, but I don't like the attitude.) >Group Deletions: ([[[under construction!]]]) >comp.edu Isn't this group active and living well? >comp.std.internat The traffic in this group is *low*, I know. But if you ask me, I want to keep it. Tell me, where else do I ask questions about character standards like ISO 10646? (Well, maybe I should ask somewhere else, because I still haven't got any answer.) >rec.music.reviews Isn't this a bogus group anyway? Just rmgroup it! -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se "My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/15/89)
>>Unless, one should try to form a top-level domain covering the >>aspects of commercial life and workplace issues. That sounds like a second level domain in soc, not a top-level domain of its own. These are social aspects of commercial events and workplaces. (just like, I might add, comp.society.women is about social issues revolving around women in computers, not technical ramifications of having women in computers, hence it should have been a soc group. But I digress. Again) >This should be >a "serious" domain, and be honoured as such. Now we get into name space politics. Define serious. My definition: all top-level domains except talk. Others would throw in rec.all, and I probably wouldn't argue loudly. Others still toss in soc.all, and I start yelling. Fact: there are a bunch of newsgroups in soc.all that should really be talk groups. That doesn't imply that soc.all isn't a serious domain -- just that we haven't taken it seriously enough to kick the idiots over where they belong. > I'd like to emphasize the domain I'm looking for is not "soc". Soc >is directed much more private life, and besides I wouldn't call >"soc" a serious domain with soc.singles et al there. My point exactly. You're arguing against soc because it's been overtaken by the screamers. Better, rather than write the domain off, to move the screamers off to talk where they belong. (Having just done a survey of all the groups on the net, let me add that there is an amazing about of *crap* out there. Anyone who thinks being a net.god (ret.) is fun and that you can write up proposals like this on the fly has no idea of the stuff you get to wade through trying to make good decisions. Just one more reason why I don't want to carry this through, now. You'll note in my pre-draft I didn't deal with moving stuff to talk or with the talk.all domain -- on purpose, since those were issues I chose to ignore for now. I had a good number of groups I would have suggested for movement into talk, except that I'm not crazy and I know how much flamewar that would cause.... >(In "soc" there would be no moderator available.) >Unless Patricia Roberts has changed her mind, I guess this still is >true. See my other posting on this. There's no reason why Patricia has to be the moderator, or even that it has to be moderated. If she doesn't like having an appropriate name on her group, she can take her toys and go home, and the net will just have to find a way to survive without her. Considering how useful comp.society.women has been the last six months, I'm not sure the net could survive her leaving... >>Do you read sci.lang Chuq? I conclude you do not. If you did, >>you wouldn't come up with that proposal. You conclude wrong. Before I recommended a renaming, I read every group to make sure I wasn't speaking out of my hat. Doesn't mean I didn't make a mistake, but I *did* do my research before opening my mouth. >>>sci.philosophy.* (soc.philosophy.*) >>So philosophy is not a science? (Once again, a group I don't read, >>but I don't like the attitude.) Not as far as the people *in* sci.philosophy are concerned, at least according to the postings I read. Actually, it ought to go to talk... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (10/15/89)
Earlier, chuq@apple.com (Chuq von Rospach) said: Chuq> There is no need for new top-level domains. On 14 Oct 89 10:59:50 GMT, sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) said: Erland> Unless, one should try to form a top-level domain covering the Erland> aspects of commercial life and workplace issues. This should be a Erland> "serious" domain, and be honoured as such. [...] Some sample Erland> issues: non-techical management, offices and cubicles (which turns Erland> up in comp.software-eng of all places from time to time), Erland> discrimination, marketing. [...] I'd like to emphasize the domain Erland> I'm looking for is not "soc". [...] Neither isn't it "biz", [...] mgmt.all perhaps? Assuming biz.all remains outside mainstream usenet as the "commercialized" hierarchy [biz.all becoming mainstream is, IMHO, not likely], perhaps that would be an acceptable alternative. (Admittedly, it's not a great name--any other ideas?) -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> "Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (10/17/89)
Chuq von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) writes: >I wrote: >>Unless, one should try to form a top-level domain covering the >>aspects of commercial life and workplace issues. This should be >>a "serious" domain, and be honoured as such. > >That sounds like a second level domain in soc, not a top-level domain of its >own. These are social aspects of commercial events and workplaces. Certainly correct. But don't tell me soc is serious, unless... (To be continued below.) >Now we get into name space politics. Define serious. My definition: all >top-level domains except talk. Others would throw in rec.all, and I probably >wouldn't argue loudly. Others still toss in soc.all, and I start yelling. Chuq is doing a nasty trick of agrumentation here. He's asking me define a term that he knows is inherently slippery, and which he knows that I know it is, I did put the words in quotes, didn't I? Nevertheless, I will giving you a very loose definition of "serious": "Serious" topics are topics that concerns our professional life. This includes technical items, but also social, commercial and other non- technical issues. One could say that it's the serious topics that motivates our employers to pay for the net, since our work benefit from the channel. In contrast topics that concern our private life are "unserious". They can be more considered more or less "unserious", though. Rec groups that helps us exchange information about our hobbies are to me more serious than exchanging of flames, pardon me opinions, as in group like talk.poilitics.misc. This definition is very vague and should be use with utmost care. If for nothing else: what is a hobby for one person could be profession to another. This is particulary evident in the sci groups. And, one should not forget, there is a good deal of "unserious" material in the comp groups too, the most serious of them all. All language and OS wars, all uninformed replies etc. >Fact: there are a bunch of newsgroups in soc.all that should really be talk >groups. That doesn't imply that soc.all isn't a serious domain -- just that >we haven't taken it seriously enough to kick the idiots over where they >belong. Good point! If you got away with all the garbage to talk or alt, *then* soc could be considered a serious domain. But don't try to tell me that soc *today* is serious. Not with groups soc.singles/men/women/etc (*) hanging around. But, honestly isn't soc a lost case? It is too much associated with the groups above, and haven't they existed as long as soc have existed? To me it seems like you are changing the definition of soc. No matter what Spaf's list says, after the domain are defined by their contents. If you ever go ahead with your sping cleaning, this is a good way to start. Either move "unserious" soc groups to talk, or extract the "serious" (are there any?) to a new domain. The latter is likely to cause less fuzz. >My point exactly. You're arguing against soc because it's been overtaken by >the screamers. Better, rather than write the domain off, to move the >screamers off to talk where they belong. I think we agree on the state of affairs, but have different ideas on how to fix it. You seem more idealistic than me. >(Having just done a survey of all >the groups on the net, let me add that there is an amazing about of *crap* >out there.) I believe you. Given how much crap in the < 20 groups I read, mostly comp and rec.music.* I can imagine. Needless to say news.groups is a clear winner in my newsrc in the crap book. >>Do you read sci.lang Chuq? I conclude you do not. If you did, >>you wouldn't come up with that proposal. > >You conclude wrong. Before I recommended a renaming, I read every group to >make sure I wasn't speaking out of my hat. Doesn't mean I didn't make a >mistake, but I *did* do my research before opening my mouth. OK, I have to believe you on the groups I don't read. My argument was mostly for would they good contain in a perfect world. Your conclusion about sci.lang was not correct, though. (Depending on the sample you get sci.lang could appear as soc.culture.english. It could also appear as something completely incomprehensible for a layman.) (*) My opinion on these groups is mostly based on rumours and prejudgements. I have only followed soc.singles, and that was about a week. -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se "My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/17/89)
>Certainly correct. But don't tell me soc is serious, unless... The intent of soc is to be serious. There are groups that are serious, like, um, well, like... Aw, hell. Going through and checking out the groups again, most are pretty bad... Move 'soc.net-people' to news (where it really belongs, since it's really a "where is..." newsgroup, soc.culture.all to misc.culture.all and the rest can go live in talk. Sounds good to me. Let's just call soc.all a failed experiment and get back to the serious business of saving sci.all from the hobbyists. (toss in half a smiley, okay?) >Chuq is doing a nasty trick of agrumentation here. That's my specialty. >He's asking me >define a term that he knows is inherently slippery, and which he >knows that I know it is Yeah. And when things are that slippery, it's really hard to come up with definitions that are solid enough to allow us to define reasonable rules of usage for the net that don't break down when someone comes in trying to tweak the system. Which was really my only point. You can't make rules or guidelines around definitions you can't get people to agree with, and 'serious' is one of those words the net could argue about until the sun goes nova. >"Serious" topics are topics that concerns our professional life. Okay, I'm now a practicing psychologist and marriage counselor. soc.singles, soc.men, soc.women and soc.couples are now of professional interest to me. They're serious. (this is not an original argument, by the way -- I'm just borrowing it here because it's useful...). Or I'm a researcher into AIDS at a university -- so soc.motss becomes critical to me. The problem with this definition is that, when you deal with the net as a whole, you will find people to whom 'professional life' deals with every subject under discussion -- including news.all, since some people make their living running USENET for various companies. > In contrast topics that concern our private life are "unserious". >They can be more considered more or less "unserious", though. Rec >groups that helps us exchange information about our hobbies are to >me more serious than exchanging of flames, pardon me opinions, as >in group like talk.poilitics.misc. Since the renaming, a hierarchy of top level domains has evolved. This wasn't the original idea, but it seems to have happened anyway. I think the question we need to answer on the net is really "we have this. what do we do with it?" The hierarchy, as I see it, looks vaguely like: comp sci rec misc soc talk with news.all sort of hanging out on its own because of its special content and purpose. Comp.all (which actually has it's own set of hierarchies) is the primary purpose of the net, largest distribution (and volume). sci is, in theory, at technical as comp but not about computers. Rec is a non-technical equivalent to sci. It has a slightly higher noise level then sci, but they're effectively equal except for distribution (sci is more widely distributed). Soc is a fairly high noise level distribution for groups that haven't been banished to talk. Talk is where groups have been banished. Misc sort of hangs out and doesn't get categorized. Based on this, perhaps a better hierarchy based on what we have (if, for instance, I were to propose a brand new Grand Renaming, which I'm not) would be a three level hierarchy: comp.all misc.all talk.all That's effectively what we have, only it's split up more than that. > This definition is very vague and should be use with utmost care. It's not bad, either..... >This is particulary evident in the sci groups. And, one >should not forget, there is a good deal of "unserious" material in the >comp groups too, the most serious of them all. All language and OS >wars, all uninformed replies etc. Definitely. One of these days, it probably even makes sense to split comp into multiple top-level domains -- it probably makes sense to split Unix related stuff into its own domain, and the same micros: comp.all unix.all micro.mac.* micro.pc.all micro.amiga.all micra.etc.ad.nauseum >Good point! If you got away with all the garbage to talk or alt, *then* >soc could be considered a serious domain. But don't try to tell me >that soc *today* is serious. No, you've convinced me that soc.all is obsolete... >I think we agree on the state of affairs, but have different ideas >on how to fix it. You seem more idealistic than me. It's fun. For the first draft of my renaming, I tossed in just about everything, for the simple fact that it creates discussion and generates ideas and feedback -- and if I make an arbitrary decision on something early on, it keeps the net from having a say as to whether it's really the right decision. I'd rather propose too much, be too sweeping and too idealistic and tone it down through discussion than be too conservative and do the wrong thing (or not enough). -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/17/89)
In article <19957@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) writes: >I think that Norman's posting shows that sci.skeptic was placed in the sci >domain for political reasons rather than "scientific" ones and, therefore >the whole concept should be rmgrouped ASAP. How exactly do you rmgroup a concept, ASAP or otherwise? -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first." -- Pascal