rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (10/16/89)
In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: > The idea of the hierarchy system is roughly that high-quality, >technical discussions should go in sci (and comp); slightly less serious >discussions should go in rec and soc; and endless-flame discussions should >go in talk. Now wait a minute. Are you saying the structure of the hierarchy rules out IN ADVANCE high quality, serious, but non-technical discussion groups (soc being, by definition, "less serious" and by implication, and in fact, lesser quality; while sci & comp are, by definition, technically oriented)? No wonder I get so frustrated with the soc groups.... Seriously, this seems like a major oversight in the hierarchy structure. Where should a group that's just as high quality and serious (and quite possibly more intellectually challenging) as the sci/comp groups, but explicitly non-technical, go? Definitely not soc, at least not if intellectual wastelands like soc.singles or soc.men are any indication of what soc is for. Is there a presumption being made here about what constitutes "high quality" discussion (i.e. that only tech talk is truly serious)? Is there any place in the hierarchy for non-tech groups which are at the level of the serious academic journals? I *know* that the soc & rec groups are no good for this. Should there be another top level category?