franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/13/85)
I had put off suggesting this, because the subject seemed to be dying out, but it doesn't seem to want to quit entirely. There should be a net.psi newsgroup for discussion of paranormal phenomena. It does not belong on net.physics. I have set the followup for this article to net.news.group only. I do not normally read that group, so anyone wishing to reach me should use e-mail.
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (08/14/85)
In article <594@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > I had put off suggesting this, because the subject seemed to be dying > out, but it doesn't seem to want to quit entirely. There should be > a net.psi newsgroup for discussion of paranormal phenomena. It does > not belong on net.physics. You know... when I awoke this morning I had a funny feeling someone would post such a request...
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/15/85)
>/* Written 6:57 pm Aug 12, 1985 by mmintl!franka in inmet:net.news.group */ >/* ---------- "Parapsychology" ---------- */ >I had put off suggesting this, because the subject seemed to be dying >out, but it doesn't seem to want to quit entirely. There should be >a net.psi newsgroup for discussion of paranormal phenomena. It does >not belong on net.physics. > >I have set the followup for this article to net.news.group only. I >do not normally read that group, so anyone wishing to reach me should >use e-mail. >/* End of text from inmet:net.news.group */ > NO! Without going into the merits of psi itself, I suggest that the net is not an appropriate medium. Such discussions would surely degenerate into the "I can TOO tell in advance when a phone will ring" and "My Aunt Tillie could cause cats to barf by staring at them" assertions, followed, of course, by the "Oh yeah? Psi is garbage. Says so right here" from the skeptical crowd. In other groups, such as net.physics, these arguments are replaced by something else (orthodox physics arguments). In "net.psi", they'd play themselves over and over and over again (there being no other topic to turn to). Because there is a lot of dispute whether there's ANY real evidence for psi, it may not be time to form a newsgroup. Fortunately, James Randi has offered a prize of $10k to anyone who can demonstrate psionic phenomena under good viewing conditions. I suggest that this is a good yardstick for whether anything "psionic" is worth talking about IN FRONT OF UNBELIEVERS. Let's form net.psi ... AFTER Randi awards the money. I do suggest that mmintl!franka form a MAILING LIST for this sort of thing -- I think that those who wish to discuss psionic stuff should be free to do so, but the resources used would be less, and a certain amount of moderation could be imposed (something I suspect will be needed).
dpw@rayssd.UUCP (Darryl P. Wagoner) (08/15/85)
Yes, vote ! Maybe net.esp or net.psychology.esp . -- Darryl Wagoner Raytheon Co.; Portsmouth RI; (401)-847-8000 x4089 ...!decvax!brunix!rayssd!dpw ...!allegra!rayssd!dpw ...!linus!rayssd!dpw
bob@plus5.UUCP (Bob Simpson) (08/17/85)
How about net.sci.para?
--
Dr. Bob
UUCP ..!{ihnp4,cbosgd,seismo}!plus5!bob
TELEX 910-380-9434(PLUS FIVE STLO)
PHYS 38.37.45N 90.12.22W
The opinions expressed here are only loosely based on the facts.stuart@sesame.UUCP (Stuart Freedman) (08/19/85)
> NO! Without going into the merits of psi itself, I suggest that the net is > not an appropriate medium. > ... > I do suggest that mmintl!franka form a MAILING LIST for this sort of thing -- I do not think that, if there are enough people interested in the group (of whom I am one, BTW), then there should be a newsgroup created; just because one could open a can of worms doesn't mean that the idea should be abandoned (what about other controversial topics, e.g., net.abortion, creation, etc.)). If there are not enough interested potential readers, then I do support the mailing list idea. -- Stuart Freedman {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!stuart Data General Corp. {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!stuart Westboro, MA or mit-eddie!futura!stuart I'm too busy reading other people's cute quotes to think of any of my own.
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (08/21/85)
>> NO! Without going into the merits of psi itself, I suggest that the net is >> not an appropriate medium. Who would you suggest is an appropriate medium? Sorry, couldn't help myself.... -- Gene "4 months and counting" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/23/85)
In article <7000086@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >NO! Without going into the merits of psi itself, I suggest that the net is >not an appropriate medium. Such discussions would surely degenerate into >the "I can TOO tell in advance when a phone will ring" and "My Aunt Tillie >could cause cats to barf by staring at them" assertions, followed, >of course, by the "Oh yeah? Psi is garbage. Says so right here" from >the skeptical crowd. > >In other groups, such as net.physics, these arguments are replaced >by something else (orthodox physics arguments). If only they were! The point of creating net.psi is not because I want to read articles about it, but because I (and many others) don't want to read about it. It is much the same rationale as that behind net.origins or net.abortion. There are those who are interested, as witness the fact that articles get posted on the subject -- to net.physics, net.philosophy, and who knows where else. Let's give it a home where those who want to deal with it can, and the rest of us can ignore it. A mailing list might work, but I am dubious. Ditto for a moderated group. In any event, I am certainly not interested in organizing such.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (08/25/85)
I have not seen the discussions of psi to date, but as moderator of the New Age mailing list I am willing to give them a home provided they are of high quality. That is, no anecdotal "proofs", no claims that believers are idiots or that skeptics are narrow-minded. Although I am not a believer in psychic phenomena, and many other members of the mailing list are not either, psi and magick are historically linked and I can think of no justification for excluding them from the list. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"