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'