usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (02/25/89)
A few weeks ago I posted an article in sci.misc and news.groups
about starting a new group for
chemistry. I have only seen one reply to that article. Is anyone
interested? Which groups should I post to to find any interested
parties?
There are many groups for sci and bio but none of them are appropriate
for the four areas of chemistry. I envision four new news.groups for
this subject. They might be called:
Chem.org
Chem.inorg
Chem.phys
Chem.analyt
or other appropriate names for organic, inorganic, physical, and
analytical chemistry. If there is no need for four groups I would be
satisfied with just one group for chemistry.
Is there anyone else who shares my views?
---Greg Cook
Michigan State Universityroy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (02/25/89)
[Note: the original Newsgroups: line included "bionet.followup" which, as far as I know, is not a valid group; I've changed it to bionet.general] In article <1951@cps3xx.UUCP> cook@frith.UUCP (Greg Cook) writes: > I posted an article in sci.misc and news.groups about starting a new group > for chemistry. I have only seen one reply to that article. I would assume, therefore, that nobody is interested. > I envision four new news.groups for this subject [...] Chem.org, Chem.inorg, > Chem.phys, Chem.analyt. Egad, he can only find one person who is interested in chemistry at all, and he wants to form 4 new groups all at once! My suggestion is to just use the existing sci.misc group for now. Bionet is "officially" for talk about biology, but I don't think people would be too worked up if you posted your chemisty discussions to bionet.general; biologists have been known, on occassion, to talk about chemistry. Maybe the thing to do is to form a mailing list. If you are trying to find people who are interested in being on the list, I don't think it would be a breach of net ettiquette to post a single "mailing list forming, sign up now" type article to many newsgroups. -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net "The connector is the network"
Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram) (02/26/89)
In article <1951@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: > A few weeks ago I posted an article in sci.misc and news.groups > about starting a new group for chemistry. [...] > There are many groups for sci and bio but none of them are appropriate > for the four areas of chemistry. I envision four new news.groups for > this subject. They might be called: [...] How about starting with sci.chem (analogous to sci.bio and sci.physics)? If you really get overwhelmed, you can branch out into sci.chem.organic etc., but there doesn't seem to be any need to start out with four groups. Also, where would biochemistry and biophysical chemistry fit in? I suppose they could be cross-posted to sci.bio and sci.chem (and bionet.general perhaps). [Further discussion of this should probably take place on news.groups, and follow-ups have been directed there.] -- Ashwin.
Kristofferson@BIONET-20.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) (02/27/89)
>Bionet is "officially" for talk about biology, but I don't think >people would be too worked up if you posted your chemisty discussions >to bionet.general; biologists have been known, on occassion, to talk >about chemistry. Please note that BIONEWS or bionet.general is for announcements that are of interest to the entire BIOSCI community, not for specialized chemistry discussions. From past experience fielding complaints, I know that people WILL get worked up if this goes onto bionet.general. If these discussions are of widespread interest to biologists, they would be better directed to RESEARCH-NEWS (bionet.molbio.news) in the general case or better yet to one of the more technical groups. The suggestion of forming a sci.chem group is probably the best one given the level of interest. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIONET Resource Manager kristofferson@bionet-20.bio.net -------