ka (02/05/83)
As you may have noticed, net.philosophy now exists (Peter Honeyman and I had a rather acrimonious exchange on this topic), but you still have to vote or it may get deleted. I received only four votes by mail so far, so I also tabulated opinions expressed in news items. Some of these were hard to classify, so I expect this count is inaccurate. FOR net.philosophy: 12 people spanky!ka floyd!dyl iwsl1!deg allegra!honey mhuxt!mwc sdcsvax!logo brunix!jss ucbvax!faustus sdccsu3!iz328 sun!gnu alice!sbj whuxk!reg AGAINST net.philosophy: 2 people turtleva!ken cbosg!dir The reasons for opposition were both expressed in news articles: 1) Even with a net.philosophy, philosophical discussions would begin with an seemingly innocent article in net.misc and the resulting discussion would be impossible to move. 2) "One of the wonders and joys of net.misc is the ebb and flow of a multitude of topics ... the net simply isn't a good medium for serious discussions of ANY sort, especially philosophy/religion." A major reason for supporting this group seems to be that people want to be able to unsubscribe to philosophical discussions. Only two people clearly indicated that they would subscribe to net.philosophy. Dave Lee (floyd!dyl) wrote "I would like to see this newsgroup as one that people can learn from and share thing with one another" as opposed being filled with attacks on other people. Other opinions of what this group should/ shouldn't be are welcomed. As for the name of the group, mhuxt!mwc has proposed net.philos (with net.philos.relig as a subgroup) and whuxk!reg has proposed net.relig.philos. I am inclined to support net.philos, since net.philosophy is difficult to type and too long to allow subgroups. Mail me your opinion! Kenneth Almquist (harpo!houxm!spanky!ka)