jwp (11/09/82)
If we are to continue the discussion of the draft as involuntary servitude, the social contract theory of government, the responsibilities of people who graze their geese on the commons, etc, then I feel we should do so in a more appropriate group than net.followup. If sufficient people concur I will create "net.poli-sci". I'm not overly committed to that name if someone else has a better suggestion. Also, a reasonable case could be made for needing "net.soc-sci". Opinions? John Pierce, Chemistry, UC San Diego ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!jwp
mark (11/10/82)
Andy Tannenbaum has created net.social. While this seems like as good a name as any for the kinds of stuff that are coming out on net.followup these days, please note that he intended this newsgroup as a spinoff of net.singles (e.g. "the social scene"), not in response to the proposals for net.soc-sci and net.poli-sci. I expect there to be a lot of confusion about this. When I first saw net.social, I assumed it was for society issues. Since there appears to be some kind of blur between the net.soc-sci and net.poli-sci topics, I propose that right now we create net.poli-sci and see if that is adequate. If it is we will avoid some confusion. Mark
hamilton (11/11/82)
#R:sdchema:-26200:uicsovax:4500001:000:115
uicsovax!hamilton Nov 10 17:38:00 1982
"net.poli-sci" is lousy. how about "net.society"?
wayne ({decvax,ucbvax,harpo}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!)hamiltonhansen (11/12/82)
At our site, we have a newgroup called 'forum,' which by convention is used for discussing controversial subjects. The name 'net.forum' might serve the entire network well for the subjects which would be brought up in 'net.issues,' 'net.poli-sci,' and 'net.soc-sci.' If it all works out wonderfully, this group can fractionate into net.forum.poli net.forum.soc net.forum.q and so forth. Craig Hansen HP Labs