bdp (06/29/82)
I think there is a need on the Usenet for two more news groups. The first should be a forum for discussions about literature. I propose the name net.lit. The second would be a forum for political discussions, with perhaps a particular interest in social problems. A colleague has suggested the name net.safety. What should be done to get these groups officially started? --Bruce Parker BTL Piscataway
rrb (07/01/82)
I don't think net.safety should be used for political discussion of social ideas, maybe net.social. Save net.safety for a group on plant safety, firstaid, or firematics.
mark (07/01/82)
A political discussion newsgroup called net.safety? Huh? Why don't we just name it net.peanut-butter-sandwich? There is already an arpanet mailing list called poli-sci which is on fa.poli-sci. I don't subscribe, so I don't know how healthy it's been lately, or whether it overlaps what Bruce has in mind, but hopefully the people who are interested will know. As I understand it, there is some federal law that says that facilities paid for by the federal government cannot be used for distribution of political opinions. (Lauren told me this - I don't know the details.) Please - no flames about whether this law is stupid. I think it is silly too, but think for a minute about what would happen if someone called up the press and said "Hot tip! Top secret military computers are being used to promote communist propaganda!" Since the ARPANET is DOD funded, this meant that fa.poli-sci was supposed to die. While it seems reasonable for USENET to take on this newsgroup, we do have to address two issues: (1) what does this mean for arpanet sites on USENET? (2) what does it mean for other federally funded USENET sites? In particular, I bet most of the university sites on USENET are machines that were paid for by either DOD or NSF funds. And some of the commercial sites may be DOD contractors too. Can someone who is familiar with this law give us some more informed commentary? Mark
wmartin (07/02/82)
It is obvious that the proposed "net.safety" (or whatever) should really be part of fa.poli-sci; not only has there been no general hassle from the DARPA powers about Poli-Sci yet, despite a long history of political flaming of various persuasions, but setting up a separate group artificially divides the audience and participants. Any existing paths between USENET and ARPANET should be maintained and encouraged; any possible discussion has a higher probablility of value if the pool of participants is kept as large as possible. I have the current opportunity to access both the USENET and the ARPANET worlds, but most do not. Keep the path between ARPANET people who can never otherwise communicate with the USENET world open, and vice versa! Earlier, when I had no USENET access, I regretted the isolation from this community; I am sure many of you regret being isolated from ARPANET discussions. Let's not encourage such isolation when we have one of the few cross-net discussion groups already in existence for this topic area. Will Martin