military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (11/03/89)
From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) As I stated two days ago, I feel it's necessary to cut back on the number of history postings here in sci.military. My policy henceforth shall be this: Historical information will only be accepted insofar as it is relevant to military technology. For example, the current "What if Germany had invaded Britain ?" topic is not acceptable, but the comparisons of Me 109 and Spitfire technical data and performance is. Further, I intend to allow historical anecdotes which support a technical thesis; for example, an analysis of the evolution of infantry tactics with regard to small arms development. It's a bit vague, but I'll try not to be too difficult 8-) Of course, it's obvious that lots of people want to talk about history, military and otherwise. I therefore propose that we use soc.misc for this purpose. That group has been fairly unused of late. If it looks like there's enough interest, we might go so far as to propose a separate history newsgroup. I generally refuse to crosspost articles from sci.military, but at least for the present, I will be willing to accept articles crossposted to soc.misc, *provided* that followups are directed to soc.misc only. I will append the correct followup line to any crossposted submissions I receive. 50 Years Ago will also move to soc.misc. For the benefit of readers of the sci.military mailing list, who cannot access that group, I will continue to include 50YA in the digest. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com
military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (11/07/89)
From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) Whew ! I was beginning to think I could do no wrong with regard to sci.military. Fortunately, the readers have corrected me ! 8-) I've gotten a considerable volume of email opposing my decision to limit history discussions in this group. A large part of it is based on a few misconceptions, so I'll try to clear things up a bit. First, I do not intend to reject, out of hand, all historical topics. If the topic involves technology, I still consider it appropriate. For example, a discussion of WWII tank development is fine. What I'm trying to avoid are topics like "What if Germany Invaded Britain in 1940 ?" These are purely speculative, unresolvable, and non-technical. I simply cannot justify encouraging postings like that in sci.military. Why ? First, because the sci heirarchy is specifically defined to mean topics in the established sciences. Sci.military pushes that definition quite a bit, anyway; and history is clearly outside of this requirement. That's a simple Law of the Net. I can justify history if it addresses a technical point, but I feel I must keep sci.military within the limits for which it was proposed. Secondly, many of these topics, I feel, simply don't add anything of general interest to the readers. Given that most of the readership could read soc.misc, or soc.history.military should it be created, it seems sensible to move the conversation there. To those readers who cannnot get the soc groups, I can only offer my apology. Please understand, though, that the problem lies in your sites' refusal to carry the soc heirarchy; this says that they don't want to pay for those topics, and as history is clearly a "soc" topic, they wouldn't want to pay for it via sci.military, either. However, I will compromise a bit, in light of reader input. I'll be less stringent than I had originally intended when evaluating history postings, for starts; more inclined to post when in doubt. Nonetheless, I'd like to see a history newsgroup start up, where these topics could be discussed in all their detail. Also, I will continue posting the 50 Years Ago series to sci.military, as well as soc.misc; followups will be directed to soc.misc. I justify this, in part, because I attempt to include technology notes in 50YA; and also, the topic is very simple to "kill" for those who don't want to read it. Thanks to all who sent me their opinions on this matter. I'm only trying to do what I feel is best for the group, and its readers. Your feedback lets me know how I'm doing. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bill Thacker Moderator, sci.military military-request@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 Send submissions to military@att.att.com