Xref: utzoo news.groups:10758 news.admin:6228 sci.misc:3695 sci.philosophy.tech:1286 sci.psychology:2108 talk.origins:5669 talk.religion.newage:3652
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!mica!charlie
From: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.psychology,talk.origins,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: *** CALL FOR DISCUSSION *** Creation of group sci.fringe.news
Summary: One at a time!
Message-ID: <1603@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Date: 11 Jul 89 00:48:31 GMT
References: <2626@yunexus.UUCP>
Sender: news@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu
Reply-To: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: UW Statistics, Seattle
Lines: 32
Expires:
Sender:


In article <2626@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes:

> It seems that my idea for sci.skeptic has somewhat backfired on me.
> Even though I have a 70:30 yes:no ratio in the on-going vote, I feel
> that the dissent is much too strong to let it go through with no
> concensus.
>
> This then is a counter proposal:
>
> a) creation of talk.skeptic with just about the same charter as was
>    proposed for sci.skeptic.
>
> b) creation of a group called sci.fringe.news with a charter ...

No. No. No.

First see how the vote on sci.skeptic comes out (I voted yes, BTW).

Then, if it succeeds, let's just have sci.skeptic.  One group is
enough, and it really doesn't matter if some people are "opposed" to
the group, whatever that may mean.  If they just don't subscribe,
there won't be any problem.

If the vote fails, perhaps it's time to rethink whether any group is
needed.  Depends on how the vote comes out.

If this call is a forgery, I apologize in advance.

> There ... will that please everyone?  ... anyone ...

Not me.