Xref: utzoo sci.skeptic:1204 news.groups:13093
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!motcsd!xdos!doug
From: doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic? talk.skeptic!
Message-ID: <495@xdos.UUCP>
Date: 10 Oct 89 15:06:37 GMT
References: <4287@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4184@yunexus.UUCP> <1989Oct7.100321.5027@agate.berkeley.edu> <4204@yunexus.UUCP> <4319@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Reply-To: doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Hunter Systems, Mountain View CA (Silicon Valley)
Lines: 17

In article <4319@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <4204@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes:
>>that will post the sorts of things that I proposed.  Talk.sckeptic
>>would have been all crap rather than the 80% figure I calculate now.
>
>Well let's make talk.skeptic and move the other 80% out of sci.*...

Once again, don't be silly. This suffers from the same flaw as your
comment about the establishment of *.flame. People very, very rarely
flame in *.flame _rather_ than in the original newsgroup. If you
establish talk.skeptic, it will only move about 5% of the traffic.
It may simultaneously create new traffic in larger volume than we're
seeing here...
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt		{pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug
Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow		Professional Wildeyed Visionary