Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!agate!usenet
From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: These stubborn group champions
Message-ID: <1989Oct16.042758.456@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 89 04:27:58 GMT
References: <8910132350.AA08591@helios.enea.se> <35637@apple.Apple.COM> <33610@looking.on.ca> <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <34029@looking.on.ca>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc.
Lines: 39
In-reply-to: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)

In article <34029@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking (Brad Templeton) writes:
>In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu
(David Chalmers) writes:

>>  SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.

>>It's not just that hierarchy is a function of quality, as it should be.
>>Quality is also a function of hierarchy.  Precisely because of the system,
>>certain levels of discussion are regarded as "appropriate" for certain
>>hierarchies.

>I am sorry, but while this idea sounds intuitive, an actual examination of
>net history shows little evidence for it.   The "talk" groups are noisy,
>not because they are in talk, but because they were put there to be noisy.

  I agree. It is quite false, and Chalmers has got cause and
effect mixed up. Moreover, some groups in the "talk" hierarchy
have a generally higher level of discussion than some in the
"sci". Just compare talk.philosophy with sci.skeptic. It was
because I *knew* what sci.skeptic was going to be like that I
opposed it; it was (and is, and will remain) a "talk" group in
"sci".

  Sci.aqauria will *never* be a real "sci" group.  It's not a
matter of only a little science discussion--there is NONE. The
people calling for this don't seem to know the difference between
talking about technical features of their hobby, such as how to
kill snails, and a scientific discussion.

>In fact, the only difference I can imagine, were (to pick a random example) a
>rec group placed in a sci hierarchy would be flamers shouting, "Hey, this
>is a sci group, keep your ignorant opinions out of this group!" endlessly.

  I'm going to be sorely tempted to do just this to everyone in
sight if sci.fish_heads gets created.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"To name the unnamable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start arguments,
shape the world and stop it from going asleep". -- 'The Satanic Verses'