Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!mesard
From: mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Sci
Message-ID: <47126@bbn.COM>
Date: 19 Oct 89 14:43:26 GMT
References: <21075@gryphon.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: mesard@BBN.COM (Wayne Mesard)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 21

richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>So we have sci.chem, sci.physics and sci.math and the rest get moved
>to misc, right ?
>
>Or do we allow a few technical groups than aren't *pure science* in sci ?

Look, it's a subjective call.  I don't think anyone would argue with
that.  Of course, there's going to be various degrees of technical
discussion in the various sci groups.  What we're trying to decide is:

  If the discussion is likely to be mostly scientific.
                       ^^^^^^       ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
Note the three points for subjectivity in the above sentence.  We're not
going to achieve unanimous agreement.  [And we (the Net) have been wrong
in the past.]  The best we can hope for is general consensus.  There are
two ways to reach that: by discussion or vote.

You've called for the vote, let's see what the Collective Net thinks.
Not everyone's gonna be happy.  You can always start your own network.

Wayne();