Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: military-request@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The Future of History
Message-ID: <11193@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Nov 89 02:17:20 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 57
Approved: military@att.att.com



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