Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!dveditz
From: dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for discussion:  soc.history
Message-ID: <382@dbase.A-T.COM>
Date: 18 Jan 90 22:54:02 GMT
References: <2840561048@lewis.crd.ge.com> <630@enea.se>
Reply-To: dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz)
Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale, Calif.
Lines: 26

In article <630@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>  [...] I would propose that either group is to be moderated
>  or to be placed in talk. I haven't followed the trial period in
>  soc.misc, but that is somehow irrelevant to the issue.

Please, PLEASE, not 'talk'!  'misc' might be better than 'soc', but
'talk' would surely encourage the flame-fests. And I support UN-moderation
of the history group.

>  (Besides, soc seems out of place to me. Soc for me is singles/men/couples/
>  etc and the culture groups. History doesn't belong there.)

History and culture are closely related.  I can see a case for an entire
sub-group eventually:

     soc.history.usa         - or -   misc.history.usa
     soc.history.canada               misc.history.canada
     soc.history.whatever             misc.history.whatever

Accordingly, I propose that the group be either of:
     
     misc.history.misc
     soc.history.misc

-Dan                                              |  uunet!ashtate!dveditz
Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups.               |  dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com