Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!venera.isi.edu!cew From: cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Call for discussion: soc.history Summary: No "talk", .misc redundant Message-ID: <11478@venera.isi.edu> Date: 19 Jan 90 19:49:48 GMT References: <2840561048@lewis.crd.ge.com> <630@enea.se> <382@dbase.A-T.COM> Reply-To: cew@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Craig E. Ward) Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California Lines: 37 In article <382@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.com (Dan Veditz) writes: >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. Agreed about the "talk" part. We'll have enough trouble with flames without this; however, having a moderator would be useful and good if someone with the proper qualifications and the time were available. For the time being, let's shoot for an unmoderated group. If it gets out of hand, we can always add it. > [...] >Accordingly, I propose that the group be either of: > > misc.history.misc > soc.history.misc I like the "soc" better but I'll admit that it's mostly because it's shorter (i.e. I don't want a big fight over this either). I don't think the ".misc" is necessary. A soc.history group can be a general catch-all group just as easily. -- Craig E. Ward Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit" USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292