Xref: utzoo sci.environment:7079 sci.energy:2321 sci.bio:3120 news.groups:21334
Path: utzoo!mnetor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnewsd!kja
From: kja@cbnewsd.att.com (krista.j.anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,sci.bio,news.groups
Subject: Re: SECOND CALL FOR VOTES - talk.environment
Summary: could we vote on *soc.environment* ??
Message-ID: <1990Jun4.135756.10872@cbnewsd.att.com>
Date: 4 Jun 90 13:57:56 GMT
References: <55019@microsoft.UUCP>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 22

<>
<>
In article <55019@microsoft.UUCP>, allenwe@microsoft.UUCP (Allen WELLS) writes:
> I would like to formally begin a vote for the creation of a new group:
> 
> 		talk.environment
>
> This would be an unmoderated group to discuss issues related to the 
> environment and the environmental movement.  Some suitable topics would be:
> 	- how to start recycling programs
> 	- environmental events (Earth Day, etc)
> 	- environmentally conscious shopping
> 	- environmental politics (Clean Air Act, etc)
> 	- environmental innovations (GM Impact, etc)

Sounds good to me.  BUT, why can't we call it soc.environment so
that  a) people who don't get talk groups could still participate,
      b) the new group still has a purpose other than flaming,
         i.e. some socially redeeming quality.
-- 
Krista A.
HONOR Our Neighbors' Origins and Rights!