Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site elsie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!elsie!mark
From: mark@elsie.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Current topics under consideration
Message-ID: <255@elsie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Dec-83 07:34:06 EST
Article-I.D.: elsie.255
Posted: Wed Dec 21 07:34:06 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Dec-83 00:38:31 EST
References: <230@cae780.UUCP>
Organization: NIH-LCM, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 16

I agree that we should hold off on net.bio.expert untill net.bio becomes
established. Biology is a huge topic: biochemistry; botany; biophysics; etc.
Under the (perhaps dubious) assumption that biologists will eventially lose
their terror of touching a terminal, I would expect subtopics such as
net.bio.molecbio to become needed and created. But, for now, net.bio will
suffice.

At the same time, I do not want to see discussions of creationism vs
evolution move into net.bio. That debate is politico-religious in nature and
really belongs under net.religion (in my opinion). I am not a great
supporter of net.origin, but I would rather see it created than see that
stuff move into net.bio.

-- 
UUCP:	decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!elsie!mark
Phone:	(301) 496-5688