Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site flairvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!kpno!amd70!decwrl!flairvax!ellis
From: ellis@flairvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.physics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Nay to net.origins
Message-ID: <303@flairvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Dec-83 05:33:54 EST
Article-I.D.: flairvax.303
Posted: Fri Dec 23 05:33:54 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Dec-83 11:11:23 EST
Organization: Fairchild AI Lab, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 39

I propose that we create `net.metaphysics' instead of `net.origins'.

Net.origins is designed to be the sink for creation debates as well as for
discussions about the origin of other `cosmic' phenomena so poorly
understood by scientists that people from non-scientific backgrounds, for
example, poets, philosophers, LSD casualties, Zen fascists, North Dakotans,
and maybe even Christians, can reasonably offer contributions of equal value.

Some people want to create net.origins to get the creation debate out of
their newsgroup. I sympathize. That debate in its current form does NOT
belong in net.physics! But when the creation debate has met its maker,
we will be stuck with another overly narrow, dead newsgroup.

A newsgroup needs to have several simultaneous discussions to stay alive, so
that the momentum can jump from topic to topic. A net.metaphysics could
have been the ideal place for topics too respectable for net.religion
but too flaky for single discipline groups, like the potentially interesting
conversations below that died by never really finding a good group:

1. the current creation debate
2. the Goedelian debate in net.politics/net.philosophy early this year
3. the `cause of awareness' discussion in net.religion a few months ago

I could go on...

We don't have a place where technical types and flakes can meet on equal
terms to discuss topics so cosmic there is simply NO authority to tell you
you're wrong, yet covers issues of equal interest to physicists,
philosophers, mathematicians, spiritualists, and other nerds.

As Paul Dubuc recently remarked:

> Are you saying that only experts on a certain subject should be allowed
> to discuss that subject on a semi-public forum like USENET?

Net.metaphysics would be a place where no expert could possibly exist.

-michael `I don't need your bogus attitudes
                  I've got enough of my own' - ellis