Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!andree
From: andree@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Nay to net.origins - (nf)
Message-ID: <4703@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Dec-83 22:43:34 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4703
Posted: Sat Dec 24 22:43:34 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jan-84 01:41:40 EST
Lines: 25

#R:utcsrgv:-295300:uokvax:9300009:000:1045
uokvax!andree    Dec 22 17:52:00 1983

Please - lets keep the discussion of the validity of certain scientific
views OUT of net.news.group. Move it over to where it belongs. 
(net.biology or whatever).

I vote YES for net.origins. I agree with paul about the origins being
an interesting topic in and of themselves. Hopefully, things like
pauls recent flame would be kept to a minimum, and we can have
rational discussion (something which seems to be in short supply
on net.religion).

Yes, net.origins would be inhabited mostly by non-scientists. How
many scientists actually wonder into the ORIGIN of what they study?
Cosmologists & biologists are all I can think of. Everybody else
avoids the problem, as there just isn't enough information to hypothesis
with. Why should that stop us who ain't in the field? The results wouldn't
be much worse than net.philosophy. (Maybe net.origins should be viewed
as a subgroup of net.philosphy?).

Final comment: another YES to net.pseudoscience (or net.bs - oops, net.ps
for short). Should be as entertaining as the National Enquirer.

	<mike