Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.news.group
Subject: Re: More on net.politics.nukes/net.politics.arms
Message-ID: <2411@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 19:50:45 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2411
Posted: Mon Apr 15 19:50:45 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 05:25:50 EST
References: <408@talcott.UUCP> <6217@ucbvax.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 18
Xref: watmath net.politics:8554 net.news.group:3038

I agree with Milo: we should *not* have a separate group just for arms
discussions.  Sad though it may be, arms (and often nuclear arms) are a
potential component of almost any discussion of international politics.
I see little reason for the net to cater to those who irrationally wish
to exclude this component from their discussion.  Those who oppose the
use of arms have a special stake in avoiding such segregation.

On the otherhand, a separate group for discussing international politics,
superpower foreign policy, and other such things would be a good idea.
This would filter out a lot of the libertarian/seatbelt/gun-control/-type
discussions.  If traffic and content are resonable, it might even allow
a political newsgroup to receive European distribution again.

So, net.politics.arms, No; net.politics.international, Yes.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall.UUCP
		edhall@rand-unix.ARPA