Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!rdp
From: rdp@teddy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: This news group
Message-ID: <1070@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 13:04:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: teddy.1070
Posted: Wed Jul 31 13:04:11 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 21:29:41 EDT
References: <284@greipa.UUCP> <1635@hao.UUCP> <28492@lanl.ARPA> <1059@ames.UUCP>
Reply-To: rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 23

In article <1059@ames.UUCP> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>> perhaps there should be a net.physics.expert as well.
>> 	   Howard Hull
>
>> Perhaps a rational (and polite) way out of the dilemma would be to establish
>> a net.physics.expert similar to the astronomy group.
>> 
>> Jim Potter  jp@lanl.arpa
>
>This group is getting too large to read.  Two people independently came
>up with this suggestion, unfortunately, the ARPA readers would have to
>suffer getting both news group.  What say we vote on the issue of splitting
>the group?
>

After the recent flames against the PK stuff, and the fact that the incidence
of that sort have thing subsequent to that has dropped to below the noise
level, I find the current arrangement quite satisfactory. The range of topics
is very broad, which, to me, is one of the major attractions to this group.

I would vote NO on a .expert group, but, then again, I'm no expert.

Dick Pierce