Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: More Newsgroup Changes
Message-ID: <700@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 16:44:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.700
Posted: Sun Aug 25 16:44:36 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 01:41:35 EDT
References: <1430@cbosgd.UUCP> <693@cybvax0.UUCP> <3158@nsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 27
Summary: 

In article <3158@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
> Both groups tend heavily towards "religious" discussions (quick definition
> -- any discussion where both sides are talking and neither side is
> listening). In both groups, there seems to be little attempt to share facts
> but a lot of work to convince the heathens (definition -- anyone who
> disagrees with you) regardless of the "facts". 

Were you talking about net.news.group here?  By this standard I'd say it
should be net.religion.news.group.  :-(

> net.sci.origins is a very bad name. net.religion.origins would be better,
> since its main purpose seems to be to allow the creationists a place to
> attempt to convince otherwise sane people that scientific fact that happens
> to disagree with the Bible is wrong...

Oh, you were talking about net.origins.  Well.  As I commented before, I
like the non-committal nature of "net.origins", and I don't much like
branding it "flame" or "religion" very much.  I'm not much fonder of
prefixing "sci", as that's the putative subject of the debate.

Another alternative (that I prefer to "flame", "religion", or "sci") would
be net.philosophy.origins, putting the discussion in neutral or maybe
appropriate ground.  This only if net.origins must change to conserve
name space.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh