Xref: utzoo sci.physics:4211 news.admin:3315
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!aero!obrien
From: obrien@anpiel.aero.org (Mike O'Brien)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.admin
Subject: Re: Is it time for sci.physics.only?
Message-ID: <36701@aero.ARPA>
Date: 26 Aug 88 22:06:54 GMT
References: <1094@sri-arpa.ARPA> <2765@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1189@anasaz.UUCP> <134@laffu.UUCP> <3732@polya.Stanford.EDU> <641@ncar.ucar.edu>
Sender: news@aero.ARPA
Reply-To: obrien@anpiel.UUCP (Mike O'Brien)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 15

In article <641@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:
>In article <3732@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Is there interest in sci.physics.only "for the rest of us"?
>
>  Past experience has shown that this DOESN'T WORK. We've tried it a number
>of times, with net.women.only (the failure of which was directly responsible
>for the start of the very successful feminist mailing list)

And there's the right answer.  Why don't those who want a more pure
discussion of physics form a mailing list?  I don't know of any case
where that solution, once implemented, hasn't worked to perfection.
--
Mike O'Brien
obrien@aerospace.aero.org
{sdcrdcf,trwrb}!aero!obrien