Xref: utzoo sci.physics:4297 news.admin:3334
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!coplex!laffu!chuck
From: chuck@laffu.UUCP (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.admin
Subject: Re: Is it time for sci.physics.only?
Summary: sci.policies (Sounds good to me)
Message-ID: <135@laffu.UUCP>
Date: 3 Sep 88 04:22:38 GMT
References: <1094@sri-arpa.ARPA> <2765@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1189@anasaz.UUCP> <1988Aug30.173026.4883@ziebmef.uucp>
Organization: Louisville Area Forum For Unix, Ky.
Lines: 26


    I admit it. I was one of those originators (posters) which caused
this debate regarding politics in sci.physics.  Basically, the issue
was initially SDI but it has degraded to a much less nobel debate,
and as such, followers of the debate will have noticed that, I haven't
followed up to the issue, and flames. (which would be the normal knee
jerk reaction of any sane person) In other words, I'm with you guy's
that beleive sci.physics should be sci.physics.  But as I said about
a week back thier are issues in science which are political in nature
that should be debated...  

   Whatever, there have been some posting regarding creation of a new
group in 'sci' section.   To be quite honest, the best I've heard so far
is 'sci.policies'.  Think about it.  When a select few of us debate whether
SDI is feasable in the sci.physics section, really we're arguing here is
because the source of the science which makes this possible is physics. 
But really, the issue is one of goverment policy which relies on science
to produce it's results.  So who ever sugjested 'sci.policies', right on!
-- 
  +-------+ 
 /|CHUCK /|   UUCP: mit-eddie|bloom-beacon|coplex|chuck
+-+-----+ |   AT&T: 502-454-7218                 \laffu!chuck
| |     | |   CHUCK SITES                         
| +-----+-+   Disclaimer: 
|/SITES |/    Not responsible for optical illusions. 
+-------+